How did Hitler come to power // The rise of the NSDAP

All aspects including lead-in to hostilities and results.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2028
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

How did Hitler come to power // The rise of the NSDAP

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 1 month ago (Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:33 pm)

It is a simple question to ask, but you will find many different conflicting answers. Why did the people vote Adolf Hitler's NSDAP into power in Germany?

Image

There is a meme going around now, usually an image of something highly decadent, perverse, or anti-White with the phrase under it:
"And then one day, for no reason at all, people voted Hitler into power"

You can find some examples with Google image search

Obviously the "for no reason at all" part is tongue-in-cheek. Anyway, what are your thoughts?

There is an article in the CODOH library by Leon Degrelle. It is a little lengthy so I plan on reading it tomorrow, but I'd also like some other suggestions.

How Hitler Consolidated Power in Germany and Launched A Social Revolution - Léon Degrelle
https://codoh.com/library/document/2374/
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2028
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Why did Hitler get elected?

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 2 weeks ago (Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:15 am)

In 1928, during the German elections, the SPD ruled with 153 seats and the far-right DNVP trailed at 73. The communist party (KPD) was rising at 54, and every other party was losing ground. The NSDAP at this time at only 3% of the vote, which was less than the DDP, a liberal party.

The DNVP was a Monarchist Pro-Prussian right-wing party, but different from the NSDAP. The German people noticed that the KPD was rising at the same time that the USSR was gaining power in the East, causing mass starvation in the Ukraine and elsewhere. It became obvious that there is a Bolshevik movement in Germany that wants the same for them, and they're gaining ground. Communists had already made several attempts to take power in coups, such as the Bavarian Soviet Republic and the Spartacist uprising. The non-Communist parties had the army and the Freikorps (nationalist militias) quell these uprisings by force. Mussolini was already running Italy at the time, but there were no reports of him mass murdering or starving people, and the Italian people supported him.

In the 1930 elections, the Communists gained another 23 seats, but now the NSDAP has risen to second place. With a specifically anti-communist platform, Adolf Hitler absorbed half of the DNVP's base and the entire DDP. This was because the KPD looked as though it would totally take over the country and join with Comintern. In other words, the NSDAP's popularity was gained primarily because they were bringing anti-communist Germans to their side.

Image

By 1932, Antifaschistische Aktion ("Antifa") was organized by the KPD to attack their political rivals in the street, similar to what the modern group with the same name does in the USA. Because the KPD was an organization of violent criminals (nobody really believed the communist theory except criminals, welfare bums, other resentful losers and ne'er-do-wells who made up the natural communist constituency) they assembled gangs of thugs to attack NSDAP supporters. Violence escalated after the 17 July 1932 violent confrontation known as the Altona Bloody Sunday.

ImageImage

By the election time in July 1932, the German people had become aware of violent communist mobs rampaging through Berlin, attacking people with clubs and firebombs; The SA would fight against them to defend public properties. Some sources have claimed that German hospitals would to organize different wings for wounded Antifa and National Socialists, as the wounded communists would try to attack the "Fascists" in the hospitals. They even organized them by the type of wound: Antifa primarily used clubs and blugeons, National Socialists used knives.

A communist document from the period stated: "We must intensify this action against the Nazibarracks so far that it is possible for us, through our struggle and through the organizing of a mass-assault [Massensturm], which must develop into a mass-terror-action, to drive the SA-troops out of their murder-dens." (Mitteilungen des LKPA Berlin, Nr 22 (n. 15))

As a result of public outcry against communist subversives, Hitler exploded through the ceiling in the German parliament, gaining 230 seats which was doubling the NSDAP's former share. The KPD only grew by 12 seats. The KPD convinced everyone who was not a communist that they needed to rally behind the NSDAP, because they organized violent criminal mobs to attack their political opponents.

So what do we learn from history? That violent mobs of communists attacking ordinary civilians for being "evil fascists" is the most repulsive thing in the world to decent people. Nothing convinces regular, non-political people that "Nazis" aren't so bad is having literal violent communists tell them that they are.



Recommended reading:

Political Violence in the Weimar Republic, 1918-1933: Fight for the Streets and Fear of Civil War
https://books.google.com/books?id=i_S9BAAAQBAJ

Jewish role in the German [Communist] Revolution of 1918-1919 / "Stab in the Back" theory
viewtopic.php?t=12709

Articles: Weimar Germany
https://codoh.com/library/categories/873/
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2028
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: How did Hitler come to power // The rise of the NSDAP

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 2 weeks ago (Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:12 pm)

More info on political violence and terrorism by German communists in the 1930s:

Social Protest, Violence and Terror in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-century Europe
PDF: https://web.archive.org/web/20190908175 ... rope-2.pdf
TXT: https://archive.is/JxDM9 or http://web.archive.org/web/201909081758 ... g/2efJN9x9

In April 1931, the Comintern Executive met again. It approved the general line of the KPD and held up the activity of the German Communists as a model for the other national parties. At the same time, though less publicly, the KPD was criticised for courting the Nazi rank and file at the expense of the working-class united front and for encouraging tendencies to terror and violence at any price. The Party's analysis of the German political situation was also corrected; Bruning's government was characterised as the government of the implementation of a fascist dictatorship', rather than as a fascist regime itself. 55 This, the Eleventh Plenum of the ECCI, may be said to mark the beginning of a fourth phase, although it was the approval rather than the censure they received in Moscow that was reflected in the activities of the German Communists during the following summer.

These continued to alternate between winning the Nazis over and beating them back, in the context of a general activation of the Party which increased the likelihood of violent clashes of all kinds. In Berlin between May and August, four police officers were shot to death and two severely wounded in clashes involving Communists. The most notorious of these cases, the murder of the police captains Anlauf and Lenk on the Biilow-Platz on 9 August, was carried out on direct orders from some member or members of the KPD leadership and welcomed in the locals for the intimidating effect it had had (or was expected to have) on the police force at large. 56 A wave of revolutionary expectation swept the membership, officially discouraged by the leadership but tacitly confirmed by the reissue of the Party's insurrectionary handbook, Der Weg zum Sieg. The Party began for the first time to make practical preparations for going underground. At the same time, fights between Communists and Nazis became more frequent and more deadly. In Berlin in September, the first attempt to put the policy of mass terror into practice, in the organisation of a united-front campaign around the presence of SA taverns in working-class neighbourhoods, degenerated into a series of shooting raids. 57
...
The November Resolution ushered in the fifth and final phase of the wehrhafter Kampf. During the year and a half that followed, the Communist leadership seized every opportunity to reaffirm its opposition to 'individual terror'. The line established by the resolution was maintained consistently in both internal and public discussion, and formed the basis for new initiatives in the united-front campaign. As late as May 1933 the Party was still explaining to anybody who was listening: 'Our motto, now as ever, is: Not through individual terror, but only through mass terror will we go forward in our fight ... To follow the tactics of individual terror would mean the end of the Party.' 65

In fact, the November Resolution not only failed to suppress gang-style violence in practice, but also met with outspoken opposition from certain sections of the Communist movement. This could hardly have been unexpected. As early as May 1930, the Central Committee advised that the slogan 'Schlagt die Faschisten...!' [Beat the fascists] be withdrawn and the elements of the new line introduced discreetly, in order to avoid provoking the membership. In Berlin, the publication of the full text of the resolution of 4 June 1930 met with strong disapproval from that quarter. People were even -it was said within the Party -refusing to tum out for public demonstrations because of their objections to the new line. At a meeting held on 23 June to mark the formation of a 'Fighting Committee of Red Berlin against Fascism', the main speaker felt compelled to explain that the disavowal of the old slogan 'should not be interpreted to mean that in future no hair of their heads should be touched, but you can just as easily take advantage of an appropriate opportunity'. 66
...
The language of theoretical analysis took on new meanings when the Party had to apply it in practice to the demands and pressures of the German situation, and the discussion of tactical violence in general became in turn more focused, its practice more extreme. Similarly, the gap that opened up between leadership and rank and file over the question of individual terror in the fight against the SA reflected not so much simple differences of opinion as divergent understandings of what that fight was about. The membership, on the whole, was not so much thinking incorrect thoughts as speaking a different language from that of the leadership - a third language, as it were, distinct from both the official discourse of Party analysis and the rhetoric through which Communist propaganda aimed to move the masses to action. Although the words were often the same - 'terror', 'fascism', 'organising the revolution' - the meaning individual members drew from the prescriptions of the leadership, like the way they perceived the uses of violence, was determined by their position in the struggles to which the Party directed them. The events that presented themselves to the theoreticians as problems for analysis and to the tacticians as agitational opportunities appeared to the membership most immediately as real threats and tasks demanding practical solutions. There certainly existed within the illegal organisations of the KPD a hard core of old-guard revolutionaries, who saw their actions in the light of proto-revolutionary terror. But for many Communists, by late 1931 the wehrhafter Kampf had become the fight against a direct menace to life and limb in which the stakes were raised with every new confrontation. The problem was the SA, the solution, its removal with the simplest, most effective, and most familiar means available. When the rank and file called for 'individual terror', it was because its functions had long since gone beyond the terroristic.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: How did Hitler come to power // The rise of the NSDAP

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 week 4 days ago (Fri Sep 11, 2020 4:03 pm)

I would suggest everyone read R.H.S. Stolfi's 'Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny', as he does have much good information regarding many aspects of the National Socialist movement, and their initial rise to power.

But basically, Hitler came to power because everyone else had been tried and failed to yield any sort of result. Nobody made it as chancellor for more than a year (read this in Toland). So Hitler wasn't expected to last long at all either, and he rejected the vice chancellorship which didn't help the divisions in the NSDAP.

Fact of the matter is, a Right-Wing dictatorship would've sprung up in Germany whether it was Hitler or some other coalition of right-wing groups. Seeing as this was the case, and any right-wing dictatorship would've been opposed to Communism, we could expect that the same or similar measures Hitler hastily carried out against Social Democrats and Communists would've been done by non-Nazi conservatives had it not been Hitler in power. On the flip side, we would expect the exact same of the Communists, who, no doubt, would've sought a dictatorship and then purged, more violently I would suspect, all Germany of it's right wing factions, including the more Democratically inclined. But seeing as nobody in Germany really wanted Democracy, the emphasis put on Hitler's anti-democratic methods to obliterate the other parties, to coordinate the state and gain control under the NSDAP can hardly be seen as something wrong or done unwilling. Many people forget, for the sake of disparaging the Third Reich, that any alternatives to Hitler would have hardly been better, or much different.

Dictatorship was the fate of Germany regardless of who came to power, because Dictatorship was what the German people wanted. None of this is controversial information, you just need to put the logical dots together in this way to realise how stupid people are that think Germany had some kind of "successful democratic" future had it not been thwarted by the Nazis and enabled by the conservatives. The latter's motivation was purely an attempt to prevent Social Democrats and Communists from coming to power, which they never could anyway. Social Democrats never had enough support, and so, the most likely scenario for a left-wing government would've been primarily dictated by Communists. But this is a fantasy too, for if the Communists did intend to win power legally, they still would've required massive amounts of support that couldn't be given to them because the constituency was broken up by a large number, over 40% of voters for the NSDAP. I vaguely recall reading somewhere recently that the Communists very well might've been looking to take-over Germany in a violent revolution with support from Moscow. But I apologise, for I cannot remember the source. However, if I find it I will surely make another post.

Anyway

Hitler was smart - he knew that the conservatives and Hindenberg had no choice but to name Hitler as chancellor or declare marshal law and attempt to form their own military dictatorship. Again, none of them expected Hitler to last very long, and they suspected that their conservative coalition could "contain" Hitler, and thought that he was their puppet. Which was a nice thought for them because the NSDAP was much more popular than any of their conservative parties. The logic of appointing Hitler as chancellor was that he had never been given his turn. So what was the harm? Most people didn't believe it would work, and of course, it turned out to be a miracle for the National Socialists and for Germany.

Read chapter 2 of "Aspects of the Third Reich", which will show how Hitler came to power legally. (Read Here: https://mega.nz/file/WLwnWCyL#VPgKaJuME ... fWfQ-wlZ7A)

What needs to be realised and emphasised is that there was really nothing else that could've been done but to make Hitler chancellor. Perhaps it would've been different had the Reichstag never burned down. Who knows? Stuff like that can never be replicated, nor can it be explained as anything other than chance.

I also don't think that Communists had a right to vote. Historians make a fuss over the discrimination of Communists and Marxists, because they want a reason to condemn Hitler. But if you think about it, the logic for discriminating against the SDP and KPD is quite solid.

Marxists and Communists aren't loyal Germans, their interests are concerned with the "international revolution", and seek the destruction of Germany and all other forms of state. Why should Hitler or any other German party give them the time of day to vote on the affairs of GERMANY? A country they couldn't care less for. In fact, in Gellately's "Hitler's True Believers" , he talks about how the Communists and Social Democrats had to appeal to Nationalism through such labels as "The Communist Party of Germany" to get votes, and how odd it was that these groups otherwise opposed to Nationalism would be forced to embrace it in an attempt to garner support.

A new book came out recently:
Image

I bought this book, but haven't given it a read yet. I don't imagine it would be anything particularly special, but I suppose i'd recommend you'd read it to get an understanding of the conventional narrative as it is now in 2020, seeing as this book is incredibly recent as of August.

Remember, the National Socialist revolution was the least bloody revolution the world had ever seen:

The Hitlerist revolution is now complete. The whole of Germany is under the Swastika.

As revolutions go, it can be argued that this has been a quiet one with comparatively little bloodshed.

Jewish Chronicle, March 17, 1933


And:

Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor on 30 January 1933 was followed next day by the dissolution of the Reichstag. His slogan for the elections called for 5 March, ‘Attack on Marxism’, was bound to appeal to solid citizens and property owners. Hermann Göring, one of the few Nazis in Hitler’s Cabinet, took immediate steps to introduce emergency police measures.24 Over the next weeks the Nazis did not need to use the kind of massive violence associated with modern takeovers like the Russian Revolution. There was little or no organized opposition, and historian Golo Mann said of those times that ‘it was the feeling that Hitler was historically right which made a large part of the nation ignore the horrors of the Nazi takeover. . . . People were ready for it.’25 To the extent that terror was used, it was selective, and it was initially aimed mainly at Communists and other (loosely defined) opposition individuals who were portrayed as the ‘enemies of the people’

[...]

The total number of those mistreated and terrorized in this way in 1933, even without being formally or semi-legally arrested, or sent to one of the concentration camps, certainly exceeded 100,000.59 Most of these, like the 100,000 or so who were sent to the concentration camps, had been involved in the Communist Party in some way.
These numbers are horrific when set against what happened in German history before 1933, but in comparison to major revolutions, like the one in France in 1789, or the Russian Revolution, when opposition grew and led to civil war, the Nazi revolution appears almost consensual.

Robert Gellately, Backing Hitler (Oxford University Press, 2001), Pp. 12,59


Gellately is a prime example of the shedding of crocodile tears for the Marxists. How else would he condemn the Nazis? Without this he couldn't, but his admissions are worth something because it shows you how limited in nature the entire affair was. There were millions of Marxists in Germany potentially, yet only 100,000 were "terrorised" in these temporary camps and whatever else? In a country of some 10s of millions. The numbers are not horrific, they're tame. Even if the number "persecuted" was 1 or 2 million, it would still be negligible. But can people like Gellately really, with confidence say that had it been the Communists in power instead of the Nazis that it would've been any different? I doubt it, in fact, it would've been worse. There's no reason to think it wouldn't have been.

Last quote:

Alarmed by Hitler’s popularity and the strong performance of the Nazis in elections, the elderly President Paul von Hindenburg tried to establish a right-wing authoritarian regime, which excluded Hitler and the Nazi Party. Article 48 of the flawed Weimar constitution gave him unlimited emergency powers, so he appointed three conservative chancellors: Heinrich Brüning (1930–32), then Franz von Papen (June–November 1932), and finally General Kurt von Schleicher, who lasted just fifty-seven days. All proved deeply unpopular and none were party leaders. Hitler later claimed to have ‘seized power’ on 30 January 1933, but in fact his appointment as Chancellor was entirely legal and constitutional. Hindenburg had been persuaded by his narrow conservative group of advisers that Hitler should be given the chance to rule and perhaps he could even be controlled to serve their own ends. So there was no violent revolution in Germany in 1933 as there had been in Russia in 1917 or France in 1789.

Frank McDonough, The Hitler Years: Triumph 1933-1939 (Head of Zeuz, 2020), Pp. 12


I would also recommend the book "Why Hitler Came Into Power" by Theodore Abel.
1001004000596405.jpg


Here is a graphic from that book:

168833464080473_168833469482556-768x840.jpg

Theodore Abel, Why Hitler Came to Power
(Harvard University Press, 1986), Pp. 311


From November 1932 to March 1933 the NSDAP gets 6 million more supporters, this number is a reasonable uptick from the previous 11 million. So to suggest there was some coercion going on is just nonsense on the face of it.

Another great book, which I cannot quote in full due to the innumerable quote worthy passages, is a beautiful, refreshing and enlightening read:

European Jungle by F. Yeats-Brown
Read Here: https://ia802609.us.archive.org/1/items/europeanjungle00yeat/europeanjungle00yeat.pdf

Also see this book which came out in 1934 and was included on the official American Nazi Party reading list:
The Long Roll On The Rhine by E. Alexander Powell
Read Here: https://archive.org/details/longrollontherhi008636mbp

I have some more info that might be able to make another post out of, but that will come later.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: How did Hitler come to power // The rise of the NSDAP

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 week 4 days ago (Fri Sep 11, 2020 4:35 pm)

European Jungle by F. Yeats-Brown
Pages 143-148


Now that the policy of armed risings had failed, the internal organization of the Communist Party was thoroughly overhauled. Three of its centers were directly dependent on Moscow:

(1) The German Communist Party.
(2) The Young Communist Union.
(3) The Red Front Fighters League.

[...]

Newspapers supporting the movement included International Press Correspondence, The Red Flag, and The Red Front. More than a dozen Communist newspapers were published in provincial centers. From January, 1929, to June, 1931, a period of two and a half years, 41 editors of these publications were tried and convicted of high treason by the then very lenient and certainly non-Nazi courts of Germany.

Communist activity was not limited to the masses of the electorate: it penetrated also the army, navy, and police forces. In the year 1932 there was a monthly average of 40 cases of incitement to disaffection in the Army, and 74 in the Police. Accused were generally charged with the distribution of subversive literature, for attempts to reach the Forces by personal contact were almost impossible to prove.

Preparations made by the Communists for a second armed rising in 1932 were well planned and nation-wide. Starving men and women were looting provision shops. Strikes and riots succeeded each other with monotonous regularity. There were 7,000,000 unemployed.

The central question of the rising is the arming of the proletariat [wrote Hans Kippenberger, alias A. Langer.* I have slightly abbreviated his redundant sentences, without altering their meaning.] The question of arms must be solved by the masses themselves. One could add indefinitely to Lenin's list of primitive weapons available to the proletariat: to "knives, knuckle-dusters, rags soaked in petrol" one could add "axes, bricks, boiling water to pour on the bestial police raging in the working-class quarters, and simple hand grenades to mention only the most primitive of the almost infinite possibilities available everywhere. It is proletarians who work in chemical factories and in mines, who handle poison gases and explosives, and transport on the railways and waterways the bourgeoisie's instruments of murder: if they make use of these possibilities for the sake of their freedom they are only doing their duty.
*Der bewaffneter Aufstand
, by Hans Kippenberger. Geneva, 1931

At this time the Communist Party had spies and saboteurs in all the major industries of the country, a courierservice to Moscow, complete with ciphers, passport-forging establishments, friendly customs-officials, and concealed stocks of dynamite, incendiary material and weapons in all the principal cities of Germany. Certainly the time was ripe for a bid for power.

The National Socialist Party, on the other hand, had reached a difficult point in its evolution. In July, 1932, it had obtained 230 seats in the Reichstag, but in the November elections it lost 34 seats, whereas the Communists gained 11. The Communists knew, moreover, that the Nazis were short of funds, and that they themselves could rely on substantial contributions from Moscow.

Terror, scientifically applied, is an invariable prelude to a Communist rising. The Police Commissioner of Berlin made a report on August loth, 193 1, with regard to the murder of three inspectors and the wounding of three constables in which he stated that "police investigations have proved that in all the above-mentioned cases murders were planned. Communist organizations have made it their task to fight the executive institutions of the State by organized assassination."

Subsequent investigations have proved that the Police Commissioner was right. The following table shows the casualties suffered by police who came into conflict with the Communists in the course of their duties:

table 1.PNG


In five years, therefore, 128 Nazis were killed and 19,769 injured. Each year the Communist murders and assaults increased. It is true that there were similar mounting casualties on the Communist side. ''Cet animal est tres mechant . .

There is an unfortunately common type of Englishman a product of our insularity, I suppose who says of revolutionaries: "There's nothing to choose between them: both sides adopted violent methods." If someone hit my complacent countryman in the eye, or tried to pick his pocket, he would probably resist and retaliate, and he would certainly resent the attitude of mind of a spectator who watched the progress of the fight from afar and declared that people who brawled like that ought really to be locked up.

The people who began the brawling in Europe were the Communists. In Russia they had excuse for their original actions, but in Germany, under the democratic Weimar Republic, Communism could have won the votes that National Socialism won had it been the will of the people to renounce Christianity and adopt the gospel of Marx. It was not the will of the people, as the following table clearly shows:

table 2.PNG


Although Germany definitely turned against Communism in 1930, preparations to force it upon the German people went forward vigorously, even after Hitler had been nominated Chancellor, on January 30, 1933. A few of these plots are given below, because the memories of the friends of Communism are very short:

On February 13th, 1932, at a meeting of Communist leaders at Aue, in Saxony, it was stated that "big things will happen shortly," and arms were issued to members of the Red Army.

On February 15th, 1932, the police in Flensburg received information that armed groups, provided with explosives, had been formed from the worst characters in Hamburg for the purpose of setting fire to buildings and blowing up bridges. Inscriptions appeared on the walls: "Workers, arm yourselves!

On February 17th, 1932, the police in the Ruhr district learned that terrorist groups of Communists were about to attack various railway stations
and municipalities.

On February 18th, 1932, in Cammin, Pomerania, the police discovered a plan in cypher for an armed rising. Led by a bricklayer, 25 men were to capture leading citizens and hold them as hostages. Public buildings were to be occupied, and railway bridges destroyed. A similar terrorist group was discovered at Burscheid, where nearly a hundredweight of dynamite was confiscated.

In Herdecke, Schwerte, and Hagen, 43 Communists were arrested, in possession of 7 rifles, 42 pistols, 8 bombs, and other explosive material.

Between July, 1931, and December, 1932, a period of eighteen months, 11 1 cases of high treason were proved against the Communists in the German Courts.


From all parts of the country came news of an impending Communist revolt; indeed, the Comintern had openly boasted of its preparations, and that it had inspired strikes and street-fighting. In Altona, Communist groups paraded the streets armed with knives, daggers, and bottles of sulphuric acid, giving the clenched-fist salute. The memory of the bloody Sunday of Altona, on July 17th, 1932, when 17 people were killed and over 50 wounded, was still fresh in the minds of the inhabitants. In Hanover preparations for revolution were well advanced: 100,000 detonators and large quantities of explosives had been stolen from a forester's house, and the rising was fixed for the day that Adolf Hitler was to assume office. Any of these conspiracies, or all of them together, would have provided a starting-point for the severe repressive measures which the Nationalist Socialist Government, in office only since January 30th, 1933, had undoubtedly determined to take against the Communists, when the Reichstag caught fire mysteriously on the night of February 27th.




You can read the rest of the book here: https://ia802609.us.archive.org/1/items/europeanjungle00yeat/europeanjungle00yeat.pdf. There's much much more in there to be read. Yeats-Brown based his information on archival material that he searched for while in Germany and no doubt other archives in the European countries he visited. On page 374 he reproduces in full the entire service record of Adolf Hitler that he translated from the Munich Archives.

He is also a very fair observer, he criticises Hitler for his alleged breaking of the Munich Agreement, and for having "broken his word" on September 26th 1938, although this is a common misconception (see here for that myth: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=13155). Over-all, the book is a joy to read. His chapter on the Soviet Union is very enjoyable as well, I couldn't stop myself from laughing, particularly at this comment:

On the Martina, a Volga steamer, the engines seemed to be more or less efficient, but we started six hours late in Gorki and arrived thirty-six hours late in Stalingrad. The Responsible Worker in charge of the bathroom water supply rarely remembered to turn it on. The decks were never scrubbed. Brasswork was unpolished. Hawsers were not flaked down. Litter was lying everywhere. I washed in a cracked basin from a leaky tap. The sanitary arrangements reeked to heaven. The Soviet Government has liquidated many things, but not its lavatories.

F. Yeats-Brown, European Jungle (Macrae Smith Company, 1939), Pp. 58-59


:lol: You cannot help but laugh! It's a genuine very witty and informative book to read. Yeats-Brown also informs us of the Czech origins of the May Crisis, in which Edward Benes falsely claimed Hitler mobilised against Czechoslovakia. So he was definitely ahead of his time when it came to information.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference


Return to “WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest