Our thanks go to the many people who sent an e-mail with regard to the July, 2018 issue of our Revisionist History® newsletter.
We were happy to see that most were from subscribers who took the time to read what we wrote first before making a comment.
Others were from folks who wanted to restate the standard tale in the expectation that I have not read Icebreaker or a couple of the other books that seek to absolve Hitler of responsibility for the Russian invasion disaster. I am fully conversant with the thesis which has not been updated over the years in response to new revelations from the archives. Our article in the July newsletter is predicated on those findings. It’s too bad that for many people Nazism is a religion and Hitler the chief idol. They are afflicted with two unfortunate, self-sabotaging traits: 1. Little or no curiosity about historical discoveries that threaten their Nazi religion and 2. What psychologists term “confirmation bias” — reading only those sources which tend to confirm one’s preconceived ideas. With such people, whether they are true believers in the homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz, or true believers in Adolf Hitler, they exhibit the same mentality; their minds are frozen.
A few years ago, when we published in Revisionist History® no. 80 a study of the life of Gregor Strasser and his murder by Hitler, we lost approximately 20% of our subscribers. One lady who left us had been a consistent donor and subscriber. She was infuriated by the article because in his book Hitler Democrat, Leon Degrelle had said that Strasser was a guilty plotter who deserved to be killed. Strasser was no such thing. Colonel Degrelle was repeating Nazi propaganda. What is more useless than the party line? What is more tragic than human beings who swallow it?
The revisionist vocation is a re-visioning of every human belief in the face of new information when it contradicts the old. Some of those who say they are revisionists are not. For them revisionism is a means to an end — rehabilitation of the reputation of Hitler. The revisionist epistemology itself is of no interest to such people. In fact, they betray it with their assent to virtually any disinformation that buttresses their “side.” Revisionist history takes no sides. It follows the truth wherever it leads.
We witness the Auschwitz execution gas chamber true believer mentality among these ersatz revisionists — only their sacred relic is Hitler, not mass extermination gas chambers in Auschwitz. But make no mistake — the mentality is the same. We have no time or patience with this grotesque pantomime of the thought process.
A few of the e-mails we have received and our replies:
This issue was hands-down one of your best. If the Hitlerophiles still think that Hitler got a raw deal from the allied historiographers, then your revisionist revelation of new material and trenchant interpretation should give them significant pause in their hopes to make of his image a quasi-Teutonic Phoenix coming out of the ashes. Bloody good show!
Your paper on Hitler in the latest edition of your newsletter is excellent and compelling. I was a specialist in Russian-Soviet studies for many years and it was my privilege to go through thousands of documents pertaining to the German invasion of Russia.
I agree that Hitler believed the war could be easily won with Russia, but only initially, and only briefly. He was still under the delusion he could make peace with England and that the U.S. would remain neutral until Germany achieved a victory in the USSR. Even before war plans were drawn up he realized this would not be the case, but pushed on to save face. The delusion of an easy victory was perpetrated by some of his generals, even though they knew by early September that a grave miscalculation had been made. Goebbels ordered that soldiers being sent to the Eastern Front not be outfitted with winter clothes to prolong the illusion that the Eastern Front war would be over by Christmas.
Many of the generals were afraid to stand up for the soldiers, whose death by exposure and sometimes starvation was one of the most forced mass suicides in military history....
Thanks for another terrific newsletter!
Michael Hoffman replies:
I appreciate your remarks though I dissent in one respect. You write:
“I agree that Hitler believed the war could be easily won with Russia, but only initially, and only briefly....Even before war plans were drawn up he realized this would not be the case, but pushed on to save face. The delusion of an easy victory was perpetrated by some of his generals...”
Hitler was in fact the driving force behind the belief that Russia could be conquered as an act of will and that it would occur in 1941, and not later. His generals followed suit, but they did not initiate the delusion; responsibility for it rests with Hitler.
I draw your attention to his first speech to the nation since he had ordered the invasion of Russia in June — this was given on October 3, 1941 in Berlin at the annual Kriegswinterhilfswerk (Winter War Relief organization), wherein he predicted the imminent end of the war on the eastern front.
Regarding Soviet Russia, Hitler told the German people, “...this opponent has already broken down and will never rise again!” (Cf. Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations, 1932-1945, vol iv, p. 2494 [Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 2004]).
He was so confident of this preposterous delusion that he openly admitted in his speech that he was shifting German industrial production away from the desperate needs of his infantry, an act of criminal incompetence and betrayal of the troops:
“Today it is only a question of transport. Today we have taken care in advance so that, in the midst of this war of materiel, I can order further production in many spheres to cease, because I know there is no opponent whom we would not be able to defeat with the existing amounts of ammunition” (cf. Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations, 1932-1945, vol iv, p. 2494 [Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 2004]).
From Joe T:
AS a very long standing admirer of almost everything written by Mike Hoffman I couldn't believe my eyes when reading what you wrote below.
You leave out everything of real relevance.
1. Hitlers attack on June 22, was pre emptive. Stalin planned to attack Germany soon after June.
And in that sense I think it almost certain that Stalin would have won soon after....which would have been greatly beneficial for everyone including the Germans.
( see the writings of Victor Suvarov and especially Hitler himself. Also Gerard Menuhin also agrees with Suvarov etc).
2. Without ... the massive, gigantic aid to Stalin from the West the Soviets would have collapsed already in early 1942 if not earlier.
I don't think you have ever studied the enormous quantities of aid from the West to the Soviets....starting immediately after June '41 ... if not earlier.
15 million pairs of boots from England.
British planes were already used in the defence of Moscow in 1941.
Every kind of military and industrial aid was given.
As Solzenitsen said...."" we (in the Russian army) would have all starved to death if not for our cans of American stew.
I knew German soldiers who in 1941 captured Soviet soldiers who had rags tied around their feet instead of shoes.
Without the gigantic aid from the West the Soviets had NOTHING...nothing but hungry empty handed men.
Michael Hoffman replies
Dear Mr. T.
Your main points are refuted in the current July issue as well as in Revisionist History® no. 82, “Did Stalin Want War with Hitler?”
Quoting Hitler in his own defense is not exactly a conclusive argument against our thesis. Victor Suvarov’s book (Icebreaker) is the standard apologia. It is not a classic (except to true believers) but obsolete, in light of recent data.
Take the time to study our current issue and then respond.
On Jul 24, 2018, at 13:05, W.B.
Well written article. Up until your recent articles on the subject I always thought Hitler did what he thought he had to do to protect Germany; I'm now rethinking that. Was he in the employ of the "Shadow Men" and he intentionally destroyed his country? Or was he a egomaniac who thought he could save Europe, but foolishly overstepped his limits? A lot to think about. Is your concern about the right wing’s attempt to sanitize Hitler that we will fall under his psychological influence today and again follow a leader who will promise a utopia he can't deliver?
Michael Hoffman replies:
Dear Mr. B.
In our opinion, the Cryptocracy wants to confine the movement for rights for white people largely to neo-Nazi contours, either directly or indirectly.
The issue is one of leadership. The neocons are often accused of messianic ambitions in foreign policy and of course the Israeli state, but is not the neo-Nazi model most guilty of this messianism? Is there any National Socialism without a single, messiah-like figure at the head, heedless, as was the Church of Rome at the First Vatican Council, of the truth that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?
Hitler put himself above Germany. He wanted Germany to prevail as a reflection of his own genius. An occult mindset and mandate is apparent in his Russia policy, militarily and diplomatically. Russia was supposed to be conquered by the collective will of five million apprentice magicians in the Wehrmacht and SS, under the direction of the Master Magician.
The concept reads like a Hollywood B-movie script, which is one reason why for years we had difficulty countenancing it. A deeper study of Operation Barbarossa shows it to be tragically all-too true. I don’t believe Hitler was working for anyone other than himself first, and the German nation a distant second. The future of the German people after the Third Reich mattered not to him. He threw that future away on a gamble—of becoming a military genius who succeeded where even Napoleon had not.
I have heard a great deal over the years about the “masonic American revolution.” Many Freemasons were involved in the revolution; some of them guilty of evil acts, such as Benjamin Franklin (see here: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RH7H7TT73VDC/ref=cm_cr_othr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0300217498).
Some joined the masonic order in that era in the manner in which alienated youths joined the hippie movement in the late 1960s and early ‘70s and then becoming disillusioned with the hypocrisy, dropped out later in life. George Washington did the same with Freemasonry and Jefferson was never a member.
Modern Americans have little or no understanding of the depths of revulsion in 1776 against the Calvinist and Roman churches over the Old World's fratricidal wars of religion. America was founded with the intent to allow no such fratricide in the New World and Freemasonry exploited that noble aspiration by falsely pretending to be a brotherhood outside of ideology and against priestcraft, when it was actually a church with a dogma at least as rigid as the ones it claimed to oppose.
A certain someone once stated, “By their fruits you shall know them." The fruits of the U.S. leadership in the early Republic were generally fine: Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason and the other limited government freedom-seekers and advocates made good on many (though not all) aspects of the promise of the American Revolution. If they were not themselves Christians most were shaped and formed from deep immersion in the Christian culture into which they were born. Their early American model of leadership was a formula for peace, freedom and success.
Hitler rejected all of that. He harkened back to a pre-Christian model of the potentate, which we find so often in the Orient, even though he and his cohort repeatedly sneered at Russia as an “Asiatic" state.
As we argued in Revisionist History no. 82, contrary to the Icebreaker thesis, Stalin feared war with Hitler and the Wehrmacht, and relished the prospect of Hitler destroying Britain. There was no immediate threat from Russia in 1941 and none foreseeable in 1942. The Non-Aggression Pact was holding. Stalin was shipping Hitler vital supplies of oil, grain and rare metals.
In issue no. 82 we pointed to Hitler’s immersion in the Wagnerian myth of Götterdämmerung. He would gamble on pursuing his impossible aims and if his will did not triumph and the German people would have to face the ruinous consequences of his folly — an apocalypse — well, it only meant that they were “unworthy” of him. In this Götterdämmerung scenario, there was zero future for Germany after the demise of the führer.
Neo-Nazis often speak of “irresponsible” welfare-chiselers and black ghetto dwellers in America who won’t face the consequences of their actions and only make excuses for their failure. Yet this is what I see the neo-Nazis exhibiting with regard to their idol: everyone was to blame for getting the German people massacred, Prussia lost and the remnant of Germany occupied and divided, except poor Adolf. It was Churchill or Roosevelt or Eisenhower’s fault. It was the fault of the Communists for having the nerve to mount a vigorous defense in Russia that Hitler did not anticipate. The neo-Nazis who preach to the colored races about taking responsibility, absolve their idol of almost all responsibility for the firestorm his catastrophic fantasies and bumbling egoism brought down upon Germany.
Germany would have been infinitely better off had Hitler never been born — so too the world — no “Israel” on Palestinian land in the Middle East, no “Holocaust” agit-prop, comparatively little stigma on exposing Talmudism or Zionism — tens of millions of Germans alive to reproduce and build on one of history’s great civilizations, admired world-wide as "the people of Bach and Beethoven."
We could debate this until doomsday. I am only interested in results however, and the result of Hitler’s rule was a Götterdämmerung for Germany. If some type of closet Nazism is reanimated it will also end in ashes for the whites who adopt it. Here’s the winner's formula: We will have no King (or “führer) but Jesus.
Please note: We are grateful for the e-mail feedback received. I do not however, have time available to debate this matter further online. Those who have curiosity about new discoveries in history can order issue no. 97 or issue no. 82, or both, and determine for themselves who is and is not in error on this subject. These days too little effort is devoted to deep study. (As with issue 82, issue no. 80 on Gregor Strasser, “Hitler had him Murdered,” can be ordered and paid by credit card with an invoice we can e-mail to you).
To budding revisionist researchers our advice is to search for data that undercuts your beliefs and if those beliefs remain intact after having consulted sophisticated contrarian views, you can proceed on course; otherwise you must re-vision. Those outside this process cannot be taken seriously. They are cheerleaders for a partisan side.
Michael Hoffman is the editor of Revisionist History®