One example:

If you highlight all these liberal Jews doing X thing and then omit all the liberal non-Jews doing the same thing, then you’re being dishonest and distorting reality to make it seem like all and only that one group is doing that thing.

Why do the memers choose to deceive like this? If mass immigration is bad and groups who promote it are bad, then why leave out the Christians (and secular non-religious people) who are promoting it? Why give them a pass and only focus in on Jews who do it?

After observing these people’s behavior on platforms like X, my conclusion is that most of the people who only talk about Jews and immigration are themselves Christians. As Christians, they are hard-pressed to find fault in the actions of members of their own group. It’s much easier to blame it all on an “other” and project moral purity for themselves as victims of this “other”. Same phenomenon with White nationalists who deny the role that Whites have played in the decline of the West. “Not my group, we are victims of other groups!”

So let’s look at it.

World Relief, a Christian humanitarian group, penned an article highlighting historical Christian support for refugees and immigrants. To justify their stance on a religious basis, they cite a bible verse often cited by Jews who support immigration too:

“Welcome the stranger” seems to be the clarion call for both Christians and Jews who have championed refugees and “the vulnerable” in general. World Relief says it’s a “biblical calling” to support immigrants and oppose restrictions on their entry:

In recent U.S. history, Christians have referenced Deuteronomy 24:14 as a moral reason to look out for the good of immigrants: “Do not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns.”

This Scripture has inspired countless people of faith to seek justice and care for immigrants navigating a foreign culture in the United States.

At times of prevalent anti-immigrant narratives, Christians have returned to the Bible’s command to care for immigrants and refugees. At times when the Church forgot its mandate, bold leaders reminded the Church of this biblical calling.

The article cites the case of William Speer, a Presbyterian pastor and missionary, who became a vocal advocate for Chinese immigrant laborers in California in the 1840s and 1850s when Americans were demanding restrictions on immigration.

Speer became:

a vocal advocate for the fair treatment of Chinese immigrants. He used his relationships, knowledge of their language, and workforce data to argue against anti-Chinese legislation and even planted a Chinese Christian church in San Francisco in 1853. During his lifetime, he was vocal in opposition to racial prejudice and left a legacy of successors who contributed to fighting the racist anti-Chinese sentiment and joined with Chinese Christians to lead and channel Presbyterian support for the community.

Next it cites the activities of the Christian organization YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association) who aided the millions of new immigrants to the US in the early 20th century:

other Christians formed organizations and associations that helped immigrants integrate into the community. The YMCA in Cincinnati hosted the first known English as a Second Language (ESL) class in 1856 to help German immigrants gain language skill. Additionally, the YMCA served Asian communities in San Francisco. Then, in 1903, the YMCA created a specific department to work with industrial workers and immigrants, a legacy continued through to the YMCA’s present day adult education classes, refugee services, and New American Welcome Centers.

It references the work of Christian organizations, churches and charities who lobbied the US government to accept displaced persons and refugees during and after World War II:

During this displacement, Catholic and Protestant congregations organized to respond. Christians joined with U.S. policymakers to convince American citizens to sponsor refugees. And while the U.S. Government created new resettlement legislation, Christian agencies and churches planned and implemented resettlement efforts, while also advocating before the government. In 1948, the United States passed the country’s first refugee and resettlement law. As a result, the government and Christian agencies partnered to help displaced Europeans seeking permanent residence in the United States after World War II. And to welcome the newcomers into community life.

In a thirty year period between 1950 and 1980, the US government did not provide assistance to refugees, so the Christian churches and faith groups “stepped up to fill in the gaps and help refugees get their footing.” World Relief notes the example of Christian missionary Evelyn Mangham who personally cold-called hundreds of churches to convince them to take in Vietnamese refugees fleeing the war:

a woman named Evelyn Mangham emerged to call the Church to welcome Vietnamese refugees. With 20 years of experience as a missionary, Evelyn Mangham cold-called churches. She quoted the Bible. And she told stories. Because of her commitment to the Church and Scripture, she worked tirelessly to convince churches to sponsor refugees from Vietnam. In the span of a year, she had convinced churches to sponsor 10,000 refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

Mangham went on to found the World Relief charity alongside her husband.

The 1980s rolled around and “Christians, alongside Jewish and other faith leaders, advocated on behalf of [Latino] migrants [fleeing conflicts]”. This led to the Sanctuary Movement:

The Sanctuary Movement began in 1980 with a goal: to provide shelters to Central American refugees fleeing civil wars. For instance, churches provided English lessons, basic humanitarian help, and legal aid through immigration attorneys. Additionally, leaders preached sermons, organized protests, and advocated to the government on behalf of the asylum seekers. And hundreds of religious communities provided sanctuary, usually inside houses of worship. At its height, the movement grew to include more than 500 congregations.

The Sanctuary Movement lobbied Reagan to pass “the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. This landmark piece of legislation extended temporary worker visa programs and helped 3 million people gain legal status.”

Two prominent leaders of the Sanctuary Movement were retired Presbyterian minister John Fife (who founded the No More Deaths NGO) and American Quaker James A. Corbett.

World Relief ends their article noting that of the leading nine refugee resettlement agencies working with the US government, five are Christian:

Today, there are nine agencies that work with the U.S. Government to resettle refugees. World Relief is one of them, along with five other faith-based organizations. One is Jewish, one is Catholic, and three others are Protestant.

The UNHCR’s webpage lists ten refugee resettlement agencies that they work with and six are Christian:

It’s a similar phenomenon in the UK where 90% of the refugee charities are Christian:

There are also a few Jewish and Islamic groups doing the same there.

Another article on the topic reveals the extensive support American Christians have given to immigrants and refugees at various times. It explains that Christian public opinion in the US is turning against immigration as of late, but it was not always that way:

Before the 1990s, evangelical Christians were busier resettling the newly arrived refugees than banning them from entering the United States. Before they became immigration restrictionists, evangelicals actively endorsed and participated in a large-scale legalization effort for undocumented immigrants (and, indeed, some evangelicals still assist undocumented immigrants in that way). In cooperation with the Justice Department’s Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), evangelical churches across the country helped legalize thousands of undocumented immigrants during the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act’s legalization program.

Signed into law by Ronald Reagan, the reform allowed the opportunity for nearly three million undocumented immigrants to become permanent residents. Among other civil sector organizations, this program enlisted the support of evangelical churches, which provided facilities and volunteers to help interested individuals determine their eligibility and process their applications for citizenship. Nearly all of the major evangelical denominations and organizations were involved – either independently or by participating in the Evangelical Task Force on Legalization run by World Relief, an evangelical relief and resettlement organization.

This support was substantial and essential to the entry of tens of thousands of migrants into the US:

For evangelical pastors, the legalization program was an opportunity to minister to and serve those marginalized by society, as well as a way to solve problems relating to immigration issues in their own pews. While INS officers provided the training and the forms, evangelicals offered the public space, equipment, and volunteers to process legalization forms and determine applicants’ eligibility. Throughout the duration of the program between May 1987 and May 1988, the Task Force established twenty-eight processing centers as well as eighty-five counseling centers in the churches of its member denominations. At the end of the program, 14,518 applications had been submitted to INS through the task force, and 70,000 individuals had received counseling on their eligibility.

Once again, they cited biblical passages to justify it:

In their efforts to help legalize undocumented immigrants under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, evangelicals drew on many Scriptural commands to show hospitality and “welcome the stranger.” They had previously cited these commands when they helped resettle refugees from Cuba in the 1960s and from Southeast Asia during the 1970s and early 1980s. In their efforts to attract refugee sponsors and volunteers for their ministry to undocumented immigrants, evangelical leaders explained that the Bible was filled with stories of migration and replete with commands to the people of Israel to protect the sojourners in their midst. They stressed that extending a welcoming hand to refugees was not only in line with, but was imperative in light of biblical teaching on the care of foreigners. Helping refugees was a direct response to Christ’s call to help “the least of these my brethren” and to both Old and New Testament commands to practice hospitality toward the sojourner.

Another article mentions Evangelical Christian assistance to Cuban and Asian migrants:

Evangelical leaders have called on Christians to “welcome the stranger” since the early 1960s, when evangelical churches started getting involved in the resettlement of Cuban refugees through the U.S. government’s Cuban Refugee Center…. This was not just applied to coreligionists: The same denominations and organizations that had resettled the Catholic Cubans in the 1960s (though these were not viewed as fellow Christians, either) continued to resettle refugees from Southeast Asia in the 1970s and 1980s, many of whom where Buddhists. Southern Baptist volunteers held Americanization and ESL classes at the refugee camps in Arkansas (Fort Chaffee), California (Camp Pendleton) and Florida (Eglin Air Force Base), where the refugees arrived. They built relationships with the refugees and guided them through the day-to-day activities in the camp. In fact, some of the volunteers were former missionaries to Vietnam, who – unable to continue their missionary work on site – discovered that their mission field had relocated with them. They were an important resource for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which gladly accepted their services as language and sometimes cultural interpreters.

While this pro-immigrant sentient is starting to change among the general Christian public in the West, the Christian church leadership is still mostly on board with globalism. The Catholic Pope Francis is the most vocal proponent for open borders.

Pope Francis has been one of the most outspoken globalists in the Vatican, calling relentlessly for more liberal and tolerant immigration policies. He has called the rejection of refugees a “grave sin”:

Working to turn migrants away from the prospect of peace and security in a new country is “a grave sin,” Pope Francis said. “It needs to be said clearly: There are those who systematically work by all means to drive away migrants, and this, when done knowingly and deliberately, is a grave sin,” he said during his general audience Aug. 28.

As Trump comes into office, Pope Francis just appointed a liberal Bishop to be the next archbishop of Washington:

Cardinal McElroy, 70, is a longtime supporter of the pope’s pastoral agenda, and is known for regularly speaking out on the inclusion of migrants, women and L.G.B.T.Q. people in the Catholic church and in the United States.

At a news conference at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington on Monday morning, Cardinal McElroy directly addressed Mr. Trump’s immigration proposals, stating that plans for a “wider, indiscriminate, massive deportation across the country” would be “incompatible with Catholic doctrine.”

Catholic charities are heavily involved in lobbying for and directly assisting the entry of migrants into many Western countries. The International Catholic Migration Commission itself says Catholic groups are responsible for resettling 30% of the refugees who enter the US:

The nine national refugee resettlement agencies of the United States, including the Migration and Refugees Services of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, have urged the U.S. Administration to increase the number of refugee admissions to the country. They call upon the president to authorize the arrival of 62,500 refugees by the end of September 2021.

In a 9 April letter to President Joseph Biden, the nine U.S. national domestic refugee resettlement agencies urge him to honor his commitment of increasing refugee resettlement opportunities. Among the agencies is the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC)’s national member, Migration and Refugee Services of the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Conference, which assists in the resettlement of approximately 30% of refugees to the country. Its resettlement network includes over 100 diocesan offices across the country.

An article on the subject tells us this:

USCCB affiliate Catholic Charities boasts assistance to an annual 650,000 migrants on the record, each of whom received legal counsel, jobs, transportation, food & shelter, and contacts for further assistance inside the country. The Catholic Legal Immigrant Network (CLINIC) claims offering legal assistance to an additional 500,000 annually. Assuming no overlap, as much as over 1 million immigrants are receiving legal aid & transportation from the Catholic Church every year.

An array of services and lawfare is offered by the Church and its countless subgroups. Catholic Charities focuses on so-called “respite centers”, also known as migrant camps. The large tent cities you see on the news are not random but in fact built and maintained by NGOs such as CC. They operate on *both* sides of the border. Once across, they feed, wash, clothe, and bed migrants. After a rest, they meet individually and give legal counsel and a plane or bus ticket to the next center with instructions on who to meet and when. Have you wondered, “who paid for their transportation? Who pays for the hotels, the brand new clothes?” Chances are high that it was your church.

CLINIC alternatively focuses on legal assistance to migrants, public advocacy, lawfare training, and lobbying. It is the US’s largest network of immigrant activist programs, founded by the USCCB in 1989. Its website promises free services including direct legal representation, family reunification, and VISA acquisition. On top of this, it is also one of the most prominent immigrant lobbying groups in the country. CLINIC was personally responsible in stifling a number of Trump’s immigration reform policies, including ending permanent residency for refugees and requiring refugees to prove “credible fear” in an interview with a federal official. Additionally, they offer counsel and training to legal groups on the state and local level. If there is a legal matter involving an immigration policy, CLINIC has its hands on it. As of writing, CLINIC is working on getting Temporary Protected Status and permanent residency for thousands of Palestinians and Congolese wishing to enter the US.

When this group is brought up, the 4chan MEMETARDS always post a selectively photoshopped image of some of CLINIC’s staff who have German/Jewish-sounding names.

There’s no proof all five of these five staff members are Jewish, they could be German, but let’s break it down further. This is a cherry pick of five names off a list of 58 staff!

Clearly, the vast majority of these people are not Jewish (assuming those five are). Moreover, this is not the Board but the staff. This is the current staff:

Here are the members of the board:

It’s all Catholic clergy.

The same types of messages can be heard from other church leaders. The Church of England vigorously backs migrants and refugees and sponsors their entry in the UK.

Christian churches and charities are doing this in most Western countries, including Iceland.

Churches in Spain are doing the same:

Same in Canada:

Germany’s Protestant Church helps fund Sea-Watch 4 who rescue migrants in the Med and bring them to Europe.

Christian charities are getting the lion’s share of over a billion dollars in US government grants to resettle refugees.

Catholic charities are getting over three billion in federal grants.

You can compare that with the between 250 to 350 million that HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid) gets depending on the year.

In 2017, 100 Evangelical leaders signed a letter blasting Donald Trump’s Muslim immigration ban:

Scores of evangelical leaders, including at least one from each state, have taken out a full-page newspaper advertisement to denounce President Donald Trump’s temporary ban on refugees, urging him to reconsider his executive order and welcome people fleeing persecution and violence.

Signees include Pastor Timothy Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York, Christian author Ann Voskamp, Bill and Lynne Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church, preacher and author Max Lucado, Pastor Eugene Cho of Quest Church and Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

These are some of the Bible passages Christian groups have used to justify their pro-immigration stance:

The evidence for this goes on and on.

Some Americans trace mass immigration from the third world back to the 1965 Hart-Cellar immigration act and put all of the blame for that squarely on the Jewish groups and Jewish congressman Emmanuel Cellar for its passage. But Christians were also involved and central to its success.

Philip Hart, the bill co-sponsor, was Catholic. Ted Kennedy, a big supporter of the bill, is Catholic and cited the familiar “welcome the stranger” bible passages to justify his support. Ted Kennedy continued to support progressive causes long after the 1965 immigration bill:

The Irish Catholic Kennedy family, especially John F. Kennedy, were instrumental in forwarding the general civil rights movement in the 1960s as well as immigration reform to abolish the national origins quota system. The Democrat capture of the house and senate in 1960 laid the groundwork for the passage of civil rights bills. Cofnas reports:

Kennedy’s election in 1960 “ensured that immigration reform, though not a priority for the new administration, would find a place on the new president’s agenda” (ibid.: 55). In 1965, Johnson was president, and Democrats controlled both the Senate (68–32) and the House (295–140). Graham comments: “These circumstances, especially the egalitarian thrust from the civil rights movement, virtually ensured that the 89th Congress would be pressed by the White House and the congressional leadership to abolish the national origins quota system in 1965” (ibid.: 56).

What the JQers often leave out of the discussion is that, while Jews played a strong role in pushing for immigration reform, so did Italian Catholics who formed a lobbying group to pressure the congress to pass the 1965 Hart-Cellar bill. The Irish Catholic Kennedy family of politicians led the charge for civil rights, including immigration liberalization:

Immigration reform was also a personal project of John F. Kennedy, Chin notes, whose pamphlet written as a senator was published after his assassination as the book A Nation of Immigrants, and argued for the elimination of the National Origins Quota System in place since 1921. Ted Kennedy, along with Attorney General and Sen. Robert Kennedy (D-N.Y.), were both proponents of the bill, in part to honor their brother and also because it was consistent with their general interest in civil rights and international cold war politics, Chin adds.

Renewal of the system was particularly offensive to groups that represented Italians and Jews, who had been particularly affected by the restrictions. The American Committee on Italian Migration conducted an intensive lobbying campaign. Publication of A Nation of Immigrants was a project of the Anti-Defamation league of B’nai B’rith, which had been impressed by Sen. John F. Kennedy’s record of supporting liberal immigration laws, including measures to accept refugees from war-ravaged Europe. The book was actually written by a member of Kennedy’s staff, Myer Feldman. Describing Kennedy’s participation as minimal, Feldman said the senator had “reviewed it, and did some editing.”10

While Kennedy was one of his era’s most outspoken reform advocates, he used a 1957 speech to the American Jewish Congress to make clear that he did not favor unlimited immigration. He stated his conviction that “we should have a system of limited and selective migration to the United States.” Kennedy’s principal objection with the status quo was about “the nature, not the existence” of restrictions. Asserting that a selective policy was necessary, he said that policy should “give preference to an immigrant because he is a nuclear physicist rather than because he is an Anglo-Saxon.”11

Kennedy was aware of the political as well as the ideological value of expansive immigration policies, especially in northern states where immigrants and their families were concentrated. In a 1955 letter to fellow Sen. Lyndon Johnson, he wrote, “The Democratic Party must do something to fulfill its 1952 pledges concerning revision of the McCarran Act if it is to have any appeal in the large cities of the North in 1956.”12

That Italian-Catholic lobbying group rarely gets a mention when talking about the Hart-Cellar bill, but it was important:

The American Committee on Italian Migration (ACIM) was organized in February 1952 as a member agency of the National Catholic Resettlement Council, which later formed part of the National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC). From its inception, ACIM’s chief objective was the liberalization of the United States immigration policy that, as delineated in the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, rested upon a restrictive “national origins” quota. ACIM undertook a wide range of activities, from raising funds to sponsoring new Italian immigrants into the United States and promoting new immigration legislation by Congress. This collection contains additional materials donated to CMS by ACIM in 2003, mostly documenting ACIM’s work in the 1970s-1990s. The collection contains office files and case records pertaining to lobbying US Congress regarding immigration law, and to the assistance of Italian immigrants in Italy and the United States.

Pretty much all of the groups who were being excluded by the national origins quotas were inclined to support the reforms:

John Higham described the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act as a “blatantly discriminatory” effort “to freeze the existing balance of ethnic strains in the total American population” by sharply restricting the arrival of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. “Since the brunt of the restrictionist attack was aimed more than ever at the supposedly racial qualities of the new immigration, it stung the Jews, the Italians, the Slavs, and the Greeks deeply,” Higham wrote.

The Hart-Cellar Act and most other major civil rights acts were passed by Lyndon Baines Johnson’s administration after JFK was assassinated. Johnson’s “Great Society” bills created the modern civil rights/welfare state.

On the immigration issue, Johnson had this to say:

But as Johnson delivered his first such address less than two months after becoming president he became an energetic advocate of the reform. “We must … lift by legislation the bars of discrimination against those who seek entry into our country, particularly those who have much needed skills and those joining their families,” President Johnson said. In a reference to the legislation’s use of preferences to replace national quotas, he added: “A nation that was built by the immigrants of all lands can ask those who now seek admission: ‘What can you do for our country?’ But we should not be asking: ‘In what country were you born?’”

Johnson was a fervent Christian who cited his religion to justify his stand against discrimination. He “believed in the brotherhood of all mankind, in racial and religious tolerance, and in the integrity and dignity of the individual.”

He was an active Christian and descended from a long line of Baptist preachers:

Moreover, this is what LBJ’s cabinet looked like when he passed the Civil Rights Act:

I’m only counting two Jews out of 29 people.

Without the Kennedy family, LBJ, Hart and other Christians (including all the hundreds of other Democratic congressmen and senators), that bill and other civil rights bills don’t get passed.

If we move onto modern politics, we can find plenty of politicians who identify as Christians promoting the same open borders globalism that Jewish liberals like George Soros have been spearheading.

Joe Biden, an Irish Catholic, said it’s a “good thing” Whites will become a minority in the US.

He often cites his faith to buttress his social justice politics.

Peter Sutherland, an Irish Catholic, served as UN Special Representative for International Migration from 2006 to 2017. He also headed the International Catholic Migration Commission for a time. He was a leading advocate for open borders in Europe, once calling explicitly for “undermining the national homogeneity of Europe.”

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, raised religiously Catholic, championed the most liberal immigration policies in the country’s history. He explicitly said Canada has “no core identity” and put a Somali refugee in charge of immigration in his first term.

Germany’s former Chancellor Angela Merkel is a Protestant. She championed the most liberal immigration policies in Germany’s history, allowing millions of Syrian refugees into the country in 2015 and many others.

Merkel’s father was a Lutheran pastor and theologian and she was raised in a religious environment. She was “deeply influenced by her father”. Merkel’s biographer noted that she “was more intensely affected by her family home and the Christian faith than she was by her study of physics”. She was quoted saying that she is a believer in God, she attends an Evangelical church, religion is her “constant companion” and “the Bible is the book that has most influenced her life”. She also said Germany’s value system was based on Christianity.

Tony Blair, the UK Prime Minister who opened the floodgates of mass immigration in the 1990s under his leadership, was raised Anglican and converted to Catholicism. He spearheaded the most liberal immigration policy in the UK’s history.

Far-left Democrat politician Elizabeth Warren, a Christian, justified her social justice stances by citing her faith.

There’s an interesting contrast here between the Christian liberal Warren vs the Jewish conservative Stephen Miller, who Warren tried to drive out of the White House.

Frans Timmermans, a Dutch politician and former Vice-President of the European Commission, is one of the most radical advocates for diversity and open borders. He said: “Diversity is humanity’s destiny… there will not be, even in the remotest places of this planet, a nation that won’t see diversity in its future”.

He hasn’t specifically cited his faith for his political views but he is a Roman Catholic.

One of the loudest advocates for open borders and charity to Africa is singer Bono, an Irishman who was raised in a religious Christian household. Wiki mentions that his lyrics “frequently include social and political themes, and religious imagery inspired by his Christian beliefs.”

Jamie Drummond, a board member of Bono’s charity, said this: “As Africa’s population doubles they will be coming to Europe… and that is a good thing because we will be senile…we need their youthful energy.”

It later came out that Bono’s charity gives only 1.2% of its donations to poor Africans and pockets the rest.

This is what the board looks like (three Jews out of 12):

Kamala Harris, the most liberal politician in America today (who oversaw Biden’s disastrous open border) and de-facto leader of the Democrat Party, was raised as a Baptist and attended church.

She does not often cite her faith to back up her political liberalism but she does nonetheless still profess Christianity.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg. In the entertainment world, you can find plenty of Christians or people who were raised Christian who champion liberalism and globalism. One was “anti-establishment” comedian George Carlin, an Irish Catholic.

Carlin appears in multiple instances to make explicitly anti-White statements. In a Seattle Times interview, he hailed the “decline of the white race on this planet.”

Many of the major late-night hosts and other hosts of political shows are leftists and a number of them are Christian or were raised Christian. Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, Chris Cuomo, Rachael Maddow, Jimmy Kimmel, and Chris Hayes were all raised Christian.

Colbert infamously said, “White people will soon be a minority in America and that’s great!”

Other celebrities like Robert DeNiro and Leonardo Dicaprio are notorious political liberals who hate Trump.

The intention of this article is not to cast aspersions on all Christians or blame them for what the Christian leadership has done. I argue the same point against blaming all Jews for the liberal stances of their elite. Fortunately, the majority of Christians are turning against mass immigration and reject the globalism of their elites.

I could make another article showing all the non-Jewish and non-Christian atheists who support the same open borders globalism that the Jewish and Christian elite do. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that there is no single group that’s responsible for the implementation of globalist/liberal policies. The memetards who suffer from tunnel vision want us to blame exclusively Jews for immigration, but the preponderance of the evidence shows there are many more people involved from different ethnic and religious backgrounds.

Let’s blame all of the culprits not just some.

If you enjoyed this article please consider a small donation or becoming a member.

When you look at writings of Marx, all of his public and private declarations about Jews are extremely negative and hostile. He never wrote a good word about them and, in fact, labeled them the epitome of what he despised: capitalist profiteers (money-lenders, merchants, etc.).

Karl Marx was raised Protestant and professed belief in Christ as a youth.

Marx wrote “On the Jewish Question” and said this:

Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time. An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society. On the other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this practical nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his previous development and works for human emancipation as such and turns against the supreme practical expression of human self-estrangement. We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.

And this:

Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished. The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.

So Marx labeled Jews hucksters and called for the abolition of Judaism and Jews as a unique group. Looking at that, it’s very hard for me to believe he was pursuing a tribalist agenda when he despised them. Don’t attach the name Marx to these statements and your average Neo-Nazi would be shouting in agreement.

Fredrich Engels, Marx’s closest collaborator and co-author of many communist texts, was a non-Jew. Ironically, Engels was notably less anti-Jewish in comparison with Marx and denounced the phenomenon publicly, although he made some private anti-Jewish remarks. How do the J-communism theorists explain that? The non-Jew Engels opposed anti-Semitism publicly, while the Jew Marx supported and contributed to it.

More from Marx:

In 1845 in The Holy Family Marx claimed that in his articles in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher he had “proved that the task of abolishing the essence of Jewry is in truth the task of abolishing Jewry in civil society, abolishing the inhumanity of today’s practice of life, the summit of which is the money system”. In 1849 an article in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, of which Marx was the editor, criticised the notion that Jews living in Prussia’s Polish provinces should be regarded as Germans. The article declared that these Jews were “the filthiest of all races”. “Neither by speech nor by descent- but only by their greed for profit – can they be looked upon as relatives of the Germans in Frankfurt.” Robert Payne has remarked that “this solution of the Jewish question was not very different from Adolf Hitler’s, for it involved the liquidation of Judaism”.

Marx was poor and often had to take out loans (sometimes from Jews), which motivated much of his sentiment against them:

He had many dealings with Jewish financial agents in the City of London. The Bambergers (father and son), Stiefel and Spielmann were German Jews whose names frequently crop up in the Marx-Engels correspondence. Marx made use of the Jews to raise small loans and to discount bills of exchange received from Dana (editor of the New York Daily Tribune) in advance payment for articles which Marx had agreed to write. Marx complained bitterly that the Jews would not discount his bills until confirmation from Dana had been received’ and he was furious when they pressed him to honour debts due for repayment. Marx showed his contempt by always referring to them as “Jew (or little Jew) Bamberger” and “Jew Spielmann” or by imitating the nasal twang characteristic of the way in which some Jews from eastern Europe spoke German. Yet Marx had cause to regret the day when the Bambergers were not in business in London any more and were no longer available to discount his bills of exchange. In 1859 he wrote to Engels: ‘it is the devil of a nuisance that I have no Bamberger in London any more.’

He goes on to disparage his fellow J socialist Lasalle as a “Jewish n-word” among other insults. In fact, both privately and publicly he would go on and on about Jewish money-lenders (see above snippets) and that was his principle gripe with Jews as a group. All of this sounds strikingly similar to the Nazis’ own rhetoric about Jews and money-lending.

In my view this fully refutes the J-communism conspiracy. If the only thing Marx is writing about Jews both in public and privately is negative and he is advocating for their disappearance as a group/religion, then how could he be the centerpiece of an agenda to advance that group’s interests? Some people are emotionally attached to that theory though, so they will react with hostility to any facts that undermine it.

The only and main critique that the Nazis leveled at Marx and Marxism was its “denial of the personality principle” or the “race principle” and simply that Marx was “a Jew”, deceptively ignoring the similarity of his own views on Jews with theirs. Rarely, if ever, did they critique Marxism on economic grounds and, in the case of Goebbels, asserted that Marx was right in his critique of capitalism:

“Karl Marx described the causes of capitalist development reasonably correctly. But we [Marxists and National Socialists] are both always and forever right about capitalism. The will to freedom rises up from the collapsing system. It finds its form in fundamentally new ideas: in Bolshevism and National Socialism. Both emerge with the ultimate belief that they will bring freedom to an entire world by overthrowing it. Bolshevism and National Socialism are embodied in two people who lead a purposeful minority in the will to the future: Lenin and Hitler.” – Goebbels

“Lenin was the greatest man, second to Hitler. The difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is slight” – Goebbels

If you enjoyed this content consider a contribution or a membership.

These are passages from the Goebbels diaries which show that Goebbels, who was repeating the general sentiments of Hitler and the top brass, perceived virtually no imminent threat from the USSR and in fact perceived them as being weak and vulnerable.

Entry November 1939

On the Führer. He again notes the disastrous condition of the Russian army. It is hardly usable as a fighting force.

Entry 15 March 1940

By the way, it is very good that the Russians no longer have a Germanic leadership; so they can never become dangerous for us. And if Stalin shoots his generals, we don’t even have to do that.

Entry 29 March 1941

The big operation comes later: against R. It is carefully camouflaged, only a few people know about it. It is initiated with extensive troop transports to the West. We divert suspicion in all directions, except to the East. A dummy enterprise is prepared against England, and then it’s back and forth in a flash. Ukraine is a good granary. If we sit there, we can last a long time.

That is a candid admission of their pre-meditated plan to attack Russia while deceiving the world about their plans to do so.

That passage is an entry dated 12 May 1941, in which Goebbels speaks about the tensions building with the USSR, saying “above all, we have nothing to fear from the Russians, either militarily or in terms of propaganda.” That’s a clear cut affirmation that the Germans were not fearful of a Russian attack.

Entry 22nd April 1941:

“Article in “Pravda”: Nothing against Germany, Moscow wants peace, etc. So Stalin has already smelt a rat and is waving the peace palm. So that’s how strong we are now. The Russian card no longer stings.“

So less than two months before the invasion Goebbels says Moscow wants PEACE and is WAVING THE PEACE PALM.

Entry 13 May 1941:

“A short walk through forest and meadow. The birch trees are green. How warm the sun shines. I have a great longing for peace, quiet, relaxation and a little happiness. But we only want to think about that when the war is over. Finished the newsreel in the evening. It turns out well after all, after being set to racy music. Watched some more English and Russian newsreels for comparison. This is no competition for us at all. Here you realise how far ahead we are of the others.“

Entry 12th June 1941:

“Report from Bessarabia and the Ukraine: the Russians are staring hypnotically at us and are afraid. They are not doing much. They will be overrun like no people before. And the Bolshevik spook will quickly come to an end. “

So just ten days before the invasion, the above passage suggests the Germans still perceived the Russians to be weak and AFRAID and would be a push over when invaded. It’s also an affirmation of their own pre-meditated invasion plans, “They will be overrun like no people before… the Bolshevik spook will quickly come to an end.”

Very clear.

Entry 14 June 1941:

“In East Prussia, everything is so massed that the Russians could inflict the most serious damage on us through pre-emptive air raids. But they won’t do that. They lack the courage to do so. You have to be bold if you want to win a war.“

So Goebbels muses about a possible Russian air raid, but affirms that “they won’t do that, they lack the courage”! Once again, no serious threat perceived eight days before the invasion.

Entry 15 June 1941:

“From intercepted radio messages, on the other hand, we can gather that Moscow is putting the Russian fleet on standby. So they are not quite as harmless over there as they pretend to be. But the preparations are extremely dilettante. Not to be taken seriously for a real action.“

Entry 16 June 1941:

“The Führer explains the situation to me in detail: the attack on Russia will begin as soon as our deployment is completed. That will be the case in the course of about a week. The campaign in Greece took a lot out of our equipment, so things are taking a little longer. It’s a good thing that the weather was a bit bad and the harvest in the Ukraine is not yet ripe. So we can hope to get most of it. It will be a mass attack on the largest scale. Probably the most massive that history has ever seen. The example of Napoleon will not be repeated. On the very first morning, the bombardment begins from 10,000 barrels. We’re deploying massive new artillery pieces that were intended for the Maginot Line but were no longer needed at the time. The Russians are massed right on the border, the best thing that can ever happen to us. While they spread widely across the country, they posed a greater threat. They have about 180-2 [00] divisions at their disposal, maybe a little less, at least about as many as we do. In terms of personal and material value, they cannot be compared with us at all. The breakthrough occurs at various points. They are rolled up smoothly. The Führer estimates the campaign to last about 4 months, I estimate a lot less. Bolshevism will collapse like a house of cards. We are on the verge of an unprecedented triumph.”

Entry 16 June 1941:

“We must act. Moscow wants to stay out of the war until Europe is tired and bled dry. Then Stalin wants to act, Bolshevise Europe and take up his regiment. He will be thwarted in this. Our action is as prepared as is humanly possible. So many reserves have been built in that failure is quite out of the question. There are no geographical limits to the action. We will fight until there is no Russian army left. Japan is in the alliance. The action is also necessary for this side. Tokyo would never get involved with the USA if Russia were still intact at its back. So Russia must fall for this reason too. England would like to keep Russia as a hope for the future in Europe. That was also Cripp’s mission in Moscow. It has not yet succeeded, the man bears his name wrongly. But Russia would attack us if we became weak, and then we would have the two-front war which we avoid by this preventive action. Only then will we have our backs. I rate the fighting strength of the Russians very low, even lower than the Führer. If an action was and is safe, then this one. We must also attack Russia to free people. An undefeated Russia is constantly forcing 150 divisions on us, whose men we urgently need for our war economy. This has to be intensified in order to carry out our weapons, submarine and aircraft programs in such a way that the USA can no longer harm us. Material, raw materials and machines are there for a 3-hour shift, but the people are missing. If Russia is defeated, then we can dismiss whole cohorts and build it, arm it, prepare it. Only then can the Luftwaffe attack England on a grand scale. An invasion is very unlikely anyway. So it means creating other guarantees for victory.”

Goebbels dabbles in a lot of the propagandistic messaging they were giving at the time of “freeing people” from Bolshevism, pre-emption, etcetera, but he muses again and again how the Russians are weak, they “want to stay out of the war until Europe is tired,” they won’t dare to act against Germany, etc. He even gives another reason for them to attack the USSR, to give Japan confidence to take on America: “Tokyo would never get involved with the USA if Russia were still intact at its back. So Russia must fall for this reason too.” Then he says they were going to take on England after Russia was defeated and its resources conquered: “If Russia is defeated, then we can dismiss whole cohorts and build it, arm it, prepare it. Only then can the Luftwaffe attack England on a grand scale.“

Entry 16 June 1941:

“The Führer says, right or wrong, we must win. This is the only way. And it is right, moral and necessary. And if we have won, who asks us about the method. We’ve got so much on our plate anyway that we have to win, because otherwise our whole people, we at the top with everything we hold dear, would be wiped out. So get to work! The Führer asks me what the people think. She thinks we are trading with Russia, but will be brave if we call her out. The Russian broadcasters are jammed by us to the greatest possible extent, and otherwise our soldiers now have the opportunity to get to know the homeland of the workers and peasants personally. They will all return as savage anti-Bolsheviks. This plague will be driven out of Europe. The time is ripe for that. In the Fuhrer’s view, the Taßdenmenti is just a product of fear. Stalin trembled at what was to come. His wrong game is put to an end. We will now organize the raw materials of this rich country. England’s hopes of wearing us down with a blockade are finally gone. And then the submarine war really starts. England will sink to the bottom.“

That last line again confirms the second motive, besides Lebensraum, for invading Russia: obtaining its vast natural resources which would help the German fight off the English in future battles.

Important to mention that Goebbels said “if we win, who will ask about the method?” What he’s saying is that if the Germans triumph in conquering Russia, the winner does not have to explain itself to the loser. Hitler himself said the same thing in an August 1939 speech:

“…on 22 August [1939] Hitler once again spoke to around fifty high-ranking officers he had summoned specially to the Berghof […] Hitler went on to describe his rapprochement with Russia, which excluded any risk from that quarter. All in all, there was only one final risk left, that some ‘chap’ would screw it up with an offer to mediate […] He told the generals he would ‘provide a propaganda pretext for starting the war, however implausible. The victor is never asked afterwards whether or not he told the truth. When starting and waging a war it’s not being in the right that matters, but victory.’ And he went on: ‘Close your hearts to pity. Act brutally. 80 million people must get what is their right. Their existence must be made secure. The stronger man is in the right. The greatest harshness.’ For the generals this meant: ‘The military goal is the total destruction of Poland. Speed is of the essence. Pursuit to the point of complete annihilation.’” – Source: Peter Longerich, Hitler: A Biography

So what Hitler is saying there is that he is going to invade Poland, invent a propaganda pretext for doing so, the truth doesn’t matter if you win and that “might makes right”. He and Goebbels applied the same logic to the invasion of Russia.

A Goebbels diary entry from 30, August 1939 confirms that Hitler intended to strike Poland all along:

“The situation at the moment is something like this: Henderson delivered England’s answer. London is prepared to persuade Poland to negotiate on the basis of the Führer’s Reichstag speech. Beck is then to come to Berlin. The Führer wants a vote in the corridor under international control. In doing so, he hopes to perhaps extricate London from Warsaw and find an occasion to strike. London’s position is no longer as rigid as before. But it wants guarantees and proofs of confidence.”

Hitler sent two letters to Stalin in 1941 in which he deceived Stalin about his intentions towards Russia. He tries to make Stalin believe that Germany intended to invade England and not Russia and that any troop movements near Russia’s border was merely “training” for the future invasion of England.

December 31, 1940

I am using the occasion of sending New Year’s greetings and my wishes for success and prosperity to you and the people of Soviet Russia to discuss a series of questions that were raised in my conversations with Mr. Molotov and Mr. Dekanozov.

The struggle with England has entered a decisive phase, and I intend not later than the summer of the coming year to put an end to this rather drawn-out question by seizing and occupying the heart of the British Empire—the British Isles. I am aware of the difficulty of this operation but believe that it can be carried out, for I see no other way of ending this war.

As I wrote to you earlier, the approximately seventy divisions that I must keep in the Government General are undergoing reorganization and training in an area inaccessible to English aviation and intelligence. I understood from my discussions with Messrs. Molotov and Dekanozov that this has aroused in you understandable anxiety. Beginning in approximately March, these troops will be moved to the Channel and the western coast of Norway, and in their place, new units will be assembled for accelerated training. I wanted to warn you of this in advance.

In addition, I intend to use these troops to force the English out of Greece, and for this, it will be necessary to move them through Romania and Bulgaria. Those troops that will carry out the invasion of England from Norwegian territory will continue to utilize transit rights through Finland. Germany has no interests in Finland or Bulgaria, and as soon as we achieve our goals in this war, I will immediately withdraw my troops. . . . 

I especially want to warn you of the following. The agony of England is accompanied by feverish efforts to save it from its inevitable fate. For this purpose, they are fabricating all possible foolish rumors, the most important of which can be crudely divided into two categories. These are rumors of planned invasions by the USSR into Germany and by Germany against the USSR. I do not wish to dwell on the absurdity of such nonsense. However, on the basis of information in my possession, I predict that as our invasion of the [British] Isles draws closer, the intensity of such rumors will increase and fabricated documents will perhaps be added to them. 

I will be completely open to you. Some of these rumors are being circulated by appropriate German offices. The success of our invasion of the Isles depends very much on the achievement of tactical surprise. Therefore, it is useful to keep Churchill and his circles in ignorance of our precise plans.

A worsening of the relations between our countries to include armed conflict is the only way for the English to save themselves, and I assure you that they will continue efforts in this direction with their characteristic slyness and craftiness. . . .

For a final solution of what to do with this bankrupt English legacy, and also for the consolidation of the union of socialist countries and the establishment of new world order, I would like very much to meet personally with you. I have spoken about this with Messrs. Molotov and Dekanozov.
Unfortunately, as you will well understand, an exceptional workload prevents me from arranging our meeting until the smashing of England.

That first letter was sent in response to a previous letter Stalin sent Hitler begging to know why Germany was amassing troops on the Soviet border:

Marshal Zhukov said that Stalin had told him in January 1941 that this letter from Hitler was in response to an earlier letter from Stalin (not yet disclosed) inquiring as to the reason for German troop transfers to Poland which seemed to be a hostile act directed at the USSR. This Hitler letter evidently was intended to allay those fears and explain their supposed purpose.

A third interesting aspect is Hitler’s deliberate lie that he had sent “approximately seventy divisions” to Poland for “reorganization and training” and to keep them away from “English aviation and intelligence.” While those reasons had a veneer of truthfulness, the real reason for the Germans’ continuing troop transfers to the East was to prepare for Operation Barbarossa.

In Hitler’s second letter to Stalin, he again deceives his socialist counterpart about Germany’s intention to invade the USSR, making it seem like the troop movements near the border were part of preparation to attack England:

May 14, 1941

I am writing this letter at the moment of having finally concluded that it will be impossible to achieve lasting peace in Europe, not for us, not for future generations, without the final shattering of England and her destruction as a state. As you well know, I long ago made the decision to carry out a series of military measures to achieve this goal. The closer the hour of a decisive battle, however, the larger the number of problems I face. For the mass of the German people, no war is popular, especially not a war against England, because the German people consider the English a fraternal people and war between them a tragic event.

… In this connection, a special warning is raised by the following circumstance. In order to organize troops for the invasion away from the eyes of the English opponent, and in connection with the recent operations in the Balkans, a large number of my troops, about eighty divisions, are located on the borders of the Soviet Union. This possibly gave rise to the rumors now circulating of a likely military conflict between us.

I assure you, on my honor as a chief of state that this is not the case. From my side, I also react with understanding to the fact that you cannot completely ignore these rumors and have also deployed a sufficient number of your troops on the border.

In this situation I cannot completely exclude the possibility of an accidental outbreak of armed conflict, which given the conditions created by such a concentration of troops might take on very large dimensions, making it difficult if not impossible to determine what caused it in the first place.

I want to be absolutely candid with you. I fear that some of my generals might deliberately embark on such a conflict in order to save England from its fate and spoil my plans. It is a question of no more than a month. By approximately June 15–20 I plan to begin a massive transfer of troops to the west from your borders. In connection with this, I ask you, as persuasively as possible, not to give in to any provocations that might emanate from those of my generals who might have forgotten their duty.

And, it goes without saying, try not to give them any cause. If it becomes impossible to avoid provocation by some of my generals, I ask you to show restraint, to not respond but to advise me immediately of what has happened through the channel known to you. Only in this way can we attain our mutual goals, on which, it seems to me, we are clearly in agreement.

So Hitler admits that he is the one who began amassing troops near the Soviet border and that Stalin only moved his troops in place in response to this:

In order to organize troops for the invasion away from the eyes of the English opponent, and in connection with the recent operations in the Balkans, a large number of my troops, about eighty divisions, are located on the borders of the Soviet Union. This possibly gave rise to the rumors now circulating of a likely military conflict between us. I assure you, on my honor as a chief of state that this is not the case. From my side, I also react with understanding to the fact that you cannot completely ignore these rumors and have also deployed a sufficient number of your troops on the border.

In a 1939 speech Hitler made it abundantly clear that his intention all along was starting another war:

Hitler wanted the war. It was the logical end to the path which he had taken since being appointed chancellor on 30 January 1933, and upon which conservative elites – generals, diplomats and industrial arms manufacturers – with few exceptions had willingly followed him. As the dictator himself emphasised in a speech to his commanders a few weeks after the conclusion of the Polish campaign in the autumn of 1939, he would never have undertaken to ‘educate the people, build up the Wehrmacht and rearm’ if he had not had the will to use force ‘right from the beginning’ [¹]. There was no room for the idea of lasting peace in Hitler’s social-Darwinist world view. Peace, Hitler often reiterated privately, would only ‘lead humanity into a quagmire’. Every generation, he believed, had to ‘steel itself anew and collect new experiences’.[²]

The only fault that can be attributed to the Western powers is that they failed to stay Hitler’s arm while that was still possible. They had tried everything they could, to the point of self-abnegation, to tame his drive for expansion in the interests of preserving peace in Europe. It was not until the policy of appeasement had definitively failed in the spring of 1939 that the Western powers decided to confront Germany’s Führer – too late to undermine Hitler’s determination to wage war, if indeed that drive could have been checked under any circumstances. By contrast, in order to buy time for a conflict it knew was coming, the Soviet Union temporarily allied itself with its mortal enemy and became complicit, in the short term, in Hitler’s policies of aggression.

— Vᴏʟᴋᴇʀ Uʟʟʀɪᴄʜ, Hɪᴛʟᴇʀ Dᴏᴡɴꜰᴀʟʟ: 1939-45
[1] Hɪᴛʟᴇʀ’s sᴘᴇᴇᴄʜ ᴛᴏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴄᴏᴍᴍᴀɴᴅᴇʀs, 23 Nᴏᴠᴇᴍʙᴇʀ 1939; Gʀᴏsᴄᴜʀᴛʜ, Tᴀɢᴇʙüᴄʜᴇʀ ᴇɪɴᴇs Aʙᴡᴇʜʀᴏꜰꜰɪᴢɪᴇʀs, ᴘ. 415. A ᴅɪꜰꜰᴇʀᴇɴᴛ ᴀᴄᴄᴏᴜɴᴛ ʜᴀᴅ Hɪᴛʟᴇʀ sᴀʏɪɴɢ, ‘Tʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴄɪsɪᴏɴ ᴛᴏ sᴛʀɪᴋᴇ ᴏᴜᴛ ᴀʟᴡᴀʏs ᴇxɪsᴛᴇᴅ ᴡɪᴛʜɪɴ ᴍᴇ.’ Dᴏᴍᴀʀᴜs, Hɪᴛʟᴇʀ, ᴠᴏʟ. 2, ᴘᴀʀᴛ 1, ᴘ. 1423.
[2] Gᴏᴇʙʙᴇʟs, Tᴀɢᴇʙüᴄʜᴇʀ, ᴘᴀʀᴛ I, ᴠᴏʟ. 8, ᴘᴘ. 332ꜰ. (ᴇɴᴛʀʏ ꜰᴏʀ 18 Sᴇᴘᴛ. 1940). Iɴ Mᴀʀᴄʜ 1939 ɪɴ Sᴀɴ Fʀᴀɴᴄɪsᴄᴏ, Hɪᴛʟᴇʀ’s ꜰᴏʀᴍᴇʀ ᴀᴅᴊᴜᴛᴀɴᴛ Fʀɪᴛᴢ Wɪᴇᴅᴇᴍᴀɴɴ ʀᴇᴄᴀʟʟᴇᴅ ᴛʜᴇ ᴅɪᴄᴛᴀᴛᴏʀ ꜰʀᴇǫᴜᴇɴᴛʟʏ sᴀʏɪɴɢ ɪɴ ᴛʜᴇ sᴜᴍᴍᴇʀ ᴏꜰ 1938: ‘Eᴠᴇʀʏ ɢᴇɴᴇʀᴀᴛɪᴏɴ ɴᴇᴇᴅs ᴛᴏ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ɢᴏɴᴇ ᴛʜʀᴏᴜɢʜ ᴀ ᴡᴀʀ.’ BA Kᴏʙʟᴇɴᴢ, N 1720/4.

Let’s not forget that in Chapter 14 of Mein Kampf Hitler outlines with vivid clarity his chief foreign policy goal was the invasion of Russia to expand Germany’s living space:

Therefore the only possibility that Germany had to conduct a sound territorial policy was to acquire new territory in Europe itself. Colonies cannot serve this purpose, since they aren’t suited for large-scale European settlement. From the 19th century on, it was no longer possible to peacefully acquire such colonies. Therefore any attempt at such a colonial expansion would have meant an enormous military struggle. Thus it was more practical to undertake that military struggle for new territory in Europe, rather than to wage war for foreign acquisition.

If new territory were to be acquired in Europe, it should have been mainly at Russia’s expense. Once again, the new German Reich should have set out on the same road as was formerly traveled by the Teutonic Knights-this time to acquire soil for the German plow by means of the German sword, and thus provide the nation with its daily bread. Such a policy, however, could have only one possible European ally: England. Only by alliance with England was it possible to safeguard the rear of the new German crusade. And the justification for undertaking such an expedition was stronger than that of our forefathers. Not one of our pacifists refuses to eat the bread made from grain grown in the East; and yet the first plow here was “the sword’!

Moreover, as National Socialists, we must lay down the following principle regarding the nature of the foreign policy of a folkish State: A folkish State’s foreign policy must first of all bear in mind the duty of securing the existence of the race on this planet, which is embodied in this State. And this is done by establishing a healthy and natural relation between the number and growth of the population on the one hand, and the quantity and quality of the soil on the other.

Only a sufficiently large space on this Earth can assure a peoples’ free existence. The necessary extent of territorial expansion for settlement must not be estimated by present requirements nor even by the magnitude of its agricultural productivity in relation to the population.

…In the first volume, under the heading “Germany’s Alliance Policy before the War,” I have already explained that a state’s land area is of importance, not only as the source of the nation’s food, but also militarily and politically. Once a people is assured of its sustenance by the amount of soil, it must consider how to defend it. …Thus the German nation can assure its own future only as a world power.

…Germany today is no world power. Even if our present military weakness could be overcome, we still would have no claim to this title. What importance does a State have on this planet in which the relation of population to area is so miserable as in the present German Reich? In an era in which the world is being gradually divided among states–many of whom almost embrace whole continents–one cannot speak of a world power in the case of a structure whose political Motherland is confined to the laughable area of barely 500,000 square kilometers.

Furthermore we must consider the American Union as foremost among the colossal states, also Russia and China. Some of these spatial areas are more than ten times greater than the present German Reich. …Today we find ourselves in a world of great power-states, in which our own Reich is constantly sinking into insignificance.

If the National Socialist movement wants to be recognized by history as having a great mission for our people, it will have to painfully recognize the real truth of our situation in the world. It must courageously fight against the aimlessness and incompetence that has hitherto guided our German nation in foreign policy. Then, without respect for ‘tradition’ or preconceptions, it must find the courage to organize our national forces and set them on a path that will lead them away from the present restricted living space and toward new land and soil. Thus will the movement save us from the danger of perishing from this Earth or of serving others as a slave nation.

 In contrast to the policy of those who represented that period, we must take our stand on the highest viewpoint regarding all foreign policy, namely: to bring the land into harmony with our population. Indeed, from the past we can only learn that the aim of our political conduct must lie in two directions: (1) land and soil as the objective of our foreign policy, and (2) a new, philosophically-established, uniform foundation as the goal of domestic political activity.

… I still want to briefly take a stand on the question of how far our territorial aims are ethically and morally justified. This is necessary because, unfortunately in our so-called folkish circles, there are all kinds of plausible big-mouths who try to persuade the German people that the aim of their foreign policy ought to be to right the wrongs of 1918, while at the same time they find it necessary to assure the whole world of folkish brotherhood and sympathy.

To demand the restoration of the 1914 borders is a political absurdity that’s fraught with such consequences as to appear criminal. The 1914 Reich borders were anything but logical. They were not really complete, in the sense of including all the members of the German nation, nor were they reasonable, in light of military-geographical effectiveness. …Even if it could be really carried out, the result would be so miserable that, by God, it wouldn’t be worthwhile to risk our people’s blood for it.

There can scarcely be any doubt whatsoever that only through bloodshed could we restore the 1914 borders.… Only an organized and concentrated national sentiment, turned into an effective force, can defy the international enslavement of peoples. This path is, and remains, a bloody one.

If we are convinced that the German future calls for the highest sacrifice, in one way or another, then we must set aside considerations of political expediency, establish a worthy goal, and fight for it. …… The 1914 borders are of no significance for the German future. They neither served to protect us in the past, nor do they offer any strength for the future. With these borders, the German people cannot attain an inner unity, nor can they assure their sustenance, nor, from a military viewpoint, are they advantageous, nor can they improve our relations with the other world powers–or better, with the real world powers. We won’t narrow the gap with England, and we won’t achieve the size of the American Union; indeed, not even France would be diminished in terms of world political importance.

State borders are made by man, and can be changed by man. The fact that a nation has acquired an enormous area is no reason why it should hold it forever. At most, it proves the strength of the conqueror and the weakness of the defeated. And in this strength alone lies the right. If the German people are imprisoned within an impossible area, and face a miserable future, this is not by the command of Fate, anymore than to oppose such affairs is to disobey it.

Just as no higher power has promised more territory to other nations than to the German, so it cannot be blamed for an unjust distribution of soil. Just as the soil on which we now live was not bestowed by Heaven on our forefathers–but had to be conquered by mortal risk–so too in the future our people will not obtain territory, and thus life, as a favor from above, but must win it by the power of a triumphant sword.

 It can and will have significance only if it serves as a rear cover in the struggle for an enlargement of our peoples’ living space in Europe. Colonial acquisitions won’t solve that problem. This will happen only by the winning of settlement territory for our people, such as will extend the area of the Motherland and thereby not only keep the new settlers in the closest communion with the land of their origin, but will guarantee to this region the advantages that arise from a unified expanse.

We National Socialists must go still further: The right to land and soil becomes a duty when a great nation seems destined to go under, unless its land is extended. And that’s particularly true when the nation at hand is not some little group of Negroes but the Germanic mother of all life, which has given cultural shape to the modem world. Germany will either be a world power, or not at all. But in order to become a world power, it needs that size which gives it the necessary importance today, and gives life to its citizens.

Therefore we National Socialists have purposely drawn a line through our pre-war conduct of foreign policy. We resume where we left off, six centuries ago. We put an end to the perpetual Germanic march towards the south and west of Europe, and tum our eyes towards the land of the East. We finally shut off the colonial–and trade-policy of pre-war times, and pass over to the land-policy of the future.

But when we speak of new land and soil in Europe today, we must principally think of Russia and its subject border states. Destiny itself seems to wish to point the way for us here. In delivering Russia over to Bolshevism, it robbed the Russian people of that intelligentsia that had once created and secured the Russian state. The organization of the Russian state-structure was not a result of Russian Slavic political ability, but rather was a marvelous example of the state-building capacity of the Germanic element amidst an inferior race.

Our task, and the mission of the National Socialist movement, is to develop the political insight in our people that will enable them to realize that their future aim is not the fulfillment of some new and wildly adventurous March of Alexander, but rather as the industrious labor of the German plow, for which the sword will provide the soil.

…It’s impossible for a coalition of cripples to attack a powerful state, if it’s determined to shed the last drop of its blood for its existence. As a folkish man who appraises the value of humanity by their race, I must recognize the racial inferiority of the so-called ‘oppressed nations,’ and this prevents me from linking my own peoples’ destiny with theirs. Today we must adopt the same position towards Russia. Present-day Russia, deprived of its Germanic ruling class, is not a possible ally in the struggle for German freedom, even setting aside the inner intentions of its new rulers. From a purely military viewpoint, a Russo-German coalition waging war against Western Europe, and probably against the whole world, would be catastrophic.

In Hitler’s last letter to General Keitel, he made it clear the war aim was winning new territory in the East:

The great victories had been due to him. The defeats and final failure had been due to others—to their “disloyalty and betrayal.” And then the parting valediction—the last recorded written words of this mad genius’s life: ‘The efforts and sacrifices of the German people in this war have been so great that I cannot believe that they have been in vain. The aim must still be to win territory in the East for the German people.’ – William Shirer, Rise & Fall of the Third Reich

Keitel in his post-war memoir, while trying to exonerate himself by employing the “pre-emptive strike” hoax, admits the German side didn’t have any clear information of an impending Russian invasion and decided to act first:

At that stage it was still not possible to determine whether the Russians were actually girding themselves for an attack or whether they were themselves only massing to ward one off… but the German invasion was soon to tear that veil of doubt aside.

Remember, that Hitler in his letters to Stalin admitted that Germany was amassing troops on the Soviet border and he even said that he understood Stalin’s anxiety about this and his decision to move his own troops to the border.

What all of this spells out is that the Germans are clearly the aggressors here and the Soviets were on the defensive.

More evidence from David Irving’s Hitler’s War:

Once more, on March 30 [1941], Hitler’s generals and admirals were summoned from all over Nazi-occupied Europe to hear a secret speech in Berlin. He explained at some length his decision to attack Russia, starting SIGNIFICANTLY with Britain’s refusal to make peace in June 1940. He spoke scathingly of Italy’s misfortunes, charitably distinguishing between the plucky but poorly led Italian soldiers and their bumbling and devious political and military commanders. ‘Why has Britain fought on?’ he asked. He identified two primary reasons – the influence of the Jews and of Britain’s international financial entanglements, and the dominant influence of the Churchill clique. The RAF’s night bombing of Germany boosted British domestic morale far more than it damaged German industry. Now Britain was hitching her fortunes to the United States and Russia, declared Hitler.

Of the United States he was not afraid. But Russia must be defeated now. ‘We have the chance to smash Russia while our own rear is free. That chance will not recur so soon. I would be betraying the future of the German people if I did not seize it now!’ Hitler urged his generals to have no compunctions about violating their treaty with Russia. Stalin had only cynically signed it; but he also urged them not to underestimate the Russian tanks or air force, or to rely too heavily on Germany’s allies in this fight. He drilled into his generals that this would be a war between great ideologies, and as such very different from the war in the west. ‘In the east cruelty now will be kindness for the future.’ The Russian commissars and GPU officials were criminals, and were to be treated as such. ‘It is not our job to see that these criminals survive.’

The Third Reich At War by Richard J. Evans confirms the view that Hitler planned to attack Russia all along:

Stalin personally vetoed proposals to disrupt the German military build-up by attacking across the Polish demarcation line. Reports from Soviet agents and even from members of the German embassy in Moscow that an invasion was imminent only convinced him that the Germans were playing hard-ball in their drive to extract economic concessions from him.

At the same time, Stalin realized that, as he told graduating military cadets in Moscow on 5 May 1941, ‘War with Germany is inevitable.’ Molotov might be able to postpone it for two or three months, but in the meantime it was vital to ‘re-teach our army and our commanders. Educate them in the spirit of attack.’ Delivered to young officers as a rhetorical message for the future, this was not a statement of intent. Stalin did not believe that the Red Army would be ready to deal with the Germans until 1942 or perhaps even 1943. Not only had the General Staff not drawn up any plans for an attack on the German forces, it had no plans for a defence against them either. Although the Germans mounted a large and sophisticated deception plan to conceal the true nature of their intentions, Soviet intelligence began to send in accurate reports that the invasion was planned for around 22 June 1941. BUT STALIN WOULD NOT LISTEN. Earlier reports that the invasion plans were to become operational on 15 May 1941, though correct at the time, proved wrong when the Germans delayed Barbarossa in order to mount the invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia.

Hitler later blamed Mussolini for the consequences, but in fact the weather in East-Central Europe in these weeks would have made an invasion of the Soviet Union inadvisable even had the German Leader not been obliged to step in to rescue his Italian ally from the imbroglio in Southern Europe. The Soviet agents who had made the prediction lost all credibility as a result. The capitalist forces in Britain, including the exiled Polish government, seemed to Stalin’s narrow and suspicious mind to be feeding false information to him about German intentions in order to lure him into a battle. Surely in any case the German Leader would not invade while the conflict with Britain was still unresolved. When an ex-Communist soldier deserted the German forces on 21 June 1941 and swam across a river to TELL THE RUSSIANS on the other side that HIS UNIT HAD BEEN GIVEN ORDERS TO INVADE the following morning, STALIN HAD HIM SHOT FOR SPREADING ‘DISINFORMATION’.

It’s true that Stalin had ignored dozens of detailed intelligence reports warning him that the German attack was imminent:

In an interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper, Russian military historian Arsen Martirosyan revealed that Soviet intelligence had named the exact, or almost exact, date of the invasion 47 times in the 10 days before Germany struck. Moscow knew of Nazi invasion plans from 1935, the historian argues, and was aware as early as 1936 of an attack plan called the Eastern Campaign.

It seems that Hitler himself all but let the cat out of the bag in May 1941, when he sent a letter to Stalin, who at the time was still a nominally friendly leader under the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact. According to Martirosyan, the Fuehrer notified the Vozhd of his plans to “redeploy his troops from the German-Soviet frontier to the west between 15 and 20 June approximately”. Substitute “east” for “west”, and you get the picture…

Ordinary Soviet border guards passed on most of the warnings of the coming invasion, Martirosyan said. Between 1 and 10 June, they captured 108 enemy spies and saboteurs, he told Komsomolskaya Pravda, and a further 200 or so in the final 12 days before the invasion. On 14 June, guards on the Belarusian section of the border relayed back to Moscow the correct date of the planned invasion, learnt from two captured saboteurs. The same date was revealed by saboteurs captured on 18 June. Border guard agents operating on the German-controlled side of the border also confirmed the date repeatedly, Martirosyan found, as did local civilians.

Most poignantly, perhaps, were the Polish women who gathered on the opposite bank of one frontier river on 15 June, cupping their hands around their mouths to shout warnings, in broken Russian, to the Soviet guards facing them. “Soviets, Soviets, the war is coming!” they were recorded as saying. “Soviets, the war will start in one week!”

One of the reasons Stalin kept ignoring the reports about Hitler’s inevitable betrayal of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, was that Stalin personally liked Hitler. Historian John Lukacs tells us this:

CONAN: And then there is Stalin. Universally described as shrewd and suspicious, canny, but who could not bring himself to accept overwhelming evidence that an invasion was about to happen.

Mr. LUKACS: Now added to this comes a very important element that some people have known, and that’s Stalin had a liking for Hitler. Stalin greatly admired Hitler. The odd thing is that his respect and admiration for Hitler appeared in drips and drabs even after the war started, even toward the end of the war, here and there he dropped some quite comfortable remarks about Hitler, or rather he had admired. And another element connected with this is that Stalin had a great liking and respect for Germans and for Germany. And that goes back to pretty early in his career.

All of this demonstrably proves that the Germans, from the day Hitler laid out his ideas in Mein Kampf, were going to invade “Russia and its borderlands” in order to secure an extended living space. Hitler said with explicit candor that the only way for Germany to become a great power again and to compete with other world powers like England and the United States, it must achieve the necessary space that would make it competitive with its rivals:

We National Socialists must go still further: The right to land and soil becomes a duty when a great nation seems destined to go under, unless its land is extended. Germany will either be a world power, or not at all. But in order to become a world power, it needs that size which gives it the necessary importance today, and gives life to its citizens.

Hitler cultists today refuse to accept this evidence and continue to promulgate silly lies that all Hitler wanted was to take back the land lost after World War I, which is plainly contradicted by Hitler himself in Chapter 14 of Mein Kampf where he says that the 1914 German borders were insufficient living space:

To demand the restoration of the 1914 borders is a political absurdity that’s fraught with such consequences as to appear criminal. The 1914 Reich borders were anything but logical. They were not really complete, in the sense of including all the members of the German nation, nor were they reasonable, in light of military-geographical effectiveness. …Even if it could be really carried out, the result would be so miserable that, by God, it wouldn’t be worthwhile to risk our people’s blood for it.

The 1914 borders are of no significance for the German future. They neither served to protect us in the past, nor do they offer any strength for the future. With these borders, the German people cannot attain an inner unity, nor can they assure their sustenance, nor, from a military viewpoint, are they advantageous, nor can they improve our relations with the other world powers–or better, with the real world powers. We won’t narrow the gap with England, and we won’t achieve the size of the American Union; indeed, not even France would be diminished in terms of world political importance.

So Hitler disagrees with his modern acolytes about his own goals. Have these people even read the book they claim is their bible and foundational text of their ideology? Are they stupid or maliciously lying? Clearly the latter. They’re lying to rehabilitate Hitler’s image and make him appear as if the good guy in a bloodbath that he provoked with his pre-meditated invasions of both Poland and Russia.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact:

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union with secret protocol that partitioned Central and Eastern Europe between them. The pact was signed in Moscow on 23 August 1939 by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov[1] and was officially known as the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.[2][3] Unofficially, it has also been referred to as the Hitler–Stalin Pact,[4][5] Nazi–Soviet Pact[6] or Nazi–Soviet Alliance.[7]

From “How Adolf Hitler Began to Admire Josef Stalin“:

Adolf Hitler’s assessment of the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin demonstrates the contradiction between National Socialist propaganda and Hitler’s actual opinions. While he never tired of attacking the “Jewish-Bolshevist conspiracy” in his speeches, from no later than 1940 onwards he changed his opinion: Stalin was, in Hitler’s eyes, no longer the representative of “Jewish interests” but was now pursuing a nationalistic Russian policy in the tradition of Peter the Great.

Hitler first alluded to the possibility of such a development in his “Second Book,” which he wrote in 1928, but was never published: However, it is conceivable that in Russia itself an inner change within the Bolshevist world could take place insofar as the Jewish element could perhaps be forced aside by a more or less Russian national one. Then it could also not be excluded that the present real Jewish-capitalist-Bolshevist Russia could be driven to national-anti-capitalist tendencies.

What Hitler later stated as a fact, namely Russia’s change from a “Jewish dictatorship” into a national Russian anti-capitalist state, he described in 1928 as being a possibility and a tendency. It is difficult to determine when Hitler finally revised his assessment of the conflict between Stalin and Leo Trotsky and came to the view he later constantly advocated, that Stalin had emancipated himself from the Jews and was pursuing a national and anti-Jewish policy.

Hitler’s minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, reported in his diary on January 25, 1937, that Hitler had not yet completely made up his mind about the events in Russia and his assessment of Stalin:

In Moscow another show trial. This time solely against Jews again. Radek etc. Führer still doubtful whether not with hidden anti-Semitic tendency after all. Perhaps Stalin wants to drive the Jews out after all. The military is also supposed to be strongly anti-Semitic. Therefore keep eyes open. For the time being remain in wait and see position.

From early 1940 onwards, however, there were an increasing number of statements made by Hitler in which his admiration for Stalin and the Bolshevist regime become clear. These, no doubt, also served the purpose of defending the pact he had concluded with Stalin in 1939. But even after the attack on the USSR, when Hitler no longer had an alliance to justify, he clung to his positive assessment of Stalin. On September 23, 1941, Sturmabteilung (SA) Standartenführer Werner Koeppen noted the following statement by Hitler:

Stalin was one of the greatest of living men because he succeeded in forging a state out of this Slavic family of rabbits, albeit only with the harshest of compulsion. For this he naturally had to avail himself of the Jews, because the thin Europeanized class which had formerly carried the state had been exterminated, and these forces would never again grow up out of the actual Russianhood.

Of course, this assessment did not prevent Hitler from continuing to spread the thesis of “Jewish Bolshevism” in his speeches for propaganda purposes. But in contrast to these public propaganda statements, Hitler said in a table talk in early January 1942 that:

Stalin is seen as the man who had intended to help the Bolshevist idea to victory. In reality he is only Russia, the continuation of Tsarist pan-Slavism! For him Bolshevism is only a means to an end. It serves as a camouflage vis-à-vis the Germanic and Romanic nations.

On July 24, 1942, he claimed that “in front of Ribbentrop Stalin had made no bones at all about the fact that he was only waiting for the moment of maturity of their own intelligentsia in the USSR in order to make an end of the Jewry he still needed today as a leadership.”

Henry Picker, who recorded Hitler’s table talks, reports on numerous further talks in which Hitler expressed his admiration for Stalin or defended him against critical remarks. Hitler had always, for example, become angry when someone called Stalin a former “bank robber.” Hitler would then immediately defend Stalin with the declaration that Stalin had not carried out his bank robberies as a private person nor for the benefit of his own pocket, “but as a revolutionary and in order to finance the Communist movement.” For Stalin, Hitler said on July 22, 1942, “one has to have respect in any case. In his way he is quite a brilliant chap!”

Heinrich Heim, another witness who recorded Hitler’s table talks, also noted many positive statements by Hitler about Stalin. On August 26, 1942, Hitler said:

If Stalin had continued to work for another ten to fifteen years Soviet Russia would have become the most powerful nation on earth, 150, 200, 300 years may go by, that is such a unique phenomenon! That the general standard of living rose, there can be no doubt. The people did not suffer from hunger. Taking everything together we have to say: They built factories here where two years ago there was nothing but forgotten villages, factories which are as big as the Hermann Göring Works. They have railways that are not even marked on the maps. Here with us we argue about the tariffs before the railway is even built. I have a book about Stalin; one has to say: That is an enormous personality, a real ascetic, who has brought that huge empire together with an iron fist. Only when someone says that is a social state, then that is a gigantic swindle! It is a national capital state: 200 million people, iron, manganese, nickel, oil, petroleum and what you like – unlimited. At the head a man who said: Do you think the loss of 13 million people is too much for a great idea?

The things Hitler admired in Stalin become particularly clear in this statement: the consistency, even brutality (“iron fist”), with which Stalin—even with the sacrifice of millions of people—implemented the “great idea” and created a powerful industrial state impressed Hitler. In Stalin, he saw his own reflection, namely the executor of the dictatorship of modernization who did not shrink from the employment of even the most brutal methods.

Scheidt, who, as adjutant to Hitler’s “representative for military history” Walther Scherff and a member of the Führer Headquarters group, had close contact with Hitler and sometimes even took part in the “briefings.” Scheidt writes in his notes:

Hitler began secretly to admire Stalin. From then on his hatred was determined by envy … He clung to the hope that he could defeat Bolshevism with its own weapons if he copied it in Germany and the occupied regions … He increasingly held the Russian methods up to his associates as being exemplary. We cannot fight this battle for existence without their hardness and ruthlessness, he was wont to say. He rejected any objections as being bourgeois.

After July 20, 1944, for example, Hitler bemoaned the fact that he had not purged the Wehrmacht like Stalin had and converted it into a National Socialist revolutionary army. Hitler’s architect Albert Speer reports on a meeting of ministers on July 21, 1944:

Today he [Hitler] realized that in his case against Tuchatshevsky Stalin had taken the decisive step for a successful waging of the war. By having liquidated the General Staff he had made room for fresh forces, who no longer stemmed from the age of the Tsars. He had formerly always held the accusations at the Moscow trials of 1937 to be trumped up. Now, after the experience of 20 July he was wondering whether there had not been something to them after all. While he did not have any evidence for it, Hitler continued, he could still no longer exclude a treasonable co-operation between the two general staffs.

Two months before the assassination attempt, in a presentation to generals and officers, Hitler had said:

This problem has been completely solved in Bolshevist Russia. Completely unequivocal situations, clear unequivocal statements by the officer to these points of view, which concern the state, to the whole of expert opinion and with this, naturally, an unequivocal relationship to allegiance, a completely clear relationship. In Germany this whole process was unfortunately interrupted much too quickly by the war, because you can be sure that these courses which take place today would perhaps never have become necessary if the war had not come about.

What Hitler, therefore, primarily admired in Stalin was his revolutionary consistency in the elimination of the former élites. Hitler’s admiration for Stalin was not only an expression of the respect he felt for him personally; his relationship with Stalin also reflected his ambivalent position on Marxism/Communism, which was always characterized by simultaneous fear and admiration. Hitler admired Stalin’s revolutionary consistency above all, but exactly this consistency, which went far further than his own, also made him afraid, and made Bolshevism appear as the only serious opponent.

The fact that Hitler privately said that Stalin had eliminated the Jewish members of his regime and thus “Russified” Bolshevism itself undermines Hitler’s own war propaganda that he invaded Russia to “liberate” it from “Judeo-Bolshevism”. According to Hitler, Stalin had already done that job for him by the early 30s.

From Ian Kershaw’s “Hitler: Nemesis”:

‘Alluding to Mussolini’s letter in January, and to his own reply a few days before the meeting, Hitler emphasized how British intransigence had forced him to conclude an alliance with Russia. But, although Stalin had deprived Bolshevism of its Jewish and international character and turned it into a ‘slavic Moscowitism’, Russia remained for Germany an ‘absolutely foreign world’. ‘For Germany only one partner came into question: Italy. Russia was only insurance cover.’

From “How Hitler Became a Believer in the State-Planned Economy”:

to a certain extent we can only speculate on Hitler’s true position before 1933 because Hitler kept his plans strictly secret, primarily in order not to offend the businessmen. In his talks with Otto Wagener, the chief of the economic policy section of the NSDAP, Hitler underlined the importance of keeping his economic plans secret time and again. In September 1931, for example, he said:

“The conclusion from this is what I have said all along, that this idea is not to become a subject for propaganda, or even for any sort of discussion, except within the innermost study group. It can only be implemented in any case when we hold political power in our hands. And even then we will have as opponents, besides the Jews, all of private industry, particularly heavy industry, as well as the medium and large landholders, and naturally the banks.”

In speeches to industrialists before 1933, Hitler presented himself as a supporter of private ownership; in other speeches, he sharply attacked capitalism. Often tactical considerations played a role, and sometimes he was only saying what he knew his audience wanted to hear. One thing is certain, however: Hitler’s main intention was obviously to reconcile the advantages of the principles of competition and selection (in the socio-Darwinistic sense) with the “advantages” of a state-controlled economy.

So we can see here that before getting into power, Hitler’s Machiavellian tactic was to feign different positions to different audiences on this question. In front of lower class workers, he’d preach anti-capitalism; in front of a room of business owners, he preach anti-communism. But he was really fooling the business owners not the workers as we shall see.

More from previous source:

While the state was to direct the economy according to the principle “common interest before self-interest” and to set the objectives, within this framework the principle of competition was not to be abolished, because in Hitler’s view it was an important mainspring for economic development and technical progress. What was important, however, was that Hitler did not share the beliefs of economic liberalism, according to which the common good would come about as a result of the play of the various self-interests.

This is made clear in a speech Hitler delivered on November, 13 1930:

“In all of business, in all of life in fact, we will have to do away with the concept that the benefit to the individual is what is most important, and that from the self-interest of the individual the benefit to the whole is built up, therefore that it is the benefit to the individual which only makes up the benefit to the community at all. The opposite is true. The benefit to the community determines the benefit to the individual. The profit of the individual is only weighed out from the profit of the community…. If this principle is not accepted, then an egoism must necessarily develop which will destroy the community.”

In view of the successes then achieved by the economic policies of the government, Hitler’s reservations against state planning of the economy gradually diminished. How important Hitler considered the question of state-controlled planning of the economy to be can be seen from the fact that in August 1936 he personally wrote a “Memorandum on the Four-Year Plan 1936.” In this memorandum his admiration and fear of the Soviet system of planned economy were expressed: “The German economy, however, will learn to understand the new economic tasks, or it will prove itself to be incapable of continuing to survive in these modern times in which the Soviet state sets up a gigantic plan.”

Hitler was convinced of the superiority of the Soviet planned economy system over the capitalist economic system. This must be regarded as an essential reason why he so vehemently demanded and enforced the extension of state control of the economy in Germany as well.

Hitler attributed the success of National Socialist economic policy primarily to state control of the economy. From 1940 at the latest, Hitler increasingly became a proponent of the state planned economy – partly because he was convinced of the superiority of the Soviet Union and its economic system. In his monologs to his inner circle (known as “table talks”) on July 27-28, 1941 Hitler said that “A sensible employment of the powers of a nation can only be achieved with a planned economy from above.”

About two weeks later he said: “As far as the planning of the economy is concerned, we are still very much at the beginning and I imagine it will be something wonderfully nice to build up an encompassing German and European economic order.” The statement that as far as the planning of the economy was concerned one was still at the very beginning is important because it shows that Hitler was not thinking at all of a reduction of state intervention – not even for the time after the war – but, on the contrary, intended to expand the instruments of state control of the economy even further.

So here we see that by 1936, Hitler had thrust the economy into a mode of full-scale economic planning from above and that he modeled all of this on the Soviet Union. He later said that this state control of the economy was “only the beginning,” meaning that he was not planning to let off these controls after the war, he intended to keep them in place. That coincides nicely with two statements Hitler makes in 1934 and 1943 in which he calls outright for the elimination of “castes and classes” to equalize all Germans onto a level playing field:

“And we want that you, German boys and girls, to absorb everything that we wish for Germany. We want to be one people and through you, to become this people. We want a society with neither castes nor ranks and you must not allow these ideas to grow within you.” – Triumph of the Will (1934)

“All the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community.” – Speech for the Heroes’ Memorial Day (1943)

More from Zitelmann:

On July 5, 1942 Hitler expressed the opinion that if the German economy had been able so far to deal with innumerable problems “… this was also due in the end to the fact that the direction of the economy had gradually become more controlled by the state. Only thus had it been possible to enforce the overall national objective against the interests of individual groups. Even after the war we would not be able to renounce state control of the economy, because then every interest group would think exclusively of the fulfillment of its wishes.”

Hitler’s view of the Soviet economic system apparently also changed from skepticism to admiration. In a table talk on July 22, 1942, Hitler vehemently defended the Soviet economic system and even the so-called “Stachanow System,” which it was “exceedingly stupid” to ridicule: “One has to have unqualified respect for Stalin. In his way, the guy is quite a genius! His ideals such as Genghis Khan and so forth he knows very well, and his economic planning is so all-encompassing that it is only exceeded by our own Four-Year Plan. I have no doubts whatsoever that there have been no unemployed in the USSR, as opposed to capitalist countries such as the USA.”

Hitler’s admiration for the Soviet system is also confirmed in the notes of Wilhelm Scheidt, who—as adjutant to Hitler’s “representative for military history” Walther Scherff and a member of the Führer Headquarters group—had close contact with Hitler and sometimes even took part in briefings. Scheidt writes that Hitler underwent a “conversion to Bolshevism.” From Hitler’s remarks, he says, the following reactions could be derived: “Firstly, Hitler was enough of a materialist to be the first to recognise the enormous armament achievements of the USSR in the context of her strong, generous and all-encompassing economic organisation.”

Scheidt writes that in view of such impressions Hitler had recognised and expressed “the inner relationship of his system with the so heatedly opposed Bolshevism,” whereby he had to admit that “this system of the enemy was developed far more completely and straightforwardly. His enemy became his secret example.” The “experience of Communist Russia,” particularly the impression of the alleged superiority of the Soviet economic system, had produced a strong reaction in Hitler and the circle of his faithful: “The other economic systems appeared not to be competitive in comparison.” About the impression of the rational organisation of farming in the USSR and the “gigantic industrial plants which gave eloquent testimony despite their destruction,” Hitler, says Scheidt, had been “enthusiastic”.

The German dictator admitted during a conversation with Benito Mussolini on April 22, 1944, he had become convinced: “Capitalism too had run its course, the nations were no longer willing to stand for it. The victors to survive would be Fascism, and National Socialism – maybe Bolshevism in the East.”

Hitler himself was convinced, as he emphasized in his last radio address on January, 30, 1945, “that the age of unrestricted economic liberalism had outlived itself.” These statements of Hitler’s in 1935 to 1945, but particularly from the beginning of the 1940s on, show that he had become a vehement critic of the system of free enterprise and a confirmed adherent of the system of a planned, state-controlled economy.

Operation Pike shows the extent of Soviet-Nazi collaboration worried the Anglo-French alliance:

Operation Pike was the code-name for a strategic bombing plan overseen by UK Air Commodore John Slessor against the USSR by the Anglo-French alliance.[2] British military planning against the Soviet Union occurred during the first two years of the Second World War, when, despite Soviet neutrality, the British and French concluded that the German–Soviet pact made Stalin an accomplice of Hitler.[3] The plan was designed to destroy the Soviet oil industry to cause the collapse of the Soviet economy and deprive Germany of Soviet resources, which, if successful, would have enabled Germany’s victory on the Eastern front. After the conclusion of the German-Soviet Pact, Britain and France became concerned that the Soviets supplied oil to the Germans.[4]

Volker Ullrich confirms Hitler’s private admiration for Stalin in “Hitler’s Downfall“:

“In the days that followed, much to the surprise of his lunch guests, Hitler continued to express his regard for Stalin. The Soviet dictator’s life resembled his own, he told them: the Georgian, too, had worked his way up from ‘an unknown man to the leader of a state’.”

From “When Stalin Was Hitler’s Ally”:

Between 1939 and 1941, as the Soviet Union presented Nazi Germany in its own internal propaganda as a friendly state, Soviet society ceased to criticize German policies and began to publish Nazi speeches. People in public meetings occasionally misspoke, praising “Comrade Hitler” or calling for “the triumph of international fascism.” Swastikas began to appear on buildings or even on posters of Soviet leaders.

David Irving reports the following in “Hitler’s War”:

“The next day, Papen also raised Stalin’s future with Hitler, and the Fiihrer repeated what he had told Goebbels a month before — that once the Wehrmacht had occupied a certain forward line in Russia, it might be possible to find common ground with the Red dictator, who was after all a man of enormous achievements. As another diplomat — Hasso von Etzdorf — noted: ‘ [Hitler] sees two possibilities as to Stalin’s fate; either he gets bumped off by his own people, or he tries to make peace with us. Because, he says, Stalin as the greatest living statesman must realise that at sixty-six you can’t begin your life’s work all over again if it will take a lifetime to complete it; so he’ll try to salvage what he can, with our acquiescence. And in this we should meet him halfway. If Stalin could only decide to seek expansion for Russia toward the south, the Persian Gulf, as he [Hitler] recommended to him once [November 1940], then peaceful co-existence between Russia and Germany would be conceivable.“

So Hitler was absolutely considering a world in which he could live in co-existence with Stalin if the Red Dictator had directed his own expansionism south and not west into lands Hitler wanted for German living space.

Hitler sent birthday wishes to Stalin in 1939:

New York Times:

Of the many books that deal with these two world-changing figures, “Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives,” by the British historian Alan Bullock, published in 1992, is the best — and certainly, at more than 1,000 pages, the most comprehensive. Bullock’s thesis is persuasive. Despite their differences in age, background and temperament — and despite their mortal enmity in World War II — there was a symbiosis, even an affinity, between the two: in their careers, their ideologies, their methods and their psyches.

They were both outsiders: the master of the Kremlin was a Georgian, not a Russian; the German Führer was an Austrian. Both, Bullock says, were narcissists. Both insisted on cults of personality and made themselves into high priests of warped versions of 19th-century social theories (Stalin’s Marxism, Hitler’s toxic combination of social Darwinism and the zanier ideas of Nietzsche). Both were homicidal paranoiacs, determined to deport, enslave and exterminate entire categories of human beings: in Stalin’s case, the kulaks during the collectivization campaign; in Hitler’s, not just Jews but Slavs, Romani and numerous others. Crucially, neither of these malevolent geniuses would have emerged from obscurity were it not for the first great cataclysm of the 20th century, then known as the Great War.

… As Bullock shuttles between his two subjects, he continues to refute commentators who have treated Stalinism and Nazism as diametrically opposed ideologies by labeling the first internationalist and the second nationalist. In fact, those terms were, in this pairing, a distinction without a difference. Both regimes were chauvinistic and expansionist, and both were police states with one-man rule and a reliance on terror, concentration camps and the Big Lie.

Hitler believed that the Third Reich would endure a thousand years. It lasted a dozen. For the first eight, he and Stalin, while geopolitical rivals, sometimes found common ground. Hitler’s minions admired and copied some of Stalin’s techniques of spying and liquidating enemies.

In 1939, much as Lenin and Kaiser Wilhelm had done, Stalin and Hitler made peace — though pre-emptively. They had their foreign ministers sign a pact guaranteeing that neither side would attack the other, while divvying up Poland and smaller countries. Late that year and into the next, the German Gestapo and the Soviet secret police, the N.K.V.D., held a series of conferences to coordinate their occupations.

Had Hitler held to that agreement, it is possible he might have won the war. Stalin might have sat out the conflict as it raged in the West, biding his time, then possibly consolidating with Hitler a condominium of totalitarian superstates.

What did happen was the Wehrmacht’s blitzkrieg into the Soviet Union in 1941, which caught Stalin by surprise. Why Hitler delivered this deadly but also dangerous blow, bringing new hope to Winston Churchill and the Allies, is still debated.

Bullock’s answer to that question came in his earlier biography of Hitler, who “invaded Russia for the simple but sufficient reason that he had always meant to establish the foundations of his thousand-year Reich by the annexation of the territory between the Vistula and the Urals.”

Wall Street Journal:

Known officially as the Treaty of Non-Aggression Between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Hitler-Stalin pact—signed 80 years ago Friday—stunned the world. Some said that by uniting implacable ideological foes it had turned isms into wasms.

That wasn’t quite right. As German negotiator Karl Schnurre had observed the month before, “despite all the differences in their respective worldviews, there is one common element in the ideologies of Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union: opposition to the capitalist democracies. Neither we nor Italy have anything in common with the capitalist West. Therefore it seems to us rather unnatural that a socialist state would stand on the side of the Western democracies.” Since capitalist democracy was their common enemy, why not pool resources?

Hitler and Stalin had demonized each other over several years, but they also had interlocking interests. Hitler wanted to invade Poland without fear of war on two fronts, so he had to neutralize the Soviets. He also needed access to Russia’s natural resources. Stalin coveted German industrial and weapons technology. To his cadre, he explained that he could destroy Germany later, after Hitler had assisted him in destroying the most “reactionary” imperialist capitalist countries, England and France. Though some balked, most communists world-wide acquiesced. Even the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm later acknowledged he’d had “no reservations” about it at the time.

Hitler invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939. Sixteen days later, so did Stalin, allegedly to “protect” the newly occupied “brothers of the same blood.” As revealed only after the war’s end, the dual move had been effectively sanctioned by a Secret Protocol accompanying the pact, which defined the borders of Soviet and German “spheres of interest” in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and parts of Romania.

Joseph Maiolo, a historian at King’s College London, wrote in 2014 that the arrangement “enabled the two regimes to experiment in brutal imposition of their ideological visions on the peoples of Eastern Europe.” British historian Roger Moorhouse, whose 2014 book, “The Devils’ Alliance,” incorporates recently released Soviet-era documents, amply demonstrates that “a remarkable symmetry emerged between the occupation policies adopted by the Nazis and the Soviets. . . . The two sides even employed similar tactics: deportation, hard labor, and execution.”

The devils’ alliance seemed cordial. In December 1939, Hitler wished Stalin on his birthday “a happy future with the peoples of a friendly Soviet Union.” Stalin responded with a toast to “the friendship between the peoples of the Soviet Union and Germany, cemented in blood.” But when Stalin occupied part Northern Bukovina, part of Romania, in the summer of 1940, Hitler is said to have flown into a rage. Hitler worried about the proximity of Soviet forces to the Romanian oil fields, which were indispensable to Germany. Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary in early July 1940: “Maybe we will have to move against the Soviets after all.”

On June 22, 1941, they did. Stalin didn’t believe the intelligence warning of a German invasion. But he soon came up with a rationalization for his oversight: The pact had secured his country months of peace and provided “the opportunity” to rearm. That became the official line. The Secret Protocol, which revealed Stalin’s real strategy, was never mentioned. Rumors of its existence circulated, and an English translation was published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Only in 1948 did the U.S. State Department release an official copy, alongside thousands of other documents seized from the Germans. Moscow issued a communiqué declaring it a forgery and itself “offended” at the “falsification of history.”

The second and third paragraphs stating that the Nazis had nothing in common with the “capitalist West” and thus were more tailored to break bread with the Soviet communists fits like a glove with what Zitelmann quoted from Hitler in 1944:

The German dictator admitted during a conversation with Benito Mussolini on April 22, 1944, he had become convinced: “Capitalism too had run its course, the nations were no longer willing to stand for it. The victors to survive would be Fascism, and National Socialism – maybe Bolshevism in the East.”

Historian John Lukacs informs us that Stalin liked and admired Hitler too and ignored dozens of clear intelligence warnings of a German attack believing his friend Hitler would never do so:

CONAN: And then there is Stalin. Universally described as shrewd and suspicious, canny, but who could not bring himself to accept overwhelming evidence that an invasion was about to happen.

Mr. LUKACS: He didn’t–there was more than one reason in his mind. One of them was obvious. He knew that, particularly Churchill would like to see a war between Germany and Russia. He believed it was in the British interest for that to happen. So he was with his usual suspicion–and also to some extent lack of profound knowledge of the western world–believed that much of this was machination, because Hitler, and this comes as a second element, would be foolish. It would be very unlikely for Hitler to start a war, a two-front war, when the one-front war is not at all concluded.

Now added to this comes a very important element that some people have known, and that’s Stalin had a liking for Hitler. Stalin greatly admired Hitler. The odd thing is that his respect and admiration for Hitler appeared in drips and drabs even after the war started, even toward the end of the war, here and there he dropped some quite comfortable remarks about Hitler, or rather he had admired.

And another element connected with this is that Stalin had a great liking and respect for Germans and for Germany. And that goes back to pretty early in his career.

Mussolini made a similar statement to Hitler that the fascists had more in common with the Soviet communists than the “demo-plutocratic capitalism of the Western powers”. From “Killing History”:

Time and again the National Socialists and Fascists tell us of their affinities for and similarities with communists. Here’s another from Mussolini, in which he told the son of a US Republican Senator, that “fascism is the same thing as Communism”:

Mussolini said Stalin was a “fellow fascist”:

Both Fascism and Marxist Communism created welfare-warfare states:

The infighting between fascists and communists was a brother war between ideological kin fighting for power:

By 1943 Mussolini was once again pronouncing his desire to eliminate what was left of free enterprise in Italy:

In 1933 speech Mussolini declared the “end of laissez-faire” and a march towards socialism:

In a Jan 30, 1945 address Hitler too proclaimed that he was done with free enterprise entirely and would move sharply towards Communism:

Hitler himself was convinced, as he emphasized in his last radio address on January, 30, 1945, “that the age of unrestricted economic liberalism had outlived itself.” These statements of Hitler’s in 1935 to 1945, but particularly from the beginning of the 1940s on, show that he had become a vehement critic of the system of free enterprise and a confirmed adherent of the system of a planned, state-controlled economy.

In the 1940s as his rule was coming to an end, Mussolini wrote anonymous articles calling for another bloody socialist revolution against capitalism (which he had already eliminated in Italy) and that his government was the only truly socialist one next to Soviet Russia:

Adolf Eichmann explained in his memoirs that he was just as much a radical socialist as a nationalist:

L. K. Samuels in “Killing History” describes Mussolini as a closeted Marxist who hated the monarchy and the Church:

Hitler and Mussolini praised FDR for his interventionist economic policies only to later decry him as a “capitalist” when they went to war:

Former Italian politician Nitti said that fascists are “revolutionary socialists”:

The Reich leadership referring to Gauleiter Eric Koch as a “second Stalin” as a compliment for his brutality in Ukraine:

“Opposing Rosenberg’s wishes, Hitler had yielded in the conference of 16 July to the suggestion of Göring, backed by Bormann, that the – even by Nazi standards – extraordinarily brutal and independent-minded Erich Koch, Gauleiter of East Prussia, should be made Reich Commissar of the key territory of the Ukraine. Koch, like Hitler, but in contrast to Rosenberg, rejected any idea of a Ukrainian buffer-state. His view was that from the very beginning it was necessary ‘to be hard and brutal’. He was held in favour in Führer Headquarters. Everyone there thought he was the most suitable person to carry out the requirements in the Ukraine. It was seen as a compliment when they called him the ‘second Stalin’.” (Source: Ian Kershaw, Hitler: 1936-1945 Nemesis)

“The mood at the Führer’s headquarters is very favorable for Erich Koch. Everyone considers him the right man for the job and a “second Stalin” who will fulfill his appointed tasks. ” (Source: Werner Koeppen, pp. 24f. (entry for 19 Sept. 1941))

Götz Aly in “Hitler’s Beneficiaries” tells us of the “liberal borrowing” the Nazis employed from socialist rhetoric:

“Another source of the Nazi Party’s popularity was its LIBERAL BORROWING FROM THE INTELLECTUAL TRADITION OF THE SOCIALIST LEFT. Many of the men who would become the movement’s leaders had been INVOLVED IN COMMUNIST AND SOCIALIST CIRCLES in the waning years of the Weimar Republic. In his memoirs, Adolf Eichmann repeatedly asserted: “My political sentiments inclined toward the left and emphasized socialist aspects every bit as much as nationalist ones.” In the days when the movement was still doing battle in the streets, Eichmann added, HE AND HIS COMRADES HAD VIEWED NAZISM AND COMMUNISM AS “QUASI-SIBLINGS.”

Scholar of fascism A. James Gregor gives us these gems:

What should be recognized at this point is the fact that Mussolini, whatever else he was, was a collectivist, who conceived human beings as social animals. He had learned that man was a communal being from Marx.

By 1938, Mussolini could confidently assert that ‘in the face of the total collapse of the system [bequeathed] by Lenin, Stalin has covertly transformed himself into a Fascist.’

All totalitarianism of the twentieth century were predicated on a systematic, anti-individualistic collectivism. In the case of Marxist-Leninism, the source was classical Marxism. [Giovanni] Gentile had carefully dissected the neo-Hegelian roots of that collectivism. What he found missing in the collectivism of Marx was ethical concern. He sought to provide that concern to the collectivism of Fascism—a collectivism that shared a common intellectual origin with Marxism and Marxism-Leninism.

What some of the revolutionary syndicalists proceed to do was to identify the ‘communality’ of man not will class, but with the nation. The first intimations of a ‘revolutionary nationalism’ made their appearance among the most radical Marxists.

Whether their ideological commitment was to proletarian communism, or the Nordic race, or the restoration of Italy to its proper place in the community of nations, they all chose the hierarchically structured, charismatically led single party state to pursue their ends—a state first fixed in the political doctrine by Fascism.

Gentile’s rationale was neo-Hegelian in origin, the same source out of which Marxism and Marxism-Leninism were to emerge. In fact, Gentile understood Marxism so well that his essay on the thought of the young Marx has not only withstood the test of time, but was, on the occasion of its publication, recommended as particularly insightful by V.I. Lenin.

By the time of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Marxist theoreticians had begun to evaluate fascism in a totally unanticipated fashion… More than that, as Marxist theorists were compelled to reinterpret fascism in the light of empirical evidence and political circumstances, the fundamental affinities shared by Marxist and fascist regimes became apparent.

The first Fascists were almost all Marxists—serious theorists who had long been identified with Italy’s intelligentsia of the Left.

Fascism… was the socialism of ‘proletarian nations.’

Fascist social welfare legislation compared favorably with the more advanced European nations and in some respect was more progressive.

Fascism’s most direct ideological inspiration came from the collateral influence of Italy’s most radical ‘subversives’ — the Marxists of revolutionary syndicalism.

[Italian] Fascism was a variant of classical Marxism, a believe system that pressed some themes argued by both Marx and Engels until they found expression in the form of ‘national syndicalism’ that was to animate the first Fascism.

Thus, by 1925, both Leninism and Fascism, variants of Marxism, had created political and economic systems that shared singular properties… Both sought order and disciple of entire populations in the service of an exclusivistic party and an ideology that found its origins in classical Marxism… Both created a kind of ‘state capitalism,’ informed by a unitary party, and responsible to a ‘charismatics’ leader.

It can be said, in a qualified sense, that Gentile entertained considerable sympathy for the neo-Hegelian Marxist intellectual tradition.

Fascism never served the interests of Italian business… there is no credible evidence that Fascism controlled the nation’s economy for the benefit of the ‘possessing classes.’

Neither Stalinism nor Fascist totalitarianism would have been possible without the transmogrified Marxism, that infilled both.

In what bizarre universe are these two sister ideologies of radical socialist progressivism opposites?

Hitler and Stalin saw themselves in the other.

Topic: In this episode, I look at Hitler’s #1 foreign policy goal: Lebensraum, expanding Germany’s living space to the East. I demolish the natsoc myth that Hitler only wanted to reclaim territories lost after World War I. Extensive quotes from Mein Kampf, Hitler’s speeches to generals, and other sources unequivocally prove that Hitler was not satisfied with the pre-WWI (1914) German borders and sought to expand them eastward “by the sword” to create a contiguous land empire in Europe. In MK, Hitler identifies “Russia and its borderlands” as the fertile soil he wished to conquer, space he claimed was required to make Germany a world power once again, and that this would only be possible through war. Hitler declared Poles, Russians and all Slavs to be an “inferior race” who Germans had the right to rule and exploit. I also delve into German colonial policy in Ukraine in which Himmler led resettlement/colonization projects, moving tens of thousands of Ukrainians off their land and Germans in. After their land was usurped by German occupation authorities, tens of thousands of Ukrainians were shipped off to slave labour camps while some of their children were kidnapped for Himmler’s breeding programs. Nazi Germany used Ukrainian nationalists as cannon fodder to help them fight the Soviets only to betray them later when their usefulness expired.

SUB RUMBLE

TIPS

Topic: In this episode of Martinez Politix Investigates, I look at the common wisdom that Adolf Hitler was an “anti-communist” crusader and break down a series of reasons why Hitler’s anti-Communism was a fraud. I look at Hitler’s own anti-capitalist economic views and policies which were highly similar to that of Soviet communists; Hitler’s private admiration for Stalin and his socialist system; Hitler’s Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which saw the two countries become allies engaged in trade & a joint conquest of Poland; Hitler’s real reason for attacking the USSR (Lebensraum, conquering new living space for German exploitation and not an ideological crusade against Stalinism); and more.

10:30 – 30:00 – Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; Italo-Soviet Pact; Hitler’s private admiration for Stalin; invasion of USSR was about Lebensraum not defeating Communism;

30:00 – 01:09:00 – Fascist/National Socialist economics as a near replica of Soviet economics; high levels of cross-over between Germany’s communist parties to the NSDAP; Goebbels’ writings are full of Marxist language and sentiment; Goebbels’ criticism of communism was disingeunous & misleading; had nothing at all to do with its economics, rather he fully affirmed his support for the economic side of it & only disavowed its perceived lack of ethno-centric focus;

01:09:00 – 01:23:00 – Recapping the six major reasons that Hitler’s and Mussolini’s anti-communism was a fraud; a run through of some fascist philosophy (“states have rights over individuals”) and how this would shackle you into subservience to any evil government (like the ones ruling over us now)

If you enjoyed this content, consider making a contribution or becoming a member.

The Kremlin’s propaganda against Ukraine reads like an old Soviet propaganda ministry manual, mixed with an Anti-Defamation League press release. In a press conference after the 2014 revolution, Putin attacked the Maidan revolutionaries as “reactionary, nationalist and anti-Semitic forces.” The day previously, he claimed Maidan was led by “anti-Semites and neo-Nazis on a rampage.”

Putin’s ally, the Chabad Chief Rabbi of Russia Berel Lazar, lended his support to the Kremlin’s propaganda against Ukraine. In an interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on 24 March 2014, Lazar raised concerns of “anti-Semitism” in the new Ukrainian government: “In the last 15 years I’ve never seen in Russia anything similar. And sadly, in Ukraine and in certain parts of Ukraine especially, there is a history of anti-Semitism.”

Lazar attended the “victory” speech Putin gave at the Kremlin after the Russian occupation of Crimea. In July 2014, the Russian Chabad leaders organized an international press tour via chartered plane from Moscow to draw attention to Ukrainian “anti-Semitism”. They attended a speech Putin gave in Sevastopol, where he thanked the Chabad rabbis for their efforts to “combat fascism”. One of the first acts in Crimea after the Russian occupation was a “holocaust” memorial organized by the local Chabad Rabbi Benjamin Wolf. Chabad’s loyalty was rewarded with a synagogue in Simferopol.

One notable Russian-Jewish oligarch who has spoken at Chabad conferences is Boris Spiegel, an Orthodox Jew “closely tied to the Kremlin”. Spiegel grew wealthy from his company Biotek, a major pharmaceuticals producer dominant in more than seventy markets across the Eurasian landscape. As chairman of the World Congress of Russian Jewry, he joined the Kremlin’s propaganda effort when he called for the establishment of a tribunal that would investigate the Republic of Georgia’s “war crimes” and “genocide” in 2008.

Since then, he has accused the former Soviet-occupied countries Ukraine and the Baltic states of “rapid nazification” and has called for a common history textbook for all Europe based on “serious scientific study, as well as the decisions of international judicial and political authorities on which basis the postwar world order had been built.” In other words, a textbook indoctrinating Europeans into idolizing the Soviet Union and beating themselves up over the “Nazism” and “anti-Semitism” inherent within their own countries.

In 2010, Spiegel founded the “NGO” World Without Nazism (WWN), which one US Jewish publication called “a kind of Moscow-based Anti-Defamation League”. Much like its American counterpart, WWN is a Jewish political advocacy group that attacks any political trend or figure it opposes as “anti-Semitic”. Despite its claims of being non-governmental, WWN is actually a “governmental non-governmental organization” as tied to the Kremlin as is its leader. Most of its efforts are devoted to accusing any nationalist trend in Ukraine, Finland and the Baltic states as “neo-Nazi” and harkening back to those countries “collaboration” with Nazi Germany. Its solely because these countries don’t idolize the “glorious” Soviet Union’s occupation of their lands or deny the Bolshevik/Stalinist crimes against their peoples.

Spiegel led the initiative to construct a Red Army “Victory Monument” in Netanya, Israel in 2012. Designed to commemorate the more than half a million Jews who fought for the Red Army during World War II, it was unveiled at a ceremony attended by Putin and Shimon Peres. “What I just heard has warmed my feelings toward the Jewish people and especially toward Israel,” Putin said at the ceremony. The Red Army nostalgia harkened back to the WWN’s own foundation ceremony, where Soviet songs were sung and with chants of “We’ll come back with victory! The Red Army is the strongest!”

In February 2014, Spiegel led a WWN delegation to meet with pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in Kiev, offering their support against the “extremism and neo Nazism” represented by his Ukrainian nationalist opposition. In September, the WWN bestowed “Freedom of Speech” prizes posthumously upon six journalists – including four who worked for Russian-state media – who died covering the “fight against the rebirth of Nazism” in Ukraine. Shortly after Maidan, the WWN released a statement to the Russian news agency TASS that warned “The absence of the international community’s reaction can repeat the Kristallnacht for non-Ukrainians and other ethnic minorities.” The statement continued: “Only those who want see Europe under Nazi and radical nationalists will condemn Crimea.”

In February 2015, Spiegel issued an official statement commemorating the 72th anniversary of the Soviet victory at Stalingrad. “Today neo-Nazis are once again raising their heads. Their ideology is poisoning civil society in the very heart of Europe,” Spiegel claimed. He asserted that Ukrainian “neo-fascists and neo-Nazi battalions” were committing atrocities against those “who honor the memory [of Soviet soldiers] over the Nazi machine of death.” He threatened the Ukrainians defending their own country from Russian-backed neo-Soviet separatists that they would “risk being surrounded in a new Uranus pincer,” referring to the Red Army operation that recaptured Stalingrad.

Spiegel’s useful idiots are very active in Finland and Estonia, openly denying those countries’ sovereignty and promoting Russian imperial objectives. On 23 March 2009, the WWN-affiliate organization Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee (SAFKA) staged a protest in Helsinki against the Estonian Embassy’s seminar about Stalin’s forced removal of thousands from the Baltic States. Brandishing Russian flags, other participants at the protest include dozens of members of the Russian Nashi youth organization, founded with links to the Kremlin; the pro-Russian Estonian Nochnoy Dozor (Night Watch) movement, initially founded to prevent removal of Soviet statues and symbols in Estonia and attacks its opponents as “Nazis”; and ten members of the Finnish Islamic Party, an Islamist political party led by self-admitted KGB agent and Muslim convert Abdullah Tammi. The Bolshevik Revolution was “social progress” according to SAFKA.

SAFKA leader Johan Bäckman also co-founded WWN and serves as a governing board member. He has become notorious in Finland for his aggressive pro-Russian activism, frequently accusing various politicians, journalists and academics who don’t tow the Kremlin line as “Russophobes” and “anti-Semites”. He became notorious in Finland for his pro-Soviet historiography, which denigrated the Finnish war against the Soviets in the 1940s as a “racist” effort to create a “Greater Finland” and “ethnically cleanse” Russians in collaboration with Hitler. Even though he openly engages in such anti-Finnish activities unhindered, one pro-Kremlin propaganda source claimed he was “persecuted” in Finland, oblivious to the treatment of dissidents in Putin’s Russia. This traitor completely ignores the discrimination faced by his fellow Finns under Russian occupation in Karelia.

Bäckman has uttered such absurd and bizarre statements as “Stalin was very gentle and sweet”, and has denied the sovereign existence of Estonia and Latvia, condemning their efforts to repudiate the Soviet era as “an apartheid that represents the criminal discrimination of Russians” and dismissed the Soviet occupation as a “Nazi myth”. He even wants anti-Soviet dissent in Estonia criminalized: “In my opinion speaking or writing of Soviet ‘occupation’ should be criminalized as a form of racist propaganda. I demand five years prison sentence to everyone who dares to say Estonia was ‘occupied’ by Soviet Union.” He has been expelled and barred from both Estonia and Moldova for such subversive activities.

His activities connect him directly to the Kremlin. He is the Northern European representative of the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies (RISS), an organization staffed by former Russian intelligence officers which is funded by the foreign intelligence service and presidential administration of Russia. Bäckman was a member of the “elections observer” delegation of notorious pro-Russian political figures that rubber-stamped Russia’s annexation of Crimea, even while he labelled the Maidan Revolution as “an illegal seizure of power”. He is the Finnish representative of the separatist “Dontesk People’s Republic”, warning the separatists against two Finnish journalists he claimed were “agents of the USA and Ukraine”. He has recruited Finnish fighters for the separatists under the cover of “travel” to Donbass and even “ski training”. Bäckman established the “Novorussian Embassy” in Helsinki, despite the lack of official recognition.

He also has ties with the Eurasianist leader Alexander Dugin, who has often visited Helsinki at his invitation, and he has in turn been promoted as an authority by Dugin’s Geopolitica. Much like Bäckman’s links to Boris Spiegel, Dugin has his own links with the hardcore Zionist Avigdor Eskin and has claimed that both Jews and Russians are “chosen peoples”. Certainly a useful idiot like Bäckman is only too willing to agree and sell out his own people and nation in the process.

Commentary by Brandon Martinez

America’s premier Islamic truther, Kevin Barrett, is always hot on the trail of every alleged “false-flag” terror event. His life is essentially committed to “debunking” every single act of terror or violence when the perpetrator is a Muslim. That’s all that he does. It’s likely he will go to his grave shouting, “the Muslims are innocent!”

His formula is always the same for each attack: speculate about timing, “cui bono” and other small details; point to some unverifiable use of Masonic Illuminati numerology supposedly present in the date, number of victims, etc.; accuse victims and witnesses of being “crisis actors” because they didn’t weep hard enough; and then declare the whole thing “just another” staged event.

He’s leaning heavily on the patently silly numerology angle with the latest Manchester bombing. Then he cites the logic of some random Twitter users and commenters who think it was a false-flag to back up his bias.

On the whole, his case for a false-flag in Manchester rests entirely on pure speculation about numerology, beneficiaries, and other small details. He provides no smoking guns for this one or any of the other recent attacks. Like all the others, he’s approaching this one from a preconceived conclusion that it was a false-flag, and then weaving his story accordingly to make it fit. So one day after the bombing Barrett’s marshalled together some speculative “evidence” and declared: “Bottom line: Abadi was very likely innocent.”

Who would take this unacademic wild theorizing seriously besides like-minded ideologues?

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this blog, Barrett and other false-flag obsessives have a clear Islamic or leftist agenda. In Barrett’s case, he’s a Koran-thumping Islamic missionary who wants to spread the faith and Islamize the world. He feels it’s his religious duty to defend the faith (and the faithful) from hostile infidel “accusers.” It’s therefore in his religious interest to “debunk” all instances of Islamic terrorism. During the migrant crisis of 2015, Barrett shockingly came out in support of the invasion on the basis that it will increase Islamic demographics on the continent and thereby make Europe more sympathetic with the Palestinians and other Muslim/Arab issues. So Europeans should just hand over their countries to weird foreigners so that “Palestine can be free from the river to the sea”? Yet he hypocritically condemns pro-Trump Americans for prioritizing the immigration issue over Palestine and other quagmires that Muslims care about.

Barrett is markedly engaged in little more than a counter-propaganda jihad for Islam. He calls his own activism a “truth jihad.” But in this case “truth” is whatever benefits Islam’s public image. This is his “response” to the war on terror: orating claims that the West and Zionists are behind all Islamic atrocities. He does what the Zionists do for their cause – scrupulously twisting everything to suit their tribal agenda and bias – but in reverse. He’s not particularly concerned with facts or evidence regarding these events. He even said that his approach is to assume every attack (involving Muslims) is a false-flag and demand the government prove that it’s not.

If you look at the Twitter feeds of some of these false-flaggers, like this nut job impersonating Paul Joseph Watson, it’s all the same repetitive stuff played over and over again. They are like automated bots blasting the same talking points about the Iraq war, 9/11, and Israel, 24/7. Nothing else matters to them as they endlessly pursue an impossible social justice crusade for the Middle East.

However, their narrative is convoluted and often self-contradictory. They’re quick to dismiss ISIS-related terror in the West as fake, but when evangelizing about the civil war in Syria, many of them actually claim ISIS and other Islamic rebel groups have conspired to stage “false-flag” chemical attacks to frame Assad. So how does this work? ISIS is being framed for “false-flags” in the West, but in Syria ISIS is doing the false-flags with the help of the West? So with Syria their false-flag formula is reversed, in that whenever Assad is blamed for an atrocity against civilians, the “truthers” come out with claims that it was really ISIS or other Islamist rebels that did it!

If Western governments are exclusively going after Assad, and are secretly helping ISIS as some claim, why would they constantly attack themselves and frame Assad’s enemies for it? Why wouldn’t they just frame Assad or Hezbollah? By doing so they’re actually generating sympathy for Assad, which is counter-intuitive to their supposed agenda of toppling him. And what would be the point of a continuous string of attacks in the West when the anti-ISIS coalition air war has been going on for three years now? Nothing much happens after these fresh attacks that hasn’t already been happening for years.

If these people are against ISIS in Syria/Iraq, why then would they want to shill for them in the West? The formula seems to be that when ISIS blows something up “over there,” it’s real, but if it’s done “over here,” it’s fake. Makes you wonder what the hell is the point of disproving one solitary act of terror blamed on ISIS when they’re simultaneously saying that the group is doing real terror elsewhere. They never question the terror “over there” because the target of that violence is their beloved Ba’athist strong-man, Assad.

Kevin Barrett is also contradictory on this. When he goes on Iranian PressTV he acts as a mouthpiece for Iran, Hezbollah and Assad in Syria (the Shiite bloc), blasting the “Takfiri” Muslims of ISIS and al-Qaeda as sell-outs. But elsewhere he essentially defends al-Qaeda and other Islamists as innocent patsies being framed for terrorism by Western intelligence agencies, largely denying Islamic extremism even exists. He has also philosophized in favour of establishing an Islamic caliphate, a goal shared with the more hardline Salafi Muslims rather than the Shiites who he propagandizes for on PressTV. It looks to me like he’s a chameleon, saying different (often contradictory) things depending on his audience.

So these people are zealously backing the Assad regime in its civil war with other Muslim factions and do not hesitate to label Assad’s opponents collectively as “terrorists.” So then what is the purpose of 9/11 truth? 9/11 was blamed on al-Qaeda, a group which forms a significant bloc battling the Assad regime and other dynastic dictatorships in the Middle East. Assad himself doesn’t dispute that narrative, saying numerous times that he’s “fighting the people that did 9/11.” This presents a problem for the “truthers,” who can’t decide what’s more important, proving 9/11 was an inside job (and thus letting al-Qaeda off the hook) or shilling for Assad (which requires al-Qaeda and Islamism in general to be discredited).

What it comes down to here is that these people are nihilistic anti-Western (and anti-white) leftists. So when Muslims are accused of terror against Westerners, they come to the defense of the Muslim regardless of that Muslim’s bent. But in the Middle East they shift the goal-posts a little bit, choosing sides with certain Muslim factions (usually the more secular ones, with the exception of Iran) over others. But even in the Middle East they posit that the “bad Muslims” are the ones working with the West and the “good Muslims” are those fighting the West. But what about when those “bad Muslims” are fighting the West, as ISIS and al-Qaeda have done at times, or when the “good Muslims” are working with the West (as Assad, Gaddafi and Hussein once did)? Will they suddenly start cheerleading for the “bad Muslims” and denouncing the “good Muslims”?

These biased dolts wail when the CIA sends a drone into Yemen or Pakistan to kill an al-Qaeda or Taliban chieftain, but then whip out their pom-poms and do a cheering routine when Russia does the same thing in Syria to take down the rebel leaders there. They moan about “civilian casualties” when it’s a Western coalition jet that caused the carnage, but dutifully sweep under the rug the thousands of civilians killed by Assad and the Russians. Selective outrage is typical of leftists who are only using “humanitarian” rhetoric in efforts to discredit their perceived enemies, while abandoning such arguments for regimes they support.

These hacks are clearly nothing more than war propagandists for anyone seemingly in opposition to “the West.” They’ll shill for any regime or group that says or does anything contrary to the agenda of Western powers. They’ve become prostitutes for tyrants and dictators on the sole basis that those despots are “anti-American” or “anti-Israel.”

For all their bluster about uncovering false-flags, they seem awfully uninterested in the likely one that brought Vladimir Putin to power in Russia. In fact, they don’t seem to scrutinize any terror events, even ones implicating Muslims, when the target is Russia. Again, that shows their highly selective “concern” and “outrage” about abuses of power by governments. If you’re a brutal regime situated outside the Western hemisphere, you can count on these despicable charlatans to whitewash your misdeeds.

And ultimately these self-destructive people give a bad name to decent researchers who have uncovered real false-flags (and there have been some real ones). But the whole field has become so inundated with skittish ideologues pursuing narrow political or religious agendas that it’s virtually useless at this point.