Thanks for your comments. That’s a very interesting video. I’m going to finish watching it and I may put it on my blog.

I agree that there is not currently a revisionist work that completely lays out through German eyes as well as the anti-European elements that conspired against these heroic peoples, in one work completely….but the ground is being laid through use of the internet, and it is a race against time to wake up the sleeping before the biblical disaster strikes us all again, and of course, suffer again.

I, as an identifying Christian, think of the verse in Revelation (paraphrasing) “and the serpent will bruise the woman’s foot” as what was visited one our German Bothers and Sisters by the Mamonists during WWII.

Thanks to you August, and to Greg Johnson at Counter-Currents for this video that clarifies the diplomatic and military maneuvering through German Eys:

HITLER’S WAR:WHAT THE HISTORIANS NEGLECT TO MENTION at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g0XyosEza8

Cheers and best wishes

I’m glad to hear that. Hope you get something out of my second show, which extended many of the important themes and issues of this program, deepening the critical one of Hitler’s intentions toward the British Empire.

That is a good resource. It contains a reference I believe I made mention of, or should have if I didn’t, in this show: What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers, 1933-39. I owe to a close contact, William, my first exposure to that interesting article. It is also posted in full at National-Socialist Worldview, and goes to the very heart of the sorts of claims that I am making in this show and my second one.

I think that there was certainly a long-standing animus in the world Jewish community against Germany that could to some reasonable extent approximate a premeditated design on Germany. Anti-Jewish sentiment had long been stronger in Germany than other European nations, and with the emergence of a government in Germany whose domestic policies were aimed at protecting its people from German influence, the desire to push Germany into a vulnerable position was evident from the outset. Even before Hitler enacted a single shred of anti-Semitic legislation, the world Jewish community embarked on what amounted to economic and psychological warfare against Germany, with an eventual, conventional war resulting in Germany’s defeat being a not undesirable aim on the part of world Jewry.

It is easy, post facto, to blame Hitler for World War II, and the racial deterioration it has fomented, but we have to remember that Hitler did not declare war on Britain and France and three times sought peace with a British Empire he had actually desired an alliance with. The expansion of a localized conflict between Germany and Poland into a continental and global one, one that could potentially undermine Europe and for the benefit of inferior peoples, including Jews, was certainly not desired by Hitler.

I agree with you that a more assertive stance would have been preferable in certain situations. For example, rather than permitting the British forces to flee Dunkirk, they might have been routed and if that had occurred it very likely would have resulted in a peace settlement between Britain and Germany. This might justifiably have been backed up with the threat of long-term imprisonment of British troops, as an incentive. This was the bulk of the British land army, after all. What compelled Hitler to allow them to escape was the same motivation that could have compelled him to capture them: To force the British, for their sake and for that of Europe as a whole, to press for peace.

Thanks for that. I hope you enjoyed the second podcast that was released tonight, albeit later than scheduled.

You raise a very good point, and one that I tried to draw out in the second installment. There were already conservative British thinkers who did not even agree with the extension of English interests in the form of Empire, but the possession of its Empire was not necessarily a detrimental one in racial terms. “Out of her womb,” Patrick J. Buchanan says, “came America, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia,” and so it facilitated an historically significant role in the extension of our race. The use of that Empire to suppress German foreign policies, which if they were directed against the interests of any nations were directed against the Soviet Union, was certainly something Hitler desired to avoid, just as he desired the continuity of the British Empire for its own sake. I am thinking of a passage in Mein Kampf where Hitler makes reference to the “Germanic mother of life”:

“The right to possess soil can become a duty if without extension of its soil a great nation seems doomed to destruction. And most especially when not some little negro nation or other is involved, but the Germanic mother of life, which has given the present-day world its cultural picture.”

That’s from his chapter, Eastern Orientation or Eastern Policy, and it likely subsumes the British Empire as much as Germany. Both the English and the Germans are a Germanic people, and the British Empire that Hitler so admired had given birth to many new nations, including America, which at the time of World War II, was peopled with people of principally, broadly, Germanic descent.

Certainly, Hitler understood that Jewish influence on the British Empire and the West in general could be decisive, something I talk about in reference to Mein Kampf in my second show. I believe that what Hitler sought was to demonstrate to British policymakers that Germany had no claim on their Empire or their interests, and to so orient German foreign policy that if anywhere it would directed explicitly against a shared, potential enemy. I believe that Chamberlain’s impulse to “appease” Germany’s aims was expressive of a larger share of British thinkers than is often given credit for, but where undermined by intense pressure from, as Chamberlain put it, “America and world Jews,” and also immense Jewish influence in the Western press, something that I point out Hitler was painfully aware of very early on.

I appreciated your feedback. They were a principal cause for me to reflect on much of what formed the basis of the second half of my second show.

You are welcome. I could envision such points as a series of notes posted on my blog, so I’ll keep that in mind.

I was thoroughly moved with my first reading of Mein Kampf, feeling that Hitler’s ability to express himself in often very poetic form was something entirely missed in my early education. Far too often we focus on the military goals of the man and neglect that none of his foreign policies were devised for aggression in and of itself, but for the practical racial gains of a unique people.

I agree with you. And one does not have to be a National-Socialist to see clearly many of the sane and valid aspects of that worldview, in spite of what has been peddled to us in film.

Thanks for that encouragement, katana. I’m privileged to be here, and in spite of some technical issues I’m happy the show is moving along.

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/

Regarding Hitler and the British, I feel that his personal Anglophilia and reluctance to engage them forcefully, once it was clear that their leadership was hell-bent on following their pugnacious and malicious tomfoolery against him, and that he should have seen that, and acted decisively against them. In other words, he erred in not moving further West, before he had to deal with the looming Bolshevik menace to the East. Harry Elmer Barnes stated as much in one of his revisionist booklets, as did a learned British friend of mine who personally knew Arnold Leese, and who was in England in 1940.

To my mind, although there is a fair amount of good literature that comes close, a thorough revisionist history of the true nature of the programmed gang rape and crucifixion of Hitler’s Germany has yet to be written.