Is the demonization of Hitler as we see even warranted at all?

[goyim terror alarm]

Is his absolute demonization warranted even if we consider the Holocaust claims pinned against him by exterminationists? Of course, he would be extremely bad if they were truthful, but I'm curious as to what makes him especially bad as opposed to someone like Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Leopold II of Belgium or even contemporary figures like Obama and Bush according to these "historians"? Would it not cast doubt into the narrative if a good justification could not be found?

[HansHill]

The short answer of course is "no", however the long answer is not only very long, but very complex. I'll make some initial points here to get us started.

========

Adolf Hitler’s shifting image over time

While it’s fair to note the growing demonisation of AH from 1945 to the present day, culminating in something that quite figuratively equates with Satan today, the kneejerk opposite reaction that he was viewed as an angel pre-1945 is also not accurate. AH was rightly viewed as a threat to Western liberal democracy, both inside jewish circles and outside. Let us also not forget that even without the spectre of the Holocaust, relations between Germany and Poland / France / Britain were becoming particularly strained. For Poland we can cite the Danzig crisis, and for both France and Britain we can cite the Locarno crisis. Alot of these diplomatic breakdowns are at least in part down to AH’s staunch Nationalism and fiery rhetoric, and while to a Nationalist or indeed even merely a German were viewed favourably, to the Internationalist class these were viewed with disdain.

With all of this in mind, a more reasonable examination of his shifting image across time looks less like “Angel to Satan” and more like “Serious political threat to Internationalism to Satan”

German War Crimes

The whole central thesis of the Holocaust is that Germany was uniquely evil during WW2 and therefore destroying it was not only necessary but good. Of course WW2 didn’t start like this, and it started off in a much more conventional sense, over territory disputes, and the (alleged) defense of Polish sovereignty in the face of Nationalist agression. So it’s interesting to see the spectre of the Holocaust grow and develop over time, especially in this context.

If only we had a somewhat compatible analogy of “Germany were the bad guys in this World War” we could draw upon! Oh wait, there is a perfectly compatible analogy available to us: World War 1.

After WW1, the initial interpretation of “Germany as the agressors” was almost immediately undermined by credible academics, I’ll cite Sidney Bradshaw Fay who’s authoritative work makes a compelling case for Germany as fall-guy. This was understood as early as 1926. However that’s not important here, what’s important is the punishment doled out, that being the Treaty of Versailles (TOV). This was even according to mainstream historians, overly punitive on Germany, and gave very good cause for being overturned, and with great resentment too – which would only increase German Nationalism and resentment for Internationalism. That is, the TOV had very little sticking power. Neither did the propaganda, because the propaganda was very routine and well, forgettable.

Enter the Holocaust! What if this time, the Germans were not a conventional enemy to be defeated and their punishment overturned – what if this time, they were uniquely evil, and their destruction can be interpreted as a modern day Crusade. We need a face for that, a central, evil Satan figure. It needs to be narratively emotive, compelling, and personified. Hitler is the face of Satan, a focal point for all the reasons why Nationalism cannot exist in a world of growing Internationalism.

In the decades following, you see this personificatoin growing, cumulating in the present day where any Facebook thread even tangentially related to politics will invoke Hitler or the Nazis as an “I Win” button for anyone shameless enough to use it that way.

The Cold War

Similarly, we cannot ignore the Cold War here. As early as 1944 and 1945 where the Allies were preparing to dissect Germany and Berlin, significant distrust amongst themselves was already present– I’ll use just one citation here, “Berlin On The Brink” – by Daniel Harrington, who makes a compelling case for the Allies being unable to agree on specific agreements for Western access to Berlin all being rooted in the yet again, the spectre of Hitler, and the threat of German military might returning once again! To Stalin and the Soviets, Hitler was not only Satan, but he will be re-incarnated if Germany was not utterly micromanaged into Communism. Similarly the French, who enjoy a very rich rivalry with Germany, were glad to make the emotive case for Germany’s disarmament based on the Holocaust, and gain access to the Rhineland for economic reasons. All of this paranoia and distrust of course, would culminate in the Berlin Blockade, kicking off the Cold War proper, over the corpse of Satan himself.

Modern Politics

As briefly mentioned above, Hitler and the Nazis are a sort of convenient “I win” button in the modern day, to be used at your leisure, especially for laypeople. However, it is not limited to just laypeople. Even today, “Denazification” is used at least in part to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin nonetheless, Israel are called “Nazis”, even in mundane partisan politics Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently invoked America’s identity as having “beaten the confederates and Nazis” seemingly in her criticism of Elon Musk’s DOGE. **Edit I’ve just re-watched her clip, as I’m writing this, and she goes one step further from the political into the emotive and states “this is foundational to me as a human being”.

None of this would have the staying power that it does, were it not for Hitler as Satan and the Holocaust. Americans like AOC don’t thump their chest that their foundational identity is going to fight against Ho Chi Minh, for example. That would be a ridiculous thing for her to say, yet to an informed reader of history, that would be an equally compelling insight into American identity. She just won’t ever say that.

Jewish Identity

I’m going to refrain from making the case that the Holocaust is a central pillar to modern jewish identity, and therefore is a central pillar to everything jews in turn influence. There are jews present and active on this board and so I’d be interested to see what they have to say first, and probably I’ll respond if they say anything interesting

Summary

To bring my point home: No, the demonisation of AH is of course not justified, or even makes sense to an informed reader of history. However, it doesn’t need to. The Hitler = Satan image exists, because it needs to exist. Without it:

- The entire WW2 narrative collapses just like WW1 did before it
- Ethno Nationalism has valid reasons to exist
- The (early) Cold War becomes an even bigger farce than it already was
- Modern politics is robbed of its “i win” button
- The entire post-Nuremberg Liberal consensus is on such shaky grounds as the TOV was by 1926
- Jewish identity is (redacted)

[goyim terror alarm]

That was a pretty interesting analysis. I have a few comments though.

Modern Politics

As briefly mentioned above, Hitler and the Nazis are a sort of convenient “I win” button in the modern day, to be used at your leisure, especially for laypeople. However, it is not limited to just laypeople. Even today, “Denazification” is used at least in part to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin nonetheless, Israel are called “Nazis”, even in mundane partisan politics Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently invoked America’s identity as having “beaten the confederates and Nazis” seemingly in her criticism of Elon Musk’s DOGE. **Edit I’ve just re-watched her clip, as I’m writing this, and she goes one step further from the political into the emotive and states “this is foundational to me as a human being”.

I think Russia invading Ukraine was a pretty minor use of the "Nazi" trick, since they have other justifications such as protecting their ethnic Russian minority. A much bigger use would be against Saddam Hussein, they even accused him of having gas chambers!
Also, I think it makes a lot of sense that people are comparing Israel to Nazis, since the stories of the holocaust came from sick Jewish minds.

None of this would have the staying power that it does, were it not for Hitler as Satan and the Holocaust. Americans like AOC don’t thump their chest that their foundational identity is going to fight against Ho Chi Minh, for example. That would be a ridiculous thing for her to say, yet to an informed reader of history, that would be an equally compelling insight into American identity. She just won’t ever say that.

That's a pretty good point that I hadn't thought of before. Something that would make this even more apparent than taking part in their "identity" is that no one is saying "we have to invade Iran before they become the next Ho Chi Minh", or "Russians are literally the Viet Cong" (those even sound silly writing them here), so why is "invading them before they become Hitler" used as a justification?
I would love to hear what the exterminationists in this forum have to say about this (incl. the original post).

[Stubble]

Since the Ukraine has been brought up, I feel it fair to mention that the 'Donbas' was Putin's Polish Corridor.

There were atrocities being committed by tornado, misanthropic division, Azov etc. Basically the CIA and Ukraine were using 'partisans' and 'paramilitary' units to terrorize ethnic Russians in the Donbas to provoke a response. This has parallels with the Danzig Crisis and the atrocities that commenced post invasion didn't happen in isolation.

Just as Poland was the powder keg that set off ww2, it is my opinion that the Donbas in Ukraine is meant to be a powder keg for ww3.

[Archie]

...but I'm curious as to what makes him especially bad as opposed to someone like Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Leopold II of Belgium ...

The obvious answer is that Jews have disproportionate influence in media, academia, entertainment, etc and are highly effective lobbyists (due to their wealth and coordination), and accordingly their perspectives have become predominant. If all the producers in Hollywood were Cambodian, then we'd probably get more Pol Pot references in movies and TV. Jews have Hitler on the brain and so that gets reflected in media, and that in turn influences the non-Jewish masses.

If you asked people in the 1940s in the US and Britain why Hitler was evil, most of them probably would have said something about trying to take over the world. But over time, that answer has become "he killed six million Jews."

This question is complicated by the factual disputes in addition to the subjective question of how certain actions would correspond to a certain level of evil and how this would compare to other "evil" figures. And if you believe in the Holocaust, there's the question of the level of premeditation and Hitler's personal involvement. David Irving's 1977 theory would have reduced Hitler's blame while not challenging the Holocaust directly. Most mainstream theorists do not accept anything like this, but some of the less organized theories are a bit in this direction.

[goyim terror alarm]

The obvious answer is that Jews have disproportionate influence in media, academia, entertainment, etc and are highly effective lobbyists (due to their wealth and coordination), and accordingly their perspectives have become predominant. If all the producers in Hollywood were Cambodian, then we'd probably get more Pol Pot references in movies and TV. Jews have Hitler on the brain and so that gets reflected in media, and that in turn influences the non-Jewish masses.

And that answer is still problematic to those who uphold the "official narrative", except for the people who are so brainwashed they're in the "Jews control us and that's a good thing!" camp.