German Islamophobes make Hitler copycat Bachmann their Fuehrer again


The image of Lutz Bachmann styled as Adolf Hitler was published by the Dresden Morgenpost after a reader spotted it on Facebook

From daily The Guardian in Britain:

Pegida head Lutz Bachmann reinstated after furore over Hitler moustache photo

The leader of Germany’s anti-Islamisation movement resigned in January after the image – which he now says was doctored – went viral

Lutz Bachmann has been reinstated as the head of Germany’s anti-Islamisation movement Pegida, a month after resigning over a photo showing him posing with a Hitler moustache.

The group confirmed on its Facebook page that the 42-year-old had been re-elected as chairman on Sunday by the six other members of the organisation’s leadership committee.

The Sächsische Zeitung reported last week that the Hitler moustache on the now infamous photo had been added after the photo was taken – though Bachmann did not mention this when the photo went viral. …

The picture of Bachmann went viral after it was published by a local newspaper, the Dresden Morgenpost. A Morgenpost reader discovered the photograph, along with what appeared to be a closed Facebook conversation between Bachmann and one of his Facebook contacts, in which he described immigrants as cattle, scumbags and trash. …

The controversy over the Hitler photo and Bachmann’s Facebook comments was seen as particularly damaging.

Bachmann’s resignation in January was followed by an exodus of leading members, apparently in an attempt to distance themselves from openly racist supporters. …

Bachmann, who carries convictions for drug possession, assault and burglary, has continued to speak at Pegida demos in Dresden. At last week’s event he imitated the 16th century church reformer Martin Luther and nailed 10 “theses” to the door of Dresden’s Kreuzkirche church. …

In the same Facebook post announcing Bachmann’s reinstatement, Pegida also welcomed its latest member – Tatjana Festerling, a former member of the eurosceptic Alternative for Germany party who attracted criticism last year for praising the Hooligans Against Salafists demo in Cologne. Bachmann said Festerling would almost certainly be the group’s new spokeswoman.

Pegida has attracted close to 160,000 likes on its Facebook page, which remains its only official web presence, but numbers at recent demos in Dresden have dwindled from a highpoint of 17,000 in January to around 2,000 in the last two weeks.

‘Nazi salutes’ claims as Pegida march through Vienna, Austria: here.

Anti-Muslim sentiments in US are being stoked by organisations and donors – paying over $57 million to demonise Islam, says report: here.

Islamophobia in Australia: here.

German Pegida Islamophobic fuehrer Bachmann, Hitler copycat


The image of Lutz Bachmann styled as Adolf Hitler was published by the Dresden Morgenpost after a reader spotted it on Facebook

Apparently, for German Pegida Islamophobic leader Lutz Bachmann, his present long criminal record is not long enough yet. He wants to emulate the biggest criminal of all time, Adolf Hitler.

From daily The Independent in Britain:

Germany’s Pegida chief Lutz Bachmann ‘poses as Hitler’ with the caption: ‘He’s back!

The leader of the right-wing anti-immigration group has since deleted his Facebook profile

Adam Whitnall

Wednesday 21 January 2015

The leader of the German right-wing political movement Pegida has come under fire after it was claimed he posed as Hitler in a Facebook post with the caption: “He’s back!”

Lutz Bachmann is the leader and most recognisable figurehead of the “Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the West” group, which has attracted up to 25,000 people to its anti-immigration marches in Dresden.

But in an online article entitled “The Two Faces of Lutz Bachmann”, the Dresden Morgenpost reproduced pictures which it claimed were from his Facebook profile showing him posing “in the style of Adolf Hitler”, as well as another from December 2012 of a Ku Klux Klan member and the slogan: “Three Ks a day keeps the minorities away.”

The images were all allegedly posted by Bachmann long before Pegida came to prominence with its first major marches in September. The leader, who insists his group’s views are “moderate”, reportedly deleted his Facebook profile after he was contacted by Morgenpost.

One of the newspaper’s readers, whose name was not revealed, provided screenshots which she claimed showed a Facebook conversation where Bachmann seemed to say there was no such thing as a “real war refugee” and describe immigrants as “cattle” and “garbage”.

“He spoke in a derogatory manner about other people who didn’t live up to his ideas,” she said. “When I challenged him, he blocked my profile.”

The “Hitler” picture has since appeared on the front page of Germany’s Bild, and Bachmann has not denied that it appeared on his page. …

Read more:

Anti-Islam demos spark furious right-wing power struggle

‘Pegida’ movement attack migrant youths

Angela Merkel: ‘They have hatred in their hearts’

See also here.

Update: The founder of the PEGIDA movement has stepped down, following a furore over an image of him on Facebook sporting a Hitler-style toothbrush mustache. Lutz Bachmann had at first tried to laugh off the image as a joke: here.

Pegida leader Lutz Bachmann steps down over Hitler photograph: here.

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