Archive
Categories

The Third War Against Germany

The crucial question to any Western conservative is why our nations seem to have completely lost their will to survive and flourish. The following text, first published by Judith in „Vaterland“, December 281h, 2010, highlights the methods with which one nation was made lose this will. So this article is not on German self-pity or on accusing the allied nations. Read what was done in Germany as a blueprint to be applied anywhere.

Translation by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage:

In his book „Die Psychologie der Niederlage“ (The Psychology of Deafeat), Thorsten Hinz calls it „the third war against Germany“:  The time after 1945 when after the bombs the psychological warfare started – a war that hasn’t stopped up to now. Hans-Joachim von Leesen names in his worth reading essay the institutions, the means, the methods and the compliant assistants.

The Re-education of the Germans as a Part of Psychological Warfare

Hans-Joachim von Leesen

The third war against Germany

[…]

„We will extinguish the entire German tradition.“

After the war Archibald McLeesh, then Deputy US Secretary of State, who had founded, in 1939,  the institution of the Psychological Warfare in the USA, at the Potsdam conference defined the aim of the re-education: to change the character and the mentality of the German nation, so that Germany, finally, a life without supervision could be permitted. This required inevitably  a treatment of the Germans comparable to that of a criminal in a modern prison. „We will extinguish the whole German tradition.“ At the end of this process, a German „Self Reeducation“ would have to stand (detailed in Schrenck-Notzing, Charakterwäsche, as well as in Mosberg, Reeducation).

„General psychic inferiority of the German human“

In the „Report of a Conference on Germany after the War“, worked out in Summer, 1944 by „Joint Committee on Post-War-Planning“ at the Columbia University, New York City, the timetable was found for the re-education of the Germans which became then an official directive on the American post-war policy. (reported in Mosberg, Reeducation.)

It was developed by scientists from the faculties of  medicine,
psychology, sociology etc.
The Swiss psychoanalyst C. G. Jung who belonged to the  spiritual fathers  had warned against making a difference between „decent and indecent“ Germans (cited in Mosberg, Reeducation). The Germans are  „collectively guilty“. The reason for this is a „general psychic inferiority of the German human“. In his view the Germans are „degenerated“. The only effective therapy was that the Germans were to be made recognise their guilt, and that they publicly confess being guilty  over and over again.

The Stuttgart guilt confession of the Protestant church of Germany

One of the first steps to this aim was the Stuttgart confession of the Protestant church of Germany (EKD). As the leaders of the German Protestant church which belonged predominantly to the „Confessing Church“ [Bekennende Kirche; a group of anti-Nazi theologians] tried to join the World Council of Churches that was being built up at that time, the condition was that they had to confess German guilt publicly. Secretary general of the World Council of Churches was of the Dutch Visser’t Hooft which had belonged during the war to the British Secret Service.

On the 18th/19th of October, 1945 the leaders of the German Protestants, from bishop Lilje and pastor Martin Niemöller to Dr. Dr. Gustav Heinemann, declared the desired confession, not only for the Protestant church, but for the German people as a whole, so, for example, also for the Catholics and those without denomination. (In detail the Kiel theology professor Walter Bodenstein in „Ist nur der Besiegte schuldig? Die EKD und das Stuttgarter Schuldbekenntnis von 1945/Is only the defeated guilty? The EKD and the Stuttgart confession of 1945“)

Press, radio, film

Over and over again, you are confronted with the re-educators‘ assumption that the collective guilt of the Germans had its cause in their biological disposition. This was to be imprinted on their memory until they are persuaded of it themselves. The instruments were the media, at that time above all press, radio, and film.

First of all, the media available in Germany  had to be removed. They were forbidden. The next step was to remove all men and women from public life who could have opposed to Re-education . Between 314,000 and 454,000 persons (the information in literature differ) disappeared in internment camps up to three years, without a basis in international law
and without accusation – from BDM [Bund deutscher Mädels = League of German Girls, Hitler’s girls‘ organization] leaders up to high ministry officials, from local group leaders of the NSDAP, to authors and diplomats.

The staff of the radio companies was dismissed, the leading journalists and publishers were imprisoned in internment camps. The German media were first replaced by radio stations of the allied military governments. What they had to publish was delivered by the occupying powers and their news agencies, in the US zone the DANA, later DENA, in the British under the direction of Sefton Delmer, a leading man of the PSW, the German news service = GNS. Newspapers and radio stations in German language were forbidden to publish anything but what these agencies provided.

After some time one loosened the personnel politicy and also hired journalists who were no emigrants, but were neutralised in the third Reich for political reasons. After one to two years the first editors trained by the occupying powers started working. (An impressive picture is delivered by the German first hour journalists Richard Tüngel and Hans Rudolf Berndorff in their book „Auf dem Bauche sollst Du kriechen“ that appeared in 1958.) The campaign in the US zone was headed by Leon Edel, later Eugene Jolas. The head of the press officers was the Intelligence Officer Alfred Rosenberg.

Strict supervision

The German journalists worked under strict American or British control. They had to implement tha strategy of psychological warfare. The crucial purpose was that „the Germans confessed their collective guilt, and that they were persuaded of their inferiority“, as Helmuth Mosberg writes in „Reeducation – re-education and licence press in the post-war Germany“ , his dissertation that also appeared as a book. „Every journalist had to be a reeducator“.

The German character is washed

In the long run, one couldn’t  feed the Germans only with newspapers and radio programs of the allied military authorities. Thus one searched for Germans who seemed suitable to run the newly founded newspapers. About that Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing reported already in 1965 in his basic work „Charakterwäsche“ which appeared again and again in new editions and recently in a revised version. The new German newspaper and magazine publishers should represent „the other Germany“, i.e. be people who differed from the present Germans clearly. Competence was secondary, compared with character.

The victorious powers assumed that most Germans had a wrong character because they had been shaped by their authoritarian families. What kind of men had to belong to the new élite had been worked out by a professional group of scientists under the direction of Max Horkheimer (we will meet him again as one of the mentors of the 68th revolt) and been presented in a 5-volume work „Studies in Prejudice“ , among whose authors were f.e. Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, R. Nevitt Sanford. They wanted to uncover and to exterminate the prejudices from which the Germans allegedly suffered. Literally: „Extermination means re-education which is academically planned.“ With it „potentially fascistic individuals“ were to be uncovered.

Thus one searched for people in whose personality the values typical in Germany, like „externally correct behaviour, diligence, ability, physical cleanness, health and uncritical behaviour“ did not exist, because these qualities hide supposedly „a deep weakness of the own ego“. [No, this is not a translation mistake! The allied considered just such men qualified for leadership of German media who did not have these qualities. M.K.-H.]
The considered persons were asked, among other things, how their relation to father and mother was. One preferred men who had a broken relation to her parents, i.e. were not formed by the authoritarian German family. And they went forward with good conscience, as they regarded the Germans as ill, as patients who had to be cured of her paranoia. The new newspaper publishers and editors in chief were submitted to suitable tests, and if they turned out to have such broken characters, they were shortlisted.

So to speak, as a reward they received the licence for a newspaper or magazine, of course still supervised by the press officers. The new newspaper publishers avoided offending against the given rules, otherwise they would have lost the licence or their position. Most worked as requested, and even real beliefs played a role, as most people prefer being on the winnig side.

It goes without saying that the trials against the German ruling class and against supposed and real war criminals played a major part in the reeducation. The trial in the international military court of law in Nuremberg against the leaders of the Reich as well as the next ones of the American military justice were reported by the newspapers of the allied military governments. They had to make clear the collective guilt to the German population in all details, and at the same, to justify the allied war crimes as for example the aerial war against the civilian population.

Every journalist has to be an Re-educator

All these measures were in harmony with the main demand of psychological Warfare : to separate the enemy people from its leaders. This was already an aim of the allies in the First World War when the Kaiser was allegorized as a monster dripping with blood. All newspapers as well as the broadcasting company were subject to the principle that every journalist had to be an Re-educator. If he did not obey this, he ran the risk to lose his job. This explained not least the line loyalty of publishers and editors (in detail Mosberg, Reeducation). When in 1949 the Federal Republic of Germany was founded, the licensing of the press by the military government came to an end. But in the years from 1945 to 1949 one had educated a younger generation, which had passed through the school of the Re-educators supervised by the military governments.

This explains why today the German journalists,
though free in their judgment on single subjects, have to agree with some basic statements, f.e. the German collective guilt and Germany’s exclusive responsibility for the Second World War, however.

(…)

Related posts:

  1. U.S. Strategy for Europe: Re-education

32 Kommentare zu „The Third War Against Germany“

  • Rosalie:

    So, if I understand well from the article, Frankfurt School’s stars such as Horkheimer and Adorno were ACTIVELY involved in the re-education of the Germans after WWII? How exactly?

  • Rosalie:

    So, if I understand well from the article, Frankfurt School’s stars such as Horkheimer and Adorno were ACTIVELY involved in the re-education of the Germans after WWII? How exactly?

  • Rosalie:

    So, if I understand well from the article, Frankfurt School’s stars such as Horkheimer and Adorno were ACTIVELY involved in the re-education of the Germans after WWII? How exactly?

  • Rosalie:

    So, if I understand well from the article, Frankfurt School’s stars such as Horkheimer and Adorno were ACTIVELY involved in the re-education of the Germans after WWII? How exactly?

  • Hi Rosalie,

    I would like to answer your question, but this is not so easy, because there is a background story that has to be known in order to understand what is happening.

    I would first like to direct you to a small book published by William Lind when he was employed at the Free Congress Foundation (http://www.freecongress.org/). The name of the book is „The history of Political Correctness“, a copy can be found here online: http://www.observations.net/marxism.html

    What the allies understood was, that the purpose of the Frankfurt School was to destroy the cultural backing of the German society, because they (the allies) tried to change that cultural backing (which I accept to be a legitimate geopolitical goal, although I don’t like it). So they put them (Frankfurt school members) back in charge. What they missed to understand was the reason for this purpose and the implications of the studies done by the Frankfurt School for the rest of the world.

    What you have to understand is, that the „reeducation“ happend ALL OVER the western world. It was done EVERYWHERE the same way: with books, media, via schools…if you have a answer for the question, how the children in the us are being indoctrinated, then you have an answer to the question, how it was done in Germany. The speciality of Germany is the „holocaust“, but in all other countries there are such „events of guilt“ which are used to argument the need of altering the society: in the rest of Europe colonialism, in the US f.e. slavery.

    I would express this in the way, that the reeducation is not a specific German event, but the German reeducation is specific, which means more intensive.

    The reason for this is the purpose (not the purpose intended by the allies, but the purpose of the Frankfurt School members) of the reeducation of the Germans and the ressistance to Marxism of our people (which is related to our specific history after the middle age).

    The Marxists consider Germany to be the key to the victory of the so called „New World Order“ – Communism. And they are right. More than they imagine. But they lost the „war of ideologies“ long ago and they do not know it.

    The very point is, that the meaning of cultural marxism can only be revealed if you set it in a context with economic marxism und the marxist revolutionary theory. Means: to understand the purpose, you have to understand the dialectical materialism and the purpose of Marx‘ theories.

    Indeed there are three written works needed to make up the correct conclusions:

    1. The history of Political Correctness
    2. The „Red Symphony“ script
    3. The book „Problems on Leninism“ which gives a quick introduction to marxist revolutionary theory. It can be found here: http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/POLtc.html

  • Hi Rosalie,

    I would like to answer your question, but this is not so easy, because there is a background story that has to be known in order to understand what is happening.

    I would first like to direct you to a small book published by William Lind when he was employed at the Free Congress Foundation (http://www.freecongress.org/). The name of the book is „The history of Political Correctness“, a copy can be found here online: http://www.observations.net/marxism.html

    What the allies understood was, that the purpose of the Frankfurt School was to destroy the cultural backing of the German society, because they (the allies) tried to change that cultural backing (which I accept to be a legitimate geopolitical goal, although I don’t like it). So they put them (Frankfurt school members) back in charge. What they missed to understand was the reason for this purpose and the implications of the studies done by the Frankfurt School for the rest of the world.

    What you have to understand is, that the „reeducation“ happend ALL OVER the western world. It was done EVERYWHERE the same way: with books, media, via schools…if you have a answer for the question, how the children in the us are being indoctrinated, then you have an answer to the question, how it was done in Germany. The speciality of Germany is the „holocaust“, but in all other countries there are such „events of guilt“ which are used to argument the need of altering the society: in the rest of Europe colonialism, in the US f.e. slavery.

    I would express this in the way, that the reeducation is not a specific German event, but the German reeducation is specific, which means more intensive.

    The reason for this is the purpose (not the purpose intended by the allies, but the purpose of the Frankfurt School members) of the reeducation of the Germans and the ressistance to Marxism of our people (which is related to our specific history after the middle age).

    The Marxists consider Germany to be the key to the victory of the so called „New World Order“ – Communism. And they are right. More than they imagine. But they lost the „war of ideologies“ long ago and they do not know it.

    The very point is, that the meaning of cultural marxism can only be revealed if you set it in a context with economic marxism und the marxist revolutionary theory. Means: to understand the purpose, you have to understand the dialectical materialism and the purpose of Marx‘ theories.

    Indeed there are three written works needed to make up the correct conclusions:

    1. The history of Political Correctness
    2. The „Red Symphony“ script
    3. The book „Problems on Leninism“ which gives a quick introduction to marxist revolutionary theory. It can be found here: http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/POLtc.html

  • Hi Rosalie,

    I would like to answer your question, but this is not so easy, because there is a background story that has to be known in order to understand what is happening.

    I would first like to direct you to a small book published by William Lind when he was employed at the Free Congress Foundation (http://www.freecongress.org/). The name of the book is „The history of Political Correctness“, a copy can be found here online: http://www.observations.net/marxism.html

    What the allies understood was, that the purpose of the Frankfurt School was to destroy the cultural backing of the German society, because they (the allies) tried to change that cultural backing (which I accept to be a legitimate geopolitical goal, although I don’t like it). So they put them (Frankfurt school members) back in charge. What they missed to understand was the reason for this purpose and the implications of the studies done by the Frankfurt School for the rest of the world.

    What you have to understand is, that the „reeducation“ happend ALL OVER the western world. It was done EVERYWHERE the same way: with books, media, via schools…if you have a answer for the question, how the children in the us are being indoctrinated, then you have an answer to the question, how it was done in Germany. The speciality of Germany is the „holocaust“, but in all other countries there are such „events of guilt“ which are used to argument the need of altering the society: in the rest of Europe colonialism, in the US f.e. slavery.

    I would express this in the way, that the reeducation is not a specific German event, but the German reeducation is specific, which means more intensive.

    The reason for this is the purpose (not the purpose intended by the allies, but the purpose of the Frankfurt School members) of the reeducation of the Germans and the ressistance to Marxism of our people (which is related to our specific history after the middle age).

    The Marxists consider Germany to be the key to the victory of the so called „New World Order“ – Communism. And they are right. More than they imagine. But they lost the „war of ideologies“ long ago and they do not know it.

    The very point is, that the meaning of cultural marxism can only be revealed if you set it in a context with economic marxism und the marxist revolutionary theory. Means: to understand the purpose, you have to understand the dialectical materialism and the purpose of Marx‘ theories.

    Indeed there are three written works needed to make up the correct conclusions:

    1. The history of Political Correctness
    2. The „Red Symphony“ script
    3. The book „Problems on Leninism“ which gives a quick introduction to marxist revolutionary theory. It can be found here: http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/POLtc.html

  • Hi Rosalie,

    I would like to answer your question, but this is not so easy, because there is a background story that has to be known in order to understand what is happening.

    I would first like to direct you to a small book published by William Lind when he was employed at the Free Congress Foundation (http://www.freecongress.org/). The name of the book is „The history of Political Correctness“, a copy can be found here online: http://www.observations.net/marxism.html

    What the allies understood was, that the purpose of the Frankfurt School was to destroy the cultural backing of the German society, because they (the allies) tried to change that cultural backing (which I accept to be a legitimate geopolitical goal, although I don’t like it). So they put them (Frankfurt school members) back in charge. What they missed to understand was the reason for this purpose and the implications of the studies done by the Frankfurt School for the rest of the world.

    What you have to understand is, that the „reeducation“ happend ALL OVER the western world. It was done EVERYWHERE the same way: with books, media, via schools…if you have a answer for the question, how the children in the us are being indoctrinated, then you have an answer to the question, how it was done in Germany. The speciality of Germany is the „holocaust“, but in all other countries there are such „events of guilt“ which are used to argument the need of altering the society: in the rest of Europe colonialism, in the US f.e. slavery.

    I would express this in the way, that the reeducation is not a specific German event, but the German reeducation is specific, which means more intensive.

    The reason for this is the purpose (not the purpose intended by the allies, but the purpose of the Frankfurt School members) of the reeducation of the Germans and the ressistance to Marxism of our people (which is related to our specific history after the middle age).

    The Marxists consider Germany to be the key to the victory of the so called „New World Order“ – Communism. And they are right. More than they imagine. But they lost the „war of ideologies“ long ago and they do not know it.

    The very point is, that the meaning of cultural marxism can only be revealed if you set it in a context with economic marxism und the marxist revolutionary theory. Means: to understand the purpose, you have to understand the dialectical materialism and the purpose of Marx‘ theories.

    Indeed there are three written works needed to make up the correct conclusions:

    1. The history of Political Correctness
    2. The „Red Symphony“ script
    3. The book „Problems on Leninism“ which gives a quick introduction to marxist revolutionary theory. It can be found here: http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/POLtc.html

  • Rosalie:

    Kairos (or Mr. Thomas Völker):

    I knew about Frankfurt School, cultural Marxism and their influence in the academia.
    My question was if Horkheimer and Adorno were actively, practically, factually involved in re-education, besides the theoretical background offered by their books and thinking.

    But meanwhile I found the answer, on the Internet. On the Wikipedia article about Theodor Adorno it says, without offering further details, that: „In 1952 he participated in a group experiment, revealing residual National Socialist attitudes among the recently democratized Germans“.

    This is an astonishing discovery for me, because similar methods were applied in Eastern Europe after being occupied by the Soviets. This brings evil to a whole new level. It also means that in the Soviet and American-occupied territories the strategies of des-nationalization and dehumanisation through brainwashing were not as different as we would like to believe.

    If you have time, take a look at this link about the Pitesti experiment in Soviet-occupied Romania, immediately after WWII. It’s a sort of accelerated, fast reeducation through torture and Solzhenytsin called it „the most terrible act of barbarism in the modern world“:

    http://www.thegenocideofthesouls.org/public/english/the-pitesti-experiment/

    It’s different from the group experiment in Western Germany in the sense that the main tool was physical torture, but the target is the same: after a few months of accelerated reeducation, the inmates were brought in the state to hate and curse their faith, country, ancestors and family.

  • Rosalie:

    Kairos (or Mr. Thomas Völker):

    I knew about Frankfurt School, cultural Marxism and their influence in the academia.
    My question was if Horkheimer and Adorno were actively, practically, factually involved in re-education, besides the theoretical background offered by their books and thinking.

    But meanwhile I found the answer, on the Internet. On the Wikipedia article about Theodor Adorno it says, without offering further details, that: „In 1952 he participated in a group experiment, revealing residual National Socialist attitudes among the recently democratized Germans“.

    This is an astonishing discovery for me, because similar methods were applied in Eastern Europe after being occupied by the Soviets. This brings evil to a whole new level. It also means that in the Soviet and American-occupied territories the strategies of des-nationalization and dehumanisation through brainwashing were not as different as we would like to believe.

    If you have time, take a look at this link about the Pitesti experiment in Soviet-occupied Romania, immediately after WWII. It’s a sort of accelerated, fast reeducation through torture and Solzhenytsin called it „the most terrible act of barbarism in the modern world“:

    http://www.thegenocideofthesouls.org/public/english/the-pitesti-experiment/

    It’s different from the group experiment in Western Germany in the sense that the main tool was physical torture, but the target is the same: after a few months of accelerated reeducation, the inmates were brought in the state to hate and curse their faith, country, ancestors and family.

  • Rosalie:

    Kairos (or Mr. Thomas Völker):

    I knew about Frankfurt School, cultural Marxism and their influence in the academia.
    My question was if Horkheimer and Adorno were actively, practically, factually involved in re-education, besides the theoretical background offered by their books and thinking.

    But meanwhile I found the answer, on the Internet. On the Wikipedia article about Theodor Adorno it says, without offering further details, that: „In 1952 he participated in a group experiment, revealing residual National Socialist attitudes among the recently democratized Germans“.

    This is an astonishing discovery for me, because similar methods were applied in Eastern Europe after being occupied by the Soviets. This brings evil to a whole new level. It also means that in the Soviet and American-occupied territories the strategies of des-nationalization and dehumanisation through brainwashing were not as different as we would like to believe.

    If you have time, take a look at this link about the Pitesti experiment in Soviet-occupied Romania, immediately after WWII. It’s a sort of accelerated, fast reeducation through torture and Solzhenytsin called it „the most terrible act of barbarism in the modern world“:

    http://www.thegenocideofthesouls.org/public/english/the-pitesti-experiment/

    It’s different from the group experiment in Western Germany in the sense that the main tool was physical torture, but the target is the same: after a few months of accelerated reeducation, the inmates were brought in the state to hate and curse their faith, country, ancestors and family.

  • Rosalie:

    Kairos (or Mr. Thomas Völker):

    I knew about Frankfurt School, cultural Marxism and their influence in the academia.
    My question was if Horkheimer and Adorno were actively, practically, factually involved in re-education, besides the theoretical background offered by their books and thinking.

    But meanwhile I found the answer, on the Internet. On the Wikipedia article about Theodor Adorno it says, without offering further details, that: „In 1952 he participated in a group experiment, revealing residual National Socialist attitudes among the recently democratized Germans“.

    This is an astonishing discovery for me, because similar methods were applied in Eastern Europe after being occupied by the Soviets. This brings evil to a whole new level. It also means that in the Soviet and American-occupied territories the strategies of des-nationalization and dehumanisation through brainwashing were not as different as we would like to believe.

    If you have time, take a look at this link about the Pitesti experiment in Soviet-occupied Romania, immediately after WWII. It’s a sort of accelerated, fast reeducation through torture and Solzhenytsin called it „the most terrible act of barbarism in the modern world“:

    http://www.thegenocideofthesouls.org/public/english/the-pitesti-experiment/

    It’s different from the group experiment in Western Germany in the sense that the main tool was physical torture, but the target is the same: after a few months of accelerated reeducation, the inmates were brought in the state to hate and curse their faith, country, ancestors and family.

  • Hi Rosalie,

    while Kairos was born in the Federal Republic of Germany, I was born in the German Democratic Republic.

    So, we watch the events occuring from a slightly different perspective.

    You mentioned the group experiment in the 1950s done by Adorno. As you might notice, this experiment is the successor of the experiments he did in the 30s in NY – the work „The Authoritarian personality“ is based of. So, it was not „new“.

    What they do is to use the cultural criticism to destroy the „old values“ of the society, here as well as in the US.

    The question that drives us is, whether US conservatives will join the battle against marxism – and the fire of that battle already looms in the distance. And this time I do not speak of some kind of „virtual“ clash, but of a real clash.

    The one who understands Marx understands the role of the new left. They do exactly as intended. They were told, that their ideology is the key to the revolution. And it is. But other way, than the New Left thinks.

    The very point is, that the goals the marxists tried to achieve in Pitesti could not be achieved. What they achieved was, that the tortured ones PRETENDED to curse their fate, ancestors, country, family and so on. Some might even have been „transformed“ successfully, but the majority CANNOT BE „transformed“.

    You wrote: „I knew about Frankfurt School, cultural Marxism and their influence in the academia.“

    Many of the US conservatives think, they won the war against economic marxism. They are wrong. The reason for their being wrong is, that they do not understand the reason for the making up of economic marxism.

    I’ll cite Stalin here:

    „In specific circumstances, in a specific situation the proletarian force can feel impelled to switch from the revolutionary way of changing the society to the way of gradual change, the „reformistic way“, as Lenin described in his well known article „On the meaning of gold“; an evasive way, the way of reforms and accomodations for the non-proletarian classes, in order to decay those classes, in order to give the revolution a breathing time, to gather forces and to create the prerequisites for a new offensive.“

    I translated this from the German „Problems on Leninism“ of Stalin. There it is on page 84.

    Regards,

    Thomas

  • Hi Rosalie,

    while Kairos was born in the Federal Republic of Germany, I was born in the German Democratic Republic.

    So, we watch the events occuring from a slightly different perspective.

    You mentioned the group experiment in the 1950s done by Adorno. As you might notice, this experiment is the successor of the experiments he did in the 30s in NY – the work „The Authoritarian personality“ is based of. So, it was not „new“.

    What they do is to use the cultural criticism to destroy the „old values“ of the society, here as well as in the US.

    The question that drives us is, whether US conservatives will join the battle against marxism – and the fire of that battle already looms in the distance. And this time I do not speak of some kind of „virtual“ clash, but of a real clash.

    The one who understands Marx understands the role of the new left. They do exactly as intended. They were told, that their ideology is the key to the revolution. And it is. But other way, than the New Left thinks.

    The very point is, that the goals the marxists tried to achieve in Pitesti could not be achieved. What they achieved was, that the tortured ones PRETENDED to curse their fate, ancestors, country, family and so on. Some might even have been „transformed“ successfully, but the majority CANNOT BE „transformed“.

    You wrote: „I knew about Frankfurt School, cultural Marxism and their influence in the academia.“

    Many of the US conservatives think, they won the war against economic marxism. They are wrong. The reason for their being wrong is, that they do not understand the reason for the making up of economic marxism.

    I’ll cite Stalin here:

    „In specific circumstances, in a specific situation the proletarian force can feel impelled to switch from the revolutionary way of changing the society to the way of gradual change, the „reformistic way“, as Lenin described in his well known article „On the meaning of gold“; an evasive way, the way of reforms and accomodations for the non-proletarian classes, in order to decay those classes, in order to give the revolution a breathing time, to gather forces and to create the prerequisites for a new offensive.“

    I translated this from the German „Problems on Leninism“ of Stalin. There it is on page 84.

    Regards,

    Thomas

  • Hi Rosalie,

    while Kairos was born in the Federal Republic of Germany, I was born in the German Democratic Republic.

    So, we watch the events occuring from a slightly different perspective.

    You mentioned the group experiment in the 1950s done by Adorno. As you might notice, this experiment is the successor of the experiments he did in the 30s in NY – the work „The Authoritarian personality“ is based of. So, it was not „new“.

    What they do is to use the cultural criticism to destroy the „old values“ of the society, here as well as in the US.

    The question that drives us is, whether US conservatives will join the battle against marxism – and the fire of that battle already looms in the distance. And this time I do not speak of some kind of „virtual“ clash, but of a real clash.

    The one who understands Marx understands the role of the new left. They do exactly as intended. They were told, that their ideology is the key to the revolution. And it is. But other way, than the New Left thinks.

    The very point is, that the goals the marxists tried to achieve in Pitesti could not be achieved. What they achieved was, that the tortured ones PRETENDED to curse their fate, ancestors, country, family and so on. Some might even have been „transformed“ successfully, but the majority CANNOT BE „transformed“.

    You wrote: „I knew about Frankfurt School, cultural Marxism and their influence in the academia.“

    Many of the US conservatives think, they won the war against economic marxism. They are wrong. The reason for their being wrong is, that they do not understand the reason for the making up of economic marxism.

    I’ll cite Stalin here:

    „In specific circumstances, in a specific situation the proletarian force can feel impelled to switch from the revolutionary way of changing the society to the way of gradual change, the „reformistic way“, as Lenin described in his well known article „On the meaning of gold“; an evasive way, the way of reforms and accomodations for the non-proletarian classes, in order to decay those classes, in order to give the revolution a breathing time, to gather forces and to create the prerequisites for a new offensive.“

    I translated this from the German „Problems on Leninism“ of Stalin. There it is on page 84.

    Regards,

    Thomas

  • Hi Rosalie,

    while Kairos was born in the Federal Republic of Germany, I was born in the German Democratic Republic.

    So, we watch the events occuring from a slightly different perspective.

    You mentioned the group experiment in the 1950s done by Adorno. As you might notice, this experiment is the successor of the experiments he did in the 30s in NY – the work „The Authoritarian personality“ is based of. So, it was not „new“.

    What they do is to use the cultural criticism to destroy the „old values“ of the society, here as well as in the US.

    The question that drives us is, whether US conservatives will join the battle against marxism – and the fire of that battle already looms in the distance. And this time I do not speak of some kind of „virtual“ clash, but of a real clash.

    The one who understands Marx understands the role of the new left. They do exactly as intended. They were told, that their ideology is the key to the revolution. And it is. But other way, than the New Left thinks.

    The very point is, that the goals the marxists tried to achieve in Pitesti could not be achieved. What they achieved was, that the tortured ones PRETENDED to curse their fate, ancestors, country, family and so on. Some might even have been „transformed“ successfully, but the majority CANNOT BE „transformed“.

    You wrote: „I knew about Frankfurt School, cultural Marxism and their influence in the academia.“

    Many of the US conservatives think, they won the war against economic marxism. They are wrong. The reason for their being wrong is, that they do not understand the reason for the making up of economic marxism.

    I’ll cite Stalin here:

    „In specific circumstances, in a specific situation the proletarian force can feel impelled to switch from the revolutionary way of changing the society to the way of gradual change, the „reformistic way“, as Lenin described in his well known article „On the meaning of gold“; an evasive way, the way of reforms and accomodations for the non-proletarian classes, in order to decay those classes, in order to give the revolution a breathing time, to gather forces and to create the prerequisites for a new offensive.“

    I translated this from the German „Problems on Leninism“ of Stalin. There it is on page 84.

    Regards,

    Thomas

  • younew:

    This section from the book and the comments by Thomas (blog proprietor?) evoke a few thoughts.

    Yes, there are many conservatives like myself would are ready to unite with a German conservatives. Probably less than half because of anti-German brainwashing and because of fear of attack from our ever more PC population. In other words the first thing that will happen is that we will be branded facists. So you need to push that forward and not be too sensitive about it.

    But there’s more problems than that. We are paranoid. If you want to connect to conservative Americans you are going to have to come out and start a dialogue (like you are now) and let us warm up to you a little. It takes time to trust and we have been divided for a long time.

    The idea of a third war „against“ Germany seems a bizzare, Hitlarian kind of statement.
    Stuff like that will get you „nowhere fast.“

    I know, you didn’t do it but Americans aren’t going to find out without a discussion driven by Germans. You need some conservative leadership to reach out to Americans. For conservatism to survive we may need to go multi-national. Think of it, multi-national groups for national sovereignty!

    You seem to be keen around the need to understand cultural Marxism. That evokes concern, maybe an overreaction by me. Is this going after communism attached in any way to a defence of national socialism? I’d like to know more „where you are coming from.“

    Also, the main article seems weak without your further discussion of the problem as being a Western epidemic (although you did warn us of that in the intro)

    Best regards,

  • younew:

    This section from the book and the comments by Thomas (blog proprietor?) evoke a few thoughts.

    Yes, there are many conservatives like myself would are ready to unite with a German conservatives. Probably less than half because of anti-German brainwashing and because of fear of attack from our ever more PC population. In other words the first thing that will happen is that we will be branded facists. So you need to push that forward and not be too sensitive about it.

    But there’s more problems than that. We are paranoid. If you want to connect to conservative Americans you are going to have to come out and start a dialogue (like you are now) and let us warm up to you a little. It takes time to trust and we have been divided for a long time.

    The idea of a third war „against“ Germany seems a bizzare, Hitlarian kind of statement.
    Stuff like that will get you „nowhere fast.“

    I know, you didn’t do it but Americans aren’t going to find out without a discussion driven by Germans. You need some conservative leadership to reach out to Americans. For conservatism to survive we may need to go multi-national. Think of it, multi-national groups for national sovereignty!

    You seem to be keen around the need to understand cultural Marxism. That evokes concern, maybe an overreaction by me. Is this going after communism attached in any way to a defence of national socialism? I’d like to know more „where you are coming from.“

    Also, the main article seems weak without your further discussion of the problem as being a Western epidemic (although you did warn us of that in the intro)

    Best regards,

  • younew:

    This section from the book and the comments by Thomas (blog proprietor?) evoke a few thoughts.

    Yes, there are many conservatives like myself would are ready to unite with a German conservatives. Probably less than half because of anti-German brainwashing and because of fear of attack from our ever more PC population. In other words the first thing that will happen is that we will be branded facists. So you need to push that forward and not be too sensitive about it.

    But there’s more problems than that. We are paranoid. If you want to connect to conservative Americans you are going to have to come out and start a dialogue (like you are now) and let us warm up to you a little. It takes time to trust and we have been divided for a long time.

    The idea of a third war „against“ Germany seems a bizzare, Hitlarian kind of statement.
    Stuff like that will get you „nowhere fast.“

    I know, you didn’t do it but Americans aren’t going to find out without a discussion driven by Germans. You need some conservative leadership to reach out to Americans. For conservatism to survive we may need to go multi-national. Think of it, multi-national groups for national sovereignty!

    You seem to be keen around the need to understand cultural Marxism. That evokes concern, maybe an overreaction by me. Is this going after communism attached in any way to a defence of national socialism? I’d like to know more „where you are coming from.“

    Also, the main article seems weak without your further discussion of the problem as being a Western epidemic (although you did warn us of that in the intro)

    Best regards,

  • younew:

    This section from the book and the comments by Thomas (blog proprietor?) evoke a few thoughts.

    Yes, there are many conservatives like myself would are ready to unite with a German conservatives. Probably less than half because of anti-German brainwashing and because of fear of attack from our ever more PC population. In other words the first thing that will happen is that we will be branded facists. So you need to push that forward and not be too sensitive about it.

    But there’s more problems than that. We are paranoid. If you want to connect to conservative Americans you are going to have to come out and start a dialogue (like you are now) and let us warm up to you a little. It takes time to trust and we have been divided for a long time.

    The idea of a third war „against“ Germany seems a bizzare, Hitlarian kind of statement.
    Stuff like that will get you „nowhere fast.“

    I know, you didn’t do it but Americans aren’t going to find out without a discussion driven by Germans. You need some conservative leadership to reach out to Americans. For conservatism to survive we may need to go multi-national. Think of it, multi-national groups for national sovereignty!

    You seem to be keen around the need to understand cultural Marxism. That evokes concern, maybe an overreaction by me. Is this going after communism attached in any way to a defence of national socialism? I’d like to know more „where you are coming from.“

    Also, the main article seems weak without your further discussion of the problem as being a Western epidemic (although you did warn us of that in the intro)

    Best regards,

  • younew:

    We agree, the damage from cultural Marxism is deep and deepening and radically underestimated. The media has never heard of it. If we mention communism, it is seen as a conspiracy theory of a bygone era. In American, liberals endlessly evoke Joe McCarty as a way to block any discussion of communism. Seems we should be talking about where we are headed.

  • younew:

    We agree, the damage from cultural Marxism is deep and deepening and radically underestimated. The media has never heard of it. If we mention communism, it is seen as a conspiracy theory of a bygone era. In American, liberals endlessly evoke Joe McCarty as a way to block any discussion of communism. Seems we should be talking about where we are headed.

  • younew:

    We agree, the damage from cultural Marxism is deep and deepening and radically underestimated. The media has never heard of it. If we mention communism, it is seen as a conspiracy theory of a bygone era. In American, liberals endlessly evoke Joe McCarty as a way to block any discussion of communism. Seems we should be talking about where we are headed.

  • younew:

    We agree, the damage from cultural Marxism is deep and deepening and radically underestimated. The media has never heard of it. If we mention communism, it is seen as a conspiracy theory of a bygone era. In American, liberals endlessly evoke Joe McCarty as a way to block any discussion of communism. Seems we should be talking about where we are headed.

  • younew, this blog is owned by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, I just write comments.

    You said, you are paranoid and you asked where we come from, refering to the „Hitlerian kind of statement“.

    I think, a few things have to be made clear. The following statements represent my point of view, other German conservatives may have different opinions on specific points.

    1st, the fascist-branding of patriotic and national forces, be they conservative or progressive also happens here. My expierience was, that trying to establish a rational discussion did not work. While thinking about this, I understood, that the branding was done despite the facts – there never has been the intention to establish a rational discussion, but of discrediting „non-left“ positions and the people representing such positions. The funny thing is, that the left blames us of aggression every time – even if we try to discuss – and they are very aggressive themselves. I recently changed the strategy: rather than defending my position I attacked them, called them a bunch of marxist idiots, „Salonbolschewisten“ (very negative connotation, means members of the elite philosophing about the blessings of bolshevism), degenerated retards and so on. So, one should not care about them idiots. Breaking their opinion leadership beginns with opposing it.

    2nd, for us is it like a third war, because the behaviour of many, who are considered to be our friends results in the losing of our cultural identity. And the actions that took place in the „denazification“ aimed directly at our cultural identity. Although we consider this to be a legitimate geopolitical goal, we fight for retaining our cultural, our national identity. From your point of view it may look as if we fight americanism; but that is not true. In fact, we fight philosophical materialism, which is anti-idealism. The point is, that philosophical materialsm is arbitraryness, randomness. Now, the US may arange with this, because the US was constituted in a way, that it relies on the constitution and not on the naturally grown structures of the society. but Europe cannot arrange with this because our constitutions (and the German as well) have been made up with regard to the naturally grown social structures. While the US constitution is the basis for the US society, our constitutions are the corsets of our societies. Our societies existed long before our constitutions existed.

    3rd, concerning your question on marxism, communism, national socialism and my background (you asked, so don’t blame me for the long answer!):

    The first thing to understand is, what MArxism is. Let us start here with the first communist revolution, the french revolution. The french revolution was a hunger-revolution. Louis XVI expanded the nominal amount of money – and this impoverished the people. After the revolution succeeded the revolutionaries (or some folks given the authority to do so) expanded the nominal amount of money themselves – so the poverty was not mildened. Then Bonaparte arose and started a conterrevolution, together with the so called bourgeoise and parts of the old gentry. They were able to do this, because they had their production capabilities and their estates. The first communists lost.

    Now let’s switch to Marx. The basic principle of marxism is, that the production capabilities and the estates of the bourgeoisie shall be „socialised“. Marx said, the society shall own estates, especially productive estates. From our point of view property gives power of control. MArx instead proposed the „dictatorship of the avantgarde of the proletarians“, which means, that the communist party shall be in charge and control the whole production capacity. I think you will agree, that taking away the estates and the productive capital from their legal owners would prevent them from starting a conterrevolution.

    But Marx had a second problem: because of the industrialisation the productivity rose that much, that extending the nominal amount of money would NEVER cause poverty anymore – when done in a way, that it is not obvious. So he needed to cause the poverty in another way. What he did was, that he manipulated the labour market. As you know, offer and demand determine the price. If you open the borders for foreign workers, then the amount of offered work is increased, which decreases the price. To let the workers accept this, he created the theory, that all workers everywhere would have to unite against the „evil“ capitalist. The so called „class consciousness“ is a psychological model to blindfold the workers, so that they should not be able to recognize the results of immigration into the labour market. Here comes a third point in place: the „class struggle“ is a psychological modell that is on the first look conterrevolutionary, because if it was like Marx said, that the higher the accumulation of capitalist capital, the higher the revolutionary potential, then the class strugle with strikes would decrease that accumulation. But a second thing happens during a strike: there is no production. And if the production falls below the needed amount, then poverty arises with hunger. If you take a closer look on Marx, you can see, that he did not only want to destroy the large capitalists, but also the small and medium producers.

    Now focus again the basic principle for a revolution: to start one, you have to synchronize the intention of the individuals, you have to „form“ a so called „collective“ intention. This „collective“ intention in the economic marxist theory was the hunger.

    After WWI they saw, that it did not work, the workers did not join a „global socialist revolution“, but did their duty in the nations, the natural grown societies.

    And here started the work of the cultural marxists: what they first wanted to do, what they first needed, was to destroy those cultural bindings. They did this by branding the history as „evil“. This is the critical theory.

    Then Hitler came. The National Socialism of Hitler (this reference invokes the question if there were others – yes, there were) was conterrevolutionary from the marxist point of view:
    – the amount of money was bound to the amount of goods
    – the unions were forbidden and the borders were closed for foreign workers
    – small and medium companies were promoted
    – the market for needed goods (electricity, water and so on) was regulated/planned, while the market for wanted goods was a free market
    – a strong nationalism was institutionalized for compensation of the disintegration of the society based on the work of Frankfurt School from 1924-1933.

    This resulted in great prosperity, in two years there was no more hunger, the society improved.

    Now let’s go back to the Frankfurt School members. In the 1950s they had to face another rise in the productivity – and that rise was that high, that they had the problem, that they lacked oppressors as well as oppressed ones. That was way problematic, but they found a solution. Ironically Hitler is not only the greatest danger for a marxist revolution, but also the one who pointed them to a new solution for the problem of making up a collective intention.

    They understood that it is not only the economic need that unites revolutionaries, but also the cultural background. They loosened the bindings to this background, some parts they needed to abandon (i.e. christianity), but they recognized, that a collective intention could also be to defend the cultural background. So, what they had to do was to create a serious threat to this cultural background. And here comes MArcuse into play.

    Multiculturalism, polymorphous perversion and so on ARE a serious threat. MArcuse told the new left, they would lead the society to revolution. The intention was to make some members of the society attack the base of the society und to provide them with tools ensuring, that they are able to continue, until the majority of the people is willing to stop them. In Germany we aso have the old left, Marxist-Leninists. They are very „down-to-earth“, while the new left members behave like autocrats.

    And now make an educated guess, what the „old“ left will do, when the people start to revolt.

    On national socialism: This term is used for several political ideologies: National Bolshevism (Stalin), Strasserism and Hitlerism.

    While National Bolshevism is seldom called NAtional Socialism, the other two are not separated. Otto Strasser was a former social democrat who joined the NSDAP and led the social-revolutionary wing. He wanted to establish a managed economy, but unlike classical marxistic one not with one class (all are workers), but with several classes (this wing was the active wing of the NSDAP, for this reason National Socialism was first considered to be a marxism). After he left 1930 the NSDAP the economic course was „Hitlerism“, which was more a „national solidarism“. And this was antimarxistic.

    You should also know that Hitlers economic system was reastablished under Erhard in 1948 with two changes:

    – unions were not forbidden, but have to pay the sriking workers and workers are not allowed to strike until they are members of a union ==> decreases the duration of strikes
    – other than the Reichsbank the Bundesbank was not controlled by the government, but had the control of the monetary value (and therefore the control of the amount of money) in their constitution

    When taking a look on the current situation and the things that brought us here, there would be three additional points to follow:

    a) limitation of the tax and contribution ratio to max. 20%
    b) limitation of the public debt to max. 20% of the GDP
    c) introduction of the principle, that ownership obliges (means: if you buy estates, you have to ensure, that they are in good condition)

  • younew, this blog is owned by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, I just write comments.

    You said, you are paranoid and you asked where we come from, refering to the „Hitlerian kind of statement“.

    I think, a few things have to be made clear. The following statements represent my point of view, other German conservatives may have different opinions on specific points.

    1st, the fascist-branding of patriotic and national forces, be they conservative or progressive also happens here. My expierience was, that trying to establish a rational discussion did not work. While thinking about this, I understood, that the branding was done despite the facts – there never has been the intention to establish a rational discussion, but of discrediting „non-left“ positions and the people representing such positions. The funny thing is, that the left blames us of aggression every time – even if we try to discuss – and they are very aggressive themselves. I recently changed the strategy: rather than defending my position I attacked them, called them a bunch of marxist idiots, „Salonbolschewisten“ (very negative connotation, means members of the elite philosophing about the blessings of bolshevism), degenerated retards and so on. So, one should not care about them idiots. Breaking their opinion leadership beginns with opposing it.

    2nd, for us is it like a third war, because the behaviour of many, who are considered to be our friends results in the losing of our cultural identity. And the actions that took place in the „denazification“ aimed directly at our cultural identity. Although we consider this to be a legitimate geopolitical goal, we fight for retaining our cultural, our national identity. From your point of view it may look as if we fight americanism; but that is not true. In fact, we fight philosophical materialism, which is anti-idealism. The point is, that philosophical materialsm is arbitraryness, randomness. Now, the US may arange with this, because the US was constituted in a way, that it relies on the constitution and not on the naturally grown structures of the society. but Europe cannot arrange with this because our constitutions (and the German as well) have been made up with regard to the naturally grown social structures. While the US constitution is the basis for the US society, our constitutions are the corsets of our societies. Our societies existed long before our constitutions existed.

    3rd, concerning your question on marxism, communism, national socialism and my background (you asked, so don’t blame me for the long answer!):

    The first thing to understand is, what MArxism is. Let us start here with the first communist revolution, the french revolution. The french revolution was a hunger-revolution. Louis XVI expanded the nominal amount of money – and this impoverished the people. After the revolution succeeded the revolutionaries (or some folks given the authority to do so) expanded the nominal amount of money themselves – so the poverty was not mildened. Then Bonaparte arose and started a conterrevolution, together with the so called bourgeoise and parts of the old gentry. They were able to do this, because they had their production capabilities and their estates. The first communists lost.

    Now let’s switch to Marx. The basic principle of marxism is, that the production capabilities and the estates of the bourgeoisie shall be „socialised“. Marx said, the society shall own estates, especially productive estates. From our point of view property gives power of control. MArx instead proposed the „dictatorship of the avantgarde of the proletarians“, which means, that the communist party shall be in charge and control the whole production capacity. I think you will agree, that taking away the estates and the productive capital from their legal owners would prevent them from starting a conterrevolution.

    But Marx had a second problem: because of the industrialisation the productivity rose that much, that extending the nominal amount of money would NEVER cause poverty anymore – when done in a way, that it is not obvious. So he needed to cause the poverty in another way. What he did was, that he manipulated the labour market. As you know, offer and demand determine the price. If you open the borders for foreign workers, then the amount of offered work is increased, which decreases the price. To let the workers accept this, he created the theory, that all workers everywhere would have to unite against the „evil“ capitalist. The so called „class consciousness“ is a psychological model to blindfold the workers, so that they should not be able to recognize the results of immigration into the labour market. Here comes a third point in place: the „class struggle“ is a psychological modell that is on the first look conterrevolutionary, because if it was like Marx said, that the higher the accumulation of capitalist capital, the higher the revolutionary potential, then the class strugle with strikes would decrease that accumulation. But a second thing happens during a strike: there is no production. And if the production falls below the needed amount, then poverty arises with hunger. If you take a closer look on Marx, you can see, that he did not only want to destroy the large capitalists, but also the small and medium producers.

    Now focus again the basic principle for a revolution: to start one, you have to synchronize the intention of the individuals, you have to „form“ a so called „collective“ intention. This „collective“ intention in the economic marxist theory was the hunger.

    After WWI they saw, that it did not work, the workers did not join a „global socialist revolution“, but did their duty in the nations, the natural grown societies.

    And here started the work of the cultural marxists: what they first wanted to do, what they first needed, was to destroy those cultural bindings. They did this by branding the history as „evil“. This is the critical theory.

    Then Hitler came. The National Socialism of Hitler (this reference invokes the question if there were others – yes, there were) was conterrevolutionary from the marxist point of view:
    – the amount of money was bound to the amount of goods
    – the unions were forbidden and the borders were closed for foreign workers
    – small and medium companies were promoted
    – the market for needed goods (electricity, water and so on) was regulated/planned, while the market for wanted goods was a free market
    – a strong nationalism was institutionalized for compensation of the disintegration of the society based on the work of Frankfurt School from 1924-1933.

    This resulted in great prosperity, in two years there was no more hunger, the society improved.

    Now let’s go back to the Frankfurt School members. In the 1950s they had to face another rise in the productivity – and that rise was that high, that they had the problem, that they lacked oppressors as well as oppressed ones. That was way problematic, but they found a solution. Ironically Hitler is not only the greatest danger for a marxist revolution, but also the one who pointed them to a new solution for the problem of making up a collective intention.

    They understood that it is not only the economic need that unites revolutionaries, but also the cultural background. They loosened the bindings to this background, some parts they needed to abandon (i.e. christianity), but they recognized, that a collective intention could also be to defend the cultural background. So, what they had to do was to create a serious threat to this cultural background. And here comes MArcuse into play.

    Multiculturalism, polymorphous perversion and so on ARE a serious threat. MArcuse told the new left, they would lead the society to revolution. The intention was to make some members of the society attack the base of the society und to provide them with tools ensuring, that they are able to continue, until the majority of the people is willing to stop them. In Germany we aso have the old left, Marxist-Leninists. They are very „down-to-earth“, while the new left members behave like autocrats.

    And now make an educated guess, what the „old“ left will do, when the people start to revolt.

    On national socialism: This term is used for several political ideologies: National Bolshevism (Stalin), Strasserism and Hitlerism.

    While National Bolshevism is seldom called NAtional Socialism, the other two are not separated. Otto Strasser was a former social democrat who joined the NSDAP and led the social-revolutionary wing. He wanted to establish a managed economy, but unlike classical marxistic one not with one class (all are workers), but with several classes (this wing was the active wing of the NSDAP, for this reason National Socialism was first considered to be a marxism). After he left 1930 the NSDAP the economic course was „Hitlerism“, which was more a „national solidarism“. And this was antimarxistic.

    You should also know that Hitlers economic system was reastablished under Erhard in 1948 with two changes:

    – unions were not forbidden, but have to pay the sriking workers and workers are not allowed to strike until they are members of a union ==> decreases the duration of strikes
    – other than the Reichsbank the Bundesbank was not controlled by the government, but had the control of the monetary value (and therefore the control of the amount of money) in their constitution

    When taking a look on the current situation and the things that brought us here, there would be three additional points to follow:

    a) limitation of the tax and contribution ratio to max. 20%
    b) limitation of the public debt to max. 20% of the GDP
    c) introduction of the principle, that ownership obliges (means: if you buy estates, you have to ensure, that they are in good condition)

  • younew, this blog is owned by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, I just write comments.

    You said, you are paranoid and you asked where we come from, refering to the „Hitlerian kind of statement“.

    I think, a few things have to be made clear. The following statements represent my point of view, other German conservatives may have different opinions on specific points.

    1st, the fascist-branding of patriotic and national forces, be they conservative or progressive also happens here. My expierience was, that trying to establish a rational discussion did not work. While thinking about this, I understood, that the branding was done despite the facts – there never has been the intention to establish a rational discussion, but of discrediting „non-left“ positions and the people representing such positions. The funny thing is, that the left blames us of aggression every time – even if we try to discuss – and they are very aggressive themselves. I recently changed the strategy: rather than defending my position I attacked them, called them a bunch of marxist idiots, „Salonbolschewisten“ (very negative connotation, means members of the elite philosophing about the blessings of bolshevism), degenerated retards and so on. So, one should not care about them idiots. Breaking their opinion leadership beginns with opposing it.

    2nd, for us is it like a third war, because the behaviour of many, who are considered to be our friends results in the losing of our cultural identity. And the actions that took place in the „denazification“ aimed directly at our cultural identity. Although we consider this to be a legitimate geopolitical goal, we fight for retaining our cultural, our national identity. From your point of view it may look as if we fight americanism; but that is not true. In fact, we fight philosophical materialism, which is anti-idealism. The point is, that philosophical materialsm is arbitraryness, randomness. Now, the US may arange with this, because the US was constituted in a way, that it relies on the constitution and not on the naturally grown structures of the society. but Europe cannot arrange with this because our constitutions (and the German as well) have been made up with regard to the naturally grown social structures. While the US constitution is the basis for the US society, our constitutions are the corsets of our societies. Our societies existed long before our constitutions existed.

    3rd, concerning your question on marxism, communism, national socialism and my background (you asked, so don’t blame me for the long answer!):

    The first thing to understand is, what MArxism is. Let us start here with the first communist revolution, the french revolution. The french revolution was a hunger-revolution. Louis XVI expanded the nominal amount of money – and this impoverished the people. After the revolution succeeded the revolutionaries (or some folks given the authority to do so) expanded the nominal amount of money themselves – so the poverty was not mildened. Then Bonaparte arose and started a conterrevolution, together with the so called bourgeoise and parts of the old gentry. They were able to do this, because they had their production capabilities and their estates. The first communists lost.

    Now let’s switch to Marx. The basic principle of marxism is, that the production capabilities and the estates of the bourgeoisie shall be „socialised“. Marx said, the society shall own estates, especially productive estates. From our point of view property gives power of control. MArx instead proposed the „dictatorship of the avantgarde of the proletarians“, which means, that the communist party shall be in charge and control the whole production capacity. I think you will agree, that taking away the estates and the productive capital from their legal owners would prevent them from starting a conterrevolution.

    But Marx had a second problem: because of the industrialisation the productivity rose that much, that extending the nominal amount of money would NEVER cause poverty anymore – when done in a way, that it is not obvious. So he needed to cause the poverty in another way. What he did was, that he manipulated the labour market. As you know, offer and demand determine the price. If you open the borders for foreign workers, then the amount of offered work is increased, which decreases the price. To let the workers accept this, he created the theory, that all workers everywhere would have to unite against the „evil“ capitalist. The so called „class consciousness“ is a psychological model to blindfold the workers, so that they should not be able to recognize the results of immigration into the labour market. Here comes a third point in place: the „class struggle“ is a psychological modell that is on the first look conterrevolutionary, because if it was like Marx said, that the higher the accumulation of capitalist capital, the higher the revolutionary potential, then the class strugle with strikes would decrease that accumulation. But a second thing happens during a strike: there is no production. And if the production falls below the needed amount, then poverty arises with hunger. If you take a closer look on Marx, you can see, that he did not only want to destroy the large capitalists, but also the small and medium producers.

    Now focus again the basic principle for a revolution: to start one, you have to synchronize the intention of the individuals, you have to „form“ a so called „collective“ intention. This „collective“ intention in the economic marxist theory was the hunger.

    After WWI they saw, that it did not work, the workers did not join a „global socialist revolution“, but did their duty in the nations, the natural grown societies.

    And here started the work of the cultural marxists: what they first wanted to do, what they first needed, was to destroy those cultural bindings. They did this by branding the history as „evil“. This is the critical theory.

    Then Hitler came. The National Socialism of Hitler (this reference invokes the question if there were others – yes, there were) was conterrevolutionary from the marxist point of view:
    – the amount of money was bound to the amount of goods
    – the unions were forbidden and the borders were closed for foreign workers
    – small and medium companies were promoted
    – the market for needed goods (electricity, water and so on) was regulated/planned, while the market for wanted goods was a free market
    – a strong nationalism was institutionalized for compensation of the disintegration of the society based on the work of Frankfurt School from 1924-1933.

    This resulted in great prosperity, in two years there was no more hunger, the society improved.

    Now let’s go back to the Frankfurt School members. In the 1950s they had to face another rise in the productivity – and that rise was that high, that they had the problem, that they lacked oppressors as well as oppressed ones. That was way problematic, but they found a solution. Ironically Hitler is not only the greatest danger for a marxist revolution, but also the one who pointed them to a new solution for the problem of making up a collective intention.

    They understood that it is not only the economic need that unites revolutionaries, but also the cultural background. They loosened the bindings to this background, some parts they needed to abandon (i.e. christianity), but they recognized, that a collective intention could also be to defend the cultural background. So, what they had to do was to create a serious threat to this cultural background. And here comes MArcuse into play.

    Multiculturalism, polymorphous perversion and so on ARE a serious threat. MArcuse told the new left, they would lead the society to revolution. The intention was to make some members of the society attack the base of the society und to provide them with tools ensuring, that they are able to continue, until the majority of the people is willing to stop them. In Germany we aso have the old left, Marxist-Leninists. They are very „down-to-earth“, while the new left members behave like autocrats.

    And now make an educated guess, what the „old“ left will do, when the people start to revolt.

    On national socialism: This term is used for several political ideologies: National Bolshevism (Stalin), Strasserism and Hitlerism.

    While National Bolshevism is seldom called NAtional Socialism, the other two are not separated. Otto Strasser was a former social democrat who joined the NSDAP and led the social-revolutionary wing. He wanted to establish a managed economy, but unlike classical marxistic one not with one class (all are workers), but with several classes (this wing was the active wing of the NSDAP, for this reason National Socialism was first considered to be a marxism). After he left 1930 the NSDAP the economic course was „Hitlerism“, which was more a „national solidarism“. And this was antimarxistic.

    You should also know that Hitlers economic system was reastablished under Erhard in 1948 with two changes:

    – unions were not forbidden, but have to pay the sriking workers and workers are not allowed to strike until they are members of a union ==> decreases the duration of strikes
    – other than the Reichsbank the Bundesbank was not controlled by the government, but had the control of the monetary value (and therefore the control of the amount of money) in their constitution

    When taking a look on the current situation and the things that brought us here, there would be three additional points to follow:

    a) limitation of the tax and contribution ratio to max. 20%
    b) limitation of the public debt to max. 20% of the GDP
    c) introduction of the principle, that ownership obliges (means: if you buy estates, you have to ensure, that they are in good condition)

  • younew, this blog is owned by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, I just write comments.

    You said, you are paranoid and you asked where we come from, refering to the „Hitlerian kind of statement“.

    I think, a few things have to be made clear. The following statements represent my point of view, other German conservatives may have different opinions on specific points.

    1st, the fascist-branding of patriotic and national forces, be they conservative or progressive also happens here. My expierience was, that trying to establish a rational discussion did not work. While thinking about this, I understood, that the branding was done despite the facts – there never has been the intention to establish a rational discussion, but of discrediting „non-left“ positions and the people representing such positions. The funny thing is, that the left blames us of aggression every time – even if we try to discuss – and they are very aggressive themselves. I recently changed the strategy: rather than defending my position I attacked them, called them a bunch of marxist idiots, „Salonbolschewisten“ (very negative connotation, means members of the elite philosophing about the blessings of bolshevism), degenerated retards and so on. So, one should not care about them idiots. Breaking their opinion leadership beginns with opposing it.

    2nd, for us is it like a third war, because the behaviour of many, who are considered to be our friends results in the losing of our cultural identity. And the actions that took place in the „denazification“ aimed directly at our cultural identity. Although we consider this to be a legitimate geopolitical goal, we fight for retaining our cultural, our national identity. From your point of view it may look as if we fight americanism; but that is not true. In fact, we fight philosophical materialism, which is anti-idealism. The point is, that philosophical materialsm is arbitraryness, randomness. Now, the US may arange with this, because the US was constituted in a way, that it relies on the constitution and not on the naturally grown structures of the society. but Europe cannot arrange with this because our constitutions (and the German as well) have been made up with regard to the naturally grown social structures. While the US constitution is the basis for the US society, our constitutions are the corsets of our societies. Our societies existed long before our constitutions existed.

    3rd, concerning your question on marxism, communism, national socialism and my background (you asked, so don’t blame me for the long answer!):

    The first thing to understand is, what MArxism is. Let us start here with the first communist revolution, the french revolution. The french revolution was a hunger-revolution. Louis XVI expanded the nominal amount of money – and this impoverished the people. After the revolution succeeded the revolutionaries (or some folks given the authority to do so) expanded the nominal amount of money themselves – so the poverty was not mildened. Then Bonaparte arose and started a conterrevolution, together with the so called bourgeoise and parts of the old gentry. They were able to do this, because they had their production capabilities and their estates. The first communists lost.

    Now let’s switch to Marx. The basic principle of marxism is, that the production capabilities and the estates of the bourgeoisie shall be „socialised“. Marx said, the society shall own estates, especially productive estates. From our point of view property gives power of control. MArx instead proposed the „dictatorship of the avantgarde of the proletarians“, which means, that the communist party shall be in charge and control the whole production capacity. I think you will agree, that taking away the estates and the productive capital from their legal owners would prevent them from starting a conterrevolution.

    But Marx had a second problem: because of the industrialisation the productivity rose that much, that extending the nominal amount of money would NEVER cause poverty anymore – when done in a way, that it is not obvious. So he needed to cause the poverty in another way. What he did was, that he manipulated the labour market. As you know, offer and demand determine the price. If you open the borders for foreign workers, then the amount of offered work is increased, which decreases the price. To let the workers accept this, he created the theory, that all workers everywhere would have to unite against the „evil“ capitalist. The so called „class consciousness“ is a psychological model to blindfold the workers, so that they should not be able to recognize the results of immigration into the labour market. Here comes a third point in place: the „class struggle“ is a psychological modell that is on the first look conterrevolutionary, because if it was like Marx said, that the higher the accumulation of capitalist capital, the higher the revolutionary potential, then the class strugle with strikes would decrease that accumulation. But a second thing happens during a strike: there is no production. And if the production falls below the needed amount, then poverty arises with hunger. If you take a closer look on Marx, you can see, that he did not only want to destroy the large capitalists, but also the small and medium producers.

    Now focus again the basic principle for a revolution: to start one, you have to synchronize the intention of the individuals, you have to „form“ a so called „collective“ intention. This „collective“ intention in the economic marxist theory was the hunger.

    After WWI they saw, that it did not work, the workers did not join a „global socialist revolution“, but did their duty in the nations, the natural grown societies.

    And here started the work of the cultural marxists: what they first wanted to do, what they first needed, was to destroy those cultural bindings. They did this by branding the history as „evil“. This is the critical theory.

    Then Hitler came. The National Socialism of Hitler (this reference invokes the question if there were others – yes, there were) was conterrevolutionary from the marxist point of view:
    – the amount of money was bound to the amount of goods
    – the unions were forbidden and the borders were closed for foreign workers
    – small and medium companies were promoted
    – the market for needed goods (electricity, water and so on) was regulated/planned, while the market for wanted goods was a free market
    – a strong nationalism was institutionalized for compensation of the disintegration of the society based on the work of Frankfurt School from 1924-1933.

    This resulted in great prosperity, in two years there was no more hunger, the society improved.

    Now let’s go back to the Frankfurt School members. In the 1950s they had to face another rise in the productivity – and that rise was that high, that they had the problem, that they lacked oppressors as well as oppressed ones. That was way problematic, but they found a solution. Ironically Hitler is not only the greatest danger for a marxist revolution, but also the one who pointed them to a new solution for the problem of making up a collective intention.

    They understood that it is not only the economic need that unites revolutionaries, but also the cultural background. They loosened the bindings to this background, some parts they needed to abandon (i.e. christianity), but they recognized, that a collective intention could also be to defend the cultural background. So, what they had to do was to create a serious threat to this cultural background. And here comes MArcuse into play.

    Multiculturalism, polymorphous perversion and so on ARE a serious threat. MArcuse told the new left, they would lead the society to revolution. The intention was to make some members of the society attack the base of the society und to provide them with tools ensuring, that they are able to continue, until the majority of the people is willing to stop them. In Germany we aso have the old left, Marxist-Leninists. They are very „down-to-earth“, while the new left members behave like autocrats.

    And now make an educated guess, what the „old“ left will do, when the people start to revolt.

    On national socialism: This term is used for several political ideologies: National Bolshevism (Stalin), Strasserism and Hitlerism.

    While National Bolshevism is seldom called NAtional Socialism, the other two are not separated. Otto Strasser was a former social democrat who joined the NSDAP and led the social-revolutionary wing. He wanted to establish a managed economy, but unlike classical marxistic one not with one class (all are workers), but with several classes (this wing was the active wing of the NSDAP, for this reason National Socialism was first considered to be a marxism). After he left 1930 the NSDAP the economic course was „Hitlerism“, which was more a „national solidarism“. And this was antimarxistic.

    You should also know that Hitlers economic system was reastablished under Erhard in 1948 with two changes:

    – unions were not forbidden, but have to pay the sriking workers and workers are not allowed to strike until they are members of a union ==> decreases the duration of strikes
    – other than the Reichsbank the Bundesbank was not controlled by the government, but had the control of the monetary value (and therefore the control of the amount of money) in their constitution

    When taking a look on the current situation and the things that brought us here, there would be three additional points to follow:

    a) limitation of the tax and contribution ratio to max. 20%
    b) limitation of the public debt to max. 20% of the GDP
    c) introduction of the principle, that ownership obliges (means: if you buy estates, you have to ensure, that they are in good condition)

  • @Thomas Völker

    I would not „consider [the re-education] to be a legitimate geopolitical goal“, at least not from our German perspective. It isn’t legitimate nor productive from the American perspective neither, at least if you don’t identify the USA with the elite that came to power in the 1930s and which still occupies the key positions(I don’t think you mean it that way). A very important fact is that the re-education of the Germans was only a prelude to the re-education of the whole western world. If you want to know more, try to identify the group behind this incredible development, see who is promoting anti-racism, multiculturalism and political correctness in the USA. Reading http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net might give you a clue.

  • @Thomas Völker

    I would not „consider [the re-education] to be a legitimate geopolitical goal“, at least not from our German perspective. It isn’t legitimate nor productive from the American perspective neither, at least if you don’t identify the USA with the elite that came to power in the 1930s and which still occupies the key positions(I don’t think you mean it that way). A very important fact is that the re-education of the Germans was only a prelude to the re-education of the whole western world. If you want to know more, try to identify the group behind this incredible development, see who is promoting anti-racism, multiculturalism and political correctness in the USA. Reading http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net might give you a clue.

  • @Thomas Völker

    I would not „consider [the re-education] to be a legitimate geopolitical goal“, at least not from our German perspective. It isn’t legitimate nor productive from the American perspective neither, at least if you don’t identify the USA with the elite that came to power in the 1930s and which still occupies the key positions(I don’t think you mean it that way). A very important fact is that the re-education of the Germans was only a prelude to the re-education of the whole western world. If you want to know more, try to identify the group behind this incredible development, see who is promoting anti-racism, multiculturalism and political correctness in the USA. Reading http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net might give you a clue.

  • @Thomas Völker

    I would not „consider [the re-education] to be a legitimate geopolitical goal“, at least not from our German perspective. It isn’t legitimate nor productive from the American perspective neither, at least if you don’t identify the USA with the elite that came to power in the 1930s and which still occupies the key positions(I don’t think you mean it that way). A very important fact is that the re-education of the Germans was only a prelude to the re-education of the whole western world. If you want to know more, try to identify the group behind this incredible development, see who is promoting anti-racism, multiculturalism and political correctness in the USA. Reading http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net might give you a clue.

  • Skeptizissmus, I know who you are talking about. Herbert Schweiger called them „Cosmopolites“.

    What one must understand is, that under the label of the so called „reeducation“ there are 2 different processes: first the destruction of the cultural bindings that prevented the marxist revolution (which is just a name for slavery) and second the making up of a collective interrest which shall start the revolution (not necessarily marxist, but if you take a look on Elsässer and the ongoing divide of the left, where the cultural marxists are taking another way than the economic marxists).

    I absolutely agree, that this was intended to be the prelude for a global reeducation of the nations. This goes back to the 1848 when Marx wrote in the communist manifesto „The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilization and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.“

    Germany resisted the revolution, and it will again. The very point is, that the cosmopolites do not understand the settled. And Germany is a hard nut to crack, they will NEVER be able to bring this to an end successfully. The reason for this is located in our history.

  • Skeptizissmus, I know who you are talking about. Herbert Schweiger called them „Cosmopolites“.

    What one must understand is, that under the label of the so called „reeducation“ there are 2 different processes: first the destruction of the cultural bindings that prevented the marxist revolution (which is just a name for slavery) and second the making up of a collective interrest which shall start the revolution (not necessarily marxist, but if you take a look on Elsässer and the ongoing divide of the left, where the cultural marxists are taking another way than the economic marxists).

    I absolutely agree, that this was intended to be the prelude for a global reeducation of the nations. This goes back to the 1848 when Marx wrote in the communist manifesto „The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilization and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.“

    Germany resisted the revolution, and it will again. The very point is, that the cosmopolites do not understand the settled. And Germany is a hard nut to crack, they will NEVER be able to bring this to an end successfully. The reason for this is located in our history.

  • Skeptizissmus, I know who you are talking about. Herbert Schweiger called them „Cosmopolites“.

    What one must understand is, that under the label of the so called „reeducation“ there are 2 different processes: first the destruction of the cultural bindings that prevented the marxist revolution (which is just a name for slavery) and second the making up of a collective interrest which shall start the revolution (not necessarily marxist, but if you take a look on Elsässer and the ongoing divide of the left, where the cultural marxists are taking another way than the economic marxists).

    I absolutely agree, that this was intended to be the prelude for a global reeducation of the nations. This goes back to the 1848 when Marx wrote in the communist manifesto „The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilization and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.“

    Germany resisted the revolution, and it will again. The very point is, that the cosmopolites do not understand the settled. And Germany is a hard nut to crack, they will NEVER be able to bring this to an end successfully. The reason for this is located in our history.

  • Skeptizissmus, I know who you are talking about. Herbert Schweiger called them „Cosmopolites“.

    What one must understand is, that under the label of the so called „reeducation“ there are 2 different processes: first the destruction of the cultural bindings that prevented the marxist revolution (which is just a name for slavery) and second the making up of a collective interrest which shall start the revolution (not necessarily marxist, but if you take a look on Elsässer and the ongoing divide of the left, where the cultural marxists are taking another way than the economic marxists).

    I absolutely agree, that this was intended to be the prelude for a global reeducation of the nations. This goes back to the 1848 when Marx wrote in the communist manifesto „The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilization and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.“

    Germany resisted the revolution, and it will again. The very point is, that the cosmopolites do not understand the settled. And Germany is a hard nut to crack, they will NEVER be able to bring this to an end successfully. The reason for this is located in our history.

  • Over and over again, you are confronted with the re-educators’ assumption that the collective guilt of the Germans had its cause in their biological disposition.

    Very interesting considering that today we’re indoctrinated that the „nazis“ were evil because they judged people collectively based on biological disposition.

    It goes without saying that the trials against the German ruling class and against supposed and real war criminals played a major part in the reeducation.

    The Heretics’ Hour: Jews and Nuremberg, Part 1
    The Heretics’ Hour: Jews and Nuremberg, Part 2

  • Over and over again, you are confronted with the re-educators’ assumption that the collective guilt of the Germans had its cause in their biological disposition.

    Very interesting considering that today we’re indoctrinated that the „nazis“ were evil because they judged people collectively based on biological disposition.

    It goes without saying that the trials against the German ruling class and against supposed and real war criminals played a major part in the reeducation.

    The Heretics’ Hour: Jews and Nuremberg, Part 1
    The Heretics’ Hour: Jews and Nuremberg, Part 2

  • Over and over again, you are confronted with the re-educators’ assumption that the collective guilt of the Germans had its cause in their biological disposition.

    Very interesting considering that today we’re indoctrinated that the „nazis“ were evil because they judged people collectively based on biological disposition.

    It goes without saying that the trials against the German ruling class and against supposed and real war criminals played a major part in the reeducation.

    The Heretics’ Hour: Jews and Nuremberg, Part 1
    The Heretics’ Hour: Jews and Nuremberg, Part 2

  • Over and over again, you are confronted with the re-educators’ assumption that the collective guilt of the Germans had its cause in their biological disposition.

    Very interesting considering that today we’re indoctrinated that the „nazis“ were evil because they judged people collectively based on biological disposition.

    It goes without saying that the trials against the German ruling class and against supposed and real war criminals played a major part in the reeducation.

    The Heretics’ Hour: Jews and Nuremberg, Part 1
    The Heretics’ Hour: Jews and Nuremberg, Part 2

  • So the poor Germans had to be made to understand that to assault Europe and the world in order to rule it, twice in a generation, was bad. Oh dear. How wicked of the rest of the world. Listen, mate, I grew up in a country where German massacres and German torture were and are still living memories. If the allies had treated you, at the end of the war, as you treated the enemies you had chosen – because nobody forced Germany to go to war, either in 1914 or in 1939 – there would not have been one living German left. Have you forgotten that every city in occupied Europe had a SS or SD „lair“ in which people were routinely tortured and murdered? Have you forgotten the corpses left lying in the middle of city roads in the style of gangsters, have you forgotten Lidice, Marzabotto, Oradour, have you forgotten the death camps? This article is repulsively self-pitying and self-centred, and shows better than anything else why de-Nazification was necessary. And in case you asked, I have the same attitude to the Fascist scum in my own country, and heartily approve of Mussolini’s end. It is a proud thought to me, that he was killed by Italians.

    • Thank you for illustrating and demonstrating the self-righteous, hateful, superficial, blind, and fact-resistant attitude of the average European victim of globalist propaganda.

    • Thank you for illustrating and demonstrating the self-righteous, hateful, superficial, blind, and fact-resistant attitude of the average European victim of globalist propaganda.

    • Thank you for illustrating and demonstrating the self-righteous, hateful, superficial, blind, and fact-resistant attitude of the average European victim of globalist propaganda.

    • Thank you for illustrating and demonstrating the self-righteous, hateful, superficial, blind, and fact-resistant attitude of the average European victim of globalist propaganda.

  • So the poor Germans had to be made to understand that to assault Europe and the world in order to rule it, twice in a generation, was bad. Oh dear. How wicked of the rest of the world. Listen, mate, I grew up in a country where German massacres and German torture were and are still living memories. If the allies had treated you, at the end of the war, as you treated the enemies you had chosen – because nobody forced Germany to go to war, either in 1914 or in 1939 – there would not have been one living German left. Have you forgotten that every city in occupied Europe had a SS or SD „lair“ in which people were routinely tortured and murdered? Have you forgotten the corpses left lying in the middle of city roads in the style of gangsters, have you forgotten Lidice, Marzabotto, Oradour, have you forgotten the death camps? This article is repulsively self-pitying and self-centred, and shows better than anything else why de-Nazification was necessary. And in case you asked, I have the same attitude to the Fascist scum in my own country, and heartily approve of Mussolini’s end. It is a proud thought to me, that he was killed by Italians.

  • So the poor Germans had to be made to understand that to assault Europe and the world in order to rule it, twice in a generation, was bad. Oh dear. How wicked of the rest of the world. Listen, mate, I grew up in a country where German massacres and German torture were and are still living memories. If the allies had treated you, at the end of the war, as you treated the enemies you had chosen – because nobody forced Germany to go to war, either in 1914 or in 1939 – there would not have been one living German left. Have you forgotten that every city in occupied Europe had a SS or SD „lair“ in which people were routinely tortured and murdered? Have you forgotten the corpses left lying in the middle of city roads in the style of gangsters, have you forgotten Lidice, Marzabotto, Oradour, have you forgotten the death camps? This article is repulsively self-pitying and self-centred, and shows better than anything else why de-Nazification was necessary. And in case you asked, I have the same attitude to the Fascist scum in my own country, and heartily approve of Mussolini’s end. It is a proud thought to me, that he was killed by Italians.

  • So the poor Germans had to be made to understand that to assault Europe and the world in order to rule it, twice in a generation, was bad. Oh dear. How wicked of the rest of the world. Listen, mate, I grew up in a country where German massacres and German torture were and are still living memories. If the allies had treated you, at the end of the war, as you treated the enemies you had chosen – because nobody forced Germany to go to war, either in 1914 or in 1939 – there would not have been one living German left. Have you forgotten that every city in occupied Europe had a SS or SD „lair“ in which people were routinely tortured and murdered? Have you forgotten the corpses left lying in the middle of city roads in the style of gangsters, have you forgotten Lidice, Marzabotto, Oradour, have you forgotten the death camps? This article is repulsively self-pitying and self-centred, and shows better than anything else why de-Nazification was necessary. And in case you asked, I have the same attitude to the Fascist scum in my own country, and heartily approve of Mussolini’s end. It is a proud thought to me, that he was killed by Italians.

  • younew:

    Mr. Kleine-Hartlage,

    Surly Mr. Barbieri has some points. Why not return his serve with some facts instead of an insult. Certainly everything is not black and white for either idea.

    Do you have some documentation, maybe an outline with links, that can show us how Germany is the innocent scapegoat?

    BTW, Where is the pro-German propoganda? And if the Germans were decapitated by the West, and it’s all our fault, how exactly did that happen?

    So the ball in in your court. Where are all the articles, films, documentaries showing the real story that you speak of?

    If your general thesis was true, wouldn’t the German people all be behind it’s publication and announcement? Are the German people, who I greatly respect, so weak that they can’t stand up for the truth and self-defense, only somehow, you?

    I don’t speak with hubris. If you can explain, I will sincerely consider your response.

    • @ younew:

      You don’t really expect me to answer to a primitive hate speech like that of Mr. Barbieri with a fair argument, do you?

      Well, as you have asked me in a courteous way, you will get a courteous and sophisticated answer. I think, this evening I will have the time.

    • @ younew:

      You don’t really expect me to answer to a primitive hate speech like that of Mr. Barbieri with a fair argument, do you?

      Well, as you have asked me in a courteous way, you will get a courteous and sophisticated answer. I think, this evening I will have the time.

    • @ younew:

      You don’t really expect me to answer to a primitive hate speech like that of Mr. Barbieri with a fair argument, do you?

      Well, as you have asked me in a courteous way, you will get a courteous and sophisticated answer. I think, this evening I will have the time.

    • @ younew:

      You don’t really expect me to answer to a primitive hate speech like that of Mr. Barbieri with a fair argument, do you?

      Well, as you have asked me in a courteous way, you will get a courteous and sophisticated answer. I think, this evening I will have the time.

    • @ younew:

      I don’t say Germany was „the innocent scapegoat“. What I say is that the general perception of history is one-sided and unfair. Barbieri f.e. refers to an alleged German project „to assault Europe and the world in order to rule it, twice in a generation“, and that „nobody forced Germany to go to war, either in 1914 or in 1939″.

      I don’t think it is possible to sum up the entire history of the 20th century in one comment. Therefore, just a few remarks on three crucial points:

      1. The causes of the First World War:

      Let’s start with the general situation before WWI: None of the Central Powers had any claims against its neighbours, they all – Germany, Austria, the Ottoman Empire, were obviously status-quo-powers, the two latter because of their internal weakness. But there were claims of France against Germany, there were ambitions of Russia to expand on the Balkans, and of France, England, Italy, and Russia to expand at the expense of the Ottoman Empire (and Italy against any country weak enough; in 1915, Italy joined the war against the central powers with the only goal to annect and to subjugate as much non-Italian soil as possible. Which is one reason why I am impatient when just an Italian talks about Germany „assaulting Europe and the world in order to rule it“ ). So, who was an expansive Power?

      Germany was, from 1892 on, in a two-front tong between France and Russia, and tried to keep out England from that alliance, and, after that failed, to bring it out, for a coalition of England, France, and Russia (three powers with an obious interest to knock Germany out) was perceived as being undefeatable in a war. In 1914, the balance of power that had already been disadvantegeous to Germany, was shifting rapidly towards the allied. France, and particularly Russia, had started an arms race Germany was going to lose. It is true that, in July 1914, the German generals wanted the war to start. But to state this without mentioning the circumstances (that all strategists in Europe regarded the war as inevitable, and that Germany could have a chance in 1914, but wouldn’t have had it three or four years later) is unfair. There is not one single document that would reveal other than defensive motives among Germany’s political and military leaders in 1914. Check it!

      2. Hitler’s rise to power:

      I am talking in my article about the allied ideology that there was a deficit in the collective character of the Germans. Do we need this assumption to explain why they voted for Hitler? So, let’s look at the facts: There was a war that affected not only the men at the front, but also more than one million civilians who died because of the allied hunger blockade – an experience none of the western nations shared. We had the defeat, we had a revolution, we had a hyper-inflation that completely ruined the middle classes, we had the French occupation of large territories and the allied robbery („reparations“) of billions of gold marks, we had the world economic crisis – we had, in one word, a series of secular desasters within fifteen years. No other European nation had experienced something comparable. (Nevertheless, the Italians had established a system similar to the Nazi regime as early as 1922, without an excuse of this kind). And we had the complete failure of the democratic and liberal powers to deal with the situation. So, do we really have to assume a national psychic defect to explain why the Germans resorted to Hitler who was the only man who at least promised to deal with the situation, and who, indeed, successfully did so during the first years of his rule?

      3. The causes of the Second World War:

      We are (or have been) accustomed to regard Hitler’s foreign policy as implementation of a master plan, worked out as early as 1924 in „Mein Kampf“, according to which his policy aimed at conquering Europe and ruling the world. What, if his central motive was rather his fear of Russia, and his decisions were based upon rather tactical considerations? Yes, it is possible with these assumptions to describe in a consistent way what happened in the Thirties. You don’t need new facts: Just look through other glasses than you use to, and the same facts will look different.

      I think this is enough for today. I will refer to the latter point in a special posting these days.

      • younew:

        Thanks, Manfred, for mapping out your argument historically for me. I find that information useful and would like to know more. I will look for your future articles illucidating this discussion.

        I do hope you understand that I cannot draw the conclusions that you do simply from those general points you have made thus far, but my mind remains open to the facts.

        I would ask, how similar are your views to the average German’s? Let me know your estimate.

        And Kairos, if you want the far Westerners like Americans to care about you opinions of Germany, and I happen to care a lot more than most people, if you can’t make the argument, I don’t think that our socialst educational systems are going to be pitching in to help you.

        So either you bother and do it or it ain’t happening. I do appreciate that Manfred took to time to bother and tell me and any lurkers a few things that we didn’t consider. Perhaps that will help your cause in the end, maybe not.

        And to say „are said to have done“ means that you are irrational. Stupid people feel no shame. Semi-intelligent feel shame but can’t go beyond it. Very intelligent ones can feel shame and then know not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

        • @ younew:

          Sorry that it will take a while to post as much as I want to. In the next weeks I won’t be able to post more often than once or twice a week. I know what I’ve written until now is by far not enough to convince you, but I promise that step by step the picture will become more detailed and sophisticated.

          How many Germans think like me? Very few, I fear. Most Germans have completely accepted the established view on history. There is only a small (but brilliant) conservative scene that seriously tries to promote an alternative view, whose biggest newspaper is the weekly Junge Freiheit with about 30,000 readers.

        • @ younew:

          Sorry that it will take a while to post as much as I want to. In the next weeks I won’t be able to post more often than once or twice a week. I know what I’ve written until now is by far not enough to convince you, but I promise that step by step the picture will become more detailed and sophisticated.

          How many Germans think like me? Very few, I fear. Most Germans have completely accepted the established view on history. There is only a small (but brilliant) conservative scene that seriously tries to promote an alternative view, whose biggest newspaper is the weekly Junge Freiheit with about 30,000 readers.

        • @ younew:

          Sorry that it will take a while to post as much as I want to. In the next weeks I won’t be able to post more often than once or twice a week. I know what I’ve written until now is by far not enough to convince you, but I promise that step by step the picture will become more detailed and sophisticated.

          How many Germans think like me? Very few, I fear. Most Germans have completely accepted the established view on history. There is only a small (but brilliant) conservative scene that seriously tries to promote an alternative view, whose biggest newspaper is the weekly Junge Freiheit with about 30,000 readers.

        • @ younew:

          Sorry that it will take a while to post as much as I want to. In the next weeks I won’t be able to post more often than once or twice a week. I know what I’ve written until now is by far not enough to convince you, but I promise that step by step the picture will become more detailed and sophisticated.

          How many Germans think like me? Very few, I fear. Most Germans have completely accepted the established view on history. There is only a small (but brilliant) conservative scene that seriously tries to promote an alternative view, whose biggest newspaper is the weekly Junge Freiheit with about 30,000 readers.

      • younew:

        Thanks, Manfred, for mapping out your argument historically for me. I find that information useful and would like to know more. I will look for your future articles illucidating this discussion.

        I do hope you understand that I cannot draw the conclusions that you do simply from those general points you have made thus far, but my mind remains open to the facts.

        I would ask, how similar are your views to the average German’s? Let me know your estimate.

        And Kairos, if you want the far Westerners like Americans to care about you opinions of Germany, and I happen to care a lot more than most people, if you can’t make the argument, I don’t think that our socialst educational systems are going to be pitching in to help you.

        So either you bother and do it or it ain’t happening. I do appreciate that Manfred took to time to bother and tell me and any lurkers a few things that we didn’t consider. Perhaps that will help your cause in the end, maybe not.

        And to say „are said to have done“ means that you are irrational. Stupid people feel no shame. Semi-intelligent feel shame but can’t go beyond it. Very intelligent ones can feel shame and then know not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      • younew:

        Thanks, Manfred, for mapping out your argument historically for me. I find that information useful and would like to know more. I will look for your future articles illucidating this discussion.

        I do hope you understand that I cannot draw the conclusions that you do simply from those general points you have made thus far, but my mind remains open to the facts.

        I would ask, how similar are your views to the average German’s? Let me know your estimate.

        And Kairos, if you want the far Westerners like Americans to care about you opinions of Germany, and I happen to care a lot more than most people, if you can’t make the argument, I don’t think that our socialst educational systems are going to be pitching in to help you.

        So either you bother and do it or it ain’t happening. I do appreciate that Manfred took to time to bother and tell me and any lurkers a few things that we didn’t consider. Perhaps that will help your cause in the end, maybe not.

        And to say „are said to have done“ means that you are irrational. Stupid people feel no shame. Semi-intelligent feel shame but can’t go beyond it. Very intelligent ones can feel shame and then know not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      • younew:

        Thanks, Manfred, for mapping out your argument historically for me. I find that information useful and would like to know more. I will look for your future articles illucidating this discussion.

        I do hope you understand that I cannot draw the conclusions that you do simply from those general points you have made thus far, but my mind remains open to the facts.

        I would ask, how similar are your views to the average German’s? Let me know your estimate.

        And Kairos, if you want the far Westerners like Americans to care about you opinions of Germany, and I happen to care a lot more than most people, if you can’t make the argument, I don’t think that our socialst educational systems are going to be pitching in to help you.

        So either you bother and do it or it ain’t happening. I do appreciate that Manfred took to time to bother and tell me and any lurkers a few things that we didn’t consider. Perhaps that will help your cause in the end, maybe not.

        And to say „are said to have done“ means that you are irrational. Stupid people feel no shame. Semi-intelligent feel shame but can’t go beyond it. Very intelligent ones can feel shame and then know not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    • @ younew:

      I don’t say Germany was „the innocent scapegoat“. What I say is that the general perception of history is one-sided and unfair. Barbieri f.e. refers to an alleged German project „to assault Europe and the world in order to rule it, twice in a generation“, and that „nobody forced Germany to go to war, either in 1914 or in 1939″.

      I don’t think it is possible to sum up the entire history of the 20th century in one comment. Therefore, just a few remarks on three crucial points:

      1. The causes of the First World War:

      Let’s start with the general situation before WWI: None of the Central Powers had any claims against its neighbours, they all – Germany, Austria, the Ottoman Empire, were obviously status-quo-powers, the two latter because of their internal weakness. But there were claims of France against Germany, there were ambitions of Russia to expand on the Balkans, and of France, England, Italy, and Russia to expand at the expense of the Ottoman Empire (and Italy against any country weak enough; in 1915, Italy joined the war against the central powers with the only goal to annect and to subjugate as much non-Italian soil as possible. Which is one reason why I am impatient when just an Italian talks about Germany „assaulting Europe and the world in order to rule it“ ). So, who was an expansive Power?

      Germany was, from 1892 on, in a two-front tong between France and Russia, and tried to keep out England from that alliance, and, after that failed, to bring it out, for a coalition of England, France, and Russia (three powers with an obious interest to knock Germany out) was perceived as being undefeatable in a war. In 1914, the balance of power that had already been disadvantegeous to Germany, was shifting rapidly towards the allied. France, and particularly Russia, had started an arms race Germany was going to lose. It is true that, in July 1914, the German generals wanted the war to start. But to state this without mentioning the circumstances (that all strategists in Europe regarded the war as inevitable, and that Germany could have a chance in 1914, but wouldn’t have had it three or four years later) is unfair. There is not one single document that would reveal other than defensive motives among Germany’s political and military leaders in 1914. Check it!

      2. Hitler’s rise to power:

      I am talking in my article about the allied ideology that there was a deficit in the collective character of the Germans. Do we need this assumption to explain why they voted for Hitler? So, let’s look at the facts: There was a war that affected not only the men at the front, but also more than one million civilians who died because of the allied hunger blockade – an experience none of the western nations shared. We had the defeat, we had a revolution, we had a hyper-inflation that completely ruined the middle classes, we had the French occupation of large territories and the allied robbery („reparations“) of billions of gold marks, we had the world economic crisis – we had, in one word, a series of secular desasters within fifteen years. No other European nation had experienced something comparable. (Nevertheless, the Italians had established a system similar to the Nazi regime as early as 1922, without an excuse of this kind). And we had the complete failure of the democratic and liberal powers to deal with the situation. So, do we really have to assume a national psychic defect to explain why the Germans resorted to Hitler who was the only man who at least promised to deal with the situation, and who, indeed, successfully did so during the first years of his rule?

      3. The causes of the Second World War:

      We are (or have been) accustomed to regard Hitler’s foreign policy as implementation of a master plan, worked out as early as 1924 in „Mein Kampf“, according to which his policy aimed at conquering Europe and ruling the world. What, if his central motive was rather his fear of Russia, and his decisions were based upon rather tactical considerations? Yes, it is possible with these assumptions to describe in a consistent way what happened in the Thirties. You don’t need new facts: Just look through other glasses than you use to, and the same facts will look different.

      I think this is enough for today. I will refer to the latter point in a special posting these days.

    • @ younew:

      I don’t say Germany was „the innocent scapegoat“. What I say is that the general perception of history is one-sided and unfair. Barbieri f.e. refers to an alleged German project „to assault Europe and the world in order to rule it, twice in a generation“, and that „nobody forced Germany to go to war, either in 1914 or in 1939″.

      I don’t think it is possible to sum up the entire history of the 20th century in one comment. Therefore, just a few remarks on three crucial points:

      1. The causes of the First World War:

      Let’s start with the general situation before WWI: None of the Central Powers had any claims against its neighbours, they all – Germany, Austria, the Ottoman Empire, were obviously status-quo-powers, the two latter because of their internal weakness. But there were claims of France against Germany, there were ambitions of Russia to expand on the Balkans, and of France, England, Italy, and Russia to expand at the expense of the Ottoman Empire (and Italy against any country weak enough; in 1915, Italy joined the war against the central powers with the only goal to annect and to subjugate as much non-Italian soil as possible. Which is one reason why I am impatient when just an Italian talks about Germany „assaulting Europe and the world in order to rule it“ ). So, who was an expansive Power?

      Germany was, from 1892 on, in a two-front tong between France and Russia, and tried to keep out England from that alliance, and, after that failed, to bring it out, for a coalition of England, France, and Russia (three powers with an obious interest to knock Germany out) was perceived as being undefeatable in a war. In 1914, the balance of power that had already been disadvantegeous to Germany, was shifting rapidly towards the allied. France, and particularly Russia, had started an arms race Germany was going to lose. It is true that, in July 1914, the German generals wanted the war to start. But to state this without mentioning the circumstances (that all strategists in Europe regarded the war as inevitable, and that Germany could have a chance in 1914, but wouldn’t have had it three or four years later) is unfair. There is not one single document that would reveal other than defensive motives among Germany’s political and military leaders in 1914. Check it!

      2. Hitler’s rise to power:

      I am talking in my article about the allied ideology that there was a deficit in the collective character of the Germans. Do we need this assumption to explain why they voted for Hitler? So, let’s look at the facts: There was a war that affected not only the men at the front, but also more than one million civilians who died because of the allied hunger blockade – an experience none of the western nations shared. We had the defeat, we had a revolution, we had a hyper-inflation that completely ruined the middle classes, we had the French occupation of large territories and the allied robbery („reparations“) of billions of gold marks, we had the world economic crisis – we had, in one word, a series of secular desasters within fifteen years. No other European nation had experienced something comparable. (Nevertheless, the Italians had established a system similar to the Nazi regime as early as 1922, without an excuse of this kind). And we had the complete failure of the democratic and liberal powers to deal with the situation. So, do we really have to assume a national psychic defect to explain why the Germans resorted to Hitler who was the only man who at least promised to deal with the situation, and who, indeed, successfully did so during the first years of his rule?

      3. The causes of the Second World War:

      We are (or have been) accustomed to regard Hitler’s foreign policy as implementation of a master plan, worked out as early as 1924 in „Mein Kampf“, according to which his policy aimed at conquering Europe and ruling the world. What, if his central motive was rather his fear of Russia, and his decisions were based upon rather tactical considerations? Yes, it is possible with these assumptions to describe in a consistent way what happened in the Thirties. You don’t need new facts: Just look through other glasses than you use to, and the same facts will look different.

      I think this is enough for today. I will refer to the latter point in a special posting these days.

    • @ younew:

      I don’t say Germany was „the innocent scapegoat“. What I say is that the general perception of history is one-sided and unfair. Barbieri f.e. refers to an alleged German project „to assault Europe and the world in order to rule it, twice in a generation“, and that „nobody forced Germany to go to war, either in 1914 or in 1939″.

      I don’t think it is possible to sum up the entire history of the 20th century in one comment. Therefore, just a few remarks on three crucial points:

      1. The causes of the First World War:

      Let’s start with the general situation before WWI: None of the Central Powers had any claims against its neighbours, they all – Germany, Austria, the Ottoman Empire, were obviously status-quo-powers, the two latter because of their internal weakness. But there were claims of France against Germany, there were ambitions of Russia to expand on the Balkans, and of France, England, Italy, and Russia to expand at the expense of the Ottoman Empire (and Italy against any country weak enough; in 1915, Italy joined the war against the central powers with the only goal to annect and to subjugate as much non-Italian soil as possible. Which is one reason why I am impatient when just an Italian talks about Germany „assaulting Europe and the world in order to rule it“ ). So, who was an expansive Power?

      Germany was, from 1892 on, in a two-front tong between France and Russia, and tried to keep out England from that alliance, and, after that failed, to bring it out, for a coalition of England, France, and Russia (three powers with an obious interest to knock Germany out) was perceived as being undefeatable in a war. In 1914, the balance of power that had already been disadvantegeous to Germany, was shifting rapidly towards the allied. France, and particularly Russia, had started an arms race Germany was going to lose. It is true that, in July 1914, the German generals wanted the war to start. But to state this without mentioning the circumstances (that all strategists in Europe regarded the war as inevitable, and that Germany could have a chance in 1914, but wouldn’t have had it three or four years later) is unfair. There is not one single document that would reveal other than defensive motives among Germany’s political and military leaders in 1914. Check it!

      2. Hitler’s rise to power:

      I am talking in my article about the allied ideology that there was a deficit in the collective character of the Germans. Do we need this assumption to explain why they voted for Hitler? So, let’s look at the facts: There was a war that affected not only the men at the front, but also more than one million civilians who died because of the allied hunger blockade – an experience none of the western nations shared. We had the defeat, we had a revolution, we had a hyper-inflation that completely ruined the middle classes, we had the French occupation of large territories and the allied robbery („reparations“) of billions of gold marks, we had the world economic crisis – we had, in one word, a series of secular desasters within fifteen years. No other European nation had experienced something comparable. (Nevertheless, the Italians had established a system similar to the Nazi regime as early as 1922, without an excuse of this kind). And we had the complete failure of the democratic and liberal powers to deal with the situation. So, do we really have to assume a national psychic defect to explain why the Germans resorted to Hitler who was the only man who at least promised to deal with the situation, and who, indeed, successfully did so during the first years of his rule?

      3. The causes of the Second World War:

      We are (or have been) accustomed to regard Hitler’s foreign policy as implementation of a master plan, worked out as early as 1924 in „Mein Kampf“, according to which his policy aimed at conquering Europe and ruling the world. What, if his central motive was rather his fear of Russia, and his decisions were based upon rather tactical considerations? Yes, it is possible with these assumptions to describe in a consistent way what happened in the Thirties. You don’t need new facts: Just look through other glasses than you use to, and the same facts will look different.

      I think this is enough for today. I will refer to the latter point in a special posting these days.

  • younew:

    Mr. Kleine-Hartlage,

    Surly Mr. Barbieri has some points. Why not return his serve with some facts instead of an insult. Certainly everything is not black and white for either idea.

    Do you have some documentation, maybe an outline with links, that can show us how Germany is the innocent scapegoat?

    BTW, Where is the pro-German propoganda? And if the Germans were decapitated by the West, and it’s all our fault, how exactly did that happen?

    So the ball in in your court. Where are all the articles, films, documentaries showing the real story that you speak of?

    If your general thesis was true, wouldn’t the German people all be behind it’s publication and announcement? Are the German people, who I greatly respect, so weak that they can’t stand up for the truth and self-defense, only somehow, you?

    I don’t speak with hubris. If you can explain, I will sincerely consider your response.

  • younew:

    Mr. Kleine-Hartlage,

    Surly Mr. Barbieri has some points. Why not return his serve with some facts instead of an insult. Certainly everything is not black and white for either idea.

    Do you have some documentation, maybe an outline with links, that can show us how Germany is the innocent scapegoat?

    BTW, Where is the pro-German propoganda? And if the Germans were decapitated by the West, and it’s all our fault, how exactly did that happen?

    So the ball in in your court. Where are all the articles, films, documentaries showing the real story that you speak of?

    If your general thesis was true, wouldn’t the German people all be behind it’s publication and announcement? Are the German people, who I greatly respect, so weak that they can’t stand up for the truth and self-defense, only somehow, you?

    I don’t speak with hubris. If you can explain, I will sincerely consider your response.

  • younew:

    Mr. Kleine-Hartlage,

    Surly Mr. Barbieri has some points. Why not return his serve with some facts instead of an insult. Certainly everything is not black and white for either idea.

    Do you have some documentation, maybe an outline with links, that can show us how Germany is the innocent scapegoat?

    BTW, Where is the pro-German propoganda? And if the Germans were decapitated by the West, and it’s all our fault, how exactly did that happen?

    So the ball in in your court. Where are all the articles, films, documentaries showing the real story that you speak of?

    If your general thesis was true, wouldn’t the German people all be behind it’s publication and announcement? Are the German people, who I greatly respect, so weak that they can’t stand up for the truth and self-defense, only somehow, you?

    I don’t speak with hubris. If you can explain, I will sincerely consider your response.

  • I have two points to add:

    First: Why should we be the ones to bother getting you a different sight (or insight) of the WW2 history? Do you really have to ask why there is nothing about our point of view? Society – including science – all European/ white societies have been caught by communistic or cultural- marxistic “thinkers” who will go to hell before they admit that the german people is not genetically evil or/ and beneath all other people. So, yes, we are the only ones with another perspective on it, but this does not mean that we are not right. Begin with reading the book in the following article and then use the internet. There are people in the anglosphere who have another opinion on Germany and WW2. And they are not as stupid as you are told to believe.

    Second: It is all about guilt. German guilt (in Germany you get problems, when you say, that the Allies TOO killed people, they say then, you try to harmless the nazi crimes), WHITE guilt (oh yes, we made the crusades and had all these black slaves, whereas islam is peace and there is no african society that consists on slavery – people actually believe this nonsense!!!) and personal guilt!
    The guilt is personal because I have to feel guilty about actions that my grandfathers are said to have done.
    So if all the talking about diversity, the non- existence of races and people was true, there could be no point for a German in being ashamed of actions of Germans in WW2. But we have to, or are told to have. Well, we will not be slaves of this guilt- cult anymore!

  • I have two points to add:

    First: Why should we be the ones to bother getting you a different sight (or insight) of the WW2 history? Do you really have to ask why there is nothing about our point of view? Society – including science – all European/ white societies have been caught by communistic or cultural- marxistic “thinkers” who will go to hell before they admit that the german people is not genetically evil or/ and beneath all other people. So, yes, we are the only ones with another perspective on it, but this does not mean that we are not right. Begin with reading the book in the following article and then use the internet. There are people in the anglosphere who have another opinion on Germany and WW2. And they are not as stupid as you are told to believe.

    Second: It is all about guilt. German guilt (in Germany you get problems, when you say, that the Allies TOO killed people, they say then, you try to harmless the nazi crimes), WHITE guilt (oh yes, we made the crusades and had all these black slaves, whereas islam is peace and there is no african society that consists on slavery – people actually believe this nonsense!!!) and personal guilt!
    The guilt is personal because I have to feel guilty about actions that my grandfathers are said to have done.
    So if all the talking about diversity, the non- existence of races and people was true, there could be no point for a German in being ashamed of actions of Germans in WW2. But we have to, or are told to have. Well, we will not be slaves of this guilt- cult anymore!

  • I have two points to add:

    First: Why should we be the ones to bother getting you a different sight (or insight) of the WW2 history? Do you really have to ask why there is nothing about our point of view? Society – including science – all European/ white societies have been caught by communistic or cultural- marxistic “thinkers” who will go to hell before they admit that the german people is not genetically evil or/ and beneath all other people. So, yes, we are the only ones with another perspective on it, but this does not mean that we are not right. Begin with reading the book in the following article and then use the internet. There are people in the anglosphere who have another opinion on Germany and WW2. And they are not as stupid as you are told to believe.

    Second: It is all about guilt. German guilt (in Germany you get problems, when you say, that the Allies TOO killed people, they say then, you try to harmless the nazi crimes), WHITE guilt (oh yes, we made the crusades and had all these black slaves, whereas islam is peace and there is no african society that consists on slavery – people actually believe this nonsense!!!) and personal guilt!
    The guilt is personal because I have to feel guilty about actions that my grandfathers are said to have done.
    So if all the talking about diversity, the non- existence of races and people was true, there could be no point for a German in being ashamed of actions of Germans in WW2. But we have to, or are told to have. Well, we will not be slaves of this guilt- cult anymore!

  • I have two points to add:

    First: Why should we be the ones to bother getting you a different sight (or insight) of the WW2 history? Do you really have to ask why there is nothing about our point of view? Society – including science – all European/ white societies have been caught by communistic or cultural- marxistic “thinkers” who will go to hell before they admit that the german people is not genetically evil or/ and beneath all other people. So, yes, we are the only ones with another perspective on it, but this does not mean that we are not right. Begin with reading the book in the following article and then use the internet. There are people in the anglosphere who have another opinion on Germany and WW2. And they are not as stupid as you are told to believe.

    Second: It is all about guilt. German guilt (in Germany you get problems, when you say, that the Allies TOO killed people, they say then, you try to harmless the nazi crimes), WHITE guilt (oh yes, we made the crusades and had all these black slaves, whereas islam is peace and there is no african society that consists on slavery – people actually believe this nonsense!!!) and personal guilt!
    The guilt is personal because I have to feel guilty about actions that my grandfathers are said to have done.
    So if all the talking about diversity, the non- existence of races and people was true, there could be no point for a German in being ashamed of actions of Germans in WW2. But we have to, or are told to have. Well, we will not be slaves of this guilt- cult anymore!

  • Suzanne:

    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

    • @ Suzanne

      „Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.“ – This is simply the truth.

      But in Germany – the same in the US I suppose- the Blacks are not the only racial/cultural problem we have. In number they are a rising problem. In the moment the immigrants from muslim countries are the main problem in the countries of northern Europe.

      In Germany the word „race“ is totally eleminated in the language. Nobody is using it, exeptional as part of the word „anti-racism“.

    • @ Suzanne

      „Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.“ – This is simply the truth.

      But in Germany – the same in the US I suppose- the Blacks are not the only racial/cultural problem we have. In number they are a rising problem. In the moment the immigrants from muslim countries are the main problem in the countries of northern Europe.

      In Germany the word „race“ is totally eleminated in the language. Nobody is using it, exeptional as part of the word „anti-racism“.

    • @ Suzanne

      „Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.“ – This is simply the truth.

      But in Germany – the same in the US I suppose- the Blacks are not the only racial/cultural problem we have. In number they are a rising problem. In the moment the immigrants from muslim countries are the main problem in the countries of northern Europe.

      In Germany the word „race“ is totally eleminated in the language. Nobody is using it, exeptional as part of the word „anti-racism“.

    • @ Suzanne

      „Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.“ – This is simply the truth.

      But in Germany – the same in the US I suppose- the Blacks are not the only racial/cultural problem we have. In number they are a rising problem. In the moment the immigrants from muslim countries are the main problem in the countries of northern Europe.

      In Germany the word „race“ is totally eleminated in the language. Nobody is using it, exeptional as part of the word „anti-racism“.

  • Suzanne:

    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

  • Suzanne:

    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

  • Suzanne:

    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

  • Elle Dale:

    @ Manfred Kleine-Hartlage:

    ‘How many Germans think like me? Very few, I fear. Most Germans have completely accepted the established view on history.’

    Yes. Sadly, I have had ample opportunity to notice this fact. But just lately, I am feeling a slight quiver that used not to be there. For Instance, Udo Voigt’s ‘Gas geben’ poster is drawing smiles from many of my German friends, even from a few of the most PC ones. And I have seen German eyes narrow and lips set in fine contempt when Angela Merkel puts on yet another display of her relentless zionism and fawning prostration in face of it.

    An interesting comparison is Hungary. The nationalist voice is now very strong there. It is completely cleansed of the communist ‘re-education’, despite the continuous wailing from the cosmopolitans that often reaches hysterical pitch inside and outside the country. Just recall the dirty attacks upon Hungary that the corporate media (notably the German arms of it!) and the cosmopolitans plied during Hungary’s EU presidency. But the Hungarians are proudly defiant. They know themselves to be far more sinned against than sinning.

    I hope and trust that the Germans, too, are at last beginning to regain their national pride. But why so slowly? Surely this powerful country can withstand the corporate-media bashing of the sort that little Hungary can shrug off? Or is it possible that German prosperity will be in jeopardy if its present PC voice is counter-balanced by a nationalist one? That is, might the average German suspect that it will be threatened, and therefore knowingly choose to quell national pride to preserve German affluence?

    Thank goodness for this blog! I came upon it only today, on David Irving’s website. Please continue your excellent efforts to undo the vile brainwashing that was delivered as ‘re-education’ (particularly to Germans, and, of course, to the rest of us), and is with us today universally, in huge and vociferous volume, as doctrine.

  • Elle Dale:

    @ Manfred Kleine-Hartlage:

    ‘How many Germans think like me? Very few, I fear. Most Germans have completely accepted the established view on history.’

    Yes. Sadly, I have had ample opportunity to notice this fact. But just lately, I am feeling a slight quiver that used not to be there. For Instance, Udo Voigt’s ‘Gas geben’ poster is drawing smiles from many of my German friends, even from a few of the most PC ones. And I have seen German eyes narrow and lips set in fine contempt when Angela Merkel puts on yet another display of her relentless zionism and fawning prostration in face of it.

    An interesting comparison is Hungary. The nationalist voice is now very strong there. It is completely cleansed of the communist ‘re-education’, despite the continuous wailing from the cosmopolitans that often reaches hysterical pitch inside and outside the country. Just recall the dirty attacks upon Hungary that the corporate media (notably the German arms of it!) and the cosmopolitans plied during Hungary’s EU presidency. But the Hungarians are proudly defiant. They know themselves to be far more sinned against than sinning.

    I hope and trust that the Germans, too, are at last beginning to regain their national pride. But why so slowly? Surely this powerful country can withstand the corporate-media bashing of the sort that little Hungary can shrug off? Or is it possible that German prosperity will be in jeopardy if its present PC voice is counter-balanced by a nationalist one? That is, might the average German suspect that it will be threatened, and therefore knowingly choose to quell national pride to preserve German affluence?

    Thank goodness for this blog! I came upon it only today, on David Irving’s website. Please continue your excellent efforts to undo the vile brainwashing that was delivered as ‘re-education’ (particularly to Germans, and, of course, to the rest of us), and is with us today universally, in huge and vociferous volume, as doctrine.

  • Elle Dale:

    @ Manfred Kleine-Hartlage:

    ‘How many Germans think like me? Very few, I fear. Most Germans have completely accepted the established view on history.’

    Yes. Sadly, I have had ample opportunity to notice this fact. But just lately, I am feeling a slight quiver that used not to be there. For Instance, Udo Voigt’s ‘Gas geben’ poster is drawing smiles from many of my German friends, even from a few of the most PC ones. And I have seen German eyes narrow and lips set in fine contempt when Angela Merkel puts on yet another display of her relentless zionism and fawning prostration in face of it.

    An interesting comparison is Hungary. The nationalist voice is now very strong there. It is completely cleansed of the communist ‘re-education’, despite the continuous wailing from the cosmopolitans that often reaches hysterical pitch inside and outside the country. Just recall the dirty attacks upon Hungary that the corporate media (notably the German arms of it!) and the cosmopolitans plied during Hungary’s EU presidency. But the Hungarians are proudly defiant. They know themselves to be far more sinned against than sinning.

    I hope and trust that the Germans, too, are at last beginning to regain their national pride. But why so slowly? Surely this powerful country can withstand the corporate-media bashing of the sort that little Hungary can shrug off? Or is it possible that German prosperity will be in jeopardy if its present PC voice is counter-balanced by a nationalist one? That is, might the average German suspect that it will be threatened, and therefore knowingly choose to quell national pride to preserve German affluence?

    Thank goodness for this blog! I came upon it only today, on David Irving’s website. Please continue your excellent efforts to undo the vile brainwashing that was delivered as ‘re-education’ (particularly to Germans, and, of course, to the rest of us), and is with us today universally, in huge and vociferous volume, as doctrine.

  • Elle Dale:

    @ Manfred Kleine-Hartlage:

    ‘How many Germans think like me? Very few, I fear. Most Germans have completely accepted the established view on history.’

    Yes. Sadly, I have had ample opportunity to notice this fact. But just lately, I am feeling a slight quiver that used not to be there. For Instance, Udo Voigt’s ‘Gas geben’ poster is drawing smiles from many of my German friends, even from a few of the most PC ones. And I have seen German eyes narrow and lips set in fine contempt when Angela Merkel puts on yet another display of her relentless zionism and fawning prostration in face of it.

    An interesting comparison is Hungary. The nationalist voice is now very strong there. It is completely cleansed of the communist ‘re-education’, despite the continuous wailing from the cosmopolitans that often reaches hysterical pitch inside and outside the country. Just recall the dirty attacks upon Hungary that the corporate media (notably the German arms of it!) and the cosmopolitans plied during Hungary’s EU presidency. But the Hungarians are proudly defiant. They know themselves to be far more sinned against than sinning.

    I hope and trust that the Germans, too, are at last beginning to regain their national pride. But why so slowly? Surely this powerful country can withstand the corporate-media bashing of the sort that little Hungary can shrug off? Or is it possible that German prosperity will be in jeopardy if its present PC voice is counter-balanced by a nationalist one? That is, might the average German suspect that it will be threatened, and therefore knowingly choose to quell national pride to preserve German affluence?

    Thank goodness for this blog! I came upon it only today, on David Irving’s website. Please continue your excellent efforts to undo the vile brainwashing that was delivered as ‘re-education’ (particularly to Germans, and, of course, to the rest of us), and is with us today universally, in huge and vociferous volume, as doctrine.

  • Paul Mannstei:

    @ Fabio P.Barbieri:

    In your comment dated 2. June 2011 at 19:37 you assert Germany „assaulted Europe and the world in order to rule it“.

    Let me remind you that the world at that time was ruled by Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal, and the Netherlands through their brutal colonial empires. At the height of Hitler’s power he didn’t even have sufficient landing craft to cross the English Channel let alone long range strategic bombers to reach America, nor a navy to challenge the British Royal Navy. How the hell was Hitler supposed to conquer the world in that condition?

    Before blathering on about what you see on the Hitler Channel er the History Channel please get your facts straight.

  • Paul Mannstei:

    @ Fabio P.Barbieri:

    In your comment dated 2. June 2011 at 19:37 you assert Germany „assaulted Europe and the world in order to rule it“.

    Let me remind you that the world at that time was ruled by Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal, and the Netherlands through their brutal colonial empires. At the height of Hitler’s power he didn’t even have sufficient landing craft to cross the English Channel let alone long range strategic bombers to reach America, nor a navy to challenge the British Royal Navy. How the hell was Hitler supposed to conquer the world in that condition?

    Before blathering on about what you see on the Hitler Channel er the History Channel please get your facts straight.

  • Paul Mannstei:

    @ Fabio P.Barbieri:

    In your comment dated 2. June 2011 at 19:37 you assert Germany „assaulted Europe and the world in order to rule it“.

    Let me remind you that the world at that time was ruled by Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal, and the Netherlands through their brutal colonial empires. At the height of Hitler’s power he didn’t even have sufficient landing craft to cross the English Channel let alone long range strategic bombers to reach America, nor a navy to challenge the British Royal Navy. How the hell was Hitler supposed to conquer the world in that condition?

    Before blathering on about what you see on the Hitler Channel er the History Channel please get your facts straight.

  • Paul Mannstei:

    @ Fabio P.Barbieri:

    In your comment dated 2. June 2011 at 19:37 you assert Germany „assaulted Europe and the world in order to rule it“.

    Let me remind you that the world at that time was ruled by Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal, and the Netherlands through their brutal colonial empires. At the height of Hitler’s power he didn’t even have sufficient landing craft to cross the English Channel let alone long range strategic bombers to reach America, nor a navy to challenge the British Royal Navy. How the hell was Hitler supposed to conquer the world in that condition?

    Before blathering on about what you see on the Hitler Channel er the History Channel please get your facts straight.

  • Paul Mannstein:

    @ Thomas Völker:

    In your comment 24. May 2011 at 13:55 you mention the German Constitution (Grundgesetz). Strictly speaking Germany does not have a Constitution per se. The Grundgesetz is a Diktat forced on the West German „Government“ at the time of its founding by the Occupation Powers. It was never subjected to a referendum by the people as would be required from a legal standpoint to make it legitimate. This act should have occurred after the partial unification but was not carried out.

    Furthermore the German Supreme Court has ruled that the present regime is not legitimate but that the German Reich is still the legal German Government entity.

    In addition, a state of war still exists between Germany and the former Allied powers since a formal peace treaty between the parties has never been formalized. Most young Germans let alone Americans are unaware of this state of affairs.

  • Paul Mannstein:

    @ Thomas Völker:

    In your comment 24. May 2011 at 13:55 you mention the German Constitution (Grundgesetz). Strictly speaking Germany does not have a Constitution per se. The Grundgesetz is a Diktat forced on the West German „Government“ at the time of its founding by the Occupation Powers. It was never subjected to a referendum by the people as would be required from a legal standpoint to make it legitimate. This act should have occurred after the partial unification but was not carried out.

    Furthermore the German Supreme Court has ruled that the present regime is not legitimate but that the German Reich is still the legal German Government entity.

    In addition, a state of war still exists between Germany and the former Allied powers since a formal peace treaty between the parties has never been formalized. Most young Germans let alone Americans are unaware of this state of affairs.

  • Paul Mannstein:

    @ Thomas Völker:

    In your comment 24. May 2011 at 13:55 you mention the German Constitution (Grundgesetz). Strictly speaking Germany does not have a Constitution per se. The Grundgesetz is a Diktat forced on the West German „Government“ at the time of its founding by the Occupation Powers. It was never subjected to a referendum by the people as would be required from a legal standpoint to make it legitimate. This act should have occurred after the partial unification but was not carried out.

    Furthermore the German Supreme Court has ruled that the present regime is not legitimate but that the German Reich is still the legal German Government entity.

    In addition, a state of war still exists between Germany and the former Allied powers since a formal peace treaty between the parties has never been formalized. Most young Germans let alone Americans are unaware of this state of affairs.

  • Paul Mannstein:

    @ Thomas Völker:

    In your comment 24. May 2011 at 13:55 you mention the German Constitution (Grundgesetz). Strictly speaking Germany does not have a Constitution per se. The Grundgesetz is a Diktat forced on the West German „Government“ at the time of its founding by the Occupation Powers. It was never subjected to a referendum by the people as would be required from a legal standpoint to make it legitimate. This act should have occurred after the partial unification but was not carried out.

    Furthermore the German Supreme Court has ruled that the present regime is not legitimate but that the German Reich is still the legal German Government entity.

    In addition, a state of war still exists between Germany and the former Allied powers since a formal peace treaty between the parties has never been formalized. Most young Germans let alone Americans are unaware of this state of affairs.

  • Paul Mannstein:

    @ Manfred Kleine-Hartlage:

    You write on 17. June 2011 at 04:06

    „How many Germans think like me? Very few, I fear. Most Germans have completely accepted the established view on history.“

    There is a bunch. Most of them live in foreign countries thus were not subjected to post war Re Education. Ex pat Germans shake their heads when they observe the spineless behavior of German politicians as well as Germans that no longer want to be German.

    For my part I never bought into the Hollywood version of the 12 year National Socialist era.

  • Paul Mannstein:

    @ Manfred Kleine-Hartlage:

    You write on 17. June 2011 at 04:06

    „How many Germans think like me? Very few, I fear. Most Germans have completely accepted the established view on history.“

    There is a bunch. Most of them live in foreign countries thus were not subjected to post war Re Education. Ex pat Germans shake their heads when they observe the spineless behavior of German politicians as well as Germans that no longer want to be German.

    For my part I never bought into the Hollywood version of the 12 year National Socialist era.

  • Paul Mannstein:

    @ Manfred Kleine-Hartlage:

    You write on 17. June 2011 at 04:06

    „How many Germans think like me? Very few, I fear. Most Germans have completely accepted the established view on history.“

    There is a bunch. Most of them live in foreign countries thus were not subjected to post war Re Education. Ex pat Germans shake their heads when they observe the spineless behavior of German politicians as well as Germans that no longer want to be German.

    For my part I never bought into the Hollywood version of the 12 year National Socialist era.

  • Paul Mannstein:

    @ Manfred Kleine-Hartlage:

    You write on 17. June 2011 at 04:06

    „How many Germans think like me? Very few, I fear. Most Germans have completely accepted the established view on history.“

    There is a bunch. Most of them live in foreign countries thus were not subjected to post war Re Education. Ex pat Germans shake their heads when they observe the spineless behavior of German politicians as well as Germans that no longer want to be German.

    For my part I never bought into the Hollywood version of the 12 year National Socialist era.

  • Dietser:

    Great website, was also linked by David Irvings site. The fact that Germany is still at war and does not have a peace treaty and has an illegal regime wich oppresses the german people for over 65 years should be a priority for all kinds of media to be told and teached over and over. Let Germany awake and rise to glory.

  • Dietser:

    Great website, was also linked by David Irvings site. The fact that Germany is still at war and does not have a peace treaty and has an illegal regime wich oppresses the german people for over 65 years should be a priority for all kinds of media to be told and teached over and over. Let Germany awake and rise to glory.

  • Dietser:

    Great website, was also linked by David Irvings site. The fact that Germany is still at war and does not have a peace treaty and has an illegal regime wich oppresses the german people for over 65 years should be a priority for all kinds of media to be told and teached over and over. Let Germany awake and rise to glory.

  • Dietser:

    Great website, was also linked by David Irvings site. The fact that Germany is still at war and does not have a peace treaty and has an illegal regime wich oppresses the german people for over 65 years should be a priority for all kinds of media to be told and teached over and over. Let Germany awake and rise to glory.

  • Peter:

    My reply is in response to Fabio P.Barbieri who said: „So the poor Germans had to be made to understand that to assault Europe and the world in order to rule it, twice in a generation, was bad“ and then younew who said „Surly Mr. Barbieri has some points. Why not return his serve with some facts instead of an insult“.

    Unfortunately Mr. Barbieri didn’t make any points of any value at all. Its regurgitated garbage that amounts to a lie and then younew (who obviously doesn’t know – anything at all apparently) backs up the garbage said..

    World War I started when a terrorist named Gavrilo Princip from an allied country (Serbia) murdered Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife in cold blood. Princip belonged to a terrorist organization called the Black Hand. The archduke was going to be the next King (Kaiser in German) of Austria.

    A month later, Austria declared war on Serbia which in turn caused Russia to mass soldiers on Austria-Hungary’s border leading to Germany to side with Austria (the other German speaking nation). France and Great Britain allied themselves with Russia.

    Serbia was a tiny country, smaller than Afghanistan. Similar to what the Americans did 90 years later, Austria demanded an investigation of the murders and the murderers be apprehended. When Serbia refused, Austria attacked. The USA attacked Afghanistan when it refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden. While the great humanitarians the Americans murdered Bin Laden, Austria didn’t have the death penalty for twenty year olds so Princip did not even get the death penalty. He died of natural causes.

    Neither Germany, Autsria nor anyone else attacked the USA when the USA attacked Afganistan (on the other side of the world from them) nor when they attacked Iraq and murdered 1.5 million Iraqis (which they now admit they created a lie as an excuse when they said Iraq had WMD). Israel attacked Lebanon is 2002 – no one declared war on them. In 2006 Israel atacked Lebanon again and no one else in the world attackled Israel. In 1982 Israel attacked Iraq, destroying its nuclear facilities and no one attacked Israel. This year France, Britain and USA attacked Libya and Germany hasn’t attacked them.

    What is the point of these comparisons? Serbia was a tiny country that the allies went to war for when Austria was an empire that acted more humanitarian in 1914 than Americans acted 100 years later. Compare the murderer Gavrilo Princips treatment with how the Americans treated Saddam Hussein (whose country the Americans attacked), dragging him out of a hole by his hair, murdering him with a court they created, murdering Hussein’s son and thrteatening his daughter who fled to Syria. Austria acted like any empire would have. The fault lies with Russia, France and England, who each had their reasons for war. Frances being it felt it had a right to rule over the German speaking Alsatians.

    In 1919 they chopped up Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empires guarantying a future conflict. They took northern Scleswig and gave it to Denmark, Eupen and Malmedy and gave it to Belgium, Alsace-Lorraine was given to France, the „Polish Corridor“ was given to the newly created country of Poland. They stole Danzig from Germany, putting Poland in control over Danzig’s population (95% German at that time) and to ad insult to insult, they called Danzig a „Free City“. Memel (80% German) was stolen and given to Lithuania and Eastern Upper Silesia was stolen and given to Poland.

    That doesn’t even cover what they did to the other German speaking country, Hitler’s homeland Austria. The allies stole Bohemia and Moravia from Austria and created the new country of Czechoslovakia and gave Austria’s South Tyrol (all German speaking) and gave it to Italy. The new Czechoslovakia had millions of Germans, more Germans than Slovaks. The allies placed millions of Germans under hostile foreign rule.

    Germany was a great military power in those years, more powerful than any single foe, but not a worlds alliance against it. In 1939 it was negotiating with Poland (a country that didn’t even exist 21 years earlier). Germany wanted the German city of Danzig back and it wanted to create a highway from Garmany proper to east Prussia whom the allies had castrated from Germany, making the economic situation there even more difficult. The Polish foreign minister Jozef Beck visited Germany in early 1939 and refused to return Danzig to Germany. Unbeknownst to Germany, the „brilliant“ British (amongst who many believed Danzig rightfully belonged to Germany), signed a secret agreement with Poland that if Germany attacked Poland, Great Britain would attack Germany. This was all Poland needed. The country that didn’t even exist 21 years earlier said no, they were going to keep Danzig and the its control over Germany’s people. In September Gernmany attacked Poland and shortly after the British and French declared war on Germany.

    In this interview the American historian Pat Buchanan explains why Britain should not have attacked Gernany and created a world war out of a local conflict between Germany and Poland and how Britian would still be a great country instead of an insignificant island off of Europe’s coast if it had not started a world war with Germany. Here is the interview with Buchanan, author of „Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War“:

    http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/07/23/pat-buchanan-4/

    Here is the reaction of the Danzigers when they were given their freedom and the occupying Poles were thrown off their land.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvgaCmLIZts

    The British and Americans love to talk about freedom. What about the Germans freedom?

    Unfortunately with all the lies and propaganda thrown around you can’t put all the blame on Fabio P.Barbieri and younew (who knows nothing). They are only repeating the lies and hatred they have been told their whole lives.

    • Peter,

      Thank you so much for this comprehensive reply. Let’s hope F.P. Barbieri and „younew“ read it, and many more visitors to German-Views also.

      This valuable blog needs more readers and writers. You’ve helped a lot with your excellent comment.

    • Peter,

      Thank you so much for this comprehensive reply. Let’s hope F.P. Barbieri and „younew“ read it, and many more visitors to German-Views also.

      This valuable blog needs more readers and writers. You’ve helped a lot with your excellent comment.

    • Peter,

      Thank you so much for this comprehensive reply. Let’s hope F.P. Barbieri and „younew“ read it, and many more visitors to German-Views also.

      This valuable blog needs more readers and writers. You’ve helped a lot with your excellent comment.

    • Peter,

      Thank you so much for this comprehensive reply. Let’s hope F.P. Barbieri and „younew“ read it, and many more visitors to German-Views also.

      This valuable blog needs more readers and writers. You’ve helped a lot with your excellent comment.

  • Peter:

    My reply is in response to Fabio P.Barbieri who said: „So the poor Germans had to be made to understand that to assault Europe and the world in order to rule it, twice in a generation, was bad“ and then younew who said „Surly Mr. Barbieri has some points. Why not return his serve with some facts instead of an insult“.

    Unfortunately Mr. Barbieri didn’t make any points of any value at all. Its regurgitated garbage that amounts to a lie and then younew (who obviously doesn’t know – anything at all apparently) backs up the garbage said..

    World War I started when a terrorist named Gavrilo Princip from an allied country (Serbia) murdered Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife in cold blood. Princip belonged to a terrorist organization called the Black Hand. The archduke was going to be the next King (Kaiser in German) of Austria.

    A month later, Austria declared war on Serbia which in turn caused Russia to mass soldiers on Austria-Hungary’s border leading to Germany to side with Austria (the other German speaking nation). France and Great Britain allied themselves with Russia.

    Serbia was a tiny country, smaller than Afghanistan. Similar to what the Americans did 90 years later, Austria demanded an investigation of the murders and the murderers be apprehended. When Serbia refused, Austria attacked. The USA attacked Afghanistan when it refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden. While the great humanitarians the Americans murdered Bin Laden, Austria didn’t have the death penalty for twenty year olds so Princip did not even get the death penalty. He died of natural causes.

    Neither Germany, Autsria nor anyone else attacked the USA when the USA attacked Afganistan (on the other side of the world from them) nor when they attacked Iraq and murdered 1.5 million Iraqis (which they now admit they created a lie as an excuse when they said Iraq had WMD). Israel attacked Lebanon is 2002 – no one declared war on them. In 2006 Israel atacked Lebanon again and no one else in the world attackled Israel. In 1982 Israel attacked Iraq, destroying its nuclear facilities and no one attacked Israel. This year France, Britain and USA attacked Libya and Germany hasn’t attacked them.

    What is the point of these comparisons? Serbia was a tiny country that the allies went to war for when Austria was an empire that acted more humanitarian in 1914 than Americans acted 100 years later. Compare the murderer Gavrilo Princips treatment with how the Americans treated Saddam Hussein (whose country the Americans attacked), dragging him out of a hole by his hair, murdering him with a court they created, murdering Hussein’s son and thrteatening his daughter who fled to Syria. Austria acted like any empire would have. The fault lies with Russia, France and England, who each had their reasons for war. Frances being it felt it had a right to rule over the German speaking Alsatians.

    In 1919 they chopped up Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empires guarantying a future conflict. They took northern Scleswig and gave it to Denmark, Eupen and Malmedy and gave it to Belgium, Alsace-Lorraine was given to France, the „Polish Corridor“ was given to the newly created country of Poland. They stole Danzig from Germany, putting Poland in control over Danzig’s population (95% German at that time) and to ad insult to insult, they called Danzig a „Free City“. Memel (80% German) was stolen and given to Lithuania and Eastern Upper Silesia was stolen and given to Poland.

    That doesn’t even cover what they did to the other German speaking country, Hitler’s homeland Austria. The allies stole Bohemia and Moravia from Austria and created the new country of Czechoslovakia and gave Austria’s South Tyrol (all German speaking) and gave it to Italy. The new Czechoslovakia had millions of Germans, more Germans than Slovaks. The allies placed millions of Germans under hostile foreign rule.

    Germany was a great military power in those years, more powerful than any single foe, but not a worlds alliance against it. In 1939 it was negotiating with Poland (a country that didn’t even exist 21 years earlier). Germany wanted the German city of Danzig back and it wanted to create a highway from Garmany proper to east Prussia whom the allies had castrated from Germany, making the economic situation there even more difficult. The Polish foreign minister Jozef Beck visited Germany in early 1939 and refused to return Danzig to Germany. Unbeknownst to Germany, the „brilliant“ British (amongst who many believed Danzig rightfully belonged to Germany), signed a secret agreement with Poland that if Germany attacked Poland, Great Britain would attack Germany. This was all Poland needed. The country that didn’t even exist 21 years earlier said no, they were going to keep Danzig and the its control over Germany’s people. In September Gernmany attacked Poland and shortly after the British and French declared war on Germany.

    In this interview the American historian Pat Buchanan explains why Britain should not have attacked Gernany and created a world war out of a local conflict between Germany and Poland and how Britian would still be a great country instead of an insignificant island off of Europe’s coast if it had not started a world war with Germany. Here is the interview with Buchanan, author of „Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War“:

    http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/07/23/pat-buchanan-4/

    Here is the reaction of the Danzigers when they were given their freedom and the occupying Poles were thrown off their land.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvgaCmLIZts

    The British and Americans love to talk about freedom. What about the Germans freedom?

    Unfortunately with all the lies and propaganda thrown around you can’t put all the blame on Fabio P.Barbieri and younew (who knows nothing). They are only repeating the lies and hatred they have been told their whole lives.

  • Peter:

    My reply is in response to Fabio P.Barbieri who said: „So the poor Germans had to be made to understand that to assault Europe and the world in order to rule it, twice in a generation, was bad“ and then younew who said „Surly Mr. Barbieri has some points. Why not return his serve with some facts instead of an insult“.

    Unfortunately Mr. Barbieri didn’t make any points of any value at all. Its regurgitated garbage that amounts to a lie and then younew (who obviously doesn’t know – anything at all apparently) backs up the garbage said..

    World War I started when a terrorist named Gavrilo Princip from an allied country (Serbia) murdered Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife in cold blood. Princip belonged to a terrorist organization called the Black Hand. The archduke was going to be the next King (Kaiser in German) of Austria.

    A month later, Austria declared war on Serbia which in turn caused Russia to mass soldiers on Austria-Hungary’s border leading to Germany to side with Austria (the other German speaking nation). France and Great Britain allied themselves with Russia.

    Serbia was a tiny country, smaller than Afghanistan. Similar to what the Americans did 90 years later, Austria demanded an investigation of the murders and the murderers be apprehended. When Serbia refused, Austria attacked. The USA attacked Afghanistan when it refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden. While the great humanitarians the Americans murdered Bin Laden, Austria didn’t have the death penalty for twenty year olds so Princip did not even get the death penalty. He died of natural causes.

    Neither Germany, Autsria nor anyone else attacked the USA when the USA attacked Afganistan (on the other side of the world from them) nor when they attacked Iraq and murdered 1.5 million Iraqis (which they now admit they created a lie as an excuse when they said Iraq had WMD). Israel attacked Lebanon is 2002 – no one declared war on them. In 2006 Israel atacked Lebanon again and no one else in the world attackled Israel. In 1982 Israel attacked Iraq, destroying its nuclear facilities and no one attacked Israel. This year France, Britain and USA attacked Libya and Germany hasn’t attacked them.

    What is the point of these comparisons? Serbia was a tiny country that the allies went to war for when Austria was an empire that acted more humanitarian in 1914 than Americans acted 100 years later. Compare the murderer Gavrilo Princips treatment with how the Americans treated Saddam Hussein (whose country the Americans attacked), dragging him out of a hole by his hair, murdering him with a court they created, murdering Hussein’s son and thrteatening his daughter who fled to Syria. Austria acted like any empire would have. The fault lies with Russia, France and England, who each had their reasons for war. Frances being it felt it had a right to rule over the German speaking Alsatians.

    In 1919 they chopped up Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empires guarantying a future conflict. They took northern Scleswig and gave it to Denmark, Eupen and Malmedy and gave it to Belgium, Alsace-Lorraine was given to France, the „Polish Corridor“ was given to the newly created country of Poland. They stole Danzig from Germany, putting Poland in control over Danzig’s population (95% German at that time) and to ad insult to insult, they called Danzig a „Free City“. Memel (80% German) was stolen and given to Lithuania and Eastern Upper Silesia was stolen and given to Poland.

    That doesn’t even cover what they did to the other German speaking country, Hitler’s homeland Austria. The allies stole Bohemia and Moravia from Austria and created the new country of Czechoslovakia and gave Austria’s South Tyrol (all German speaking) and gave it to Italy. The new Czechoslovakia had millions of Germans, more Germans than Slovaks. The allies placed millions of Germans under hostile foreign rule.

    Germany was a great military power in those years, more powerful than any single foe, but not a worlds alliance against it. In 1939 it was negotiating with Poland (a country that didn’t even exist 21 years earlier). Germany wanted the German city of Danzig back and it wanted to create a highway from Garmany proper to east Prussia whom the allies had castrated from Germany, making the economic situation there even more difficult. The Polish foreign minister Jozef Beck visited Germany in early 1939 and refused to return Danzig to Germany. Unbeknownst to Germany, the „brilliant“ British (amongst who many believed Danzig rightfully belonged to Germany), signed a secret agreement with Poland that if Germany attacked Poland, Great Britain would attack Germany. This was all Poland needed. The country that didn’t even exist 21 years earlier said no, they were going to keep Danzig and the its control over Germany’s people. In September Gernmany attacked Poland and shortly after the British and French declared war on Germany.

    In this interview the American historian Pat Buchanan explains why Britain should not have attacked Gernany and created a world war out of a local conflict between Germany and Poland and how Britian would still be a great country instead of an insignificant island off of Europe’s coast if it had not started a world war with Germany. Here is the interview with Buchanan, author of „Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War“:

    http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/07/23/pat-buchanan-4/

    Here is the reaction of the Danzigers when they were given their freedom and the occupying Poles were thrown off their land.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvgaCmLIZts

    The British and Americans love to talk about freedom. What about the Germans freedom?

    Unfortunately with all the lies and propaganda thrown around you can’t put all the blame on Fabio P.Barbieri and younew (who knows nothing). They are only repeating the lies and hatred they have been told their whole lives.

  • Peter:

    My reply is in response to Fabio P.Barbieri who said: „So the poor Germans had to be made to understand that to assault Europe and the world in order to rule it, twice in a generation, was bad“ and then younew who said „Surly Mr. Barbieri has some points. Why not return his serve with some facts instead of an insult“.

    Unfortunately Mr. Barbieri didn’t make any points of any value at all. Its regurgitated garbage that amounts to a lie and then younew (who obviously doesn’t know – anything at all apparently) backs up the garbage said..

    World War I started when a terrorist named Gavrilo Princip from an allied country (Serbia) murdered Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife in cold blood. Princip belonged to a terrorist organization called the Black Hand. The archduke was going to be the next King (Kaiser in German) of Austria.

    A month later, Austria declared war on Serbia which in turn caused Russia to mass soldiers on Austria-Hungary’s border leading to Germany to side with Austria (the other German speaking nation). France and Great Britain allied themselves with Russia.

    Serbia was a tiny country, smaller than Afghanistan. Similar to what the Americans did 90 years later, Austria demanded an investigation of the murders and the murderers be apprehended. When Serbia refused, Austria attacked. The USA attacked Afghanistan when it refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden. While the great humanitarians the Americans murdered Bin Laden, Austria didn’t have the death penalty for twenty year olds so Princip did not even get the death penalty. He died of natural causes.

    Neither Germany, Autsria nor anyone else attacked the USA when the USA attacked Afganistan (on the other side of the world from them) nor when they attacked Iraq and murdered 1.5 million Iraqis (which they now admit they created a lie as an excuse when they said Iraq had WMD). Israel attacked Lebanon is 2002 – no one declared war on them. In 2006 Israel atacked Lebanon again and no one else in the world attackled Israel. In 1982 Israel attacked Iraq, destroying its nuclear facilities and no one attacked Israel. This year France, Britain and USA attacked Libya and Germany hasn’t attacked them.

    What is the point of these comparisons? Serbia was a tiny country that the allies went to war for when Austria was an empire that acted more humanitarian in 1914 than Americans acted 100 years later. Compare the murderer Gavrilo Princips treatment with how the Americans treated Saddam Hussein (whose country the Americans attacked), dragging him out of a hole by his hair, murdering him with a court they created, murdering Hussein’s son and thrteatening his daughter who fled to Syria. Austria acted like any empire would have. The fault lies with Russia, France and England, who each had their reasons for war. Frances being it felt it had a right to rule over the German speaking Alsatians.

    In 1919 they chopped up Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empires guarantying a future conflict. They took northern Scleswig and gave it to Denmark, Eupen and Malmedy and gave it to Belgium, Alsace-Lorraine was given to France, the „Polish Corridor“ was given to the newly created country of Poland. They stole Danzig from Germany, putting Poland in control over Danzig’s population (95% German at that time) and to ad insult to insult, they called Danzig a „Free City“. Memel (80% German) was stolen and given to Lithuania and Eastern Upper Silesia was stolen and given to Poland.

    That doesn’t even cover what they did to the other German speaking country, Hitler’s homeland Austria. The allies stole Bohemia and Moravia from Austria and created the new country of Czechoslovakia and gave Austria’s South Tyrol (all German speaking) and gave it to Italy. The new Czechoslovakia had millions of Germans, more Germans than Slovaks. The allies placed millions of Germans under hostile foreign rule.

    Germany was a great military power in those years, more powerful than any single foe, but not a worlds alliance against it. In 1939 it was negotiating with Poland (a country that didn’t even exist 21 years earlier). Germany wanted the German city of Danzig back and it wanted to create a highway from Garmany proper to east Prussia whom the allies had castrated from Germany, making the economic situation there even more difficult. The Polish foreign minister Jozef Beck visited Germany in early 1939 and refused to return Danzig to Germany. Unbeknownst to Germany, the „brilliant“ British (amongst who many believed Danzig rightfully belonged to Germany), signed a secret agreement with Poland that if Germany attacked Poland, Great Britain would attack Germany. This was all Poland needed. The country that didn’t even exist 21 years earlier said no, they were going to keep Danzig and the its control over Germany’s people. In September Gernmany attacked Poland and shortly after the British and French declared war on Germany.

    In this interview the American historian Pat Buchanan explains why Britain should not have attacked Gernany and created a world war out of a local conflict between Germany and Poland and how Britian would still be a great country instead of an insignificant island off of Europe’s coast if it had not started a world war with Germany. Here is the interview with Buchanan, author of „Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War“:

    http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/07/23/pat-buchanan-4/

    Here is the reaction of the Danzigers when they were given their freedom and the occupying Poles were thrown off their land.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvgaCmLIZts

    The British and Americans love to talk about freedom. What about the Germans freedom?

    Unfortunately with all the lies and propaganda thrown around you can’t put all the blame on Fabio P.Barbieri and younew (who knows nothing). They are only repeating the lies and hatred they have been told their whole lives.