Saturday, April 19, 2008

The Unforgettable Adolf Hitler

The debate over one of the most influential figures of the 20th century is always going to be a colorful one. It's impossible to discuss Germany's controversial wartime leader without offending SOMEONE. But pussyfooting around 'sensitive issues' isn't something we do here on World Peace; it's guaranteed to yield no solutions, which is precisely why certain things are made taboo in the first place, so let's press on regardless and see what comes out of it...

What can one say about Hitler that hasn't already been said? Probably next to nothing. All the adjectives in creation have already been applied at some time or another, right across the entire spectrum of views. Undeniably, he was a great leader, a great orator, a great statesman, a great writer and a great visionary. But Phaedrus would be the first to admit that Hitler was by no means perfect. Anyone that doesn't recognise this fact isn't living in the real world.

So I feel it's appropriate to set out at this time my feelings about Hitler, and they boil down, in essence, to what can only be described as an 'irreconcilable ambivalence.' On the one hand, this unquestionably great leader saw the world about him in extraordinarily sharp focus. When one reads Mein Kampf, it is impossible not to marvel at Hitler's incisive grasp of all society's ills and his brilliantly simple proposed remedies - the majority of which involved no spilling of blood. The man was clearly a trenchant thinker whose single driving passion was the moral, cultural and economic welfare of his people. The extent to which this passion comes across in Part 1 of the book is, I find, deeply touching.

Hitler correctly identified all the influences around him which were corrosive to German society; the cultural malaise of the old Weimar Republic in its dying days: Libertinism, open homosexuality and other sexual deviances, the promotion in the Jewish-controlled press of inter-racial relationships, the uninspiring nature of modern architecture and negrofication of contemporary music, the debasement of classical art and so on. All these factors he shrewdly and meticulously itemised whilst he penned his magnum opus during his sojourn in prison where he had been placed following an abortive putsch in an earlier attempt to rescue the country from its cultural decline.

For all these positive qualities, we can justifiably heap praise on Hitler's memory and indeed a lot of people still hold the man close to their hearts. But you may be surprised to learn that Phaedrus is not one of them. Whilst I admire and respect what Hitler TRIED to achieve, the fact of the matter is that he failed - and what is worse is it was an AVOIDABLE failure that should NEVER have happened. It brought about the ruin of Europe and ushered in an era of a dangerous dalliance with Bolshevism in the West from which we only briefly freed ourselves for a short time during the 1950s. If nothing is done to change the course we're on, the USA of 1012 will come to more closely resemble Stalin's Russia of the 1930s than anything we can conceive of today.

So where did it all go so badly wrong? How could a man with such unique qualities screw up and throw it all away? I believe the answer is simple. And it is for me personally the ONE thing I can never forgive Hitler for as I look around at the world today and see the terrible legacy of this failure. Everything he railed against is now thrust in our faces from every media orifice. And it can all be traced back to a single, disastrous, tactical blunder: the invasion of Russia in 1941. Hitler had a valid peace pact with Stalin and should have honored it. Had he done so I believe the world we would see around us today would be immeasurably better in every conceivable way. Hitler's BIG flaw was megalomania. The German army was a fine body of decent men: brave, tough and tenacious fighters. But they were massively overstretched by the opening of a new front to the East. Hitler over-estimated their capabilities.

Anyway, it's all history now and sadly too late to do anything about. I would still prefer history to judge Hitler more kindly than it has, however, because at the end of the day, I know that he MEANT WELL despite his failings; his heart was good and he at least TRIED to make the world a better place. That is something that we cannot say the same about for our current crop of limp-wristed 'leaders' in Western nations. In the absence of any REAL enemy now for very many years, they - our 'leaders' - have BECOME our new foe; working ceaselessly in cahoots with the Jew to undermine and destroy everything that made Europe and America once great. With their endless greed for power and money they have sold out our interests to foreigners. That is something Hitler would NEVER have done: betray his own people.


Skeptikos said...

Back to the history books I would say! Stalin was making himself ready to strike Germany and the attack on the Soviet Union was infact a preemptive strike. Even many mainstream historians acknowledge the fact that Stalin himself was getting ready to strike Germany. I do not think that Hitler actually misjudged the capabilities of the Germany army, he had simply no other choice.

Anonymous said...

I agree withthe above post. Hitler ad no choice

Read this
14 Days That Saved the World

"The critical moment of World War Two - if not the entire Twentieth Century - is generally accepted to have been Adolf Hitler's decision to launch an "unprovoked" attack on a hitherto neutral and peaceful Soviet Union. Up until recently, this (Fuehrer decision) has been regarded as a mistake, which doomed NazĂ® Germany.

"Icebreaker" by Russian military historian Viktor Suvarov exposes this picture as nonsense. This extensively researched piece of historical revisionism provides compelling evidence that Operation Barbarossa was a reluctant pre-emptive strike against a massive Soviet military machine poised to invade not just Germany but the whole of Western Europe.

Suvarov quotes top secret Soviet documents which make it crystal clear that Soviet military theory was based on offense and the conquest of territory "for the World Revolution." And this theoretical plan for offensive war was matched by practical preparations in every branch of the armed forces.