by Vaughn Klingenberg for Veterans Today
Editor’s note: We do love controversy and freedom of speech.
Adolf Hitler, himself, in many ways was a tragic figure. He never married. He never had children. And, while he intended to save humankind, instead, he has been vilified with the epithet of being the most hated man—and most evil ruler—in human history (at least here in the West).
How can anyone say that Hitler was a tragic figure when he was directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions? How can anyone even suggest such an absurdity! Such a person cannot be reasoned with but instead he should be shouted down with contempt! How ridiculous! How absurd! He must be a Nazi-lover and a Hitlerophile!
Before you form a knee-jerk opinion of what I write, I ask that you approach my speculations with an open mind. What I write may be right or it may be wrong.
All I ask is that, like a good judge, you refrain from forming an opinion until after I have had my say. Before we can arrive at an honest opinion of Hitler, we first need to understand his genealogy.
According to the death-row confession of Hans Frank, the Governor-General of Nazi occupied Poland, he was assigned to discover Hitler’s ancestry. More specifically, he was to discover whether Hitler had Jewish blood.
In Frank’s confession he revealed that Adolf Hitler’s father, Alois Schickelgruber, was the illegitimate offspring of a wealthy Jew named Leopold Frankenberger. Frankenberger impregnated Hitler’s grandmother, Maria, when she worked as a servant in Frankenberger’s household in Graz, Austria, and the child of that union was Alois Schickelgruber, Adolf Hitler’s father.
Alois did not hide the fact that he was illegitimate, and the young Adolf undoubtedly knew of his father’s bastard roots. (In fact, one account of Hitler’s change of family name is that he was ashamed of his father’s Jewish illegitimacy, and he chose the name “Hitler” because of its connotation with the ancient, conquering people, the Hittites, ancestors [and ancient enemies] of the Jews and foundational forefathers of the Indo-European languages.
In other words, he may have taken some solace in proto-Jewish, Hittite ancestry. This would also account, in part, for his interest in racial purity.)
Establishing Hitler as de facto Jewish has profound ramifications, and casts a fruitful interpretive lens on him and his behavior.
For example, according to the Nuremberg racial purity laws, only someone with at least three generations of unadulterated German blood (whatever that means) could call themselves authentically “German.” If this is the case, then it would expose the promulgator of the racial purity laws as, himself, of impure stock—even worse, he was of Jewish stock!
As a consequence, he could be stripped of his full German citizenship and—theoretically at least—be sent to a concentration camp as well! Furthermore, since the most common events which required an account of one’s lineage was either marriage or the fathering of a child, Hitler was in the extremely odd position of promulgating racial purity laws which he himself would not pass. I think this goes a long way to explain why Hitler never married or even had illegitimate offspring.
Were he to do so, his buried secret—that he himself had Jewish lineage—would necessarily be exposed to the public, and he would be seen to be both a sham and a hypocrite. Anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism were foundational planks of Nazi political doctrine.
Hitler’s shielded parentage may go a long way in accounting for Hitler’s curiosity about, knowledge of, and eventual hatred for, the Jewish community. Hitler did have skeletons in his closet which he chose to keep hidden up until his very final breath.
Now let us turn to the Jewish defined “Holocaust”, and cast some light on this event. While an equal number of non-Jews—homosexuals, intellectuals, political dissidents, Gypsies…etc.—died in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany, the term “Holocaust” (Hebrew, “burnt offering”) has been reserved for the Jews who were incarcerated and died in prison camps during World War II.
What the Jewish community has done by labeling their suffering as “The Holocaust” is that they have effectively marginalized the deaths of non-Jews at the camps. By reserving the term “Holocaust” to include only Jewish suffering, they have self-servingly appropriated for themselves, and themselves alone, the totality of the suffering in the camps.
We do not have an inclusive term in English for the sufferings of both Jews and Gentiles in the camps. I would like to designate the term “the Carnage” to account for both Jewish and Gentile suffering there.
A question that often arises when the Holocaust is discussed is why didn’t the Allies bomb the so-called “death camps” so as to allow for some of the victims of the Carnage to escape, presumably, from certain death?
The standard answer given is that the Allied High Command had no knowledge that the Carnage was taking place—it was only discovered when advancing Allied troops stumbled, unknowingly, across the camps. This, of course, is utter hogwash. There is a curious scene at the very end of the film Casablanca (1942) where, just before the German officer is shot he is standing next to a canister of gas.
Just a coincidence or, in today’s parlance, “product placement” to clue the cognoscenti about what was happening in German occupied Europe, and how the Germans were going to pay for what they were doing.
Furthermore, while it was a terrible thing to see the emaciated prisoners liberated by Allied troops, it needs to be mentioned that Germany was suffering a famine in the last year of the war, and POWs naturally would be at the very bottom of the food chain when it came to distributing foodstuffs. Naturally, the effects of the famine would be most pronounced there.
The Jewish community likes to define the concentration camps as “death camps”, but if they were in fact “death camps” then why did literally hundreds of thousands of prisoners survive them? It is very easy to imagine that out of frustration over the constant carpet-bombing of civilian centers (i.e., cities), and feelings of impotence over their impending defeat that the Nazi’s would have ordered the wholesale slaughter of all prison camp inmates, but that never happened.
In fact, in the Jewish author Elie Wiesel’s book, Night, he chronicles how he and his father were herded out of a camp and evacuated from the Auschwitz camp just as the Russians were approaching. The question I would put to Mr. Wiesel, is “Why would the Germans even bother herding you away from the camp when they much more easily could simply have shot you and be done with it?”
It sapped manpower from the front to be guarding hundreds of thousands of prisoners. Furthermore, I would argue that every so-called “death camp survivor” is an argument against the camps being primarily factories of death.
To return to the question why the camps were not bombed, I suspect that Allied intelligence had determined that it was safer for a Jew to be in the camp than to attempt to liberate them by bombing the camp.
Furthermore, there is a public relations issue here. Had the Allies bombed the camps it would have been an acknowledgment that one reason for the war was to free Jews incarcerated by the Nazis, and Charles Lindbergh, the famous aviator and leader of the isolationist movement here in the US, was roundly criticized by the eastern Jewish-establishment American press for arguing that it was the Jews who where inciting the U.S. to enter World War II.
Roosevelt, an archenemy of Lindbergh and a Freemason himself, had to be very careful not to appear as a lap-dog for the Jewish community. There was a great deal of anti-Jewishism in Minnesota and the United States in the early part of last century, and if the average GI came to believe that he was fighting the Nazis on behalf of the Jewish community, it could cause soldiers to question their resolve.
Therefore, any suggestion that the war was a war for Jewish liberation would have found an unreceptive audience in the average GI. (All this of course reminds me of Abraham Lincoln’s famous, yet rarely quoted, remark that he would allow slavery if only the Southern States would remain within the Union. In other words, the plight of the black slave was really of no fundamental concern for Lincoln, he simply wanted to keep the United States intact.
Of course history has whitewashed Lincoln’s position on slavery and has come to portray him, incorrectly, as a die-hard abolitionist, a man who wanted to free the slaves—but if this were truly so, then why in the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1st, 1863 did Lincoln only free slaves in the Confederate States—not in the border states such as Missouri; in fact, even in some of the Union-loyalist parishes in the Confederate States themselves slavery was still permissible even after the Emancipation Proclamation!)
The point I am making here is that just as your average Union solider may have thrown down his arms if he were told that he was fighting to free the slaves during the American Civil War, similarly, if you average American GI came to believe that he was actually fighting for the Jewish community (which he really was) in picking up arms in World War II and combating the Nazis, he too may have thrown down his arms.
A common topic at the turn of the 20th Century but never discussed today is the so-called “Jewish Question”. Simply put, it asks what exactly do we do with a Jewish community that, for their own personal aggrandizement, has as one of its guiding motivations to exploit and harm non-Jews.
More specifically, it asks, “How does an open society deal with a crypto-conspiratorial group that mutually and reciprocally promotes its own members to the highest levels of government, business, intelligence agencies…etc., not on the basis of merit but instead on the basis that they will work in unison to further promote the agenda and individuals within that society, an agenda that is explicitly harmful to persons outside that society?”
As a corollary to their own view of their own superiority is a concomitant belief in the sub-human status of those outside the “Tribe”, if you will. This ideology perfectly matches the ideology of the Orthodox Jewish community, and it is important to remember that the Orthodox community only began to splinter in the mid-19th Century.
According to the Halakah, non-Jews are to be treated as a means merely. In fact, the death of a non-Jew in many ways is to be celebrated (see Orwell’s remark in 1984, where he says that if you wish to see a vision of the future, imaging a [Jewish] jackboot smashing a [Gentile] skull…forever!).
Question: why wasn’t Hitler assassinated well before he became Chancellor of Germany? His antipathy for the Jews was well known many years before he became Chancellor and the traditional Jewish method of assassination was poisoning, so he very easily could have been killed before he took office or, for that matter, after he assumed office.
Answer: Jew does not kill Jew, and the Jewish community believed they could eventually turn, co-opt, or compromise Hitler.
Were Hitler a full-blooded German he certainly would have been assassinated. In the Jewish mind, the death of 1000 Gentiles does not tip the scale when a single Jew is held in the balance. This reciprocity may also explain why Hitler very likely never ordered the extermination of the Jews.
There was an unspoken, but understood, tacit agreement that they are not to kill one another. An unspoken quid pro quo existed between Hitler and the Jews. And don’t forget that Hitler’s primary solution to the Jewish Question was not incarceration.
He did want other countries to accept the Jews from German territory but this option failed with the failure of the Avian Conference in 1938 (called, oddly, by the Freemason, President Roosevelt; why the American President would call such a conference to be held on European soil [Avian is in France] instead of the leader of France or England calling the meeting, speaks to the widespread anti-Jewishism in those countries; it was simply not politically viable for the leadership in those neighboring countries to accept a massive influx of Jews; the native, non-Jewish, populations would not accept this.)
Needless to say, Germany itself attended the Avian meeting and led the mission to relocate the Jews. In other words, Nazi Germany was willing to negotiate and attempted to find a way to rid itself of the Jewish population—Nazi Germany’s initial strategy regarding the Jewish population was to peacefully resettle them.
They did not intend right from the start to engage in the mass extermination of the Jews as some Holocaust scholars would have you believe.
In fact, Hitler and the Nazis, via the Haavara Agreement, signed on 25 August 1933, wished to resettle Jews to Palestine before the War broke out, but this option was ended with the invasion of Poland and France and England’s declaration of war in 1939.
Another reported Nazi solution was to resettle the Jewish population to the island of Madagascar, I don’t think was completely disingenuous. The point there was to find a haven for the Jews far away from civilized society where they could not exploit and harm a native European population. The Jews would be allowed to be a Master Race if they wished, but only over black Africans, not white Europeans.
It is also important to realize that Nazi Germany was willing to negotiate a conditional surrender late in the war, but the Allied leadership declared that they would only accept “unconditional surrender”. (In fact, even early in the war when Nazi Germany was at the pinnacle of success, Rudolf Hess, the Reich Minister without Portfolio, took a highly unusual flight to England on May 10th, 1941, to negotiate a peace with England; instead, of course, he was immediately captured, arrested, and imprisoned, only to die some 45 years later, alone, in Spandau Prison in Russian-controlled East Berlin.)
After the disastrous defeat at Stalingrad and certainly after the failure to regain the offensive after the failed offensive at Kursk in the summer of 1943, the Nazis were willing to surrender, but only conditionally (i.e., most likely only if the Nazi hierarchy could escape punishment).
The consequence of the Allied policy of unconditional surrender was that there was no incentive for the Nazi leadership to surrender and bring to an early conclusion—as early as the spring of 1943—to the suffering, death, and carnage of World War II. One reason—dare I say the most prominent reason—for not agreeing to a conditional surrender on the part of the Nazi’s is that that would inevitably entail an investigation into the causes of the war and the legitimacy of Nazi charges against the Jewish community.
Since the ruling Jewish establishment did not want the spotlight of public opinion shown on their own culpability for the war, necessarily, the Allied leadership (both Roosevelt and Churchill were Freemasons incidentally) eschewed anything less that unconditional surrender.
The consequent additional war profiteering by the Establishment and crypto-Establishment was added gravy, so to speak, for the continuation of the war. Here it is important to acknowledge that even if you believe Jews in some way are superior to non-Jews, literally hundreds of thousands of Jews could have escaped death had the Allies been willing to negotiate a Nazi surrender a full two years before the war actually ended. While hundreds of thousands of Jews would have been saved, so also would have been—literally—millions of non-Jews.
Let us turn now to the Holocaust itself. It is interesting to note that not a single document has ever been found linking Hitler with authorizing the Holocaust—this in spite of the fact that hundreds of scholars have searched for decades to find such a link. Instead, what they have provided us with it the ambiguous phrase, “The Final Solution”; implicitly, that is (of course!) a euphemism to the cognoscenti.
Hitler really authorized the Holocaust; he simply used the phrase “Final Solution” to disguise his true purpose. While I have not read the totality of the scholarship on the phrase, “The Final Solution”, it certainly is not clear to me in any manner whatsoever that Hitler actually meant the extermination of the Jewish community when that phrase was employed.
The “Final Solution” could mean the expulsion of Jews, the forced immigration of Jews, the incarceration of Jews in concentration camps…etc. but there is no transparent link with that obviously ambiguous phrase and the notion of the mass extermination of the Jews. Supposedly we are to—wink, wink, nod, nod—“understand” the crypto-speech of the Nazis; by accepting the received and accepted opinion on the meaning of the phrase “The Final Solution” we too can feel ourselves a part of the cognoscenti, a part of the knowers, a part of the intellectual elite who really knows what the Nazis were up to with their purported euphemistic phrasing.
I don’t recall ever reading any literature ever calling into question the meaning of the phrase, “The Final Solution”; it is simply taken as a given, an unexamined premise–an unnecessary to question, accepted code word–that we all (of course) understand. I, instead, would argue that pro-Jewish scholars have themselves invented the euphemistic meaning—after all, they could not find a non-euphemistic, explicit link connecting Hitler with the Holocaust–and then they applied it, retroactively, to reveal to us (according to their suspect interpretation) Hitler’s purported secret agenda. (I do not have time here to analyze the sociology and function of the gatekeepers and arbiters of orthodox scholarship in the academic community or in the Media.)
With the above in mind, once again, doesn’t anyone anywhere find it curious that there is not a single document linking Hitler with authorizing the Holocaust. If I were a Nazi functionary responsible for gassing Jews, I know that I would make damn certain I would keep any even remotely pertinent document which I could later use to exculpate my behavior.
I would at least want to be able to declare that I was merely “following orders”—the so-called Nuremberg defense—and at least have a piece of paper, an official Nazi document, to back up my claim. Curiously, however, with respect to the Holocaust, if everyone was merely following orders, and only Hitler gave the orders, then whose orders were being followed since Hitler did not order the Holocaust?
One opinion is that lower level Nazi functionaries, deluged with a mass of prisoners it was impossible to feed, took it upon themselves to perform triage, so to speak, decide who most likely would survive the starvation conditions in the camp, and who would not. There is even a bizarre modicum of mercy in this version of triage—not waste resources on those who would probably die anyway and conserve the remaining resources for those who likely would live to see the end of the war. At least this may pertain to some of the overseers at some of the camps.
The Nuremberg defense. Presumably all the Nazi leadership, short of Hitler, claimed that they were merely following orders, so that they are not directly culpable for their behavior. However, it is important to know what was denied, and what was permitted, the Nazi defendants.
First of all, the German defendants could not introduce evidence of Allied atrocities in an effort to provide a tu quoque defense; in other words, the Allies were equally guilty of war crimes and therefore they are not in a position to judge the Nazis. For example, the notorious fire bombing of Dresden. It occurred on the 13th , 14th, and 15th of February in 1945, long after the war was won by the Allies.
What few scholars tell you however is that the 13th of February was Shrove Tuesday, the time of confession and penance in England, and 773 Lancastrian English bombers flew the sortie on the 13th.
That is why the British bombed on that specific Tuesday, because unlike in the U.S., Shrove Tuesday for the British is a time of penance, not celebration. In Dresden, on the other hand, it was a time of no doubt stiff-lipped celebration—German parents desperately trying to show some kind of levity to please their famished and suffering children on a Christian holy day designated for revelry, that is, until the bombers appeared at 9:30 pm that evening.
On the very next day, Ash Wednesday—yes, Ash Wednesday—American bombers returned to fire bomb the city yet again and incinerate the civilian inhabitants. The abominable purpose of the subsequent American bombings—527 heavy bombers over the 14th and 15th–was to kill Germans attempting to recover the dead and injured. Anglo-American scholars have downplayed the death toll, but even an extremely conservative estimate puts 60,000 civilians and refuges as having died (my estimate would be closer to 200,000).
The Allies had discovered that by creating an intense firestorm in the center of a city it would necessarily create a vacuum resulting in tremendous wind currents sucking fleeing women, children, and the infirm back into the belly of the flame. The premeditated, calculated evil of such an atrocity boggles the mind, and is on par, certainly, with any of the evil the Nazis were accused of.
Not only was the “area bombing”–the British euphemism for targeting, in a deliberate, admittedly (even by the British) terroristic fashion, nonmilitary, civilian centers, so as to weaken the resolve of the enemy—of Dresden timed to coincide with the onset of the Christian season of Lent, Dresden was also internationally famous for being the heart of the Reformation movement in Christianity.
Hitherto Dresden had never—yes, never—been bombed by Allied aircraft, and it was the sixth largest city in Germany and, because there were no military targets in the city, it had virtually no anti-aircraft defense with which to defend itself. Instead, the British and the Americans timed the horrific attack to fall on Shrove Tuesday and Ash Wednesday, and they selected Dresden as a target in a psychological war campaign to signal to the Nazis that the Nazi Reformation of calling the Jewish community to account has now been totally obliterated in fire, smoke, and ashes.
It was a final aerial coup d’grace directed against the German civilian population. The absolute evil of the Allied political and military establishment is difficult to imagine with respect to what they did to Dresden, and this is only one example. (I suspect that one of the motives of the Nazi functionaries who eventually authored the Holocaust is that they were taking out on the Jewish community what the Allied bombers were taking out on German civilian population; I suspect at least as many civilians died in “area bombing” as died in the whole of the Carnage.)
Second, a crime was invented after the war, Crimes Against Humanity, in order to prosecute the Nazi crimes against, fundamentally, the Jewish community. (Curiously, or not so curiously, the Jews are equated with the whole of humanity.) Promulgating a law after the commission of an act and then prosecuting someone for a crime that did not exist before the act has long been seen as a violation of due process.
Theoretically, such an ex post facto law could be used to prosecute, for example, someone for belonging to a political party that is now in disfavor according to the current existing ruling political establishment. For this reason alone, the Nuremberg trials were a sham. In war, morality most often goes by the boards, only to be reapplied–one-sidedly–by the victor against the vanquished, after the war is won. We have a classic example of this here.
Finally, why may we suspect that Hitler would have opposed the Holocaust had he know about it, and how did both the Allies and the defeated German population benefit by scape-goatting Hitler? There are several compelling reasons why it is doubtful Hitler was aware of the Holocaust.
First of all, he was part Jewish himself, and even though he felt antipathy for the Jews, he could see himself as being one of them.
Second, it was because Hitler had a compromised Jewish lineage that he could not marry or have children—he did not have three generations of “pure” German blood, so he was not unaware of his compromised status. He even had a Nazi official, Hans Frank, investigate his own lineage, and Frank in fact discovered that Hitler’s very own father was the illegitimate son of a Jew.
Third, Hitler tried to expel the Jews from Germany but no other country would take them, so he was thwarted in this desirable solution. Since no other country would take the Jews, he even proposed, that they be relocated to Palestine.
Fourth, there is absolutely no documentary evidence explicitly linking Hitler with the Holocaust (in spite of decades of investigation by Jewish scholars and in spite of the self-interest of Nazi officials charged with being complicitors in the Holocaust). Instead all we have is the self-serving, ambiguous tag, “The Final Solution.”
Fifth, Hitler was very likely aware of the Jewish code that they never kill one of their own (he, himself, after all, was spared from being poisoned), and there was ample opportunity to poison Hitler years before the outbreak of World War II, when his anti-Jewishism was widely known.
Last of all, then, how do both the Allies and the German population benefit by scape-goatting Hitler with authoring the Holocaust? Simple. By trumpeting the Nazi method of defense at the Nuremberg trail as the “Nuremberg Defense” the Allies propagated the notion that the Germans were all merely obedient functionaries of Hitler; Germans, of course, are notoriously obedient, so it fit in right with that stereotype. They were simply “following orders.”
Consequently, using this logic, only the Fuhrer, the “leader”, was responsible for giving orders and if he gave immoral orders it was he who was the only one directly responsible for the results of those orders. By allowing the Germans to excuse their behavior by employing the Nuremberg Defense, in effect, the Allies nominally conceded that only one person, the maniacal and hypnotic Adolf Hitler, was responsible for the crimes that took place under his regime.
As a consequence, there was never any need to investigate the root causes of Jewish anti-Gentilism that gave rise to Hitler and Nazism. This could all be neatly swept under the rug. On this score, it also benefited the Allies. By blaming the totality of the war on Hitler, they were able to paper over his legitimate complaints against the Jewish community; Nazism was merely the inexplicable aberration, demagoguery, and ravings of a hateful, yet hypnotic, madman.
Both the victorious Allies and the defeated Germans (to salve their conscience) jointly conspired to blame the totality of the war on only one man, a man who in fact saw himself as a liberator not a villain, a man who wished to free non-Jews from the overweening pride and contempt of a self-proclaimed Jewish Master Race that, unbeknownst to Gentiles, was incrementally, yet relentlessly, ruthlessly, mercilessly, and inexorably forging their own chains—i.e., members of the Orthodox Jewish community.
That man was Adolf Hitler—a man who, I believe, would have stopped the Carnage, and the Holocaust, had he known about it.
© 2018 Mr. Vaughn Klingenberg, MN USA 55113
Related VT article, information on Kurt Eisner: