← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr
Thread ID: 18584 | Posts: 33 | Started: 2005-06-08
2005-06-08 18:30 | User Profile
Still having doubts that Adolf Hitler was a traitor to Western culture with his anti-Christian, anti-Slav, pro-Japan, Germany-uber-literally-alles ideology?
Check out this quotation - it makes him look about as stupid as your average blindly anti-Christian VNN Forum poster...
He actually regrets that Charles Martel defeated Muslims at Poitiers and that Muslims didn't take over Europe!
[COLOR=DarkRed][B]"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -Already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity!- Then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so." [/B]
(August 28, 1942)
"[I]Hitler's Table Talk; 1941-1944[/I]" translated by N. Cameron and R.H. Stevens, Enigma Books (1953)[/COLOR]
Perhaps not surprising from a man who openly expressed his admiration for that great slayer of Greek and Armenian Christians, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk:
[COLOR=Blue]"Turkey was our ally in the World War. The unfortunate outcome of that struggle weighed upon that country just as heavily as it did upon us.
"[B]The great genius who created the new Turkey was the first to set a wonderful example of recovery to our allies [/B] whom fortune had at that time deserted and whom fate had dealt so terrible a blow.[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/speeches/1941-05-04.html[/url]
Petr
2005-06-08 18:39 | User Profile
I've been reading Table Talk.
My impression is that the man just went on and on and on in front of an endless parade of sycophants who were so scared of him that they just nodded their heads and smiled warmly at whatever inanity he happened to be spewing at the moment.
I can't imagine that even Hitler took a lot of what he said seriously.
2005-06-08 18:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Still having doubts that Adolf Hitler was a traitor to Western culture with his anti-Christian, anti-Slav, pro-Japan, Germany-uber-literally-alles ideology? [/QUOTE]
No more of a traitor to Western culture than Churchill & FDR.
2005-06-08 18:59 | User Profile
[COLOR=Purple][I][B] - "No more of a traitor to Western culture than Churchill & FDR."[/B][/I][/COLOR]
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Petr
2005-06-08 19:18 | User Profile
My impression is that the man just went on and on and on in front of an endless parade of sycophants who were so scared of him that they just nodded their heads and smiled warmly at whatever inanity he happened to be spewing at the moment.
Sounds like the Bush administration.
2005-06-08 19:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I've been reading Table Talk.
My impression is that the man just went on and on and on in front of an endless parade of sycophants who were so scared of him that they just nodded their heads and smiled warmly at whatever inanity he happened to be spewing at the moment.
I can't imagine that even Hitler took a lot of what he said seriously.[/QUOTE]Probably typical of most dictators. Selected excerpts of conversations however are invariably selective, reflecting the opinions and agenda of the editor, who in this case was Martin Bormann, correct?
Martin Bormann as [I]Hitler's Traitor[/I] showed definitely had his own agenda, which was to push Hitler against Christianity and fully towards socialism. That seems to me to be the one great flaw of relying on [I]Table Talk[/I] for a balanced picture of Hitler. Hitler of course did seem over his life, especially in the war years, to gravitate against Christianity, but one wonders how much of that was flavored by Bormann's interpretations.
2005-06-08 19:42 | User Profile
Isn't there still a lot of debate over the authenticity of Table Talk, i.e. it's not just that the quotes are selective, it's that they may not even have been spoken by Hitler?
On the other hand, this particular quote may have been said by Hitler, Speer in Inside the Third Reich also cites Hitler as expressing frustration over the pacifist tendencies of Christianity and regret over the fact that Germany didn't remain pagan, or at least adopt a warrior religion like Islam or a western version of Japanese Shintoism.
I wonder if Hitler ever thought what a Muslim version of Lohengrin would sound like?
2005-06-08 19:53 | User Profile
[COLOR=Purple][I][B] - "Isn't there still a lot of debate over the authenticity of Table Talk"[/B][/I][/COLOR]
Actually [B]no[/B]. Even David Irving fully vouches for its authenticity.
Petr
2005-06-08 20:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Sounds like the Bush administration.[/QUOTE]
Ain't that that unvarnished truth.
2005-06-09 10:06 | User Profile
I'm still trying to find the "dumb" part.
2005-06-09 11:41 | User Profile
So Julian, you think that Europe would have been better off under Islam than under Christianity? Oh my gosh, that makes perfect sense!
(Do you also think that Germanic races could have "conquered the world" without Christianity?
Revisionists like to ridicule WW II-era Allied propaganda that claimed how Hitler wanted to "conquer the world," and yet here we see him making clear allusions to that direction!)
Petr
2005-06-09 20:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]So Julian, you think that Europe would have been better off under Islam than under Christianity? Oh my gosh, that makes perfect sense!
(Do you also think that Germanic races could have "conquered the world" without Christianity?
Revisionists like to ridicule WW II-era Allied propaganda that claimed how Hitler wanted to "conquer the world," and yet here we see him making clear allusions to that direction!)
Petr[/QUOTE]Well just looking at a pragmatic point of view, if you're looking at a religion of support for a militant program of military conquest, its hard to do better than Islam. I'm surprised more WN's haven't gone more in this direction, the work they do to bend Christianity to this purpose with CI, or come up with ersatz religion ("Cosmotheism", "Odinism" etc.).
Especially when you consider the emaciated state of the formulation of Lutheranism at the time (Harnack's simple reductionism of Christianity to nothing more than the "Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man" i.a.w. everything the NS hated about modern liberalism), its not unexpected that at the height of war leaders might hearken for a faith with more teeth in it.
As to conquering the world, although Hitler appears to have been capable of making many legitimate offers for peace, it certainly sems logical that he'd occasionally hearken for global success. After all all the powers he was fighting had already achieved that (British, French, even America) or were explicitely committed to that (the U.S.S.R.). Wasn't the whole world fighting him anyway?
2005-06-10 01:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well just looking at a pragmatic point of view, if you're looking at a religion of support for a militant program of military conquest, its hard to do better than Islam. I'm surprised more WN's haven't gone more in this direction, the work they do to bend Christianity to this purpose with CI, or come up with ersatz religion ("Cosmotheism", "Odinism" etc.). There are some WN converts to Islam. There's an Italian fellow whose name name escapes me (some kind of banker, I think?) who has been working with a number of Islamic groups on anti-Zionist projects. There's another fellow in Britain who used to be involved with occult organizations and neo-nazi groups who is now a Muslim. These tend to be very eccentric and daring and unusual individuals, though. I don't see most WN types ever converting.
Especially when you consider the emaciated state of the formulation of Lutheranism at the time (Harnack's simple reductionism of Christianity to nothing more than the "Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man" i.a.w. everything the NS hated about modern liberalism), its not unexpected that at the height of war leaders might hearken for a faith with more teeth in it.
I'm not sure about the table talke quote, but Hitler made a pretty similar comment about Islam when talking to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (unless that was in the Table Talk). My impression was that he was simply flattering his Moslem guest of honor, and speculating wildly about alternative history. Trying to draw any deeper meaning into the remark for polemical purposes is just silly.> As to conquering the world, although Hitler appears to have been capable of making many legitimate offers for peace, it certainly sems logical that he'd occasionally hearken for global success. After all all the powers he was fighting had already achieved that (British, French, even America) or were explicitely committed to that (the U.S.S.R.). Wasn't the whole world fighting him anyway?[/QUOTE]Hitler assumed that the other powers (USA, Britain, Japan, France, etc.) would resist him, and that what he would happily settle for was a regional power base in central and eastern Europe. In fact that's precisely the kind of multipolar world that his writings and speeches always assumed would exist: Germany was to be a great power amongst all the other great powers. A bipolar or unipolar world was simply not conceivable to him; it therefore was not on his agenda. Sure, if all the other powers suddenly disappeared Hitler would not have objected to making Germany the sole world power, but that wasn't a reasonable expectation for Hitler to have.
In reality only the USA was in a position to "take over the world" in the 20th century, and by gosh, that's what has happened - in spite of the open or passive resistance of the American people.
2005-06-16 19:36 | User Profile
In March 1933 Hitler said to the Reichstag:
"liberty for all religious denominations in the State so far as they are not a danger to...moral feelings of the German race. The party stands for positive Christianity."
2005-06-17 09:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ron]In March 1933 Hitler said to the Reichstag:
"liberty for all religious denominations in the State [B]so far as they are not a danger to...moral feelings of the German race.[/B] The party stands for [B]positive[/B] Christianity."[/QUOTE]A couple of crucial caveats. And in any event, promises from Hitler certainly weren't sacrosanct. Ask the Czechs and the Poles.
Overall Nazism seemed to eventually come to a definite oppositional stance re: on Christianity and religious freedom, albeit in comparison to Marxism somewhat veiled and muted.
2005-06-17 10:30 | User Profile
If you look at WWII in Europe, it was basically a struggle between East and West. Hitler's Germany, which represented the West was lesser of two evils for most Europeans, despite what the propagandistic history texts say today. The other choice that loomed for Europeans was USSR/Russia which was basically an Eastern/Asiatic civilization. Russia received its culture not from the west, but from Byzantium, Russian ideas about government and politics came from the Mongols, and the Soviet government was dominated by Jews, a middle eastern people.
2005-06-17 11:03 | User Profile
[COLOR=Indigo][B][I] - "Russia received its culture not from the west, but from Byzantium"[/I][/B][/COLOR]
Not true. The Byzantine Empire was part of the greater Christian civilization of the West (it was they who ultimately saved Europe from being overrun by Islam, not Charles Martel), and so was Czarist Russia.
[B] [COLOR=Indigo][I]- "Russian ideas about government and politics came from the Mongols"[/I][/COLOR][/B]
Easy stereotype to assert, harder to prove. Sources?
[COLOR=Indigo][B][I]- "the Soviet government was dominated by Jews, a middle eastern people"[/I][/B][/COLOR]
Even this is not entirely true - by the late 1930's, Stalin's purges had broken the critical Jewish influence in the USSR.
Petr
2005-06-17 13:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Otto Skorzeny]If you look at WWII in Europe, it was basically a struggle between East and West ... The other choice that loomed for Europeans was USSR/Russia which was basically an Eastern/Asiatic civilization.[/QUOTE] That's merely what English propaganda stated about the "Asiatic baby-bayoneting Hun" during WW I. Such simplistic geo-political divisions suited the British Empire during the Great War, just a they suited Hitlerââ¬â¢s Reich prior to WW II.
2005-06-17 17:10 | User Profile
If we also look at our post WW2 relations with the USSR then we can get a better grasp what Hitler was up against.
2005-06-17 17:53 | User Profile
Russia was part of the common Christiandom and European civilization, however, its still a commonly held view in places like Sweden, Finland, the Baltic countries, Poland, Hungary, Germany, etc. that the Russians are eastern barbarians. This is part of the nationalism in these countries. Maybe things could have been different if it wasn't for the stupidity of Stalin and moronic nature of Communist ideology. Many Russians themselves sided with Germans, remember the forces of General Vassov. Stalin, himself, a Georgian, abused the Russian people much more than the Germans. The German propaganda was pretty good during the war, but it would have less effective if the Soviet government wasn't so inept and blood thristy.
2005-06-20 15:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Otto Skorzeny]Russia was part of the common Christiandom and European civilization, however, its still a commonly held view in places like Sweden, Finland, the Baltic countries, Poland, Hungary, Germany, etc. that the Russians are eastern barbarians. This is part of the nationalism in these countries. Maybe things could have been different if it wasn't for the stupidity of Stalin and moronic nature of Communist ideology. Many Russians themselves sided with Germans, remember the forces of General Vassov. Stalin, himself, a Georgian, abused the Russian people much more than the Germans. The German propaganda was pretty good during the war, but it would have less effective if the Soviet government wasn't so inept and blood thristy.[/QUOTE] Stalin was far more brutal than Hitler. If for no other reason he was in power longer. However Hitler realized, as we did after WW2, Stalin had designed on Western Europe. The US spent billions upon billions of dollars to do exactly what the Germans were trying to do against the Soviets. However, if we had gone to war with the USSR, the cost would have been far greater than anything the Germans had done to them. We took similar risks the Nazi's took, but without the opposition the Nazi's endured. The US and Western Europe prevailed because we were stronger, therefore, were able to keep the Soviets within their own borders. This was something the Germans were unable to do.
2005-06-23 08:02 | User Profile
Hitler seems to have lamented the fact that the Germans lacked a heroic warrior faith based upon nature and the folk, like they did in the pre-christian world. Too bad he lost the war.
2005-06-23 11:45 | User Profile
[COLOR=Indigo][B][I] - "Hitler seems to have lamented the fact that the Germans lacked a heroic warrior faith based upon nature and the folk, like they did in the pre-christian world."[/I][/B][/COLOR]
What do you know about the actual religion of pre-Christian Germanic tribes? I think you are just entertaining some very romanticized notion about it.
Their lifestyle probably resembled that of pre-Christian "Native Americans" - another wildly idealized warrior-culture that actually entertained savage animism, human sacrifice, fear of evil spirits and incessant conflict with their neighbors. In short, they lived mean, nasty, brutish and short lives.
And as for folkishness, before Christianity Germanic tribes had no sense whatsoever of being a one nation, but rather possessed an Africanesque tribalist mentality.
Petr
2005-06-24 01:39 | User Profile
Well that is your opinion. I would take the pre-christian attitude towards life held by my ancestors, over the christian moral ethics of creeping things honestly.
[QUOTE=Petr][color=indigo]****[/color]
What do you know about the actual religion of pre-Christian Germanic tribes? I think you are just entertaining some very romanticized notion about it.
Their lifestyle probably resembled that of pre-Christian "Native Americans" - another wildly idealized warrior-culture that actually entertained savage animism, human sacrifice, fear of evil spirits and incessant conflict with their neighbors. In short, they lived mean, nasty, brutish and short lives.
And as for folkishness, before Christianity Germanic tribes had no sense whatsoever of being a one nation, but rather possessed an Africanesque tribalist mentality.
Petr[/QUOTE]
2005-09-06 18:35 | User Profile
Where does Hitler (or anyone) get the idea that Christianity is a "pacifist" religion? Obviously it can be just as warlike as Islam. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know history, and should hardly be trusted with regard to historical questions. The Crusaders, yeah, they were real pacifists...
Today's Christians can be very militant and aggressive. How can someone say Bush is motivated by Christianity to wage the War on Iraq, then say that Christianity is too meek and pacifist. Too many critics of Christianity contradict themselves.
2005-09-06 19:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hamilton]Where does Hitler (or anyone) get the idea that Christianity is a "pacifist" religion? Try Mt 5:38-42 "Turn the other cheek"
Obviously it can be just as warlike as Islam. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know history, and should hardly be trusted with regard to historical questions. The Crusaders, yeah, they were real pacifists...
Today's Christians can be very militant and aggressive. How can someone say Bush is motivated by Christianity to wage the War on Iraq, then say that Christianity is too meek and pacifist. Too many critics of Christianity contradict themselves.[/QUOTE]Contradict themselves they certainly do. In fact on this forum, and for a lot of WN today, the biggest beef against contemporary "Christianity" is the warlike nature it has assumed in support of the mideast war, Israel, harsh domestic anti-terrorism measures, etc.
2005-09-07 08:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Try Mt 5:38-42 "Turn the other cheek" Of course and taken properly in context it has nothing to do with pacifism. Thomas Aquinas obviously was an expert in Biblical exegesis and he advocated "just war." I think St. Aquinas rather knew more than the people who claim that Christianity is pacifist because of one out of context verse. In fact I can't think of a single Church father or major theologian who rejected the concept that war can be just and righteous.
The "Christians are pacifist" people are so ahistorical it's not even funny.
Contradict themselves they certainly do. In fact on this forum, and for a lot of WN today, the biggest beef against contemporary "Christianity" is the warlike nature it has assumed in support of the mideast war, Israel, harsh domestic anti-terrorism measures, etc.[/QUOTE] I think it was Sam Francis who wrote that these are expressions of basically healthy redblooded urges to defend God and country, etc., that have been twisted by the neocons for their own purposes. Personally I think the Republican party/grassroots is full of basically decent people who need an outlet for their frustrations toward the enemies of the West. Of course the parasitic neocons are somewhat misdirecting it (anti-Islamist Saddam was hardly the best target for a new Crusade).
2005-09-07 08:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hamilton]Of course and taken properly in context it has nothing to do with pacifism. Thomas Aquinas obviously was an expert in Biblical exegesis and he advocated "just war." I think St. Aquinas rather knew more than the people who claim that Christianity is pacifist because of one out of context verse. In fact I can't think of a single Church father or major theologian who rejected the concept that war can be just and righteous.
The "Christians are pacifist" people are so ahistorical it's not even funny. While Christianity has hardly been pacifistic throughout its history, the words of Jesus in the Bible clearly advocate something close to pacifism. He didn't just say, "Turn the other cheek." He said, "Offer no resistance to one who is evil...pray for your persecutors...do good to those who hate you...if your enemy demands your shirt, give him your cloak as well."
None of the above necessarily demands that Christians refrain from defending other people who are being victimized. But the clear message of Jesus in the Bible is one of nonviolence. Later Christians simply perverted it or ignored it outright, that's all.
I think it was Sam Francis who wrote that these are expressions of basically healthy redblooded urges to defend God and country, etc., that have been twisted by the neocons for their own purposes. Personally I think the Republican party/grassroots is full of basically decent people who need an outlet for their frustrations toward the enemies of the West. Of course the parasitic neocons are somewhat misdirecting it (anti-Islamist Saddam was hardly the best target for a new Crusade).[/QUOTE]I agree with this perspective. Americans have been suckered into supporting the neocons in the name of patriotism and the warm, fuzzy sense of unity and camaraderie that comes with it. I think this feeling is particularly strong in people of relatively low intelligence, who are less likely to think for themselves and are more likely to need a "herd" to follow.
2005-09-07 11:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]While Christianity has hardly been pacifistic throughout its history, the words of Jesus in the Bible clearly advocate something close to pacifism. He didn't just say, "Turn the other cheek." He said, "Offer no resistance to one who is evil...pray for your persecutors...do good to those who hate you...if your enemy demands your shirt, give him your cloak as well."
None of the above necessarily demands that Christians refrain from defending other people who are being victimized. But the clear message of Jesus in the Bible is one of nonviolence. Later Christians simply perverted it or ignored it outright, that's all.[/QUOTE] Christianity teaches against personal aggression, so retribution against someone who had insulted you, for example, would be wrong. However, the commandmant to serve others actually requires a Christian to use force if it is necessary to protect others who are being wronged. This is the basis for the Just War Doctrine. Standing by while your family was massacred, for example, would be a most unchristian act.
2005-09-24 02:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]So Julian, you think that Europe would have been better off under Islam than under Christianity? Oh my gosh, that makes perfect sense!
(Do you also think that Germanic races could have "conquered the world" without Christianity?
Revisionists like to ridicule WW II-era Allied propaganda that claimed how Hitler wanted to "conquer the world," and yet here we see him making clear allusions to that direction!)
Petr[/QUOTE] I'm not sure Hitler meant it to be taken so literally. He no more would have wanted Germany to be transformed into a nation of Islamists as he would have wanted it to be morphed into a home of Shintoists. What he may have lamented was that - as G. Larson puts it - Germans lacked a heroic warrior faith based upon nature and the folk, like they did in the pre-christian world.
2005-09-24 02:28 | User Profile
So, you think that Christianity made Germans lacking in "heroic warrior faith"?
This is a classic example of the schizophrenic pagan attack on Christianity - it is accused of being both bloodthirsty and intolerant[I] and[/I] spineless and pacifistic. Make up your minds already!
Did Charlemagne turn Saxons into pacifists with his gentle approach? Were Teutonic Knights lacking warrior ethics when they crusaded against heathen Slavs? Were Germans pacifists during the Thirty Years War?
Petr
2005-09-24 23:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]So, you think that Christianity made Germans lacking in "heroic warrior faith"?Petr[/QUOTE] It's not what I think - It's what Hitler may have thought.
2005-10-08 07:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]No more of a traitor to Western culture than Churchill & FDR.[/QUOTE] I completely understand FDR as a traitor, but under the circumstances how do you justify Churchill as a traitor? (other than siding with Stalin) Which in fact did not directly threaten Churchill, The Tory Party, The Crown, and so forth as Nazism did.