Recent Articles

Post Top Ad

Your Ad Spot

Tuesday 20 April 2021

HITLER AS AN EXPRESSION OF GERMAN "BAD FORM"

Audio Version

Hitler? ...More like Shitler!

Today we enter “The Twelve Days of Hitler,” the period between the anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler (20th April) and the anniversary of the announcement of his death (1st May). It’s a bit like Black History Month for 1488ers, but many other people also take an interest.

One problem with evaluating Hitler is that, for many people, he is all that they know about German history, so he exists in kind of de-contextualized, detached, and over-dramatized space that is more mythic than historical. This may be one reason he is viewed as either uniquely good or, more commonly, uniquely evil. To get beyond this, it is important to see him in the context of the wider flow of German history.

When considering him in this way, the thing that strikes me most about him is not how exceptional he was, but instead how consistent he was with the rest of German history.

This opinion will inevitably surprise some, but the essence of Hitler is not his Antisemitism, his hatred of Communism, or even WWII. Whatever he did to the Jews, the Soviet Union, and Europe in general between 1938 and 45 are merely details. The real essence of Hitler was a kind of overstretch, lack of proportion, and deformity of purpose and effort. In other words, what he did he did too much or too little, and with a lack of "tone," balance, and sense of the bigger picture. Why else would he end up declaring war on three superpowers? One is reminded of Oscar Wilde's famous witticism about losing parents:

"To go to war with two major powers may be regarded as a misfortune; to go to war with all three looks like carelessness."

 

Frederick "the Gayed"
 More importantly, this is exactly the recurring characteristic of German history that we see time and again, from the period when a German state – Prussia – first began to dominate German history to the modern day race-suicide-by-mass-migration overseen by Angela Merkel. In short, the Germans have always been a bit “iffy.”

Hitler’s extremism, his lack of proportion, and his inability to find balance are sometimes "explained" – or even "justified" – by referring to the “brutal” peace of Versailles that involved heavy financial reparations and the loss of colonies and much territory. The English economist John Maynard Keynes famously described this as a "Carthaginian Peace," comparing it to the extremely harsh terms the Romans imposed on their defeated Punic rivals:

"Two rival schemes for the future polity of the world took the field—the Fourteen Points of the President, and the Carthaginian Peace of M. Clemenceau. Yet only one of these was entitled to take the field; for the enemy had not surrendered unconditionally, but on agreed terms as to the general character of the Peace."

In this view, Hitler’s reckless and doomed career of revenge, geopolitical over-ambition, and military overstretch were all forced on him by this supposedly unjustified national humiliation. But, actually, Germany had been defeated militarily – relatively fairly and squarely – and was hardly the first beaten country to be subjected to onerous peace terms, which, in effect, were imposed rather laxly, as proved by Hitler's subsequent career.

Kaiser Bill - nice hat!
More interestingly, Germany's path to war in WWI has similar characteristics to its path to war in WWII, and even to post-war German history – the same sweaty mania and tendency to overdo things – suggesting that something inherent in the nature of Germans was the cause of WWII, rather than merely the petty vindictiveness of Monsieur Clemenceau at Versailles.

Just as Hitler was pushing too fast and too far in the 1930s, so too was Kaiser Wilhelm in the years leading up to 1914. There, too, we see the same indelicate haste, arrogance, and insensitivity, something that is also mirrored in the present age with Angela Merkel and her über-signalling on migrants.

Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, Angela Merkel, and even the string of German post-war leaders who helped turn Germany’s military blitzkrieg into a manufacturing and export-driven "economic miracle," all share the same essential characteristic, namely a reckless desire to do whatever they do, as intensely and fanatically as possible, to the point where it ultimately causes terrible blow-back.

Thanks to the wise guidance of Bismarck, the one great German leader exempt from this lamentable tendency to push things too far, Germany, by the end of the 19th century, was – economically, industrially, and politically – an emerging giant. This giant was seeking its place at the top table, along with the established powers like Great Britain and France. This drive to push the older powers aside was encapsulated in the phrase a "place in the sun," meaning that Germany too wanted its slice of the colonial pie.

Apologists for Germany argue that the British – often referred to as "Anglo-Jewry" – were bent on stifling Germany’s "natural ascendancy." Interestingly, these often anti-Semitic narratives tend to downplay the fact that German society at that time was much more "Jewed" than Britain’s, with 615,000 German Jews to 275,000 in the UK in 1910. Indeed, a case could be made that the British victory in WWI was that of a "Goyish nation" over a "Germano-Jewish entity."  

But the truth is that Britain had no wish to crush Germany. The royal families were closely connected, as were the economies. As a laissez-faire nation, Britain wanted to avoid expensive alliances and military entanglements. Indeed, a strong Germany even served Britain’s interests as a useful counterweight to two dangerous traditional enemies, France and Russia.

In the same way that Britain gradually acceded to the rise of America in the 20th century, it would have been willing to countenance the gradual rise of Germany in the early 20th century, as long as the Germans had acted with tact, consideration, and proportionality. This was precisely the reason there had been so few difficulties with Germany during Bismarck’s chancellorship (1862-90), as he was the diplomat par excellence. The problem, however, was Kaiser Wilhelm’s impetuosity, impatience, and disregard for the accepted way of doing things – or, in a phrase much used in those days, his "bad form."

Hemmed in by other major European powers, Germany sought to expand overseas through the acquisition of colonial possessions. Britain, the nation that ruled the seas, smiled on this, allowing Germany to quickly acquire a string of colonies – Kamerun (1884), Togoland (1884), German South-West Africa (1884), German New Guinea (1884), German East Africa (1885), Kiautschou (1898), and German Samoa (1900). But, dissatisfied with this, Kaiser Wilhelm decided to aim for nothing less than German naval supremacy, and ordered a massive expansion in the Kriegsmarine. This was an obvious existential threat to a naval power like Britain, and effectively pushed her into alliance with Germany’s less nautically aggressive neighbours, France and Russia, thus ensuring Germany’s ultimate defeat in WWI.

Just as Kaiser Wilhelm’s shrill, overwrought Germanism was the driving force behind the horrors of WWI, so Hitler’s unhinged revanchism was the factor leading to WWII.

Many 1488ers like to share the meme about the "Jewish declaration of war on Germany" in 1933. This is a story from the Daily Express newspaper reporting on a Jewish campaign to boycott Germany. Obviously that didn’t work out, as the German economy was doing better than ever several years later. The Jews were, of course, unable to declare an actual war on Germany as they didn’t have their own state, unless you want to count the Soviet Union, where, I believe, one of the twelve members of the ruling Politburo was Jewish.

Slow news day.
Also, the Jews were in a poor position to persuade other "Goys" to fight Germany. In the wake of WWI, pacifism was strong, with powerful supporters across the West. It was only Hitler’s excessive exploitation of this anti-war feeling that finally rekindled the will of Europeans to resist further German expansion; and an all-out invasion of Poland in conjunction with the Soviet Union that forced the reluctant hand of the Western allies. In short, Hitler had plenty of options and was making great progress, when his "inner German" got the better of him and madness ensued.

But, just as Kaiser Wilhelm and Hitler’s political incontinence caused problems that then collapsed in on Germany, so the political recklessness of Hitler’s successors created the aberration of post-war Germany, an entity that sought "blitzkrieg by other means," namely through a combination of extreme moral signalling and insane over production with deleterious effects on society.

The moral signalling led to dangerous levels of ethnomasochism, feminism (aka "low birth rates"), tolerance for perversions, as well as a bloated, Culturally-Marxist "Green" party. The over-production led to a stress-ridden, workaholic society, beset with constant currency overvaluation and devaluation of its own people. This resulted in an unbalanced, self-loathing society, with the lowest birth rate in the world, that is now in the process of replacing its own population with Third Worlders.

If any people or ethnicity should ever be told to "dial it back a bit," it is clearly the Germans. Whatever they do, they end up overdoing, lurching to extremes, and trying too hard. The result is that things get pushed out of their natural form to become lopsided and skewed. Hitler is merely one of many examples of German leaders who exemplify this tendency; Merkel merely the latest.

But what accounts for this remarkable tendency and how can it be stopped?

The first of these questions is the most baffling. I am inclined to suspect it may even be a psychological tendency, inculcated in them by the ungodly grammar of their native tongue, which renders the use of syntax – a strong element of form in the English language – largely unnecessary in theirs. 

Perhaps in this "one simple trick" lies the difference between the equilibrium of the Anglo mind and the characteristic lopsidedness and tendency towards extremism of the German. Someone more gifted in that atrocious language than me will have to study the matter in greater depth.

As to the solution, perhaps what is needed is something akin to the unjustly infamous Morgenthau Plan. Namely the splitting up of Germany into smaller political units, so that its unbalanced drives – both in peace and war – can be weakened and dissipated, as they were for a thousand years before the rise of Prussia, Hitler, and Angela Merkel by the mosaic of the Holy Roman Empire, the best "form" for the German people!

Published previously on this site

This article is referenced at the National Vanguard website

___________________________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here

48 comments:

  1. I went to an American public school in the 1950s and 1960s - a very good one, BTW - and I never could grasp the Holy Roman Empire. For almost a millennium, it was "there", but never quite in focus. I've taught my kids to mentally substitute the term "Germany" for "HRE" every time they hear the latter term in school, but sadly, their history lessons begin in 1963 so they never hear it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But seriously though....imagine how much better off we would all be f the good guys had won World War II? (((Perfidious Albion))) would have been cleansed of its 500 year-old degenerative disease.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What happened to Disqus?

    Also, this is an old article, isn't it?

    I'll say something like what I said a year ago in a comment: the Brits overdo things when it comes to "muh economic liberty." The Anglo-imperial system ultimately backfired horribly on the British people, as well as on their cousins on the continent. The British have a tendency to assume that ethnic integrity happens "automatically" rather than as something that has to be consciously struggled for -- no doubt this is a consequence of Britain being an island.

    German history by contrast is nothing but struggle: against Romans, Franks, Slavs, and the condition of encirclement during the 19th century. But the French weren't so different, nor were the Austrians: these were all land powers with very strong militaristic traditions. It's the destruction of those traditions which explains the deformed, self-annihilating cultures we see on the continent today.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "But the truth is that Britain had no wish to crush Germany."

    "In the same way that Britain gradually acceded to the rise of America in the 20th century, it would have been willing to countenance the gradual rise of Germany in the early 20th century, as long as the Germans had acted with tact, consideration, and proportionality."

    Oh, jolly good! We'll be happy to allow you to rule the world. Circle of Life and that sort of thing. Just be superficially polite and make sure your actions are all cricket!

    Whether or not the British "people" or the British "Aristocracy" was opposed to Germany is irrelevant. Who owned the Bank of England? Follow the money, follow the power. When the goal is a worldwide financial hegemony, you cannot allow another non-controlled financial entity to exist. They must be controlled.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't agree the war reparations imposed by Clemenceau were that benign or "normal". Surely the economic collapse of Germany in the 1920s, pre-dating the 30s crisis which followed it and collapsed Germany further, is a sign something was amiss... Furthermore, I am convinced Clemenceau was an evil bastard, ruining as he did the last chance of the Austro-Hungarian empire to remain as a factor of stability in Europe, even if in a greatly reduced form. The Versaille treaty clauses were not closely enforced because they were so obviously disastrous to everyone, something that has to be laid at the feet of the French, who can only be said to have richly deserved their subsequent military humiliation, itself a symptom of their pioneering materialistic anti-religious moral decay (the one thing on which they were ahead of everyone)... French moral relativism/decay of the 1920-30s -Les annees folles"- went on to contaminate, after the delay of WWII, the entire Western World in the late 50s and 60s, the tip of the decay spear being French theories widely taught throughout the West's universities... Probably not the only factor of decay, but certainly a major one.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Claudia Roth and the Greens: Morlocks or Eloi? Unless I'm missing something, Eloi is the correct moniker. The entire West has turned Eloi, IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a reference to her hairstyle and troglodyte appearance.

      Delete
  7. Most white Europeans are in the same boat, it is not just Germany. Hungary, Sweden, etc. face the same demographic cliff- do these countries suffer from the same "bad form" ? ... The article places blame for both world wars and the current immigration mess squarely upon Germany, the tone ends up being overtly anti-German, when we all know enemy alien forces have manipulated too many minds and has constructed events and outcomes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't see the argument for Germans' "overdoing things" prior to the 1930s.

    Blame for WW1 seems to be evenly distributed among all the parties: Germans, Austrians, British, French, Russians and Serbs. The British were probably the major party in a position to keep the peace. Had Britain sided with Germany and Austria, Russian would have kept out of the Balkans, and hey presto no war.

    Germany trying to build up a navy to protect its overseas colonies is not a credible example of "overdoing things." If Britain wanted Germany with no navy, they might have tried to help Germany gain an inland empire in Eastern Europe, rather than put the Germans in Africa and the Pacific.

    Frederick II of Prussia, the "King of the German Enlightenment," is pictured above. Why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Read Carlyle's history of Frederick "the Great," all 10 volumes, to find out.

      Delete
    2. if you're such a fan then i'm you're eager to give me the gist.

      Delete
  9. One thing the Alt-Right doesn't have currently is someone with the oratory gifts of Hitler. We have some good speakers, but no one at that level. Bowden was probably the last great speaker. Rockwell had the gift but isn't taken very seriously outside of neo-Nazi circles. This orator is out there, he just doesn't know it yet. PerHaps he's reading this rigHt now? Fear is what holds us all back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've always thought Richard Spencer made a dapper Hitler.

      Delete
  10. Your reference to the morgenthau plan (lower case intentional) as "unjustly infamous" , and the German language as "atrocious", is disgusting. You have insulted the greatest nation on earth. Clearly you have an inferiority complex.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Clearly you have an inferiority complex."
      Isn't that precisely what Jews say when they fail to receive the homage they consider their due? Do they not, also, consider themselves " the greatest nation on earth"?

      Delete
    2. "You have insulted the greatest nation on earth."

      Now they are happy to being the greatest useful idiots of the Nibelungen in Europe... Where are you mein Fuhrer?...

      Delete
  11. Reply from Anonymous 16:39

    I think you are correct MaryC, it certainly wouldn't surprise me!

    But the difference, in this instance, is that I am responding to an insult and an expression of ill-will directed at the German people, rather than demanding and expecting homage for them.

    All the best to you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Simon in London24 April 2017 at 12:55

    The Germans have an excess of the Faustian spirit. We Anglos are too legalistic. The Great men like Bismarck can temper us towards the Golden Mean.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Answer me this! What about Stalin's victims? Is it fair that Hitler's are so remembered, yet Stalin's are so forgotten? Indeed, if it were so wrong and evil for Adolf Hitler and his Nazis to exterminate off all the millions they did; why, pray tell, was it not wrong and evil for Joseph Stalin and his Commies to exterminate off all the millions they did? I never understood!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's merely the revenge of the Nibelungen. Once they were allies with Stalin, and Stalin was the guy who was the match to the Teuton.

      Delete
  14. It would be real shame if there were any bitterness, between the Russians and the Germans, over what had occurred during The Second World War. After all, both Nations are thoroughly hated by the Americans. Indeed, Germany and Russia are about the only two countries, besides, of course, Japan itself that Americans feel true enmity towards.
    Moreover, despite what the vile Televangelists claim, America was not founded as a Christian Nation. In truth, America is neither Christian nor even a Nation at all. It is not a National State in any meaningful sense of the term. No, America was founded on Freemasonry, on the entire religious conception of Deism. Indeed, from Deism we get The Separation of Church and State, and from the Separation of Church and State, we get the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
    Indeed, it is precisely those two Nations, over in Europe, that Americans hate above all others, that actually were founded as Christian Nations: yes, the Russians and Germans. And that is precisely why the Russians and the Germans have been more than a bit anti-Jewish.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Is that satire?

    If not, what is the reason for such a hate piece (I mean example of British evenhandedness in action)?

    Liddell having a hangover from too much German beer the other day? Or his VW Golf II finally broke down? Or he failed his belated A-term test in our "atrocious" language? Remember, it is not our fault that English is a mongrel language and the womb of Newspeak, or that Brits are not skilled in learning foreign languages. Or he had a glance at soccer championship statistics recently?

    But personally, I guess Liddell is still butthurt people prefer Anglin's over-the-top Hitler pics web tabloid over his balanced scribbling, and after really, really hard head-scratching has finally found the root problem of the alt-right. After all, if no Germans, then no Hitler. If no Hitler, then no Anglin.

    BTW, what benefits did the vaunted British "even handed and stable" approach towards things during the last 100 years yield the Brits? At least our capital is not (for the time being) governed by a "religion of peace" mayor.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Simon in London20 April 2018 at 17:17

    Interesting piece. You do identify a German vice, which America inherited to a large extent, the tendency to overdo it. The equivalent British vice is more a refusal to confront impending danger, a shrug and feeling "oh, it'll all work out" "oh, nothing will really change" - the *diffidence* in face of disaster. Enoch Powell warned against this in regards to the coming immigration crisis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An objective look at the past 150 years would show you that the British have "overdone" quite a lot. It just took a while until consequences kept up with them.

      Delete
    2. The British got addicted to tea, rum, and sugar, with the unfortunate consequence that they acquired some colonies that drew them into the messy world of global politics.

      But, having made that mistake, they endeavoured to manage things with commendable moderation and pragmatism, until they were 'contaminated' by the Germanism they were trying to contain and overreached themselves.

      Delete
    3. Was kümmert es die deutsche Eiche, wenn sich die Sau an ihr reibt?

      Delete
    4. Two mistakes in four words.

      Delete
    5. Not a mistake because German itself is a mistake. Go and speak German somewhere else.

      Delete
  17. Atomic Wildflower20 April 2018 at 22:38

    Whether one admires Hitler or not, his day has come and gone. If some should derive inspiration from his deeds or his spirit, so be it. But like the US Civil War, the Third Reich is now just part of an historical event ever receding into the dimness of time. And there we should leave it. But if one wants to see a sympathetic portrayal of Adolf Hitler, as one who has been reincarnated, look no further than THIS novel:

    "Eternity Beach" - An Epic Alt-Right Novel Unlike Any You Have Ever Read - an amazon novel

    ReplyDelete
  18. If Germans didn't overdo things, we wouldn't have Wagner. And that would be much worse than the holocaust.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent witticism, Tito. If only everyone could see it as the joke it so obviously is.

      Delete
  19. Yeah, Hitler was wrong. He has lost. By the same Logik the Nibelungen were right, they have won... (Anyway, great guy Der Fuhrer!)

    ReplyDelete
  20. In the end, Hitler failed not because of form but because of his pathology and ideology.

    In a way, his 'bad form' was useful in demolishing sacred cows and the veneers of the bourgeoisie. He connected with the people on a emotional and visceral level.

    The real problem was his ideology that led to war and genocide.

    Himmler didn't act like Hitler but was no less evil.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This article was a mistake already when it appeared the first time. And Liddell seems unable to learn from his mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Notice how your criticisms have absolutely no content. Tell us why this truthful and brilliant article butthurts you so much.

      Delete
    2. Hi Liddell. It's because my low IQ of 85 can't cope with long sentences that don't blame the Joos for everything. Also my butt hurts because my gay boyfriend has been taking too many poppers recently.

      Delete
  22. The German problem is a specific instance of a more generalized problem of europeans often being their own worst enemy. There are exceptions of course, the conservative, level headed Swiss for instance, but overall the continent is a nuthouse and has been for a long time now. Ultimately most of these countries deeply yearn at some subconscious level (or not so subconscious in the case of Sweden) for the boot on an outsider upon their necks. The world has offered up a bounty of options: the buggery loving Turks, the machete loving Somalis, and so on. The situation being what it is, no matter how ridiculous it may appear, deserves a forthright assessment and response. Ultimately it for the best that europeans should be conquered utterly and completely by their slavic neighbors to the east. Slavs have a duty to bring these countries under the boot of a Slavic Imperium, to liberate them from their own terrible and self destructive excesses. The Soviets got it half right, but next time, the flaw being stopping at the Oder river rather than the Atlantic. We slavs shall show the way!

    (lol JK benis XD)

    ReplyDelete
  23. In hindsight, allowing Germany to unify was a terrible mistake. Germany's reckless aggression has led to two self-destructive wars, the exhaustion of European civilisation, and the domination of Europe by America.

    Bizarrely, the British are blamed for this situation (why is France never blamed as well?), when they wanted peace and were forced into war after multiple warnings to Germany. This flawed perspective of history illustrates the low-intelligence of many ethno-nationalists and why nationalist organisations always seem to implode after a few years.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Is it any wonder so many of the larping neo-nazis out there are deluded and failures when they hold up as a saint someone who in the end managed to fail and self sabotage on such a spectacular level, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and in the process doing more harm to Europe than any one man has in so many generations? He played politics like a drunkard at the roulette table doubling down all his winnings every spin of the wheel and expecting to walk out of the casino with all the chips at the end of the night.

    It's some kind of insane racial masochism to worship such a figure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the whole idea from the beginning, invent a cause that will capture the minds of millions and send them into their doom. 100% developed in a psychological workshop somewhere, probably in England.

      Double crossing the double crocc

      Delete
  25. I'm surprised how outdated all this material is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do realise this is about history, don't you?

      Delete
  26. I'm confused on why you didn't mention that Hitler made several attempts to make peace with Britain, and Churchill refused. Churchill as we saw at the end with the bombing of Dresden and many other German cities to oblivion was the real bad guy. You lack of understanding about Hitler definitely shows in the writing of this article , not quite sure if I can trust anything else you write in the future. Here is a good site for you to learn the TRUTH about WW@ and other issues.
    https://ww2truth.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I'm confused on why you didn't mention that Hitler made several attempts to make peace with Britain, and Churchill refused."

      By 1940 (even before Churchill took over) Hitler had already broken treaties to invade Austria, the Sudetenland, the remnant of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, and Norway. He had also bombed the fuck out of Warsaw. He was also preparing to invade neutral Holland and Belgium and bomb the fuck out Rotterdam, London, and several other places. Then of course in 1941 he invaded his ally Russia, and was fully intending to exterminate millions of people through murder and starvation.

      In the light of these obviously trivial historical facts for you, Churchill was probably right to regard Hitler's occasional "peace overtures" as totally worthless.

      Rather than referring to my supposed "lack of understanding about Hitler" maybe you should look to your own warped and insane "understanding" of history.

      Delete
  27. Hi Colin, you are being a bit unfair against Germany here, Germany did not start ww1, there is wide consensus among historians today that Germany was wrongly blamed for ww1. As for the Roman empire, they pretty much collapsed by themselves, as for metallurgy, the roman swordsmiths were no match for the German "barbarians" (See Rodney Stark). Yes Merkel is horrible and Hitler was a maniac ideologue but so many other leaders of that time. It is also appreciated now that ww2 was Stalin's war, and not really Hitlers (see Stalin's war). And another irony here, as Paul Gottfried explains, what Hitler's version of fascism so odious, was that he incorporated so many elements of Stalinism (i.e use of concentration camps etc).

    ReplyDelete
  28. //he invaded his ally Russia//

    This was again, an accident of history, (as Molotov confessed years after the war) the Hess flight to Britain made Stalin wrongly think that UK and Germany were in an alliance which delayed the Soviet Union's own plans for invading Nazi Germany.

    ReplyDelete

Your comment will appear after it has been checked for spam, trolling, and hate speech.

Post Top Ad

Your Ad Spot

Pages