Quote
What kind of dumbass retort is this? Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a Jew robot. You are either trolling or you are a poor sad fool, trapped in your own warped ideology. I must have gotten all I know about Hitler from Philip Roth? No, actually it was a biography by John Toland, among other sources, and all real biographies about Hitler (as opposed to the White Nationalist hagiographies you apparently read) note his mental instability, drug use, incredibly stupid military decisions, and other defects of character.
I'm familiar with Toland's book. I've pieced my opinion of Hitler's personal character (though I'm curious as to why a grown man would fixate on things like rumors of 'drug use' in a discussion of history and historical processes. Seems rather hysterical and effeminate. Would be rather like somebody attacking Kennedy - which there is ample ground to do so - not on his executive shortcomings but on grounds of the fact that he apparently was dependent upon prescription drugs) from
Mein Kampf,
The Second Book,
Inside the Third Reich by Speer, Fest's seminal books on the topic, Irving's
Hitler's War, Nolte's
Thee Faces of Fascism and
Fascism in its Epoch, and a number of other sources. Speer's book is most persuasive because it constitutes direct evidence; and Speer was serving a prison sentence when it was written so he presumably had little incentive to confabulate. Irving had unprecedented access to persons who had been present during seminal events of the war and in proximate relationships to Hitler, the OKW, and the NSDAP control group so his accounts, really an aggregate of direct testimony, is highly persuasive as well. With respect to Hitler's own subjective impressions and view of history and political life, his own books are very clear on these subjects. I sincerely doubt you've read either one - people who have and wish to levy a punitive critique of Hitler usually rely on Hitler's statements from his own work product. They don't often shriek with moral outrage about ''drugs''.
With respect to Hitler's mental instability, I haven't seen any evidence that Hitler was psychologically afflicted; other than anecdotal claims that Hitler was quick to anger and severely depressed in the 11th hour of a total war. I would posit that this is normal for a chief executive under extreme duress. Speer claimed, not improperly, that he was Hitler's closest personal
friend - the only friend Hitler would allow himself really. When he described Hitler's laments during the terminal siege of Berlin, there is a tragic component clearly present. Hitler - the artist, he was not a crude
politician, was still captivated by the National Socialist vision of a better world; even as Berlin fell to siege.
Your view of these things is histrionic and partisan - in a way really that is only really common to liberal partisans, Jews, ill-informed neocons, and the like. It can't really be taken seriously.
Quote
History books--by non-Jews!--record that Ernst Rohm was a homosexual who had sex with boys (in addition to being a brutal thug).
Rohm in many ways exemplified the release of intense energies, shorn of any kind of petit-bourgeoise conceits, within the men of Germany's
lost generation. He acted with a contempt for death, utter ruthlessness, and a cultivated nihilism that prompted even his harshest detractors to stand in awe of his apparent fearlessness. Rohm was, in the historical memory, an archetype of the pragmatic Bavarian, in all honesty - he had contempt for Himmler, Darre, Rosenberg, and he had no interest in the 'Nordic ideal' or the dreamy racialism of some of the Baltic German elements within the NSDAP - nor did he have a reflexive passion for the majesty of aristocracy as the Prussian elements did. He's something of an odd man to single out as the ''worst Nazi''. What Rohm demonstrated was a remarkable acumen for organization, which is unsurprising - he had a reputation as a brilliant staff officer - and an ability to essentially shape the endemic violence of the demobilized frontfighters towards constructive ends, and in doing so simultaneously depriving the enemy of a manpower base. Quite incredible, really. With respect to his vices and moral failings, Hitler himself responded to Goring's objections on the matter by pointing out that the SA was a tough fighting force of political soldiers, it was not a seminary. Political warfare needs soldiers, not moral role models. Of course, when the Strasser wing of the NSDAP was eliminated, Rohm was executed as well - so Hitler, in your view, apparently did 'the right thing'. I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you would focus on this peculiar point, however interesting it may be.
Quote
Goebbels (a weakling in real life) delighted in the prospect of total war and, in a grisly act of self-immolation, killed all six of his young children rather than have them live beyond the fall of his pathological Reich. Not the opinion of Jews, but the opinion of anyone of better than moron intelligence who looks at the historical record in toto.
This is absurd. Pure, shrill hyperbole. Goebbels hardly ''delighted in the prospect of total war''. Where do you get these ideas? Old Boyd Rice albums? The Third Reich didn't even mobilize to a total war footing until 1944 - this was the impetus for Goebbels ''total war'' speech. Unlike the USSR, mobilization wasn't simply implemented by diktat. The Third Reich was a house divided - a tense coalition of Prussians, Bavarians, Baltic Germans, Catholics, Lutherans, farmers, workers, businessmen and others who were united in their belief in the efficacy of executive decisionism and patriotism. It was not a crude despotism and it found itself at a disadvantage (militarily) vis a vis the Soviet Union on grounds of this. Goebbels apparent enthusiasm for 'total war' was an effort to instill confidence in the German people that they could muster the fortitude required to wage war on the necessary terms, and sacrifice personally in order that victory might be realized.
I also think the claim that Goebbels was a 'weakling' is facile. One way he became endeared to the German people is that he'd personally appeal for calm during the allied bombing raids in Berlin, and he'd assist the victims directly. He was a man of the people who wasn't averse to physical risk. Goebbels killed his children so that they wouldn't be raped and murdered by the Red Army or exiled to a gulag or employed as props in a political war against the free world by Stalin. What exactly do you think happened to National Socialists and their families who were captured by the Soviet Union?
Quote
The "Jewish tyranny" that ruled Germany yet installed Hitler as chancellor--how does that work again?
As Mladikov pointed out, you don't really understand history and its development. Political occurrences don't exist in isolation, it must suffice to state. This clumsy misunderstanding on your part doesn't warrant anymore attention.
Quote
Even those of us who criticize Jewish influence should have the humanity to realize that Jews themselves are not born guilty, and therefore, all bad jokes aside, they are not deserving of extermination. But I've observed that humanity is very easily suppressed by ideologues who see only abstractions, and this is the path to sociopathic politics like that of Nazism, Communism, Fascism, or mass depravity under any other banner. Whom does it attract? Mainly losers, freaks, the inadequate, and psychopaths. Enjoy the company of your peers!
Unfortunately, PLEASUREMAN was not alive in 1942 to shreik, and scream, and wag his finger at people for behaving in naughty ways. If he were, the process of history might have been halted.
Quote
Hitler took the easy way out, because he knew that the judgement of the war's victors would fall upon him, he would be tried before humanity, and executed for his crimes--crimes, I should add, that victimized Germany most of all.
This really speaks for itself. You believe in some community of
humanity that is vested with 'human rights' and has the sovereign authority to declare that its enemies have committed ''crimes''. That's distilled Wilsonianism in a nutshell. You're a very confused fellow. A liberal who likes to yammer about 'the damn naggers
' and 'the damn kikes' on the internet, when he's not making a case for the community of humanity and human rights. I'd cite Schmitt's ''Nomos of the Earth'' here and maybe Taft for good measure, as he was a Yankee type Republican he might be more acceptable to MPC as an authoritative source, but I'm frankly stupefied that you'd invoke 'human rights' in a discussion of history. A serious person simply wouldn't do that.
Rohm in many ways exemplified the release of intense energies, shorn of any kind of petit-bourgeoise conceits, within the men of Germany's lost generation. ASK ME ABOUT WEARING MY NAZI ARMBAND TO DENNY'S