Hitler whitewash by amateur historian Nolte


This video is called Nazi Concentration Camps – Film shown at Nuremberg War Crimes Trials.

By Peter Schwarz in Germany:

An attempt to rehabilitate Hitler

24 September 2014

The magazine the European has made Adolf Hitler the central theme of its latest edition. The Nazi leader’s brightly colored face is displayed on the front page along with the headline: “Hitlertainment: Germany’s Leading Pop Star.” Inside, along with interviews with leading politicians and cultural figures, life style articles, and much that is trivial and tasteless, Ernst Nolte makes an insistent plea in defence of Hitler.

Under the headline “Break the Taboo,” the 91-year-old historian complains that after Germany’s defeat in World War II, Hitler was transformed “from a liberator to the ‘absolute evil.’”

Nolte calls himself ‘a philosopher, not a historian’. He is indeed by training not a historian, but a philosopher in the tradition of Martin Heidegger (a nazi party member until the final collapse of Hitler’s Third Reich in May 1945). So, Nolte is an amateur historian.

After the war, he writes, a “multitude of hate and condemnation” emerged, “which made the one-time ‘liberator’ a representative of ‘absolute evil’ and a ‘taboo’ who could not be spoken about seriously or scientifically.” Nolte adds, “We are still hampered by this one-sided view today.”

Elsewhere, he complains that there is not enough Hitler in contemporary German politics. Hitler, Nolte writes, could appear “as the forgotten representative of tendencies of ‘self-assertion’ that are missing in the official politics of the German government.”

Nolte goes so far as to deny Hitler’s responsibility for the Second World War. The war in 1939 was “provoked not primarily by Hitler, but by the refusal to make compromises on the part of Britain as well as Poland,” he writes.

The “refusal to compromise” was Britain’s and Poland’s refusal to succumb to Hitler’s blackmail by giving up Danzig and the Polish corridor and allying themselves with him against the Soviet Union.

Nolte also praises Hitler’s birth policy, which he describes as a “pro-natal policy.” The Nazis made a high priority of a policy based on German women delivering the Führer a large number of Aryan offspring. This was also the aim of the SS organisation “Lebensborn,” which encouraged the pregnancy of single women because, as SS leader Himmler explained, “due to the fertility of the Russians,” Germany would otherwise be “overrun by them.”

Nolte concludes that Hitler “combated the tendency towards the ‘extinction of the people (Volkstod)’ not without success through a pro-natal policy.” With barely disguised racism, he charges that, by contrast, the “leadership of the German Federal Republic,” in place of promoting German offspring, “tolerate and even encourage a policy of uncontrolled immigration.”

In 1986, Ernst Nolte provoked the so-called “historians’ dispute” (Historikerstreit) in Germany when he played down the crimes of the Nazis and justified Hitler’s policies as an understandable response to Bolshevism. His right-wing views have become more radical since then. In 1998, he wrote in a book that Hitler had “well-founded reasons” to view the Jews as enemies “and adopt appropriate measures.”

That Nolte now openly espouses views previously associated with neo-Nazi circles does not come as a surprise. What is remarkable, however, is that a supposedly serious magazine, not attached to the extreme right-wing spectrum, publishes such a contribution without comment, and this in turn provokes no opposition.

The European has been appearing online since 2009, and since 2012 it has been published four times per year in printed form. Its editor, Alexander Görlach, was previously department head at the political magazine Cicero. With a doctorate in theology and political science, he is well connected politically. He was deputy spokesman for the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union parliamentary fraction, and spokesman for the Association of Catholic Students. He has worked for several newspapers, radio stations and television broadcasters, and is a member of the Atlantik-Brücke think tank.

Alongside Nolte’s piece, the latest edition of the European features interviews with German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, veteran Social Democratic politician Egon Bahr, Christian Democratic Union politician Wolfgang Bosbach, the philosopher Rüdiger Safranski, filmmaker Alexander Kluge, economist Thomas Piketty, and the general secretary of the German section of Amnesty International, Selmin Caliskan.

So far, however, none of these individuals seems concerned that his interview appears alongside a polemic calling for breaking the taboo on Hitler.

While Nolte’s more moderate theses provoked strong opposition in 1986, today silence reigns. The only conclusion that can be reached is that ideas long considered extreme right-wing and unacceptable are once again part of the mainstream and viewed as a legitimate contribution to debate.

The European, which calls itself a magazine of debate, is not the first supposedly serious magazine to publicize Nolte. His rehabilitation began in 2000, when he was awarded the Konrad Adenauer prize by the Deutschland Foundation. Then, in February of this year, Der Spiegel opened its pages to him.

Already in Der Spiegel, in an interview with Dirk Kurbjuweit, Nolte claimed, without being challenged, that the Poles and the British were partly responsible for the Second World War because they had not joined sides with Hitler. Berlin-based historian Jörg Baberowski appeared in Der Spiegel as Nolte’s advocate, declaring, “Nolte was done an injustice. He was historically correct.”

How can these attempts to rehabilitate Hitler be explained? It is obviously not just a matter of isolated flukes. Although Nolte’s contribution stands out for its open partisanship in favor of Hitler, the entire edition of the European is organized to give Nolte’s opinions credibility.

The “debate magazine” is conducting a very strange debate. It is not about clarifying what really happened in the past and what lessons are to be drawn for the present. Questions that have occupied generations of serious historians are not touched upon, such as: Who was Hitler? Whose interests did he represent? Who helped him come to power? Why did the workers’ movement fail? Terms such as Auschwitz, Gestapo, war of annihilation, and war crimes are absent.

Instead, Hitler has been transformed into a subjective cipher. The claim “whether we like it or not, Hitler is today a caricature of popular culture,” runs like a thread from the magazine’s first page to its last.

Editor Görlach declares “a de-demonisation is good for our approach to the Nazi period.” There are pieces on “The Monster Next Door” and “The Hitler in Us.” There are over seven pages of uncensored Nazi propaganda in the form of Hitler caricatures from the 1920s with the original comments by Nazi media chief Ernst Hanfstaengl. Nolte’s contribution fits perfectly into this eclectic mishmash.

The fact that the authors and producers of the magazine deal with Hitler in a thoroughly subjective way does not mean that they have no objective motives. The European ’s second major topic is significant in this respect. It is presented under the heading: “The Just War. What would we Germans still kill for?”

The attempt to rehabilitate Hitler is inseparably bound up with the campaign to end Germany’s military restraint, as propagated by German President Joachim Gauck, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and many other politicians and media representatives since the end of 2013.

History is returning with a vengeance. In 1961, Fritz Fischer in his book Griff nach der Weltmacht (Bid for World Power) exposed Germany’s war aims in World War I and proved that the Nazis pursued the same goals in World War II. Today, Foreign Minister Steinmeier—particularly in Ukraine—is walking in the footsteps of his predecessors Bethmann Hollweg and von Ribbentrop. The global crisis of capitalism and the unraveling of the European Union are posing German imperialism with the same tasks it confronted in 1914 and 1939.

Numerous politicians, journalists and academics are attempting to justify the revival of German militarism ideologically. Jürgen Habermas, who led Nolte’s opponents in the historians’ dispute of the 1980s, has been supporting “humanitarian” military interventions since the war against Serbia in 1999. Green Party “anti-fascists” are cooperating with rightists in Kiev who honor Nazi collaborators in the Second World War. They feel the irresistible urge to rehabilitate Hitler. “We must, of course, humanise Hitler,” writes the author Timur Vermes in the European.

Workers and young people should take this as a warning. Those who today call for lifting the taboo on Hitler will have no scruples about repeating his crimes, abroad and at home, tomorrow.

Whether their creators intended them as responses to the resurgence of German militarism or not, two films screened at this year’s Toronto film festival, both set in the postwar period, dealt quite strongly with the devastating consequences of Nazism: here.

Russia, the new nazi Germany?


This video is called Hitler’s Holocaust 2 of 6 The Decision.

By Owen Jones in daily The Guardian in Britain:

David Cameron and the cynicism of comparing Putin to Hitler

Vladimir Putin is responsible for some awful human rights abuses in Ukraine, but Cameron drawing parallels to Hitler is a cheap, politically motivated shot

Wednesday 3 September 2014 11.35 BST

Oh, here we go. The west’s escalating showdown with Vladimir Putin has led to Adolf Hitler being invoked. According to David Cameron, the west risks “repeating the mistakes made in Munich in ‘38”, making it clear the role he sees the Russian leader as assuming. Putin was able to flatten Chechnya at the beginning of the century without such inflammatory comparisons – Tony Blair even cheered him on – but it was only a matter of time before western leaders began flinging Nazi comparisons around in the Ukraine crisis.

The west comparing its latest enemy number to the German Fuhrer has been a standard tactic for decades. When Egypt’s General Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal in 1956, Britain’s prime minister, Anthony Eden, compared him to Hitler, while Labour’s Hugh Gaitskell opted for a comparison with Benito Mussolini. Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic was the Hitler of the late 1990s, and the US dabbled with describing former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in these terms too. On the eve of the Iraq war, Saddam Hussein was repeatedly compared to Hitler, with Donald Rumsfeld even casting George W Bush in the role of Winston Churchill. The media abounded with such parallels in the build-up to the Iraq disaster, with one Telegraph article headlined “Appeasement won’t stop Saddam any more than Hitler” and even suggesting Iraq could bomb Southampton. On either sides of his rapprochement with the west, Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi faced the Hitler treatment, too.

In and of themselves, these comparisons are self-evidently ludicrous. Hitler was a racist totalitarian dictator who presided over the world’s only attempt at industrialised genocides of entire peoples, killing tens of millions in the process. It is possible to regard foreign leaders as deeply unpleasant and abusive of basic human rights without believing they are Hitler. There is plenty of space between “democracy that respects human rights” and “genocidal totalitarian regime with ambitions to conquer much of the world”. Cameron’s comparison will undoubtedly fuel anti-western sentiment among the Russian population: after all, the Soviet Union was absolutely instrumental in the defeat of Nazism, suffering well over 20 million fatalities. In the case of Russia, comparisons to Hitler could hardly be more insulting.

But the propaganda purpose is clear. Hitler is the most despised leader in history; everybody rational agrees that intervening was the right thing to do in that case. Those who demanded his appeasement are utterly discredited by history, and therefore it is highly effective to regard opponents of current western wars as the same dangerously naive, inadvertent friends of tyrants that can only be defeated. It is obvious in hindsight that the appeasers were wrong; their inheritors will one day be seen in just the same way after they have inflicted similar damage, or so the narrative goes.

There is no doubting the pernicious role of Putin. Pro-Russian rebels in the so-called Dontesk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic have been found to be arbitrarily detaining civilians and subjecting them to torture and other terrible mistreatment. Terrible human rights abuses have been committed by such rebels.

But let’s not pretend Ukraine’s government are champions of human rights either. According to Human Rights Watch, they have been using “indiscriminate rockets in populated areas” in violation of international humanitarian law. There have been unlawful, indiscriminate attacks by both government and rebels in Luhansk, and Ukraine’s government has shelled civilians in Dontesk, too. Amnesty International has similarly damned pro-Kiev vigilantes in eastern Ukraine. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian civilians have fled for the Russian border.

War between the west and Russia is clearly unthinkable, and only a negotiated settlement involving all parties in Ukraine can provide lasting peace. The ceasefire announced by Ukraine and Russia is promising, and needs to be supported to ensure that it lasts. Let’s resist the Hitler comparisons, which intend simply to shut down any reasoned discussion, to demonise all those who are not hawks, and to ratchet up tension. Soon enough, though, western leaders will settle on a new enemy number one, and the Hitler comparisons will begin all over again.

Also from The Guardian today:

Far from keeping the peace, Nato is a threat to it

It was the prospect of Ukraine being drawn into the western military alliance that triggered conflict in the first place

French Rightist politician praises Hitler’s genocide


This video is about Hitler’s Roma Holocaust.

From the (conservative) Daily Mail in England:

French politician provokes outrage by suggesting Adolf Hitler ‘did not kill enough Roma gypsies

French politician causes outrage after stirring up memories of holocaust

In an incendiary outburst, Gilles Bourdouleix also accuses gypsies of incest

Calls made for UDI party leader Jean-Louis Borloo to sack his colleague

By Peter Allen

PUBLISHED: 12:48 GMT, 23 July 2013 | UPDATED: 12:50 GMT, 23 July 2013

A French politician has caused outrage by suggesting that Adolf Hitler ‘did not kill enough’ Roma gypsies.

In the latest ferocious attack on travellers, MP Gilles Bourdouleix stirred up memories of the Holocaust, when the Nazis sent thousands of gypsies to the gas chambers because Hitler believed them to be sub-human.

Mr Bourdouleix, who represents a constituency in the Maine and Loire region of west France, was visiting an illegal Roma camp in the town of Cholet, where he is deputy mayor, when he made the incendiary comments.

Surrounded by armed police, Mr Bourdouleix was trying to persuade the new arrivals to move on.

But as he began to speak to community leaders, some of the Roma gypsies standing by began to make Nazi salutes in his direction.

Mr Bourdouleix was recorded by a local journalist saying: ‘Like what, Hitler didn’t kill enough’.

Challenged about his comment by some of the Roma men, Mr Bourdouleix said: ‘You compared me to Hitler, do you think that’s nice?’

Mr Bourdouleix then accused the community of incest, saying: ‘The other day, they called me a paedophile, even though half of their children are from fathers and grandfathers.’

Fabien Leduc, the journalist who recorded Mr Bourdouleix, has since transcribed a word-for-word account of the recoding.

Expel: Jean-Louis Borloo is now considering throwing Mr Bourdouleix out of the UDI Party

It has persuaded Jean-Louis Borloo, leader of Mr Bourdouleix’s party, the centre-right UDI, that he should consider expelling his colleague.

He said: ‘Whatever the real and unacceptable provocation the deputy mayor of Cholet, Gilles Bourdouleix, was subjected to, nothing justifies the remarks apparently made by him.’

Jean-Christophe Lagarde, the secretary general of the UDI party, meanwhile tweeted: ‘The words of Bourdouleix, even though made in the heat of the moment, were intolerable and incompatible with the values of the UDI.’

Mr Lagarde added: ‘The only possible sanction is his expulsion from the UDI, and this should be adopted by the executive committee next Wednesday.’ …

French politicians from both Right and Left have launched an onslaught on Roma gypsies in recent years, destroying their camps and deporting them back to countries including Romania and Bulgaria.

The First American Anti-Nazi Film [1934], Rediscovered: here.

Hitler ‘superhero’ in Thailand


This video is called An Alfred Hitchcock documentary on the Nazi Holocaust.

From daily The Guardian in Britain:

Thai university apologises for ‘superhero’ Hitler billboard

Nazi leader depicted on banner hailing Chulalongkorn graduates alongside Batman, Captain America and the Incredible Hulk

Monday 15 July 2013 11.28 BST

Thailand‘s leading university has apologised for displaying a billboard that showed Adolf Hitler alongside Superman and other superheroes, saying it was painted by ignorant students who did not realise the image would offend anyone.

The huge billboard was placed outside the art faculty of Chulalongkorn university as part of a tribute to this year’s graduates.

It said “Congratulations” in bold white letters and showed Hitler with his arm raised in a Nazi salute next to Batman, Captain America, the Incredible Hulk and Iron Man.

“[We] would like to formally express our sincere apology for our students’ superhero mural,” the art school dean Suppakorn Disatapundhu said in a statement on Monday. “I can assure you we are taking this matter very seriously.”

The billboard was up for two days before being removed on Saturday in response to criticism. Online photographs showed graduating students in their robes, mimicking Hitler’s raised-arm salute.

Suppakorn said new art students had painted the banner as part of a traditional send-off from incoming students to the graduating class, and it was one of dozens of banners and billboards across the campus during the university’s commencement period.

The artistic vision behind the picture was to show that good and bad people co-exist in the world, Suppakorn said after summoning the students for an explanation.

“They told me the concept was to paint a picture of superheroes who protect the world,” the dean said in a telephone interview.

“Hitler was supposed to serve as a conceptual paradox to the superheroes,” he said, noting that the superheroes were painted in vivid colours while Hitler’s image was in grey. “This kind of thoughtless display will not happen again.”

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre, an international Jewish human rights group, had criticised the banner before its removal.

“Hitler as a superhero? Is he an appropriate role model for Thailand’s younger generation – a genocidal hatemonger who mass-murdered Jews and Gypsies and who considered people of colour as racially inferior?” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean at the centre, in a statement on Friday.

“The Simon Wiesenthal Centre is outraged and disgusted by this public display at Thailand’s leading school of higher education.”

The study of history in the Thai school system revolves primarily around the history of Thailand and its long line of kings. World history is glossed over, with little or no mention of the Holocaust.

Flemish racists celebrate Hitler’s birthday in parliament


This video says about itself:

The Hidden Face Of The Vlaams Belang (1/8)

Nov 18, 2007

A Belgian documentary on the Flemish far-right party Vlaams Belang and its disturbing past and present.

Translated from an interview by Michael Lescroart with Bart Debie, ex-police commissioner and ex-Member of Parliament of the extreme Right political party Vlaams Belang; in the (conservative) Belgian daily Gazet van Antwerpen, paper edition, 9 March 2013:

“On Hitler‘s birthday, Vlaams Belang representatives celebrate in the parliament’s restaurant”

Yes, there are people in Vlaams Belang with hardline nazi sympathies. That includes members of parliament. After they had some drinks, I have seen them make the Hitler salute.

I have also filmed them doing that. …

Eg, on Hitler’s birthday it was their custom to have a little party in the restaurant of the Flemish parliament. Then, they drank to the health of “uncle Marcel”. A code name for the Führer. I have always really had problems with this.

See also here.