HITLER AND THIRD REICH BASICALLY CHRISTIAN

Furthermore, the fact that Hitler and the Third Reich gave immunity to baptized, to Christianized Jews, should once and for all demolish the vile slander that National Socialism was intrinsically against Christianity. It was not. National Socialism was fundamentally, positively Christian. In a conference with Friedrich Christian Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe, Hitler declared that a confrontation between religion and politics is damaging to both, that the State needs “religious citizens as the foundation for a moral and clean society,” but that “it is unchristian to abuse religion in the interest of politics or economics.” Further:

“It is Christian teaching which gives the people the necessary firmness of Belief … His Party therefore did not wish to place boundaries too narrow but espouses 'Positive Christianity' … a Christianity not confessionally tied down … To know this Christianity as strong, was for him of the greatest importance.”

(Quoted from Wer War Hitler? by H. S. Ziegler, Tuebingen, 1970, pp. 10-1)

It is pitiful how American clergymen, Protestant and Catholic, preached that America must help the Bolsheviks pulverize Germany because the Third Reich and Hitler were anti-Christian. It shows how brainwashed even sincere people can become. Soviet Russia was openly atheistic, it totally destroyed, or converted to garages or museums, thousands of Christian churches, the Third Reich none. Yet these Christian clergymen, either brainwashed or prostituted, thundered against the Third Reich and glamorized the Soviet Union!

BETWEEN A STRONG REGIME AND A STRONG CHURCH ALWAYS SOME TENSION

Certainly there was often tension between the Nazi government and the Christian, especially the Catholic Church. And Msgr. Neuhaeusler and Pastor Niemoeller were put into the Dachau concentration camp. But the Soviets murdered some 7,000 priests and bishops! And would not Roosevelt have put Father Coughlin into prison if he had not been able to browbeat his bishop to forbid him to write and preach! And he did in fact incarcerate some such noble clergymen as Lutheran Pastor Kurt Molzahn of Philadelphia!

The Catholic Church never flourished more than in the Third Reich. And when the bishops protested a projected government policy of euthanasia the “wicked” Nazi government listened to the bishops and rescinded the policy. Has our Supreme Court and our government so far rescinded its inhumane, shameful policy of abortion, in line with our bishops' protest? No. On the contrary they keep saying the Churches, Catholic and Protestant, have no business advising the government!

No, the tension between the National Socialist government and the Catholic and Lutheran Churches was the normal tension between Religion and Politics, when both are active, dedicated, and aggressive. It is the old tension between what is God's and what is Caesar's. At the moment the very Catholic government of Spain, Franco's, is having a quarrel with a Basque bishop and the Vatican! It is a family quarrel. And that and no more summarizes the tension between Hitler, National Socialism, the Third Reich, and the Catholic and Lutheran Churches. Throughout the war, the Third Reich subsidized Lutheran and Catholic schools. Has our “democratic” government done the like for Christianity?

I cannot help reflecting that, except for the brainwashed clergymen, the liberals who profess to deplore Hitler's “persecution” of the Church did in fact in their hearts hope that Hitler would liquidate the Church the way their beloved Soviet Russians liquidated the Christian church there! Part of their hatred of Hitler and National Socialism is probably subconsciously attributable to the fact that under Hitler the churches flourished as never before!

THE BALANCE OF ALLIED AND NAZI ATROCITIES

So brainwashed and propagandized the American and British public have been that if you asked them which side committed the most atrocities, the Germans or the victors, they would bridle up and deny that there were any Allied atrocities at all, but the most abominable atrocities in history by the Germans. Yet what is the balance sheet?

As we have indicated above, here is a summary:

RAPE: the VICTORS, mostly the Soviet Russians, raped one million German, Austrian, and Hungarian girls and women; the German armed forces, virtually none.

SLAVE-LABORING PRISONERS OF WAR: the VICTORS slave-labored some 2,000,000 German P.O.W., a majority unto death; the GERMANS, none.

EXPULSION OF NATIVE POPULATIONS: the VICTORS drove out 15,000,000; the GERMANS, a few thousands and not by expulsion, but by exchange.

TOTAL ROBBERY: the VICTORS totally expropriated the Oder-Neisse, Sudeten, Volksdeutsche [Ethnic German] farms, homes, cattle, furniture, everything, billions and billions of dollar's worth; the Germans virtually no robberies of civilians and only internationally legal requisitions otherwise.

MURDER OF CIVILIANS: the VICTORS clubbed, raped, abused to death, 2,500,000, expelled Oder-Neisse and Sudeten Germans, and another half-million or more Balkan Germans; the GERMANS virtually none except in internationally legal reprisals for assassinations and partisan sabotage, as at Lidici and Rome, numbering at most in the thousands.

COLD-BLOODED MURDER OF P.O.W. OFFICERS: the VICTORS (the Soviet Russians) murdered 15,000 Polish officers at Katyn and elsewhere, not as reprisals but cold-bloodedly, and then at the Nuremberg Trials attributing these murders to the Nazis; the GERMANS, none.

FORCED REPATRIATION OF CIVILIANS AND P.O.W.: the VICTORS, namely the Anglo-Americans, clubbed, shot, drugged some 2,000,000 prisoners, who had fled Soviet Russia into the more civilized Nazi Germany, back into the Soviet Union, where their leaders were shot and the rank and file slave-labored. The name for this atrocity is “Operation Keelhaul;” the GERMANS, not guilty of “Operation Keelhaul.”

DISMANTLING: the VICTORS, even though they had made rubble out of one-third of Germany by area bombing, demolished whatever factories were left and transported the dismantled parts to their own lands, mostly Soviet Russia; the GERMANS, (in their occupied territories), not guilty of dismantling.

THEFT FROM OCCUPIED CIVILIANS: the VICTORS Americans, with a pointed gun or threat, took from German civilians watches, cameras, rings, paintings, anything they could carry and mail, and the Soviet Russians robbed all these things and everything else they could haul off by railroad, even church bells; the GERMANS, in their occupied territories, were correct.

CONCENTRATION CAMPS: the VICTORS had at least 10 times more concentration camps, and mostly bestially inhumane ones (Soviet Russia), even the Rooseveltian U.S. had ten for Nisei and Issei, ostensibly for “potentially dangerous” persons; the Germans also had such concentration camps, not a fourth as many or as brutal as the victors had and they were not death camps as alleged, but work camps, including Dachau and Auschwitz. Concentration camps are no more intrinsically evil than jails and prisons.

FOREIGN OR CONSCRIPTED LABOR: the VICTORS, right after armistice, made a scramble for German scientists and conscripted them to work in the U.S., Britain, and Soviet Russia; the GERMANS during the war recruited foreign labor from their occupied territories, just as West Germany now has recruited nearly 3,000,000 foreign workers (Gast Arbeiter). The Nazi use of foreign labor during the war was perfectly legitimate. The U.S. hired Mexican labor during the war! In general the Germans treated their foreign labor essentially like their own workers, as best as wartime conditions permitted.

ATROCITY BALANCE SHEET STRAINS ALLIED ‘SMOTHEROUT’ STRATEGY

As I said above, the Allies shocked by their own wanton destruction of Central Europe, decided with war crimes trials and otherwise so to harp on and blow up alleged Nazi atrocities that the public would excuse their own barbarity and say, “What if Hitler was right at Danzig, what if Roosevelt tricked the U.S. into the war by the backdoor, the Nazis were so bestial that this was justified!” This has been Allied strategy. And still is. That was the purpose of the Nuremberg Trials, of the Eichmann trial, of the order to West Germany to continue the trials against Germans but on pain of everlasting damnation not ever to try Allied war criminals nor ever to use as a defense that the Allies did likewise, or worse! This became obviously difficult to carry off as more and more evidence indicated that the Allied war crimes and atrocities were ten times more numerous and more bestial than any alleged against the Nazis (e.g., rape). As a consequence they resorted to speculation and to fabrication.

SPECULATION AS AN AID TO THE ‘SMOTHEROUT’

Since the Allied war crimes were so much worse than those of the Third Reich, the Allied hypocrites resorted to speculation as to, not what Hitler actually did or said, but what he would have done had he won. To stupefy the gullible clergyman they speculate that he would have wiped out the churches. There is not a shred of evidence for this speculation. But there is a lot of evidence that the churches would have flourished as hardly ever before. Another speculation is that he would have gone on to conquer the world. This is a damnable, preposterous imputation. Hitler made it clear throughout his career that he merely wanted to correct the Versailles Treaty and establish a united Germany in the boundaries corresponding to Wilson's self-determination. Even at the height of his victories, he offered to withdraw to Germany's rightful boundaries as soon as the Allies agreed to peace. The Israelis, it will be noted, plunged the whole world into an energy crisis rather than withdraw to the proper boundaries of 1967! In line with his correct policy, Hitler did not annex Czechoslovakia, he merely extended a “protectorate” over it, as the U.S. in Latin America has done often.

Another speculation is that he would have dictated an unjust peace and dismembered nations and shifted boundaries in violation of self-determination. If Hitler had been the devil incarnate he couldn't have committed more violent dismembering, more brutal territorial robbery than the victors did. No doubt that is why their conscience inspires that speculation. In that respect alone the victors created what Time Magazine called “history's most terrifying peace.”

The sober, for Americans unpleasant, truth is that while Hitler was victorious he arbitrated the most just boundaries in the Balkans that Europe had ever known. Hitler was the fairest, the most honorable arbitrator of boundaries in the history of Europe. To speculate that he would have reverted to Allied criminal practices had he finally won is an exercise of hypocrisy and satanism worthy of the culprits of the most massive atrocity in history, the expulsion of the Oder-Neisse and Sudeten Germans!

THE LAST RESORT OF LIARS, FABRICATING A MASS ATROCITY

Not finding the Nazis guilty of real war crimes at all commensurate with the monstrous ones of the victors, they resorted to the only alternative open to hypocrites and liars, namely, to fabricate a mass atrocity. This they did with the legend of the six million Jews “gassed,” four million in Auschwitz and two million elsewhere. This is a 95% fabrication and swindle. They have not even attempted to offer one shred of historically valid evidence for this. Auschwitz, for example, had a total of no more than 450,000 inmates — and no “gas chambers.” Not even at the Eichmann trial were they shameless enough to talk of 6,000,000 Jews killed by the Nazis, even though they base the whole flimsy slander on the hearsay that Eichmann once to his subordinates. Hoettl and Hoess spoke of 5,000,000 victims in general, not specifically of Jews (Time, June 6, 1960, reports it as five million; the Jewish Newsweek, June 6, 1960, hikes it to six million!). Eichmann, even had he said it, could not know the true figures. He himself never killed a Jew; he merely organized the transportation of Jews to concentration camps in the east, just as someone, presumably Milton Eisenhower, organized the transportation of 112,000 Nisei from California to Colorado, Nevada and Utah!

In short the fabricators of the 6,000,000 swindle have never come up with any valid proofs whatsoever. And they smear-terrorize anyone as an anti-Semite, who does investigate this myth in a scholarly way. The more we study the question the more it appears that more women and children were bombed and sniped to death in 24 hours in Dresden by the Allies than Jews — if we except those legitimately killed as partisans and saboteurs — were executed by the Nazis. (For more information see “The Six Million Swindle, by Dr. App, 30 pages, 50 cents; and The Myth of the Six Million, 2nd edition, 1973, 119 pages, $2.00. Both available from St. Boniface Press).

JUST WHY THE PAROXYSM OF HATE AGAINST NATIONAL SOCIALISM

We ask again, just why at Potsdam and in our media is National Socialism (and what these call neo-Nazism) hated and prohibited with orgiastic frenzy, but Bolshevism treated benignly? Why is a Communistic party tolerated, if not encouraged, in West Germany, but a National Socialist party prohibited for all eternity?

Certainly much of this vindictive hatred is due to Jewish eye-for-an-eye-ism, not for Jews executed by the Third Reich, but for the Third Reich's unabashed wish to have Jews emigrate from Central Europe to a national home of their own such as Madagascar! Jews consider anyone's dislike of them such an insult that for it they were chiefly responsible for plunging the world into WWII, for making the peace the most genocidic and unjust in history, and for keeping up an incessant hate — and slander campaign against all things German. And to blackmail Germany into astronomical reparations for this alleged “insult” to Jewish self-esteem! Of course, not adverted to is the sad fact that all civilized nations (except atheistic Soviet Russia) secretly would gladly be rid of their Jews, and that Jews themselves accuse all nations of anti-Semitism, not the least our Christian America. For example, in December, 1960, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and the University of California undertook a study of anti-Semitism. This they defined as anything critical of Jews, right or wrong. And what did they come up with? With the terrifying information that one-third of the American population is intensely anti-Semitic, and another one-third moderately anti-Semitic.[4]

If this is the case in the American “democracy,” then should not our “democracy” be as violently prohibited for all eternity as the Potsdam peace-dictators damned National Socialism lock, stock, and barrel? It is important to note that Jewish world-wide hatred against the Third Reich was as violent in 1933, before a hair of any Jew had been singed in Germany as it is now. The world-wide boycott of German goods was introduced in 1933! Therefore the whole propaganda about the six million Jews killed by the Nazis is merely to try to work Gentiles and Christians up to a genocidic hatred of things German which the Jews of the world have had since 1933.

POWER POLITICS, ENVY OF SUCCESS, REAL CAUSES OF HATRED AGAINST NATIONAL SOCIALISM

Except for the vindictive hatred of the Jews, the hatred of National Socialism can only be understood as power politics, as fear and envy of a system that proved more successful socially and industrially than the Bolshevist and even the Masonic “democracy” of the victors. Hitler and National Socialism in a few brief years converted the “democratic” corpse of Weimar Germany into the “corporative” dynamo of the Third Reich. And the hypocrites who clubbed the German people into accepting the Versailles Treaty — democracy by dismemberment and the hunger blockade — never forgave!

As Harry Elmer Barnes, quoted previously, wrote, Roosevelt was really little “disturbed by Hitler's anti-Jewish policy; he was much more annoyed by the fact that Hitler's 'New Deal' had succeeded in spectacular fashion while his own had failed.” There is the secret why America, England, France and Russia hated German National Socialism — and still do — and, so as not to be shamed by comparison again, eternally prohibit it!

In November 1936, Churchill said to General Robert E. Wood, “Germany is getting too strong, and we must smash her.” And in 1938, Bernard Baruch, later a chief promoter of the genocidic Morgenthau Plan, said to General George C. Marshall, “We are going to lick that fellow Hitler. He isn't going to get away with it.” (Both quotes in Blasting The Blackout, pp. 24, 25). Get away with what? Why converting Weimar Germany from a graveyard of unemployment and despair to the joy and prosperity, the autobahns and the enthusiasm, of the Third Reich!

NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMANY THE WORLD’S MOST EFFICIENT REGIME

The undeniable, terribly sobering truth. is that Hitler and National Socialism were possibly the most successful regime in history. That the U.S. and Soviet Russia and the British Empire after 6 years were able to defeat it and Morganthauize it does not contradict this. It merely proves that nations twenty times as large and as militarized as another can finally crush it: an elephant can crush the best zebra!

We speak of the miracle of West Germany's recovery after the war. And indeed it was a “miracle.” But it occurred during a world-wide boom, it had the good will and the Marshall help of America, and most of all it was not handicapped by a world-wide Jewish boycott. On the contrary, the revival of Germany from 1933 to 1939, from bust to boom, happened during a world-wide depression (which even Roosevelt's “democracy” could not correct), it had to contend with an international Jewish boycott (this before one hair of a Jew had been singed and no “six million” fabrication existed!), and it started from the bottom of the whole country at a deadstill from unemployment and Communist rioting (sparked mostly by Jews).

Within even a few years, unemployment was ended, express-ways were built, and the whole country was booming! From depression it had changed to hope and joy! It became in fact the most prosperous country at that time in the world!

HOW DID HITLER AND NATIONAL SOCIALISM CREATE THIS MIRACLE RECOVERY?

Some of the amazing success may be due to Hitler's charismatic personality, but even Hitler could not have done it without a healthy governmental philosophy and an efficient political system.

Dr. Burton Klein (Germany's Economic Preparation for War, Harvard University Press, 1959), according to the review by Harry Elmer Barnes, testifies to this recovery miracle as follows:

“Germany in August, 1939, was a more powerful and impressive Political unit than had ever been known in this area in the history of Europe. Germany reached at that time the “apex” of its power, whether the system was a desirable one or not.”

See Barnes, Revisionism and Brainwashing, p. 29

Surely it is ironic that the peace dictators peremptorily prohibited the one system of government that had surpassed all others in efficiency. What other motive than power politics and envy and a determination to keep Germany a doormat of the victors could it have been? And is still?

Some have said National Socialist prosperity was due to rearmament. But the same pundits, when adverting to the tragedy that living standards in Soviet Russia are pitiful, still at the level of 1913, attribute this to resources spent on arms. And when it is noted that Israel can continue only with the help of enormous gifts from America and billions of reparations from Germany, it is quickly added that this is due to the drain of military preparedness against the Arabs! But when Hitler's Germany was unprecedentedly successful economically and industrially, lo and behold, the pundits attribute it to its alleged “militarism.”

ECONOMIC SUCCESS NOT DUE TO REARMAMENT

This should have crippled the Third Reich economically: yet in spite of its modest rearmament it enjoyed a startling economic boom. Dr. Klein debunks “a fundamental charge against Hitler … the assertion that National Socialist Germany was a purely military economy.” Dr. Barnes, reviewing Dr. Klein's book, asserts:

“… this book devastatingly refuted the indictment of National Socialist Germany as a military industrial camp which had been designed solely to wage war. France and Britain each spent as much (or more) for armament as did Germany, and combined they spent much more.”

Revisionism and Brainwashing, p. 4

And Soviet Russia, of course, was a military colossus, quantitatively, compared to peacetime Nazi Germany.

No, there was something in German National Socialism intrinsically effective and superior to Bolshevism, and even to virtually all of the “democracies” set up at gun-point by the victors after WWI, and certainly, to nearly all of them (except so-far West Germany and Japan) set up after WWII. Most of them are now Soviet Russian satellites, totalitarian dictatorships, surrounded by barbed wire! Even Italy, still in the West, has had 36 different governments in 31 years, all since the U.S. gun-pointed “democracy” upon it and prohibited “fascism” for ever and ever! [5] (Wall Street Journal, March 11, 1974).

PERHAPS ‘CORPORATIVISM’ ACCOUNTS FOR SUCCESS OF THIRD REICH

It is ironic that the much maligned National Socialism was economically and socially ten times more successful than any Bolshevist regime, but even more so than most “democratic” ones. It did not, like Communism need to close off its borders. Its citizens did not want to escape en masse, not even the Jews wanted to leave. Oddly enough, the so-called other rightist, “fascist” regimes, like Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, and presently Brazil, Greece, and Chile (since the overthrow of Allende the Communist) have open borders!

But not only that. They also were or are relatively successful economically, socially, industrially. Whereas Communist Chile in a few years had nothing but chaos and inflation, the so-called fascist take-over is already turning from bust to boom. The same thing happened in Brazil.

CORPORATIVISM SEEMED TO ENERGIZE NATIONAL SOCIALISM AND FASCISM

We therefore must reluctantly conclude that some principle in National Socialism and in so-called fascism seems to be energizing, stimulative. The answer probably is “corporativism.” This was the preferred political system among Catholic theorists — until the victors prohibited saying a good word for it. In a corporative society, capitalism and labor cooperate, employees and employers in the same industry are organized mutually. And private property is state supervised but secure. In Communism on the contrary, private property is abolished, even to small farms. And the so-called proletariat is organized to hate industrialists and private employers. Communism preaches the hatred of classes; National Socialism (and it seems, fascist governments in general) put owner and worker into the same “club,” make them partners, not antagonists.

In so-called “democratic” governments, labor unions, too, tend to be antagonistic to employers and owners. Unrestrained labor unionists, at the voting booth, far outnumber employers — and if trained to confrontation, can wreck not only any industry but the whole country. That is how the Weimar Republic was convulsed into strikes and chaos, and England and Italy now. And union power and unreason seem to be endangering “democracy” in our U.S.A.

It is often remarked how until under the socialists Brandt, Weliner, Bahr, German labor and industrialists worked and prospered in marvelous harmony. One can plausibly speculate that this harmony was due to the lingering memory and influence of the corporativism of the Third Reich. Communism is essentially a system of mutual hatreds; democracy is endangered by the divisiveness of unionism and the encouraged antagonism between labor and industry; National Socialism (and fascism) arranges occupations and trades and industries into equivalents of the ancient guilds, it puts workers and work-givers into the same “guild,” into partnerships. This makes for a common interest, and mutual effort. That may be the essential reason why National Socialism was so astoundingly successful (and in Italy and Spain fascism was relatively, too).

It also seems to be the intrinsic, the under-the-skin reason why the victors have such an insane hatred of National Socialism (and fascism) and want to ban it forever from the earth. It is power politics and envy at their worst; it is stupid and criminal. And it is tragic and dangerous at best.

ALLIED EQUATING NATIONALISM WITH NEO-NAZISM (OR FASCISM) TERRIBLY DANGEROUS

Not letting sovereign peoples choose what form of government they wish, even if fascist, is obviously criminal. It is also unutterably stupid. If the form of government desired were totally evil, it will, like the Red regime of Chile, if unassisted by armed foreign, tanks, quickly collapse. If it has much virtue then no combinations of victors and power-political scoundrels can forever suppress it.

The terrible danger in our time is what I have stated at the beginning and what is the reason for my writing this booklet. It is that the way National Socialism is condemned and banned in the Potsdam Agreement encourages the Communists, the Talmudists, and the power-political enemies of a united, strong Germany to label every German motion of patriotism and nationalism as “neo-Nazi.” This, first, effectively gives Soviet Russia, on the strength of UN Articles 53 and 107 the green light to invade West Germany. Secondly, since hatred of National Socialism appears to be chiefly an American and Jewish fetish, the German people increasingly have come to despair of American help in effecting the reunification of Germany; thirdly, if their patriotism and nationalism is denounced and banned as “neo-Nazi,” the German people have no alternative but to favor or pretend to favor Communism and Soviet Russia in the hope of eventual re-unification through them.

That is a real danger. It is a plausible one, it is also for the German people a virtually necessary strategy — if the Western victors don't soon stop equating German patriotism with National Socialism: if in fact, they talk about permitting all peoples to adopt a government of their own choice, but hypocritically tell the Germans on pain of destruction not to choose a rightist government. Only rightist governments can save Europe, can reunite Germany; to denounce rightist movements as “radical” or “neo-Nazi,” and to prohibit them, is criminal and stupid. Even if any peoples of Europe choose National Socialism or fascism, it is none of our “damn” business, no more than it is theirs to object to our brand of “democracy,” Watergate and all!

---

Notes

4. According to National Review (“The New Anti-Semitism,” March 29, 1974, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith has found a new crop of Anti-Semites, in place of Lindbergh, Gerald L. K. Smith, Forrestal, etc. Among the new ones are: “Evans and Novak, Senator J. William Fulbright, Dean Francis B. Sayre of Washington's National Cathedral, the American Friends Service Committee, Father Dan Berrigan, and, would you believe, the Christian Science Monitor.” “Why, because they “have occasionally had political criticism to make of some aspects of Israeli or U.S. policy in the Middle East.” The ADL reacted “to political difference of opinion with … defamation.” If such Americans can be smeared as Anti-Semitic, then German National Socialists and any patriotic Germans would be so smear-terrorized. And if America has such influential Anti-Semites should its “democracy” not also be destroyed forever and ever? (Of possible interest, “Anti-Semitism a Phoney Bogey, “ 8 pages, 15 cents. Boniface Press)
5. In March, Secretary of State Kissinger got some flak when he said "that there have been rarely, fully legitimate governments in any European country since World War I” (See Time, March 25, 1974, p. 31). These countries generally all had “democratic” governments forced on them virtually at gun point by the Wilsonians and Rooseveltians. Most of them are totalitarian barbarisms now, dominated by Soviet Russia. And the more totalitarian they are, the more they call themselves “democracy.” That is an ominous facet about “democracy,” that it lends itself to verbal appropriation by Communism! Incidentally, Germans never made as much of a “religion” out of National Socialism as Americans for decades have made out of “democracy.” But recently there are some misgivings about the wise benignity of “democracy!” Wall Street Journal entitled an editorial, “Democracies in Trouble” (March 19, 1974). And columnist Major General Thomas A. Lane entitled an article, “Is Democracy Failing?” It surely has failed wherever the U.S. forced it on others by threat and command and similarly suppressed native forms!