Posts Tagged ‘Germany’

National Power and Public Opinion

Saturday, May 19th, 2012

This book is intended for the intellectual leadership of the nation. They must be familiar with tools, the use of whose power over the spirit is once again secured. Spirit should not be talked about, rather it should be made effective, just as light illuminates an object without one being able to see the light beam in clear air.

A near-sighted national materialism likes to speak with a certain bitterness about “the people of poets and philosophers,” and thinks deeds are more important than words. But it forgets that the deed is born of the thought, and the thought of the word. Our energy, our military activity, and our spirit of sacrifice first declined when our most valuable possessions, our poets and philosophers, were mortally wounded. All the roots of our strength are in them, as is the almost daemonic willingness to sacrifice oneself to enthusiastic attack and organized discipline, traits which the German people display better than anyone else.

Liberalism and its offspring, Marxism, are intellectually and organically finished.

The nation again passionately recognizes German politics, German soldiers, and the German spirit. The mutual bond and dependence between these feelings and forces is apparent to everyone.

Our questions are these: In which ways will public opinion properly express the instinctive spirit and will of the nation? How will radio, the press, news services, and propaganda and cultural institutions give expression to the powerful life currents of the nation? How can they be intellectually controlled without falling into the traps and pitfalls of liberalism?

Will public opinion take on intellectual or primitive form? Will it stress individual freedom, Bolshevist bureaucracy, or be restricted only according to certain forms and aims? May we choose between the liberal principle of individualism and the Bolshevist principle of collectivism, or must we find a new way? These are vital questions for the German people and the German mind. They cannot be answered with theories from a desk. Their answers must rather grow out of the nation. That will be possible only when we have resolved to abolish the structures of liberal public opinion, and laid new foundations for future growth. This book contains a thorough study and investigation, not from a party standpoint, but rather with attention to the whole area.

Historical and contemporary examples show that the means of public opinion can endanger or destroy national unity if they are improperly used or controlled by the enemy.

But possession and use of the means are not sufficient. The greatest care must be taken to prevent propaganda from being used for its own sake. Propaganda is the will to power; it is always subsidiary to an idea. If the idea is missing, the whole artificial structure collapses. Idea, propaganda, and power are inseparably connected. A pure, crystal clear will and the highest idealism, intellectual superiority, vision, and sufficient knowledge of the means of public opinion and the possibilities and limits of governmental structures must all come together in order to successfully free the national will for our great task.

Enhanced by Zemanta

German sues Macedonia in EU human rights court

Thursday, May 17th, 2012

A German citizen took his claim that the CIA illegally whisked him to a secret prison in Afghanistan to Europe’s human rights court Wednesday in what could be the final chapter of a case that has shed light on U.S. practices in the war on terror.

Khaled El-Masri, who is of Lebanese descent, says he was brutally interrogated at a secret CIA-run prison in Afghanistan for more than four months after being kidnapped from Macedonia in 2003, apparently mistaken for a terror suspect. He says he went on a hunger strike for 27 days and was eventually flown back to Europe and abandoned in a mountainous area in Albania.

Having failed with previous legal efforts in Germany, Macedonia and the United States, el-Masri has turned to the European Court of Human Rights as a last resort in the hope that it will declare that Macedonia breached his basic rights, said his lawyer.

“Mr. El-Masri has spent the last eight years seeking legal redress for the crimes that were committed against him,” James Goldston told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. “There is abundant evidence including data on CIA flights to and from (Macedonia’s capital) Skopje.”

Authorities in Macedonia have denied any involvement in el-Masri’s alleged kidnapping and sought Wednesday to have the Strasbourg, France-based court dismiss the case. A lawyer representing the small southeast European nation argued that el-Masri was too slow in filing his initial criminal complaint in Macedonia.

Goldston is the executive director of the Open Justice Initiative, a group that campaigns against the United States’ so-called extraordinary rendition programs. These involved abducting and interrogating terror suspects without court sanction.

The case has caused diplomatic friction between the United States and Germany, where prosecutors dropped efforts to pursue the CIA agents involved in detaining him after Washington made clear they would not be extradited.

El-Masri himself was not in court as he is currently serving a two-year prison sentence for assaulting the mayor of his hometown in Germany and later a prison employee.

The court is expected to deliver a verdict later this year.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Lies about “Hitler

Wednesday, May 16th, 2012

The party that, along with the USPD that had again joined its ranks, just after the revolution proclaimed it an honor to have been a shirker, or even a deserter, invented the lie shortly before the Reich presidential election that Hitler had shirked his duty. At Fournes in particular, he had always been “far from the action.” A temporary ban was imposed on that SPD pamphlet. In the subsequent court proceeding, the judge had to rule that the claim was untrue, based on an impressive number of sworn statements by witnesses, either on paper or directly before the court.

Here are excerpts from the sworn statements:

“… I want to stress that, when during the attack on the axe-shaped piece of forest (later called the Bavarian Forest), I left the cover of the forest near Wytschaete to better observe the attack, Hitler and another courier from the regimental staff, the volunteer Bachmann, placed themselves in front of me to protect me from machine gun fire with their own bodes.”

Signed: Engelhardt, Major General (retired), former commander of the Bavarian R.-F.-R. 16 (List).

“… I can only give former Corporal Hitler the greatest praise for his extraordinary accomplishments. Fournes was a village behind the regiment’s battle line. It served as a recovery area for battalion relieved from the front, and also served as the seat of the regimental staff during calmer periods. The village was within the danger zone, and was frequently under rather heavy fire. During battle, the regimental headquarters was moved about 3/4 of an hour forward to Fournelles, and orders had to be carried to the front line. The path was often under enemy machine gun and artillery fire. I can never remember a single time when Hitler was absent from his post. Hitler may wear the medals he earned with pride…”

Signed: Satny, Colonel (retired), former commander of the Bavarian R.-F.-R. 16 (List).

“Mr. Hitler, as corporal, was a courier for the regimental staff, and was not only always willing to carry out hard tasks, but did so with distinction. I stress that the List Regiment, as might be expected from its history, was at the toughest parts of the front, fighting in frequent major battles…”

Signed: Baligand, Colonel (retired), last commander of the Bavarian R.-F.-R. 16 (List).

“… At particularly dangerous points I often was asked for volunteers, and at such times Hitler regularly volunteered, and without hesitation…”

Signed: Bruno Horn, Lieutenant with the Bavarian R.-F.-R. 16 (List).

“… Hitler never hesitated in the least in carrying out even the most difficult order, and very often took on the most dangerous duties for his comrades.

Couriers for the regimental staff had to be among the most reliable people, because serving as a regimental courier during battles and skirmishes required iron nerves and a cool head. Hitler always did his duty, and even after his severe thigh wound, and volunteered to be sent back to his regiment from the reserve battalion immediately after his release from the hospital…”

Signed: Max Amann, former sergeant with the the Bavarian R.-F.-R. 16 (List).

“… I often met Corporal Adolf Hitler as he served as courier to and from the front. Anyone who understands the duties of a courier — and any soldier who has served at the front does — knows what it means, day after day and night after night to move through artillery fire and machine gun fire from the rear…”

Signed: Joseph Lohr, officer candidate with the Bavarian R.-F.-R. 16 (List).

“… It is true that Hitler was nearly blinded by a courier mission during a heavy gas attack, even though he was wearing a gas mask…”

Signed: Jakob Weiß, NCO with the Bavarian R.-F.-R. 16 (List).

“… Hitler received the Iron Cross, First Class, during the spring or summer of 1918 for his outstanding service as a courier during the great offensive of 1918, an in particular for his personal capture of a French officer and about 15 men, whom he suddenly encountered during a mission, and as a result of his quick thinking and decisive action, captured.

Hitler was seen by his fellow couriers, and many others in the regiment, as one of the best and bravest soldiers.”

Signed: Ernst Schmidt, with the Bavarian R.-F.-R. 16 (List) from November 1914 until October 1918.

The most sensational moment of the trial came during the testimony of Hitler’s regimental comrade Michel Schlehuber, a Social Democrat and union member for 35 years, who was called as a witness by the opposing side:

“I have known Hitler since the departure for the front of the Bavarian R.-F.-R. 16. I came to know Hitler as a good soldier and faultless comrade. I never saw Hitler attempt to avoid any duty or danger.

I was part of the division from first to last, and never heard anything then or afterwards bad about Hitler. I was astonished when I later read unfavorable things about Hitler’s service as a soldier in the newspapers.

I disagree entirely with Hitler on political matters, and give this testimony only because I highly respect Hitler as a war comrade.”

Signed: Michael Schlehuber


Enhanced by Zemanta

Social Democrats in 1925

Tuesday, May 15th, 2012

The Social Democrats surpassed everyone in this noble battle in throwing filth at the venerable field marshal of the World War. Vorwärts thundered and raged about the presumption of a general, a Junker, to be the successor of the Social Democrat Ebert in the Reich President’s seat.

Vorwärts wrote:

“A catastrophic president… He busies himself by polishing his medals… Save the republic! Two million dead admonish us: Never again Hindenburg!”

Whenever Vorwärts dislikes an opponent, the noble paper uses the term “catastrophic politician.” At the moment, the Socialist party hacks use this method against the evil Nazis.

7 Years ago!

Enhanced by Zemanta

On the Value of Silence, Speech, and Action

Monday, May 14th, 2012

I find the following sentences in the printed version of your speech:

“I have been accused of remaining silent for too long. Careful work seems to me more important than speaking, and I have confident that the German people prefer that which is factual, serious.”

Mr. Reich Chancellor! This opinion seems to me to rest on several not insignificant errors. It is certainly true that not every speech that is given in the world is a “factual matter” that one must approach seriously. Since German radio has regularly put itself at the service of governmental propaganda, I, too, can no longer close my eyes to the all too perishable nature of rhetoric. It would, however, be wrong to form a general opinion of the deficiencies of the intellectual content of all speeches in contrast to written elaborations based on examples from the present, even when those printed words have the good fortune or misfortune to pass through the machinery of lawmaking. The sum total of all laws ranging from those applying to the village school to those at the highest level demonstrate little evidence that they deserve to be seen as having greater importance than many speeches have, considering the conscientious and diligent work behind them. I will not deny that many laws are the result of hard mental effort, great determination, and admirable endurance. However, their final result and value is often less than the piece of paper that has the misfortune to have printed on it this blessing for mankind.

The value of a law is neither in the time it took to develop, nor in its outward length, but rather exclusively in its ultimate intellectual content. The lightning of a genius has always illuminated the world more brightly than a thousand smoking torches of regulations and laws.

I know that before the revolutions of 1848 governments thought that they had the right to act and their peoples had the duty to remain silent. But even in the Germany of that era there was strong agreement that alongside of the right of the government to actwas the of the governed to have an opinion. Alongside the duty of the governed to obey a government, there is a duty on the part of government to respond graciously to objections from the governed.

Particularly since the Revolution of 1918, the German people believes that it has the right to criticize, and to criticize openly, since it was maintained that the lack of free speech was one reason for the downfall of the old system.

The constitution of the new Reich, therefore, does not say: All power comes from the government, but rather that all power comes from the people.

But you, Mr. Reich Chancellor, now jealously assert that no one in Germany has the right to act except the government. That necessarily means restrictions on the ability of the opposition to criticize and speak freely.

If today’s Germany had an Oliver Cromwell, a George Washington, or an Otto von Bismarck, at the moment all three would have to be satisfied by informing the nation of their opposition to the current government only through speaking or writing. And even if these three could only speak today, Mr. Reich Chancellor, one surely could not say that the content of their speeches would be worth less that the content of government decrees!

Such an underestimation of the speech does help me to understand the modest intellectual force of recent German rhetoric from official sources, while the frequency of such rhetorical efforts earns my grudging admiration.

Why do government offices keep using an instrument that they seem to think of so little value, or even hold in contempt? That may, however, explain why they do it so poorly.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The German plan

Monday, May 14th, 2012

The debate in the German High Command about what to do in the summer of 1943 was between two options, the realistic option and the enthusiast-optimist option:

 

 

  • The realistic option, supported by Guderian and Manstein, the best German field commanders, and by others, suggested to compensate for the large Russian numerical advantage by fully utilizing the superiority of the German commanders and soldiers in tactics, command, and fighting, by a strategy of dynamic mobile defense that would cause great losses to the Russiansin a series of local clashes. The realistic goal was to stop and delay the Russians, as decisive victory was no longer achievable. 
  • The enthusiast-optimistic option, proposed by General Zeitzler, chief of staff of the German army, suggested to concentrate almost all German tanks, and other forces, to a major decisive battle against a large portion of the Russian armor, in order to destroy them and by doing so hopefully regain the initiative. The most suitable place for such a battle, as Zeitzler proposed, was the Kursk salient, a wide region around the city of Kursk, about half way between Moscow and the black sea, where the Germans surrounded the Russians from three sides. It was obvious that the Russians will keep a large tank force there, and the plan was to encircle them in a classic Blitzkrieg style pincer movement of German tanks from North and South and destroy them. Zeitzler’s plan was code named Operation Citadel.

When Hitler discussed the two options with his Generals on May 4th, exactly two months before the German attack began, it became clear that each of the two options had a major problem.

The major problem with Zeitzler’s plan to attack the Kursk salient, was that aerial photos clearly revealed that the Russians were building dense and deep fortifications there in order to counter such an attack, and that many Russian tanks were moved deeper behind the front line. Instead of an open battlefield Blitzkrieg, it was going to be a direct charge on dense anti-tank defenses. General von Mellenthin warned that such a direct attack will be a “Totenritt”, a ride to death, for the German tanks. In response to Guderian’s worries, Hitler himself admitted that whenever he think of this planned attack, his guts turn.

 

The major problem with Guderian’s option was that it lacked the charm, enthusiasm, and optimistic hope for a major change in the war that Zeitzler’s plan had. So the enthusiast Hitler decided in favor of Zeitzler’s plan, and calmed his worries of it by ordering to delay the attack for a while in order to incorporate more of the brand new advanced German tanks and tank destroyers in it. The date was set to July 4, 1943.

 

Once the order was given, the Germans prepared as best as they could. The entire region was photographed from above, the German commanders visited the front line to observe their intended routes, and the Germans concentrated all available forces in two armies, North and South of the Kursk salient, leaving minimal forces along the rest of the long Russian front.

 

The German force included a total of 50 divisions, including 17 armor and mechanized divisions. These included the most powerful and best equipped German divisions, such as the Gross Deutschland (Great Germany) division and the Waffen-SS tank divisions Leibstandarte (Hitler’s bodyguards), Totenkopf (Death skull), and Das Reich (The Reich). The Germans concentrated all their new armor, the Tiger and Panther tanks, and the mighty new Elefant tank destroyers, which had a front armor thicker than a battleship’s armor. They also concentrated all available air units and artillery, and despite the problems of the German plan it was a formidable concentrated mobile armor force with great offensive potential.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Revenge for the Reformation

Friday, May 11th, 2012

Is the Center Party man and traitor Pastor Moenius not correct when he triumphantly claims: “Catholicism breaks nationalism’s back!” He is right a thousand times over if he means political Catholicism, for if we consider the history of our people, we must always conclude that political Catholicism sided with the enemies of Germany, that it constantly strove to weaken Germany, to reduce the inner unity of the German people and weaken its right to life, that it joined with Bolshevism in its arrogant blindness. Why is political Catholicism always in bitter enmity against everything German? Why, for example, the dislike of the Bishop of Linz (Gföllner) against “German” nationalism (and only that kind), which he put in these words in his pastoral letter:

“An extreme form of the principle of nationalism that knows and recognizes only national states is at least very questionable, because it cannot be realized without injuring historic rights, without using morally impermissible means.”

The notorious Moenius answers this serious question:

“Since the Reformation, which succeeded only partially, Catholic part of the population is like an arrow in the side of the Protestantism. It is —to the annoyance of the National Socialists — ultramontane, and hinders the building of a national state.”

Furthermore, the Observatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, openly admitted in Nr. 118 of 24 May 1923 that German Catholicism

“Both during the World War as well as under the current conditions devotes its strength and organizational ability to eliminating the tragic departure from the Roman Church that occurred 400 years ago.”

What do both of these statements from Catholic circles mean? Pastor Moenius cynically states with his familiar shocking shamelessness that political Catholicism knows no other goal than hindering the formation of a German national state, and the official Vatican organ supports this outrageous statement by praising the fact that during the thunder of battle of the World War, in which Germany was fighting a world of enemies for the sake of its homeland and its possessions, and during which millions of the bravest and most loyal sons of the homeland — whether Catholic or Protestant — gave their lives for people and Reich, during this fiery time of death, Catholicism put its energy, its strength, and its organizational ability to use not to defend the homeland, but rather to carry out a counter-Reformation to regain what the Roman Catholic Church had lost four hundred years ago during the Reformation. It could hardly have found a more suitable time to pursue such special interests! While at the front fathers and sons were dying with faith in Germany’s future, far from the front they were attempting a Roman Catholic counter-Reformation.

Enhanced by Zemanta

WAGNER. ADOLF

Friday, May 11th, 2012

(1890-1944). NSDAP member from 1923. Nazi party provincial chief of Munich and Upper Bavaria. Bavarian interior minister after 1933.

Enhanced by Zemanta

SCHWARZ, FRANZ XAVER

Tuesday, May 8th, 2012

(1875-1947) One of the “Old Fighters” and a party member from its earliest days. Nazi party treasurer, 1925. Reich director, 1935. Died in an Allied internment camp in 1947.

Enhanced by Zemanta

RAUSCHNING, HERMANN

Monday, May 7th, 2012

(1887-1961) Joined the NSDAP in 1926 and became Danzig Senate president in 1933. Broke with Hitler and the Nazis and immigrated to Switzerland in 1936 and later to the United States. Wrote several highly critical but informative books on Hitler and his plans for the future. Some historians consider him a spurious source.

Enhanced by Zemanta