Guidance on Hitler books, please

[bonafide]

I'm 64, and this is my first foray into revisionist history. I've just recently heard a few E. Michael Jones, and Michael Hoffman podcasts. I've finished reading Judaism and the Vatican by de Poncins, and have begun Freemasonry and Judaism by the same author. I also finished Rassinier's account of his time in German labor camps. I am still reading Rudolf's Lectures on the Holocaust, and have the book by Butz, as well as Michael Hoffman's Judaism's Strange Gods on the "to read" pile. I watched a documentary on the Ernst Zundel affair, and will pay an occasional visit to goyimtv if bored. So, that is the sum total of my exposure to revisionist history.

My interest now is in Hitler, and international Jewry. I will download a copy of Mein Kampf, but beyond that, can you give me 3-4 books on Hitler that are well regarded? I don't care if they're even "revisionist" as long as they are truthful.

[Otium]

The only books on Hitler which I feel can be recommended in good conscience are R.H.S. Stolfi's Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny (2011) and John Toland's Adolf Hitler (1976). The latter, while it is a full-length biography, is like any other Hitler biography defective in many ways, being outdated in places, and plain wrong in others. But overall it was I believe, written not with ill intent, which is good at least. You can tell the author tried for the most part to avoid critical comments of his own, and this gives the work a novel like quality in terms of style which I personally found quite entertaining.

Stolfi's book is a great reinterpretation and criticism of many of the biggest mainstream biographies. It's strength lies not in a detailed recapitulation of history from a 'revisionist' perspective (such a work is still sorely needed and will be elusive for many decades I imagine), but in - as said - its reinterpretation of events around Hitler and from his perspective like any normal biographical sketch.

The reason it's hard to find and recommend books about Hitler, is because most books are really not about him. This is the case for many reasons, but if it were to be boiled down to one thing, it would be contempt. Giving him humanity in any sense, even in biographies that claim to do so, fall terribly short and still approach him as a kind of enigma, a force of nature. I would think this has something to do with the source base which is sparse regarding anything by Hitler himself.

What does exist of Hitler's writings (mainly of speeches) which are voluminous have not been fully organized and printed let alone translated into English, and they never will be. I would presume this has something to do with the fear of giving the public access to Hitler's own ideas not transmogrified in some hostile monograph.

[bonafide]

Thank you. There is so much literature on National Socialism, Nazi Germany, post-War Germany...that I don't really know where to begin.

[bonafide]

Thank you, Otium.. There is so much literature on National Socialism, Nazi Germany, post-War Germany...that I'm a bit lost.

[NeoType]

Brendan Simms's biography picks up many of the usual tropes about the figure of Hitler (and the historiography of the Third Reich in general) but I will give credit to Simms for exploring a facet little explored by biographers of Hitler, his marked anti- capitalism. Simms argues that Hitler's Weltanschauung was driven by his fear of the rise of the United States as a potential hegemon, which is also related to the opposition of Hitler and other Nazi leaders to "international capitalism." You can see some of this in MK when Hitler talks about the rise of the Mammon idol in the modern world, referring to materialism becoming the new religion of modernity. In his vision, this was key for the Jewish speculators and businessmen to exploit the working class and break the social pact, or rather the traditional way of life in Wilhelmine Germany. Just as Western men today lost our patrimony (Privatrecht-paterfamilias) as a result of female emancipation, after the fall of the old regime, society underwent a radical transformation in both legal and economic matters, but even more important was the implosion of social changes that led to the transformation of the social organization itself. The illustration was the first "Sattelzeit" as Koselleck would say. Well, I would like to expand on the real meaning of the old regime (societa civilis) but I am deviating from the subject that concerns us.

Hitler had a kind of love-hate relationship with the United States, on the one hand he believed that he was the base country of the international plutocracy and his geopolitical vision was the antithesis of Wilsonian democracy, even so Hitler was fascinated by American power . The manifesto of destiny, the expansion of white settlers across the great plains, the social improvements of the working class, American eugenics, the great architectural projects and even the European immigration policy were viewed by Hitler with great astonishment. In fact, his Volkswagen project was inspired by Ford's Model T. Hitler also wanted the common citizen of the Reich to have access to his own family car, a pity that could not be carried out due to the start of the war. It should be noted that Hitler also "envied" the United States, since he believed that many of the best German racial elements had emigrated there and had lost all their identity, so they had no problem taking up arms against their ancestral homeland.

For Hitler, the Drang nach Osten was a means of giving Germans a lifestyle like that enjoyed by Americans. Hitler's aim was to raise the standard of living for Germans in a new and expansive Greater German Reich with abundant arable land and raw materials and thus possess the means for dream existence and drive back the ablest Germans. and entrepreneurs of America. He thought this had to be done because Germany was not such a high-quality population after centuries of emigration to the East and the generation of the best blood making its way to America.

As we can see, there was a duality in Hitler's vision of America, this certainly played a key role in the genesis of WW2. Hitler already knew that the Americans were going to enter the war sooner or later, so he moved tokens accordingly. The two main academic experts of the Third Reich in "America" ​​(Friedrich Schönemann and Colin Ross) reached the same conclusion as Hitler: ""America represents a danger of the first magnitude, which threatens our security and our future." If anyone wishes to deepen In this, I recommend reading the recent book by Simms and Laderman where the declaration of war on the United States is rationalized Illegally interfering with national shipping and warships, as well as coordinating with Polish intelligence a plan to attack Germany is enough reason for declaration of war I don't even have to point to the Rainbow Five plan, the documents found in Poland or the US naval strategy with War Plan Orange.

I think Simms's thesis holds up pretty well and has infuriated scumbags like Richard Evans, so I recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.

[NeoType]

Otium, what do you think of Thomas Weber's work, have you read it?
A friend told me that Weber dismantles some conventional myths about Hitler in his time as a soldier (for example that stupid myth one that Hitler supposedly only talked about politics with his comrades) but that outside of that, Weber is even worse than Kershaw or Fest in his eagerness to interpret the sources at will and give critical comments in the middle of the reading. Apparently Weber also argues that Hitler became a loyal soldier for the Social Democrats before joining the DAP, is this true?

I've read almost all the conventional biographies of Hitler and none of them focus on this period, so I find it somewhat interesting, but considering the bias of the author, it puts me off a bit. I already suffered enough reading "Hitler: Ascent, 1889-1939" by Volker Ullrich which is basically like reading the first two books of the Richard Evans trilogy. Although well, I'm going to give Ullrich a point for citing that letter from Hess where he mentions that Hitler was a faithful Catholic; This letter will be useful for my research on Catholicism and National Socialism. And speaking of Catholicism and NS, do you know the work of Derek Hastings?

https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=F3 ... 17ED6375D5

After reading his work, I am quite convinced that the Jesuits continued to fight even in the era of mass democracy. Bernhard Stempfle, a Jesuit, became one of Hitler's main collaborators in his early years. Munich Catholics overrepresented in the early NSDAP, Eckart being close to monarchist-conservative circles, etc, etc. I guess this work is not going to like the pagans who hate Jesus and Christianity.

[Otium]

I think Simms's thesis holds up pretty well and has infuriated scumbags like Richard Evans, so I recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.

Evans' review displays such a distorted view of Hitler's understanding of 'socialism', probably because he has never spent any time reading the voluminous files in which Hitler extensively lays out his worldview and its socialist conceptions (even in private addresses during the war). For Evans, Hitler isn't a 'socialist' because he isn't a Marxist, which in that sense is true, Hitler was not a Marxist. But to claim he was a not a socialist is simply wrong, Evans is just too stupid to understand the very simple concept Hitler repeatedly outlined consistently over his 25 year political career.

Evans also misinterprets the phrase 'war of annihilation', taking it literally which is just obtuse. Hitler saw the war as a war of 'annihilation' between political ideologies and world systems. His own system obviously represented by a race of men who were high quality, and those whom he saw a racial kinsmen were led astray by the Jewish-Materialist (Mammonism), rather than the Aryan-Idealist view of the world and its connection with nature. His enemies were, and clearly still are determined by the former, whether they were Capitalists or Marxists. But this didn't mean he considered them 'racially' inferior. Certainly he didn't think of the Anglo-Saxon powers as being such.

To support his own view contra Simms, Evans has to resort to quoting a fraudulent statement attributed to Hitler by the League of Nations High Commissioner in Danzig, Carl J. Burckhardt: "Everything I do is directed against Russia". Evans would know that this statement has no credibility whatsoever if he had simply read Ian Kershaw's book, which he surely has.

Overall, Evans displays a very black and white portrait because it's convenient for him. Hitler was neither a Capitalist (which to be clear, Evans doesn't claim in his review) nor a Marxist-Socialist, it was this very dichotomy which Hitler himself constantly stressed his own movements separation from:

"There were essentially two points of view: on the one hand it was the nationalist ideal, blurred and variously defined. . . On the other side there were the Communists who believed they were fighting for a communist ideal. So basically there were two phenomena fighting at that time: on the one side a nationalist. . . and on the other side the communist or the Spartacist. . . It was therefore self-evident at the time that this new movement [Nationalsocialism], which could just as well have been called something else, had to take these two existing elements into account. One could not say: we negate them, or we reject them, but one had to recognise: these are forces. The definitions of the two terms were diametrically opposed at the time. One was on the right of the barricade and the other on the left, and I climbed into the middle of these two fighters, i.e. onto the barricade itself, and was therefore naturally shot by both; I tried to define a new concept under the motto that ultimately nationalism and socialism are the same on one condition, namely that one places the people [Volk] at the centre of everything worth striving for, i.e. not some dichotomy of special class interest or status interest, but that one places the people at the centre of everything worth striving for. Then socialism is nothing other than the struggle for this people in its entirety, and nationalism is also nothing else either."

Adolf Hitler, 26 May 1944. Speech printed in: Hans-Heinrich Wilhelm, “Hitlers Ansprache vor Generalen und Offizieren am 26. Mai 1944”, Militaergeschichtliche Mitteilungen (MGM), Vol. 20 (1976), No. 2, pp. 123-161, here, pp. 154-155.