Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
Revisionist History publisher Michael Hoffman stirred a trollstorm this past summer when, in issue 97 of his newsletter, he published an article titled, “Hitler Never Had a Snowball’s Chance in Hell of Conquering Soviet Russia”. In it, he characterizes Hitler as history’s “champion killer of Germans”1 – and, as he was soon to discover, this was triggering to a significant segment of his readership. “After the publication of our study […] we received a number of e-mails and letters running the gamut from criticism to barely concealed exasperation and denunciation,” Hoffman relates in Revisionist History issue 98, adding that “subscription renewals are down due to what we published about Hitler’s war in Russia.”2 What did Hoffman write that got his readers so upset?
“Not wanting to desert my post as watchman on the ramparts, it periodically falls to this writer to sound the alarm about the spirit of neo-Nazism that obstinately calls to the anti-Zionist Right-wing like the fatal sirens of antiquity,” he begins:
The “Hitler’s attack on the USSR was defensive,” and “he nearly defeated Stalin” myths have been given new life on popular Right wing websites and blogs, written by people appalled that the Communists actually shot back when the Nazis stormed into Russia. Hitler’s reputation among revisionists would be reduced to a fraction if the suppressed fact that he invaded a nation which the German military had no real hope of conquering, was better known. […]
Yet because the documentation is not better known on the Right, the Hitler defenders are free to mount their promotion of the legends that he was forced to invade the USSR and that the Germans nearly succeeded in conquering Russia. If we can be made to believe those legends, then a sizeable obstacle to Hitler’s rehabilitation has been removed, since the most ruinous military bungle of his career was Operation Barbarossa. […] Our thesis is that Hitler’s temerarious invasion of Russia on June 22, 1941 guaranteed the defeat of Germany and the subsequent massacre of the German people. […]
- Hitler was so rash and delusional that he harbored the unshakable belief that his armies would defeat Stalin’s empire by the end of the summer of 1941 [with the inadequate logistical planning for the invasion being in nonchalant accordance with this lightning-conquest fantasy]. How many are aware of this lunatic self-hypnosis?
- What actually happened was that by summer’s end, Sept. 30, 1941, a horrible massacre, more than 185,000 German soldiers – over three times the number of Americans killed in ten years of fighting during the Vietnam war – had died fighting on Soviet soil in just three months. Again, how many are aware of this astonishing datum?
This is a staggering butcher’s bill (the total June to Sept. German casualties were 530,000). 185,000 of the cream of German youth aged 18-30 (on average), were dead in just three months from the time Hitler ordered his forces into Russia in the first phase of his war. […]
Should this early and nearly immediate disaster have signified caution and reassessment? To most people, yes. To Hitler, no. As “Fuhrer” he answered to no one. His decisions were subject to no checks and balances. Responsibility for this Oriental type of despotism cannot be laid at the door of Churchill, Roosevelt or Eisenhower, as the Internet’s Hitler sympathizers have been doing. […]
The Fuhrer convinced himself that the conquest of the vast Soviet territory would take place over the next ninety days (October to December). If another 185,000 German boys had to be killed in striving for Hitler’s goal, then so be it.
On the Internet these days Eisenhower and Churchill are being made culpable for the loss to Stalin of Eastern Europe, and in particular east Germany. The understanding that Hitler’s invasion was doomed to failure and that the Red Army was bound to overrun the Germans and enslave the eastern portion of Europe, did not occur to the Nazi brass and neither does it occur to their partners in failure, today’s defenders of Hitler, for whom the Fuhrer is very seldom held responsible for the apocalyptic defeat that his defective judgment caused.
This is the tune that some segments of the anti-Zionist Right wing have been playing like a Stradivarius for decades: Adolf is seldom, if ever, to blame.3
The establishment, Hoffman contends, “is not unhappy to witness the perpetual attempts to resurrect the Hitler meme, and a false messiah who will once again frog-march white masses to another annihilation in the name of certain victory.” He concedes that “Hitler undoubtedly has a certain appeal”; but he adds that the establishment “is aware of this too, and puts it into play,” continuing:
The appeal is found in this line of reasoning: all the sins of the world it seems are placed upon Hitler’s shoulders by a Satanic system. What Satanists call evil must be good, therefore Hitler must, to some extent, have been good. Scenes of an idyllic Germany in the 1930s are often replayed: the volkish unity, smiling people relieved of the burden of the Versailles Treaty, a nation headed upward to the stars.
This serene image came crashing down after Hitler built his foreign policy and war aims on an absurd faith in the benevolence of the English ruling class, then invaded Russia and declared war on the United States. Germany in flames and brutally occupied was the result of the reign of Adolf Hitler. The people we see smiling in those bucolic photos of Germany in the 1930s were mostly either dead, wounded, burned, raped, homeless or reduced to penury after twelve years of the Third Reich.
We are informed by some on the Right however, that the horrendous ruination of Germany was inevitable given the forces arrayed against it, and the Fuhrer was mostly not at fault. This is the thought process of Talmudists when confronted with damning evidence against the Grand Rabbi.4
For evidence of Hitler’s foolhardiness, one only needs recourse to the man’s own words. “We draw your attention to Hitler’s first speech to the nation since he had ordered the invasion of Russia in June,” Hoffman goes on:
This was given on October 3, 1941 in Berlin […] wherein he predicted the imminent end of the war on the eastern front. Regarding Soviet Russia, Hitler told the German people, “… this opponent has already broken down and will never rise again!” He was so confident of this preposterous delusion that he openly admitted in his speech that he was shifting German industrial production away from the desperate needs of his infantry, an act of criminal incompetence and betrayal of the troops: “Today it is only a question of transport. Today we have taken care in advance so that, in the midst of this war of materiel, I can order further production in many spheres to cease, because I know there is no opponent whom we would not be able to defeat with the existing amounts of ammunition.”
The more we study the more we see that Hitler invaded Russia believing that a triumph of the will would win the war. There was no other basis for optimism. Was he flying high on drugs as early as 1941? The reason we ask is because his impetuous October 3 victory forecast speech, which described Stalin’s Russia as finished, was given after a few Wehrmacht battle victories on the road to Moscow, but before the rasputitsa (Russian winter) set in – which it did only a few days later. So, while the magnificent Wehrmacht had two Soviet armies encircled at Viaz’ma and the smaller Briansk pocket, German tanks and supply trucks were seriously obstructed or stopped altogether by rain, sleet, snow and a deluge of mud. Meanwhile, Hitler had decided the war in the East was won and turned war production toward things like ship engines! […]
Everything had been gambled on a magical, lightning-quick conquest in the summer. When that failed, Hitler envisioned Moscow captured by October. This was sorcery not soldiering.5
“In Operation Typhoon and the invasion of Russia in general, we encounter a shocking lack of preparedness, criminal neglect of contingency planning, and prospects for victory so slim, they were reckless and suicidal,” Hoffman concludes:
Our first reaction is to deny the data because it is difficult to believe that Hitler was so steeped in the occult that he was more of a practicing magician than a statesman or military prodigy. [David] Stahel and other historians like him prove, to our satisfaction anyway (at least until more persuasive contrarian evidence is marshaled), that the Germans had virtually no possibility of conquering Russia, but were made to march to their doom as the sorcerer’s apprentices.
With no significant chance for victory in Russia, the German military could not win the Second World War.
That people who are engaged in the rehabilitation of the Fuhrer’s reputation endeavor to lay responsibility for this unmitigated catastrophe at the feet of anyone other than their idol is itself a species of magical thinking.
What a colossal waste of the devotion to duty of the heroes of the German army who crusaded against Communism from idealistic motives and were betrayed by the gross incompetence of a glorified god […] The German people were far and away the biggest victims of Adolf Hitler.6
“Some detractors wrote to us to repeat a standard tired tale in the expectation that we have not read [Viktor] Suvorov’s Icebreaker or a couple of the other books that seek to absolve Hitler of responsibility for the Russian invasion catastrophe,” Hoffman leads into his counterpoint:
We are conversant with this apologia genre which has not been updated over the years in response to new revelations from the archives. Our article in the July newsletter is predicated on the new findings. It is unfortunate that for some of our readers Nazism is a revered creed and Hitler a great hero. These enthusiasts are afflicted with two unfortunate, self-sabotaging traits: little or no curiosity about historical discoveries that threaten their belief; and what is known as “confirmation bias” – believing only those sources which tend to confirm one’s preconceived ideas.
In 2015, when we published in Revisionist History no. 80 a study of the life of Gregor Strasser and his murder by Hitler, we lost approximately twenty percent of our subscribers. One lady who quit had been a consistent donor and subscriber. She was infuriated by the article. She denied the veracity of our extensive research, mainly because in his book Hitler Democrat, Leon Degrelle had declared that Strasser was a guilty plotter who deserved to be killed. Strasser was no such thing. Colonel Degrelle was repeating Nazi propaganda. What is more useless than the party line? What is more tragic than human beings who swallow it?7
It is the position of Aryan Skynet that Adolf Hitler deserves our contempt and vilification, albeit not for the reasons advanced by our current cultural dictators. It is entirely possible to admire Hitler’s rugged determination, his social thought, aesthetic sensibility, or racial theorizing – to consider him charming, in some ways, or to find in him “a certain appeal,” as Hoffman puts it – but at the same time to conclude that he was history’s biggest and bloodiest blunderer – a figure whose death-stench continues to hang over Europe and Europe’s diaspora like some deity’s undying fart.
“The revisionist vocation is a re-visioning of every human belief in the face of new information when it contradicts the old,” Hoffman reminds his readers.
Some of those who say they are revisionists are not. For them revisionism is a means to an end – rehabilitation of the reputation of Adolf Hitler. The revisionist epistemology itself is of no interest. They undercut it with their assent to virtually any disinformation that buttresses their “side”. Revisionist history takes no sides. It follows the truth wherever it leads, which is what makes it so endlessly fascinating.8
Rainer Chlodwig von K.
Rainer is the author of Protocols of the Elders of Zanuck: Psychological Warfare and Filth at the Movies – the DEFINITIVE Alt-Right statement on Hollywood!