Thursday, September 24, 2015

Revisionism as Socratic method or Hitlerian propaganda?

By Michael Hoffman


While I was aware that the idolization of Adolf Hitler was a factor among World War II revisionists, among whom this writer is numbered, I had not gauged the depth of the cultic adoration of this man and the seeming hypnotic hold he continues to exert from the grave, though there’s nothing supernatural about it. One of the most monstrous vices of our human race is our capacity for worshipping another human being —  with all the irrational excuses and alibis associated with the adoration of god-like charismatic despots and messianic secular saviors.

Since we are doing a lengthy future newsletter issue on the relationship between Hitler and Stalin and the Führer’s invasion of Russia, I will not comment here, much less endeavor to refute, remarks concerning that aspect of the debate now in progress.

Some readers have speculated on my “motives” in writing, thus far, two Revisionist History issues re-appraising the Nazi dictator. Money certainly isn’t one of them. There is a distinct possibility that the loss of income resulting from our re-appraisal will severely curtail our Truth Mission (I was warned this past summer by one anti-Zionist patriot leader — who is privately anti-Hitler but dares not state his views in public for fear of loss of income among his nationalist following — that if I were to continue to publish my negative views of Hitler it would seriously erode support).

I’m no hero, but loss of income will certainly not deter us from the pursuit of truth; a pursuit which appears to be suspect in the eyes of some neo-Nazis who call themselves “revisionists.” In their case, revisionism exists mainly to rehabilitate Hitler. Pursuit of the harsh truth about Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, rabbis and Zionists, however unsparing, is welcomed in their ranks, and there is much rhetoric among them about the "glorious and courageous intellectual adventure that is revisionism” — as long as the adventure is confined to defying the idols of the Left. Pursuit of the harsh truth about Adolf Hitler is most unwelcome however for at least a substantial portion of the revisionist movement.

Why expose the Hitler cult? Because I believe the Cryptocracy is behind it — to condition us to mentally envision and then help to arise another god-like dictator for the white people, who will bring us into utter ruin, as did the Führer to the German nation.

As with all religions, the Hitler religion treats heretics roughly. The fact that my book The Great Holocaust Trial was banned in Canada and seized and destroyed by Canadian customs, or that my YouTube video, Academic Freedom and Holocaust Denial Newspeak" cannot be seen on computers in Germany because it has been blocked for the past five years by Merkel’s government, or that two men went to prison in Britain for distributing my Tales of the Holohoax satire, or that among my personal friends I was proud to number (and interview and record) WWII German combat veterans Hans Schmidt, Hans von der Heide and Otto Ernst Remer, and Auschwitz agronomist Thies Christophersen  none of this cuts the mustard with Hitlerite revisionists.  As will be noted from the following correspondence (see below), if one blasphemes their god, then one is persona non grata. 

If we penetrate the masquerade we find that for these Hitlerites little else about revisionism  and certainly not unfettered freedom of inquiry according to the Socratic method  matters, save for how revisionism can be manipulated to rehabilitate the reputation of Lord Adolf by means of propaganda that will brook no dissent.

There is a substantial number of revisionists like this writer who know that some of the crimes for which Hitler is accused (such as gassing millions in Auschwitz) are indeed outrageously false accusations. Moreover, Hitler had in certain unsung respects, a personal honor which Allied and Zionist caricaturists refuse to recognize (his refusal to be the first to bomb British cities, or the first to weaponize and employ advanced poison gases which the Germans possessed [such as Sarin and Tabun] and for which the Allies were virtually defenseless). 

These same independent-minded revisionists also appreciate that in the field of logic one can deduce that being exonerated of one charge does not render all charges groundless, and that this is true concerning some of the monumental crimes for which Hitler  like Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin  is indeed guilty. It is at this juncture that the cultists part company with the revisionists while claiming to be the only true revisionists. Then they boycott the revisionists who have doubts about the claims concerning Hitlers alleged basic decency, goodness, love of peace and democracy etc.

The shrill and sometimes hysterical nature of the outcry against Revisionist History issue no. 80, in whose pages Hitler is shown to have facilitated the murder of Gregor Strasser, one of the most storied German patriots of that era, suggests deep insecurity in the ranks of the Führer’s acolytes, many of whom, it would appear, mainly or exclusively read pro-Hilter propaganda and can’t begin to form anything approaching a rational skepticism toward neo-Nazi encomiums and legends abut him. This is particularly true in the study of Operation Barbarossa wherein "Victor Suvorov," and more frequently of late, Joachim Hoffmann (no relation), are the principal research pillars upon which the cherished exculpatory legends (promoted as irrefutable dogma) surrounding Mr. Hitler's catastrophic pre-emptive invasion of Russia, are predicated.   

That there could be a whole other side to Hitler and Barbarossa which leading revisionists have marginalized and ignored, similar to the way gas chamber skepticism has been marginalized and ignored by the Establishment media, is a frightful, indeed panic-stricken prospect for the true believers. There has been some suggestion that if this writer crosses the red line in this realm we will lose what is left of our readership. It is difficult to fathom the level of perversity in such a threat. The revisionist movement is self-advertised as an act of defiance against propaganda and cherished myths, but some of its most dedicated adherents intend to bankrupt anyone who actually takes this advertising hype at face value and then sallies forth to challenge the Standard Revisionist Account (SRA) of Hitler and Gregor Strasser, or Hitler and Russia.

Thank goodness that the revision of history is an individual act of independent scholarship and conscience, and not an “ism" wholly owned by the Fourth Reich. Hence, whether it bankrupts us or not, we fully intend to pursue our revision of the history of Hitler and Russia on the same classic revisionist  principles which — whether they agree or disagree with our Barbarossa thesis —  are shared and respected by revisionists like Bradley Smith, Prof. Daniel McGowan, Bruce Leichty, Ditlieb Felderer and others of independent mind who are without an ulterior ideological motive or axe to grind.

When pursuit of the Socratic method (“follow the evidence wherever it leads”) becomes grounds for being purged from revisionism when the evidence leads to icon-shattering revelations about Hitler, then there is something seriously perverse transpiring inside revisionism. 

Here's a bulletin for those who have their “Long Knives” out: I will not go quietly into the dark night of isolation and penury at the hands of self-appointed commissars of “correct” revisionism. Any threat of loss of income or "going out of business" has no effect whatsoever. I will research and publish even if I have to earn money by pushing a broom; and I will grin as I do so, meditating on how certain “revisionists” fear and hate the revision of their own sacred cows. 

Michael Hoffman is the author of eight books of history and literature. In 1985 his "World War II Revisionists” television series was the subject of a Judaic riot in front of the studios of the local access cable company in Ithaca, New York. In the summer of 1998 he personally confronted “Jewish ‘Defense' League" terrorist Irv Rubin in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. 

Letters representative of readers’ reactions to Revisionist History newsletter no. 80 (September, 2015 issue): 

Hitler Had Him Murdered: The Untold Story of Gregor Strasser, the German Visionary who could have lead his nation to a New Birth of Freedom.

Dear Michael Hoffman

We have as a result of your very distorted and false attack against Hitler and his handling of the attempted coup against his duly elected government, by Gregor Strasser, General Schleicher, and Ernst Roehm come to the parting of our ways.

 You praise Gregor Strasser but he was a traitor to his country and to its duly elected government. You seem never to read the works of Revisionist Historians like General Leon Degrelle and Willis A. Carto et al so as to get true information on the subject. In Hitler Democrat Degrelle gives all the details of the attempted coup by those infamous three and you surely must know that in all nations  those who try to launch a coup d’état face certain death. I do not know where you got your information but, it is false. 

I trust General Leon Degrelle who wrote about the entire episode in his book Hitler Democrat and he was a member of the Belgium Government at the time and knew Hitler personally. You use very harsh and bitter words in describing Hitler and those of us who believe he was a Great Leader of his people who led them out of the morass of their harsh and punitive treatment by the “victorious allies” (criminals) at Versailles must wonder where your bitterness towards him comes from, and you do not hesitate to call those of us who hold him in high regard names and speak disparagingly of us as though we do not know what we are talking about when we praise him. 

A grave injustice has been done to Hitler by his enemies who are “Legion” and you seem to be in their camp and have begun to call those of us who want the truth about his heroic leadership of his people when they had been prostrated by their enemies, to be extolled from the rooftops rather then sent to jail and called unworthy names.  

Willis Carto who fought in the American Army and was awarded the Purple Heart in WWII calls Hitler “one of the most remarkable persons in European history” and “from boyhood his friends knew that he was special. He says further, “What writers who are unfriendly do not wish to recognize, however, are his profound and detailed knowledge of history and historical personalities, his strong sense of fairness, his pronounced interest in art and architecture, his talent as a first-class military strategist, his idealism and his justified determination to redress the punitive Versailles Treaty that had crippled Germany after World War I.”  

He says further, “After the war, the British blockaded Germany in order to starve to death as many Germans as possible, and the Allies succeeded in killing at least 900,000 Germans.” These quotes are from Willis Carto’s little booklet, A Straight Look at the Second World War: The Final Truth About World War II. As far as I am concerned our Loving God seeing the plight of the heroic and God-loving German people sent them Adolf Hitler to lift them up from the depths of the despair meted out to them at Versailles and gave them back their courage and fortitude to rebuild their lives, but the evil ones who had plans for a One World Order (which is Tranny and Slavery, could not succeed unless they destroyed Germany once and for all and so, in spite of all Hitler’s efforts to work out solutions to the problems facing his country the war mongers were determined to destroy the Germans and their Leader...

You are listed as a contributing editor to The Barnes Review but it seems to me that you do not agree with most if not all of what is written therein and perhaps you should have your name removed. In any case, I am removing myself once and for all from subscribing to your newsletters and request that you do not send me any more of them upon receiving this letter. I no longer trust your work since I see how far from the truth you wander from all the Revisionist historians that I read and agree with.

British Columbia, Canada

Hoffman replies

Dear K.G: 

Strasser was not plotting any “coup." He was an innocent man murdered in cold blood. 

I worked for Willis Carto from three years, including as a columnist for Spotlight newspaper in Washington D.C. and Assistant Director of the Institute for Historical Review in California. I knew Leon Degrelle, having spoken with him (through a translator) on the phone, as well as through correspondence. With all due respect to these two intrepid men, when it comes to exonerating Hitler for the death of Gregor, their belief in the standard revisionist account does not make it true. 

Reciting the titles of a couple of neo-Nazi publications does not prove anything. Degrelle’s Hitler Democrat is a publication by a Nazi loyalist who sets out to prove Hitler was not guilty of murdering the innocent in the Night of the Long Knives. To proceed a priori like that is not history, it’s propaganda. I began my study of Gregor Strasser fully open to the possibility—or probability—that he plotted a coup. In the course of our research we discovered that no credible historian believes Gregor was plotting a coup. All the evidence we located pointed to his innocence. It is a stain on Col. Degrelle’s record that in blind allegiance to Hitler he spread falsehoods about Gregor Strasser, an eminent German statesman and patriot whose murder robbed the nation of the leader they needed most.

Bringing a quasi-religious faith in Hitler to the domain of history will never bring you enlightenment or persuade others who do not share your faith. Demanding that I believe in the goodness of Hitler is similar to the mentality that demands that I believe in the existence of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz. Authentic revisionists worthy of the name reject demands for conformity of thought. We require facts. I presented my facts in Revisionist History no. 80. I have yet to see any tenable refutation of them. Until I do I will stick by them come hell or high water.

Refute my documentation specifically, and demonstrate in detail how it was that Gregor Strasser was a plotter, otherwise you have no case. 

Furthermore, in the matter of the slaughter known as the Night of the Long Knives of June 1934, Hitler gave a public, post-massacre speech in which he declared himself to be the supreme judge of the German people. If that’s the kind of leadership that serves as a template for our future renaissance then we are truly lost.

Dear Michael, 

You had already e-mailed me part of your philippic regarding Hitler and Strasser and I had quickly discarded it, thinking you must have been in some kind of bad mood or bad health…Then I received it by snail mail. Here are my comments: let’s forget about all the mistakes that I came across, and let’s suppose you were right: what on earth is the good of such a newsletter? Whom are you writing such a paper for? What do you want to prove now? I say: “Now.” That you are the best revisionist on earth because you are capable of criticizing Hitler? I can’t figure out the reason why you would write such a paper... If there are people who wish to see Hitler as a real saviour for Germany and certainly not the man guilty of bringing that country into ruins, well, why bother? How dare you write that Hitler brought utter ruin? Have you forgotten all that he did to avoid the war?

Paris, France 

Michael Hoffman,

Ive always read that Gregor Strasser and Ernst Röhm of the S.A. had tried to overthrow Hitler who then reacted to save his government. At any rate, I respect your scholarship and hold no ire toward you for your conclusion in this matter.

I do insist however that Suvorovs and J. Hoffmanns thesis is correct re: Stalins intention in 1941 to conquer all of Europe to the shores of PortugalBy thinking first, Hitler saved western Europe from Bolshevik tyranny.

Eugene, Oregon

Hoffman replies:

Dear Mr. R.

I don’t know what will happen when I write the newsletter on Hitler and Russia (in early 2016). Our people have such a strong certainty about the claim that Stalin was going to attack Germany first. 

If the facts say otherwise I can’t suppress them. The views are very strong because if Hitler attacked Russia needlessly then he is among the biggest fools in western history. 

Even you, who offer me respect in the aftermath of my biography of Strasser, insist on Suvorov and Joachim Hoffmann’s thesis that with his invasion of Russia Hitler preempted Stalin’s invasion of Germany and Europe. In the face of this insistence concerning what has become a dogma of revisionism (which insinuates that it has no dogmas), I will merrily proceed full speed ahead with the truth about this question wherever it takes me. I confess that I don’t want supporters who cannot endure the fire and heat of unfettered inquiry. The following words of Patrick Henry are my manifesto. Those who do not agree with them are welcome to depart for greener (or at least more comfortable), pastures: For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to hear the whole truth.” 

Dear Michael

I admire your courage. Keep telling the truth, come what may.
I am now on Social Security. I will try to help some next month. God bless you.

Bremen, Georgia



john said...

"Why expose the Hitler cult? Because I believe the Cryptocracy is behind it — to condition us to mentally envision and then help to arise another god-like dictator for the white people, who will bring us into utter ruin, as did the Führer to the German nation."

Hitler was just a tool of the Cryptocracy, plain and simple. The Nazi party was funded by Wall Street just as the Bolsheviks were. In the big picture of the war it appears Hitler did everything he could to lose it. He allowed the English army to escape across the channel. He sacrificed the 250,000 strong German sixth army at Stalingrad. He protected the traitor Borman until the end.

In my opinion, Hitler did not die in the bunker in May of 1945 but took the cowards way out and sleazed off to South America with Borman with all the cash under the protection of the cryptocracy.

Hitler was a slug. Let the Hitler cultists have him. My renewal will be in this week and I patiently await the next newsletter and the new book.

Al Ellis said...

"(Hitler's) talent as a first-class military strategist..."

To K.G.:

Hitler allowed the greater part of the British expeditionary force to be evacuated from Dunkirk by not having the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht work together, by having the Luftwaffe handle the RAF and the Royal Navy, and having the Wehrmacht surround and capture the British. Instead he followed the advice of Goring and Rundstedt and held the Wehrmacht back. (Various sources. If there is another version, I'd like to know.)

At the time of the Battle of Britain, when Churchill had civilian areas of Berlin bombed, Hitler took the bait by retaliating against civilian areas of Britain, thereby relieving pressure on the British airfields and allowing the RAF time to recover and turn the tide. (David Irving-in Hitler's War)

As the German invading force was approaching Moscow with nothing to stop them, Hitler ordered that the force be divided, one part going north toward Leningrad, the other going south toward Stalingrad. This gave time for Soviet reinforcements to arrive from east of the Urals and turn the tide. (I have a source, but will need to look it up)

Otto Juerging said...

I do not think Hitler is a god or infallible or anything like that but you are wrong to say that Hitler deliberately lost the war on purpose. Spies in the German high command were betraying battle plans and secrets to the British and Soviets. Also the Allies had broken the Enigma code. Hitler was prepared to have a negotiated peace but it was Roosevelt who kept the war going with his insistence on Unconditional Surrender. The July 1944 bomb plotters were in contact with US intelligence who informed Roosevelt of their plans. But he was insistent. It didn't matter if Hitler was killed or imprisoned Roosevelt demanded Unconditional Surrender no matter who was in charge -
You just have to look at what happened when Germany did surrender unconditionally - mass murder, rape, pillaging and looting by the Allies. -
As for Operation Barbarossa Stalin had a track record of breaking non aggression pacts. The pact with Poland was broken when Stalin invaded in September 1939. The pact with Finland was broken when Stalin invaded in November 1939. An increasing series of duplicitous actions led Hitler to believe Stalin was preparing to attack and he acted accordingly -

Dakota said...

Coincidentally I'd like to hone in on your astute observation regarding Hitler's contribution to the Cryptocracy and comment as John did earlier:

"Why expose the Hitler cult? Because I believe the Cryptocracy is behind it — to condition us to mentally envision and then help to arise another god-like dictator for the white people, who will bring us into utter ruin, as did the Führer to the German nation."

I couldn't agree more with you Michael! Perhaps this is another reason for the commentariat obsession with personality and celebrity i.e. From Obama and the messianic propaganda that was used throughout his first political campaign; to the media pundits never-ending positivity over Pope "he can do no wrong" Francis; to the mass idolatry over Trump, etc.

At the same time I wonder if the Eternal God of Israel will raise another European dictator in the mold of Pharaoh of Egypt or the Assyrian Sargon II to be used, as I believe Hitler was, of God to correct a Christ-rejecting and Bible-rejecting apostate America that has transformed into a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah?! Time will soon tell I guess...

anastasia said...

Dear Mr. Hoffman: You can write all the Hitler is the Devil stories you want. It's a free country. You will have a large reading audience for your Hitler is the Devil stories, but the Revisionsts will not be one of them. They are not what you so insultingly call cult members, but are simply sick and tired of Hitler is the Devil stories which they read, hear and watch morning, noon and night. Anastasia

Michael Hoffman said...

To “anastasia”

If you’re not a cultist why do you lie and claim I say that Adolf Hitler was a “devil”?

I have never said anything approximating so lurid a description. His evil was banal and on par with the evil of Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin.

It is interesting that you presume to speak for all revisionists with the supposition that revisionism is synonymous with Hitlerism. The insinuation is a grave disservice to authentic revisers of received opinion, including the opinions of members of the Hitler cult.

Blissentia said...

Michael Hoffman said...

To Blissentia

I will be replying to this article referenced at the URL you have provided above. I will attempt to correct its many mistakes, not the least of which is the characterization of Feder’s fate, after Hitler betrayed the anti-usury plank of the original NSDAP. It was nowhere near as mild as portrayed in the article.

I have lately come across material on WWII Nazi usury and its ties to the network around Allen W. Dulles in Bern, Switzerland.

I will say more when I have the time. Thank you.

Andrea Carancini said...

Dear Michael,
I totally agree with your point of view. I think this book could be also of interest:
A kind regard and my full appreciation for your precious work!
andrea carancini