Category Archives: historical

There Should Have Been An Honourable Peace in 1939 or 1940

The Background

September the 9th, 2018. 79 years and 8 days since the famous German attack on the Polish radio station at then Gleiwitz; 79 years and 6 days since Britain (and so the entire British Empire) and France declared war on Germany; about 78 and a bit years since the German defeat of France, since the British retreat from Dunkirk; 78 years since the air Battle of Britain.

What weakens the usual System-history narrative about the history of those times is the a priori assumption or, if you like, a Grundnorm [basic underlying concept or belief, often unquestioned or deliberately made impossible to question], that the declaration of war by Britain and France was unquestionably both “the right thing to do” and unavoidable.

The typical, conventional System view, as displayed above, is of course grounded on an even deeper-held belief or Grundnorm, that is that the German government of Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP was so evil that it had to be destroyed. That view (at the time and really until the 1970s at least –talking about British attitudes–) was based on the opinion that Germany was again trying, for the second or third time in memory, and as a continental power, to take over mainland Europe. More recently, the more Jewish-influenced attitude has held sway, because of the Jewish control or veto over the worlds of publishing, academia, politics, msm etc in the West: that Germany had to be confronted and defeated because of its policy re. Jews.

The whole “Germany had to be defeated because of the ‘holocaust'” nonsense is of quite recent date. Not often (i.e. never) mentioned to the brainwashed masses or to their equally brainwashed offspring in British schools, is the fact that not one of the world leaders or the most important military leaders (e.g. Churchill) made any mention of “extermination programmes” or “gas chambers” in their spoken remarks or post-war written memoirs. The Jewish-Zionist element has taken control of the historical narrative and completely twisted it. That is why “they” hate any historical revisionism. They present a weight of mutually-quoting fakery as if it were a weight of evidence. In any case, even the Zionist propagandists do not claim any German “extermination plan” or programme for the Jews  until 1941.

Returning to war and peace in 1939-40, we see that the big picture shows a world far more than today split between European empires. The British Empire ruled between a quarter and a third of the world. Most of the rest (leaving aside the Soviet Union, the USA and China) was ruled by other Europeans: empires of the French, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Belgians. The depredations of the early imperial days had begun to give way to the idea of stewardship. The native peoples were beginning to be looked after, the wildlife the same. All that (which became so positive in the 1950s) was ruined by the Second World War and its aftermath. Decolonization, globalist finance-capitalism etc have been disastrous for the peoples and environment of Africa, South America, Asia.

In Europe too, we see how disastrous was the decision to go to war in 1939. Immense destruction, huge loss of life (some estimates say 80 million), cruelties, hardship etc. Also massive economic dislocation.

We often hear half-baked nonsense about how “the war” stimulated inventions and technological progress. Most of this is either not true or is at best half-true. In both Europe and USA, huge strides were being made in the 1930s. What the war did was to change priorities: planes built for speed rather than comfort, housing built on a utilitarian rather than an aesthetic basis etc.

In the UK, much nonsense is talked about the Welfare State in this regard. In fact, social housing (which had existed in limited forms for centuries) was being created on quite a large scale in the UK of the 1930s, particularly in and around London. As for the NHS etc, that was already being prepared in studies etc, though the war may have concentrated minds and so on.

The Phoney War

The Phoney War, also called the Bore War and (in Germany) Sitzkrieg, lasted from September 1939 to April 1940. At that point, few people, even in the armed services of either side (meaning UK/Germany) had been killed. Any bitterness or venom (mainly on the British side and stirred up by relentless propaganda) was small compared to what existed later. There could, after Dunkirk, have been an honourable peace, an armistice. Germany could then have turned its full attention to destroying Stalin’s regime the following year. The Russian people would eventually have come to a concordat with the German Reich. Only the Jewish commissars etc would ultimately have lost out.

Conclusion

Britain lost out hugely by going along with Churchill’s ridiculous adventurism. Terrible loss and turmoil during the years of war, 10 years of “austerity” after the war ended. The perceived “need” (in fact a conspiracy) to import blacks and browns in the 1950s and thereafter in order to make up for those killed and injured in that wholly unnecessary war. Slow poisoning of the folk.

Britain and France declared war on Germany, ostensibly, to protect the independence of Poland. It never happened. Poland was split between the German Reich and the Soviet Union at first, later taken entirely by the Reich, then later still taken entirely by the Soviet Union. Instead of one or two weeks of war, Poland was strafed by 6 years of it. Only since 1989 has Poland regained anything like full political sovereignty. When I myself visited Poland on several occasions in the late 1980s, one still met older Poles who might mention those worthless guarantees of 1939.

Had an honourable peace been found in 1939 or 1940, the British Empire would have wound down more gradually, as would the other European empires. There would not have been so much war and misery across the world, the American cultural death-impulse would not have been so powerful and destructive; also, the environment would not have suffered anything like as badly. Above all, Europe would be fully European and have a fully-European future.

Advertisements

The 20th of July

I cannot let the 20th of July pass by without a few words. On 20 July 1944, discontented officers tried to kill Adolf Hitler. Transposed (arguably pointlessly) to a British context, that would be equivalent to discontented British officers trying to kill Winston Churchill and the King (Hitler being both head of government and head of state). In fact, it is at least arguable that both the UK and mainland Europe would have been better had that happened (in 1940, when Germany offered honourable armistice between the Reich and the British Empire but was refused by Churchill and his circle). There would then have been no devastation throughout Europe, certainly in Western Europe, no carpet bombing of German and other cities (eg some French ones, largely destroyed by Allied bombing and shelling: Brest, Le Havre etc).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/10877137/D-Day-French-torn-over-criminal-British-and-American-D-Day-bombings-of-Caen.html

Above all, Stalinism might well have been destroyed or at least contained. Sovietism would not have been allowed to invade the East and Centre of Europe.

Do not imagine that there were no British senior officers who despised and hated Churchill. Lord Alanbrooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff and (from 1944) Field Marshal makes his distaste for Churchill’s charlatanry clear in his diary.  However, officers such as he were imbued with automatic-reflex loyalty to, not the head of government, but the King as head of state. They probably never thought of mutiny, still less assassination.

On the German side, most of the senior officers plotting against Hitler were content to do his bidding while the German forces were in the ascendant; when Germany started to fail, though, they thought in terms of surrendering on the Western Front, at the same time as holding on on the Eastern Front, thus saving Germany and much of the rest of Europe from what actually later happened, the savagery and barbarism of the Red Army engaged in wholesale murder, rape and looting, followed by the icy grip of Soviet socialism.

Those “disloyal” senior officers of the Wehrmacht (and some others, such as Canaris) were not motivated solely or even mainly by self-interest or their class-interest as aristocrats (not all were aristocrats; among the middle-class ones were Rommel and Canaris), but by a concern for what they conceived to be the ultimate focus of their loyalties– the future of the German state and German people, as well as, beyond that, European culture and civilization generally, threatened by Sovietism which, at that time, was Stalinism.

History is not black and white. National Socialism was a very fine movement overall, but not without flaw. The General Staff and other plotters likewise cannot simply be written off as “traitors” even though, from one point of view, they were. Their point of view, i.e. that Germany was losing the war on at least two fronts, was accurate to that extent. Where they went wrong was in assuming that the USA and UK (and their dependent entities, as well as hangers-on such as de Gaulle) would in fact conclude a separate peace, separate from the Soviet Union. That was pie-in-the-sky thinking. The Allies had already proclaimed, at Casablanca, that only “unconditional surrender” would be acceptable,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_Conference

so the plotters would have had to throw themselves entirely on the mercies of the Western Allies and Stalin, were they to have eliminated Hitler. Even so, it is arguable that that might have been a better result for Germany and the rest of Europe than what actually transpired in 1945. However, that is to look with the benefit of what is now known. At the time, things must have looked very different, especially in Germany itself.

Hitler might have won out, even at the last moment, in terms of the conventional battlefield. The new jet fighters might have turned the tide, had they existed in sufficient numbers; new tanks were outclassing Soviet and Western models; above all, the East-West tension that blew up as soon as Germany was defeated in 1945 might have, in that final year, spelled the end of the alliance between the West and the Soviet Union and given Germany what is now called wriggle-room.

Having said all that, Germany would have been devastated to an even greater extent had it continued to fight after, at latest, the Summer of 1945. The Jewish scientists who created the atom bomb did so on the basis that it would be used against Germany, not, primarily, Japan. Had Germany started to defeat the Western Allies and Soviet forces on the ground and in the air in mid-1945, Berlin and other cities would have been attacked by atom bombs and destroyed; admittedly, in the case of Berlin, Hamburg etc, let alone Dresden, the difference might have been only academic:

Dresden1945

[Dresden after the UK/US bombing, 1945]

The key point is that Germany was not making atomic weapons and had no means with which to do so. It had been checkmated.

So there we have it. I cannot approve (and my approval is irrelevant either way) the actions of the backstabbers of 20 July 1944: Meine Ehre heisst Treue, but the plotters of that time were not all-“good” or all-“bad” in motive or action. As Wolfram von Eschenbach says in the introductory part of Parzival, “blame and praise alike befall when a dauntless man’s spirit is black and white mixed, like the magpie’s plumage”…

History has its own judgment. As Schiller observed, die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht [“the history of the world is the judgment of the world”].

We honour the past but advance to the future.

Adolf-Hitler-1889-1945-German-statesman

 

Fake News, Fake History and Fake Memories: the UK in the 1970s etc

The Story

I went to school on the train endless strikes waiting on cold platforms for hours. Then returned home to a house with power cuts no heating hot food it was a nightmare for at least 10 years“— who can guess on what the lady I quote was, in a semi-literate fashion, commenting? The Second World War? Surely not: that only lasted for 6 years. The Siege of Leningrad? No, that lasted for a shorter period yet— 2 years, 4 months. What, then? In fact the lady in question was commenting, in the online Daily Mail, on the UK railways and, in the wider sense, on the UK generally in the 1970s.

Well, it certainly sounds like it was awful. The problem with that, though, is that it is in fact not true. The trains in England (where I lived; Wales and Scotland were similar) were not subject to “endless” strikes (though there were certainly far more than is now the case) and the station platforms were no colder than they are now. What about “power cuts”, “no heating [or] hot food”?

The Reality

The “Three Day Week” only lasted for 3 months (January-March 1974) and only commercial users of electricity were cut off or required to cease using electrical power. Most domestic users were unaffected. Newspaper printing, supermarkets and hospitals were also exempt. In other words, if the lady quoted at top is not simply making up her story of hardship (or failing to remember accurately), the reasons must lie elsewhere. Maybe her parents failed to pay their electricity bill! Only joking…In fact, two years before that, there had been announced (on 16 February 1972) a rolling programme of area outages (including domestic users) but peace broke out 2-3 days later (midday on 19 February 1972) so, again, few domestic users were affected, though a minority had seen limited outages earlier, in early February.

There was, also, the “Winter of Discontent”, which occurred in the winter of 1978-79, but in fact (in its acute phase) was only effective in January and early February 1979. In reality, we are talking about weeks rather than months. Neither domestic nor commercial users of electricity lost power; gas and coal users were likewise unaffected.

So there we have it: the lady commenting on these matters at top seems to be a victim of selective amnesia when she regards a decade of her childhood as having been an awful ten years without rail travel, heating, lighting etc. The “decade” in question turns out to have been affected for about 2-4 months out of 120…

In fact, the amnesiac lady is not alone. Time and again we read about how the UK spent much of the 1970s in the dark, in the cold, without public transport, without food, rubbish uncollected and dead bodies unburied. It’s nonsense, but many really believe it, even those who were there, which is worrying…I should add that I myself was there, having been born in 1956; by the way, those “dead bodies unburied” did exist briefly (for a few days) in the winter of 1978-79, but only in two or three small areas of Liverpool and Manchester. Less noxious rubbish did pile up, but not for very long and not everywhere.

This fake history, that the 1970s were a decade of “socialist” chaos and dislocation, is quite entrenched now. This canard has wings! The various “Conservative” newspapers in the UK repeat it as an article of faith.

Other Fake Memories

No, I am not going to blog, here anyway, about the “holocaust” scammers and delusionals. I want to focus on a few other things. One persistent idea (which I have even seen said and written by journalists and TV talking heads older than me) is that Britain had no decent food until about 20 years ago! It’s just nonsense! Another is that life was harder for people in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s than it now is. More nonsense. In, say, the 1970s, people mostly had secure jobs, which paid enough to live on; there were no such things as foodbanks; social security was far better overall, the disabled and unemployed were not bullied by DWP jobsworths; the mass immigration which is making the UK (especially parts of England) into a human zoo had not really begun to snowball; workers had fixed hours, which included decent lunch breaks of 1 hour (often interpreted generously); there was no such thing (for most employees) as being on call after hours, in the evenings or on weekends and holidays. In addition, it was far easier (for anyone qualified) to access higher education.

Conclusion

There is a wave of unreality around. I have a –perhaps idiosyncratic– theory that the various kinds of lies or lying fake “facts” that people are often now expected to believe (“holocaust” fakery, the idea that races and peoples are all somehow “equal”, the idea that National Socialism was “evil” etc) have affected the general sense of truth in society, so that many cannot detect lies, and indeed often lie to themselves as well as others about recent history and even about their own experiences.

Notes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/16/newsid_2757000/2757099.stm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent

 

When Public Order Collapses

I suppose that few British people have ever seen the collapse of public order. The United Kingdom has at least been fortunate in that regard. The tumultuous events of the past century have left largely intact the Victorian legacy of “law and order” bequeathed by the 19th Century.

Britain has endured two world wars (1914-1918 and 1939-1945), other and smaller wars overseas, a General Strike (1926), other periods of industrial strife (1930s, 1970s), acts of terrorism, periods of political violence (1930s, 1970s) and even a limited and slow-burn civil war in pockets (Northern Ireland, particularly 1970s to late 1990s), yet overall order (and the rule of law) has persisted. Even in Northern Ireland that has been so, though a barrister friend of mine visited a “Diplock court”–https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplock_courts— in the 1980s and told me of how surrealistic it was to see a criminal trial with all the panoply of the English law (bewigged and gowned barristers, a “red judge” in his wig and robes etc) but without a jury and, instead of court security or police officers, several soldiers carrying submachineguns and on guard.

This is of course in stark contrast to the experience of other Europeans. Russia of course is, as always, sui generis, with its 20thC revolutions (1917), civil war (1918-1922), political purges (1917-1948), invasion and vast wartime destruction (1941-1945), as well as the collapse of the Soviet system in the 1980s and early 1990s and the waves of gangsterism and Jewish-Zionist oligarchy that followed from 1991 onward until a degree of stability was attained under the Putin regime.

The older generation of mainland Europeans were almost all affected, at least at second-hand, by disorders: the Second World War swept across the continent leaving few countries untouched (and even some of those–Finland, Spain, Eire– had seen their own wars, civil wars etc). In fact, the only European countries of any size unaffected directly (though certainly indirectly) by the Second World War or civil upheavals were Sweden and Switzerland. Even Portugal, neutral during 1939-1945, later had a military coup and revolution (in the 1970s).

France, for example, was in the 20th Century invaded twice, had several all-France republics established, as well as the Vichy Government of 1940-1944; it also had considerable political and industrial conflict, huge destruction from air, land and sea (in 1940, from German attack, but more seriously from the Anglo-American invasion, bombing, shelling etc of 1941-1944). France also had the underground war of the OAS in the early 1960s, which very nearly brought down de Gaulle and the Fifth Republic.

Again, Poland has seen, from 1914 through to the 1980s, invasions, purges, wars, civil disorder, very great changes in the Western and Eastern borders of the country itself, near-starvation at times, economic collapse several times, destruction of much of its infrastructure, ruination of its currency.

The effects upon civic life and rule of law of all these events has been greater on mainland Europe than has been the case in the UK. On mainland Europe, the ways of life of the various countries has had to be re-established, sometimes several times over, usually with very significant changes. In the UK, the way of life has evolved quite slowly and –even as a result of WW2– without dramatic alteration overnight.

Why then, do I see civil disorder as a serious possibility in the UK?

First of all, Britain has taken in a vast horde of mainly non-European immigrants, most of whom have no racial, cultural or religious connection with anything that British history has produced. Even those non-Europeans born in the UK do not feel the same connection with the country that is felt by the real British (including those with other white Northern European ancestry and who were born here).

Secondly, the reaction of the Caribbeans and other non-Europeans to serious difficulty is to engage in street protest which can become riotous, as has happened several times even in the past decade.

Thirdly, the indigenous British have lost at least some of the resilience which sustained public order in previous times. By way of personal anecdote, I recall the “petrol crisis” of 2000, when I had not long returned from overseas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_protests_in_the_United_Kingdom. Having little choice but to travel across country, I saw at one motorway filling station scenes not far from the chaotic. This left a deep impression on me. Speaking personally, I have little faith in the ability of the System to maintain order, should a more serious or prolonged crisis hit the nation, if “nation” it still is.

I do not see the British now as a unified people, because of both cultural and directly racial/religious factors. A large and growing minority are really not British at all and have only tenuous connection with and loyalty to the State.

A fourth aspect is that the arms of the State are not now well-staffed. Police, Army etc. Could they handle large-scale disruption? I wonder.

It may be that the UK will have to undergo some of the vicissitudes endured in the past century by many of the mainland European peoples before a new system is established.

Free Speech: Individuality and Collectivity

Rudolf Steiner often spoke of the ever-increasing individualism in our age (that period which he named the “Fifth Post-Atlantean Age”, which started around 1400 AD and is due to run until about 3500 AD). This is an inevitable continuing process and will bring many benefits if people are guided by conscience. However, if people are not guided by individual conscience, the forces of the individual will tear apart society.

Against the forces of individualism stands “society”, which encompasses law, unwritten “laws” of convention and expectation and also the powers of the State (which holds itself out as the concrete expression of the people as a whole).

Society is, of course, a good thing. In proper measure, it makes possible and supports such aspects of life as law, public order, organized help for the sick, disabled, elderly, poor etc. It is a structure which supports the family, too. It also provides, via the State,  the structure for defence against outside forces (hostile states, natural calamities etc). However, if taken too far, society and/or the State becomes oppression, involving the repression of individual liberty in various ways (most obviously, perhaps, suppression of free speech or other freedom of expression).

Society restricts freedom of speech. It is hard to imagine a society beyond the most primitive or germinal in which complete freedom of speech exists (eg spoken or written threats against the person). On the other hand, when society (the State, or perhaps a religious or political cult) prevents individual expression, reasonable restriction becomes unreasonable repression. One thinks, perhaps, of the more extreme socialist states of the 20th Century, such as the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, China under Mao Tse-Tung, Albania under Enver Hoxha, Cuba under Fidel Castro. The same was true of anti-socialist tyrannies such as Nicaragua under Somoza.

Particular emergency conditions may lead to a temporary tightening of what is regarded as acceptable free speech. In the Second World War, the various combatants restricted free speech considerably. In the UK, those who spoke out against the war or government policy faced both prosecution (State) and persecution (society generally). Even the USA, with its famous Constitutional safeguards, clamped down on freedom of expression.

As in other fields of life, we can see that the tension between the demands of the individual qua individual and those of the collective results in what amounts to a compromise. It is a question of either where society (in practice, usually the State, but possibly a smaller community such as a town or even a family) decides where the line is drawn, or where the individual draws the line, based on conscience or preference and regardless of where the State and/or society has drawn it.

Most people, most of the time, obey the dictates of the collective. Were that not so, law could not exist except as a facade with nothing behind it (cf. Stalin’s Russia etc); neither could the State or its power, in the end. On the other hand, the individual must always obey conscience and it therefore becomes vital to distinguish between individual conscience and individual wilfulness or egoism. No outside force can decide what is conscience and what is wilfulness or egoism. The individual, the individual human soul, is the only judge or arbiter here. Where the individual and the collective collide, the results can range from martyrdom of the individual to reform or even revolution affecting the collective.

Where do I myself, as both individual and citizen (i.e. part of the collective) draw the line? For me, freedom of expression about social, political and historical matters should be absolute. Other forms of expression (eg threats, libels, fraudulent misrepresentations) can be (and commonly are) restricted to a greater or lesser extent.

It follows from the above that I prefer the approach taken in the United States to that of most EU states (including the UK). Restrictions on freedom of expression are often imposed for or from outwardly “good” motives, but rapidly become a slippery slope with evil results. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Notes

  1.  http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_social_media/
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Reports and Lies

We are accustomed to reading the most arrant nonsense about Adolf Hitler. According to this stream of black propaganda (which started as long ago as the 1920s), Hitler was savage, unforgiving, tyrannical, vituperative, uneducated, a down-and-out from the gutter, a house-painter, sexually perverse, an erotomaniac, impotent, excessively interested in women, a gay, mad, sometimes mad, occasionally mad, only interested in his own material benefit, a tax dodger, even harsh toward his beloved dog, Blondie!

In Hitler’s own lifetime, a pack of lies was spewed out by his enemies: Jewish elements and interests; the Communists and Socialists who, many of them, supported or condoned Stalinism; also journalists working, in effect, for those same groups. During the Second World War, the Soviet Union and the Western Allies maintained huge ministries and agencies dedicated to “black propaganda”. After 1945 the baton was passed to the increasingly prevalent Jewish or Zionist lobby and its major offshoot, the “holocaust” industry, aided by historians who knew that their careers depended on not challenging the approved narrative.

The “Hitler was a house-painter” story seems to have come from a Jesuit priest who was taken to hear Hitler in Munich in or about 1920. He asked what Hitler was (at that time Hitler had few followers and was unknown outside the city); the answer came, “I think that he is a painter of houses” (no doubt a garbled version, heard somewhere, of Hitler’s pre-WW1 life as a struggling art student and painter). In the 1930s, Churchill took up that false version of Hitler’s life as a young man, no doubt calculating that English snobbery would be inherently biased against a political leader with a past involving painting houses or the like. Even today, one occasionally sees reference to Hitler “painting houses”.

The idea that Hitler was “mad” came from an anti-Hitler newspaper editor (probably the half-Jewish scribbler Konrad Heiden), who, in the 1930s, told the American correspondent and anti-Hitler propagandist William Shirer (who posed as an historian after 1945) that Hitler was a “Teppichfresser” (“carpet-chewer”), meaning prone to bouts of insanity when he would supposedly curl up in rage on the carpet and chew the edge of the same. A complete invention, which has coloured the popular view of Hitler ever since, though even the Jewish historians no longer make the exact allegation.

As to the stories and speculations about Hitler’s  sex life, I should imagine that every possibility has now been explored by journalists and historians eager to reduce Adolf Hitler to a sort of freak show. Needless to say, the most likely possibility (that Hitler was “normal” but unenthusiastic) is of little interest, being unlikely to sell books or newspapers.

A more recent allegation has been that Hitler was a drug addict. Again untrue, though there is at least a kernel of fact underpinning this one, in that Hitler’s doctor, Morell, was a medical innovator who did tend to experiment on his patients. Hitler demanded results; Morell tried to provide them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Morell#Substances_administered_to_Hitler

(actually, though many have quailed at Morell’s preparations, such as the ones that included “intestinal bacteria”, these were the basis for the now-popular “active” yoghurt health drinks for the stomach now found next to the milkshakes in every UK supermarket).

What about Hitler as a vengeful tyrant? This seems to rest mainly on his reaction to the 1944 plotters, who, in the midst of Germany’s fight for survival, saw fit to blow up Hitler and the German High Command at Rastenburg in East Prussia (now in Poland). Yes, they were executed, some cruelly, it seems, but would it have been much different in, say, England, had Churchill been blown up by “traitors” at Ditchley Park (in, perhaps, 1940), alongside his military and naval chiefs?

In reality, Hitler was not a vengeful type. Anton Drexler, the locksmith who founded the then DAP which Hitler joined in 1919, had a serious quarrel with Hitler in 1921. He wrote a letter accusing Hitler of “acting like a Jew, twisting every fact” (!), was removed as head of the party (replaced by Hitler) and was given a purely figurehead position until he resigned in 1924, after which he was elected to the Bavarian Parliament for another party, serving as elected member until 1928. Despite that, Drexler was readmitted to the NSDAP in 1933, honoured (though not given any political position) and died peacefully in 1942. One cannot imagine Stalin treating a similar case the same way!

Another example. The first reports about an attempted putsch in Munich in 1923 (the Beer Hall Putsch, also known as the Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch), reached the ears of a police commander called Sigmund von Imhoff, who contacted the Reichswehr commander of the city and seized the telephone and telegraph exchange. He was probably the most important reason that the putsch failed (amid bloodshed, Hitler himself being injured as the main march was brought to a halt).

One can well imagine what Stalin, on attaining power, would have done with an officer such as von Imhoff, but under Hitler he was not punished. On the contrary, he was promoted to Police General in 1933 and, in WW2, seconded to the Luftwaffe with the rank of Major General (he died in Bavaria in 1967).

This article could be ten times or a hundred longer, so many lies about Hitler and the Reich have been told and continue to be told. However, the few examples above perhaps will give pause to those who imagine that they have been told the truth about those world-historic events of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s.