Top

The Heretics’ Hour: Wilhelm Kriessmann–The War Years

June 14, 2010

A Sketch by Dr. Kriessmann's father

Pen & ink drawing from 1946 by Dr. Kriessmann’s father: Inside the Wolfsberg British-run detention camp near Klagenfurt, where both were held after WWII. (Click here to enlarge)

Dr. Kriessmann gives his personal account of:

  • Life in Berlin as pilot for the general staff
  • Ninety-three bomber missions on the Eastern Front
  • How and why he was put in a British detention camp after returning home
  • Conditions and companions in Wolfsberg and Wetzelsdorf camps

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 55 min.

Contact Carolyn:
carolyn carolynyeager.com

Comments

28 Responses to “The Heretics’ Hour: Wilhelm Kriessmann–The War Years”

  1. A German on June 15th, 2010 7:39 am

    Thank you Carolyn for bringing Dr. Kriessmann on!
    I also listened to the older broadcasts with him.
    It’s really great of you, that you give an old hero like him a chance to tell us his side of the story.
    Chapeau!

    I really like to listen to what he tells us. Very interesting.
    I also discovered some parallels between him and my family history.

    For example, once he transfered a JU-88 G-6 from the Junkers Werke (factories) in Bernburg. My great grandfather worked there as an technician. Until late 1944. Because he was one of the older generation who fought in WW1 in France. In late 1944 he was drafted again and fought in Ostpreußen against the Soviets.

    And another parallel, Dr. Kriessmann had his last fighting mission near Orel where he was shot down, well my great uncle (the son of the technician) served there in the cavalry. He volounteered for the army with 16. Later he was “missed in action” in Orel. Which was really a hard hit for my great grandmother.

    And a last parallel, Dr. Krissmann told us today that he later was transfered to a camp in Kärnten (Caranthia). My grandfather, who served on the Balkan was also inprisoned in Kärnten, in Klagenfurt.
    But he told not so nice stories about the British. In fact he was very bitter about them.
    His unit was on the retreat from Slovenia to Austria, not to fell into Stalin’s hands. But the Yugoslav Communists tried to cut off their way so my grandfather and his comrades would be finally captured by the Soviets and brought into Stalin’s Gulags.
    But my grandfather’s unit was lucky. They were shot at with heavy machine gun fire from the hills by the Communists. But they had Cossacks as auxillaries who went up the hills with their horses and sabers smoked the Communists out.
    Only with the help of these Cossacks they could make it to Austria.
    And then, as a last attempt the Communists blocked the bridge which led into Austria. But one of the trucks had a last PAK (anti tank gun). They positioned it and the Communist gave up and left the bridge.
    And so my grandfather and his unit and the Cossacks with their families entered Austria and went into British captivity.
    Now comes the part why my grandfather was so bitter about the Brits. Not only because they very rude, blew them with the butt of their rifles, took all their belongings, food, blanckets, papers (Soldbuch, which was important later when my grandfather retired). No, he was especially bitter about them, because they agreed with Stalin to hand him the Cossacks over. My granfather’s loyal brothers-in-arms.
    The Cossacks and their families knew what that meant for them and they all committed suicide. men. women, children.
    My grandfather saw them lying in the barracks, all slashed their wrists. He often told this story with tears in his eyes.
    “They helped us to escape from Stalin’s hell but we couldn’t help them!”

    Back to Dr. Krissmann.
    Carolyn, I hope you will bring him on again in the near future.
    Could please ask him about the “Rammkommando Elbe/KG 200″?
    If he heard of them back then and what he thought about them?

    They were a kind of German Kamikaze.
    I saw a documentary about them. These were very brave man, dare-devils. In contrast to their Japanese pendant they had no explosives in the front of their machines, their machines also were almost de-weaponized to make them lighter an quicker.
    Their task was to discover Allied bomber squadrons, the big ones like the “liberator” and then ram them. In the best case the leading plane and then produce a chain reaction to stop the whole squadron.

    Their task was also not to die! They left the plane shortly before the impact by catapult seat and landed on earth with their parachute. If they achieved that, they took a new plane to attack again.

    In the documetary they animated the attacks, which was really impressing. They flew through machine gun fire, ramming the vertical stabilizer to disable and adrift the bombers.
    Colonel Hajo Herrmann made this concept of the “Rammkommando” up and when he asked for volunteers more pilots wanted to volunteer than they could use.

    It would be very interesting what Dr. Kriessmann thinks about that.

    And now a direct word to Dr. Kriessmann, I don’t know if he reads this comment section but I want to say that:

    ==================================================
    Grüsse in die Ostmark Dr. Kriessmann!
    Ich danke Ihnen für ihren tapferen Dienst für unser deutsches
    Vaterland!
    Wir Jungen werden das nie vergessen! Sie sind uns ein Vorbild.
    Unsere Großväter waren Helden!
    ==================================================

  2. Carolyn on June 15th, 2010 8:21 pm

    Dear German,

    Thanks for telling me (us) of your family connections in the same areas Dr. Kriessmann was in. You are really a joy, and I can tell you that if you send me your email address, I will forward it to Dr. K and I’m sure he will communicate with you, and happily so.

    I share your feelings about the British — they were allied with Tito and the communists, what can one say? You might be interested in an article we wrote together titled “Searching for the Bodies” that is posted on my website http://www.carolynyeager.com. You’ll find a link to it at the top of the front page. The part in question is the section sub-headed “British deceit; still no offer of regret.” It’s necessarily brief; even so, I would like you to tell me how it fits your understanding of that terrible time. This article was published under a different title in the The Barnes Review, Jan/Feb 2010.

    The writing of it was a wrenching experience, as so much of my writing has been. (In fact, writing about Hanna Reitsch, below, was extremely so.) It’s what has made me determined to do what I can to end the lies. I’m glad your grandfather remained bitter about it; he should have been, and I’m glad that it lives on in you.

    As to the “German Kamikaze,” I learned of that when I was writing an article about Hanna Reitsch, the outstanding pilot. She was a supporter of the program, and even was able to bring the idea to the Fuehrer who at first rejected it. But the idea of losing the war deeply repulsed them all … except for the traitors, who may have been the largest reason for it. Anyway, you can read that article also on my website; click on “Power Women” and then you will see Hannah Reitsch.

    Do you happen to know where that documentary can be accessed? Maybe we will talk about all of the projects the Luftwaffe had going sometime soon. Dr. K can say quite a bit about that. I’ve thought about having a two hour program once in a while, wherein the 2nd hour could be spent on a subject that maybe does not have that wide of interest. I don’t want to force too much about Germany on my listeners. :-))

  3. A German on June 16th, 2010 6:19 am

    The documentary is named “Kamikaze unter dem Hakenkreuz”
    (=Kamikaze under the swastika)

    It was broadcasted on the German news/documentary channel N24.
    I tried to find it on Youtube, but I wasn’t successful.
    But if you google the German title, you will easily find a site to download it.

    And for the Brits.
    I myself am not bitter about them today.
    I understand that they had a corrupted gangster leadership back then, for which the Brits today have to pay the price.
    They lost their Empire and even their Island!
    That’s Churchill’s heritage of “winning the war” and “no surrender”.

    I see the English as my Germanic brothers.
    They came from us.
    We share the same Ice Ager ground stock and the younger Germanic stock.
    They’re my brothers.
    It doesn’t matter for me that some of them still are influenced by cheap 1960s WW2 propaganda movies.
    Most of them changed this stupid attitude.

    Of course in soccer I will go on and care for our rivalry. ;-)
    But it’s “only” soccer. ;-P

    And for your article, I will read it carefully and then post my opinion about it. But it will take some time.

  4. jim x on June 16th, 2010 12:02 pm

    i’m no great fan of the Brits, even to this day, primarily because of their involvement in WWII;

    how-so-ever, the Brit’ commanders “on the ground” in Austria & other places would have had very little choice in handing those Cossacks and others over to Stalin;

    they were acting under orders from as high up as WhiteHall;

    if they had to have disobeyed, then, they could well have been court-martialled and faced pretty severe consequences!

    “military discipline” was much more rigid in those days than now!

    from memory, i think that the British Army even, still, had the death penalty!

  5. Nationalist Realist on June 16th, 2010 12:18 pm

    And for the Brits.
    I myself am not bitter about them today.
    I understand that they had a corrupted gangster leadership back then, for which the Brits today have to pay the price.
    They lost their Empire and even their Island!
    That’s Churchill’s heritage of “winning the war” and “no surrender”.

    I see the English as my Germanic brothers.
    They came from us.
    We share the same Ice Ager ground stock and the younger Germanic stock.
    They’re my brothers.
    It doesn’t matter for me that some of them still are influenced by cheap 1960s WW2 propaganda movies.
    Most of them changed this stupid attitude.”

    Germany’s strategy against Britain in WWII was brutally bad.

    Coups and military interventions in Britain should have been the order of the day – instead the Germans “hoped for the best”.

  6. Carolyn on June 16th, 2010 12:55 pm

    The point about the Brits is not to hate them as a people today, but what that sub-title in my article says: British deceit; still no offer of regret. They are still banging the drums of their “great moral victory” — that’s what is unacceptable, and should not *be* accepted.

    To NR: Yes, the British were totally ruthless and found “defeat” more unacceptable than the Germans did, apparently. Therefore, anything was justified. The Germans, and Hitler, failed to appreciate that.
    The British were better at developing allies too. Maybe it was easier for them. Hitler said in his magnificent speech of July 28, 1922:
    …are not nearly all Germans in their hearts – let each one admit it – in despair when they consider the situation which leaves us quite defenseless in face of a Europe which is so hostile to Germany? AND WHY IS EUROPE HOSTILE? WE SEE HOW OVER THERE IN THIS OTHER EUROPE IT IS NOT THE PEOPLES WHICH AGITATE AGAINST US, IT IS THE SECRET POWER OF THE ORGANIZED PRESS WHICH CEASELESSLY POURS NEW POISON INTO THE HEARTS OF THESE PEOPLES.

    He also said this: OUR PEOPLE UNFORTUNATELY IS MUCH TOO UNCRITICAL, OR OTHERWISE IT WOULD LONG AGO HAVE NOT ONLY SEEN THROUGH MANY THINGS, BUT WOULD HAVE SWEPT THEM AWAY WITH ITS FIST!

    He recognized the problem, but was unable to change human nature and national character.

  7. jim x on June 16th, 2010 1:12 pm

    re: “NR”;

    despite desperate pleas from the likes of William Joyce and, to some extent, Oswald Mosley, Hitler refused to fund the BUF;

    his “excuse” was that “National Socialism is not for export”;

    this was, quite clearly, a complete and utter nonsense;

    if communism was “for export”, then, why not “National Socialism” ?

    within a year or two of this, the BUF, for all intents and purposes, disappeared, having been totally “neutralised” by various Acts of Parliament, police harrasment, gangs of hired thugs and a hostile, foreign-controlled “press”!

    in a sense, you could say that, by that one, single, stupid mistake, Germany LOST the Second World War and Britain lost its Empire and, even, its home island as we can see today;

    it is probable that, if Mosley had to have succeded and become Prime Minister or, even, a powerful opposition force, then, Britain and the world would have been a much different and, more likely than not, a much better place than they are today!

  8. Nationalist Realist on June 16th, 2010 6:33 pm

    “in a sense, you could say that, by that one, single, stupid mistake, Germany LOST the Second World War and Britain lost its Empire and, even, its home island as we can see today”

    Frankly I couldn’t care less about Britain losing its Empire.

    The real loss was the ascent of Freudo-Marxian-Feminist ideals in Europe and the decline of traditional White European values and racial cohesion/consciousness.

    “within a year or two of this, the BUF, for all intents and purposes, disappeared, having been totally “neutralised” by various Acts of Parliament, police harrasment, gangs of hired thugs and a hostile, foreign-controlled “press”

    it is probable that, if Mosley had to have succeded and become Prime Minister or, even, a powerful opposition force, then, Britain and the world would have been a much different and, more likely than not, a much better place than they are today!”

    Mosley… or whoever else. It didn’t really matter who he was as long as he was friendly and reliable to the German state and agenda, and unfriendly and unreliable to the Jewish-Liberal axis.

    “He recognized the problem, but was unable to change human nature and national character.”

    Indeed. The question of national character is an important one. Maybe the Brits inclination to Jewish control was not entirely a coincidence. Maybe there’s some affinity here. It seems clear that Britons and Britain did not have an affinity to what the Germans were doing. They didn’t have an affinity to Fascism. But, that can be changed with a bit of ingenuity (coups, etc. – what the Jews and Brits and Americans do themselves) and inculcation of alternate values.

  9. jim x on June 17th, 2010 6:40 am

    Frankly I couldn’t care less about Britain losing its Empire.

    The real loss was the ascent of Freudo-Marxian-Feminist ideals in Europe and the decline of traditional White European values and racial cohesion/consciousness

    they went hand-in-hand;

    the British Empire served the salutary purpose of keeping “the Third World” IN the Third World;

    once the Empire collapsed, we got invaded by non-white Third Worlders because, by and large, they could not successfully run their own countries!

    read what Hitler said about that!

    *Mosley represented THE ONLY POLITICAL FORCE on the scene in the 1930s that would have or could have co-existed peacefully with NS Germany; there wasn’t “any-one else”!*

  10. Nationalist Realist on June 17th, 2010 8:44 pm

    “Frankly I couldn’t care less about Britain losing its Empire.”

    The real loss was the ascent of Freudo-Marxian-Feminist ideals in Europe and the decline of traditional White European values and racial cohesion/consciousness

    they went hand-in-hand.

    No they didn’t.

    “the British Empire served the salutary purpose of keeping “the Third World” IN the Third World”

    Then why weren’t there mass invasions from the Third World pre-British Empire? You’re not talking sense.

    Mass immigration came as a result of the Freudo-Marxist-Feminist order than reigned in Europe post-WWII.

    A lack of mass immigration from the Third World, is simply a policy decision, the nature of which will stem from racial consciousness (or lack thereof) in European nations.

    “once the Empire collapsed, we got invaded by non-white Third Worlders because, by and large, they could not successfully run their own countries”

    As I said, misattribution.

    “*Mosley represented THE ONLY POLITICAL FORCE on the scene in the 1930s that would have or could have co-existed peacefully with NS Germany; there wasn’t “any-one else”!*”

    As I said, it could have been Mosley, it could have been someone else. It was up to the Germans to get the money and infrastructure in place in Britain to get whoever had the goods in power, via democratic means or otherwise.

    The Jews and the Anti-Fascist Coalition got their man in with Churchill instead, tipping the game in their favor.

    It was up to Hitler and the Germans to foment regime/leadership change. They didn’t do that, foolishly.

  11. jim x on June 18th, 2010 6:55 am

    Then why weren’t there mass invasions from the Third World pre-British Empire? You’re not talking sense

    there weren’t !

    so, i’m making perfect sense!

    non-whites, particularly blacks, can’t run their own countries; the Empire did that for them;

    when the BE collapsed, within a few short decades, most of those non-Asian, non-white countries collapsed too!

    then, their inhabitants started flooding into white countries!

    “Camp of the Saints” by Jean Raspail presents a nice little “tableau” of such a scenario as we’re, basically, seeing today!

    feminism & cultural marxism came along at the same time and in conjunction with this withdrawal of the BE from its Third World “colonies” (early-to-mid 1960s);

    it was a part of the same over-all programme/plan!
    (cf: Gramsci)

    that programme/plan is, in effect, the ultimate destruction/genocide of the White Race through various means, viz: abortion, contraception, economic collapse, miscegnation, massive non-white immigration &c!

    seeing as how “there’s nothing new under the sun”, this programme/plan is, in effect, a “variation on the theme” of the old Roman “modus operandi” of subduing a conqured nation, viz: “land, people, gods!”

    land: you “buy up”/”farm out”/”take over” all the assets & natural resources of a particular nation! (economic re-structuring, “privatisation”, manufacturing industries/factories moved to Third World nations like China, India, Mexico &c!)

    people: you “breed out” the native population by either killing them off over a period of time (abortion, contraception &c) and/or inflicting a massive influx of alien populations on them (non-white immigration)

    gods: you destroy/subvert the morals/customs/beliefs of the native population by introducing toxic (to the natives) beliefs and “religious systems” (cultural marxism, feminsim &c) thus making them more susceptible to the “way of thinking” of their conquerors and, of course, less likely to resist the genocidal programme being un-leashed on them!

    much easier & more effective than trying to win endless battles/”military campaigns”!

    kinda makes “perfect sense”, don’t it?!?

  12. Carolyn on June 18th, 2010 1:36 pm

    National Realist writes: The Jews and the Anti-Fascist Coalition got their man in with Churchill instead, tipping the game in their favor.

    It was up to Hitler and the Germans to foment regime/leadership change. They didn’t do that, foolishly.

    I say: Hitler and the Germans were working with the anti-Churchill element in Britain, but it was never Hitler’s plan to have to take over and occupy all of Britain. Germany could never have succeeded in that, and the fascist groups you mention were not strong enough. There was no leadership anywhere near capable of doing what Hitler did in Germany. But you want to make him responsible for the Brits too. After all, Britain still had it’s empire.

    His constant hope (and he was skillfully led along in that by deep British intelligence) was to sign a peace treaty with Britain and form a united front against the Bolshevik threat. That was really the only solution to the problem that faced Europe. It was Britain that FOOLISHLY DIDN’T DO THAT!

    Hitler was aware of his limitations and what Germany was capable of. You obviously are “Monday night quarterbacking” which gets us nowhere. I would like you to present a detailed plan for how this regime/leadership change could have been carried out. You will find that you run into lots of insoluble problems.

  13. Nationalist Realist on June 18th, 2010 1:45 pm

    “His constant hope (and he was skillfully led along in that by deep British intelligence) was to sign a peace treaty with Britain and form a united front against the Bolshevik threat.”

    Well that was utterly misguided. It was simply not going to happen.

    It’s this conviction that Hitler had – that Britain would fall into line of its own – that leads me to believe that his whole approach towards Britain was misguided.

    “It was Britain that FOOLISHLY DIDN’T DO THAT!”

    It was up to the Germans to convince them away from such foolishness.

    He should have at least tried. That’s my point here – I don’t think he even tried.

    “I would like you to present a detailed plan for how this regime/leadership change could have been carried out.”

    You do what the Americans and Brits do today worldwide. Destabilize the regime through any and all means. Propaganda. Funnel money into opposition pro-German sympathizers. Build up an anti-establishment organizational structure.

    “I say: Hitler and the Germans were working with the anti-Churchill element in Britain, but it was never Hitler’s plan to have to take over and occupy all of Britain.”

    It should have been.

    “There was no leadership anywhere near capable of doing what Hitler did in Germany. But you want to make him responsible for the Brits too.”

    Yep. Him not taking care of the Brits ultimately undermined the efforts of National Socialism in Germany.

  14. Bob on June 18th, 2010 6:02 pm

    Hitler’s inexcusable inaction at Dunkirk sealed the fate of Germany, and possibly that of White Western Civilization itself.

    Although SeaLion was not taken seriously enough, it should have been. One army group would probably have done the job.

    As a staging area and aircraft carrier, Britain became increasingly unassailable after the U.S. entered the War. Reasonable folks knew then that it was just a matter of time, particularly as effective defense against the Wolf Packs was developed.

    Hitler should have been assassinated when it became clear that he would not recant his insane decision.

    Bob

  15. Carolyn on June 18th, 2010 6:23 pm

    NR,

    Carolyn: “I say: Hitler and the Germans were working with the anti-Churchill element in Britain, but it was never Hitler’s plan to have to take over and occupy all of Britain.”

    NR: It should have been.

    No, it shouldn’t have been.
    How many coups and forced regime changes last in the long run? Do you think Britain was some kind of pushover? Anybody, 65 years after the historical event, can say what “should” have been done. You can’t even give yourself a real name here. Why not tell us how to “take over” the U.S. government since there are so many of us who don’t like it and would like a regime change?

    There was not nearly enough “fascist” support in Britain, plus the Jews already had control of that nation; they didn’t just “turn” that way when Churchill got in.

    Carolyn: “I would like you to present a detailed plan for how this regime/leadership change could have been carried out.”

    NR: You do what the Americans and Brits do today worldwide. Destabilize the regime through any and all means. Propaganda. Funnel money into opposition pro-German sympathizers. Build up an anti-establishment organizational structure.

    The Germans did all that, but they did not have the money or sufficient manpower or reliable allies to just “take over.” That is Jewish money you are talking about for the Anglo-Americans today. Remember, Britain and France declared war on Germany. Hitler never desired to go to war with them; his plan was different. He tried to make enough quick victories to convince them to go along with him. You say that was foolish. Fine.
    I say, what you expect he should have been able to do was impossible. Your only reply is: He should have tried. Jeez, He would have had to carry those British fascists on his back and bail them out of all their failures and losses, because they would be expecting Germany to do it for them !!! just like you are.

    I kind of suspect you are not serious. This is all I have time for.

  16. Carolyn on June 18th, 2010 6:36 pm

    Bob,

    There is a lot more to Dunkirk and Sea Lion than what you guys know about in your simple minds wherein you just repeat *ad nauseum* from the common themes of the Monday night quarterbackers who call themselves historians.

    One army group?! Oh yes, it was all so easy.

    I have an article coming out about Sea Lion but it won’t be published until September. I’m not going to say anymore; you guys can argue among yourselves.

    It’s very possible that Hitler was at fault in many things, but none of you have made a case for it.

    And if you’re all so smart and competent, I really wish you would organize something for us, today, now. What should we be doing?

  17. Bob on June 18th, 2010 7:54 pm

    The German People Were Great!

    Carolyn,

    I’m looking forward to your Dunkirk-SeaLion analysis. Perhaps it will change my thinking on the subject, but I doubt it.

    Never in human history that I know of has a decisive military victory been frittered away with ultimate success for the victor. And please consider Eisenhower’s treatment of German POWs as you defend Hitler’s betrayal of them — and of those German soldiers who died on the way to Dunkirk.

    Most folks think Hitler was Great, but I believe they are mistaking timing for greatness. It was the German People of that era who were great — probably the greatest assemblage of quality human beings ever gathered in such numbers.

    Bob

  18. Carolyn on June 18th, 2010 11:29 pm

    Bob, It’s not my analysis but Hitler’s own, as told by Hermann Giesler, his architect and confidant. I’m sure it will not satisfy you, but still, it was not a frittering away. Nothing is as easy as it looks, and sometimes a bold stroke works, sometimes it doesn’t.

    You never know ahead of time, only afterward — the monday night quarterbacking.

    Look for the next installment of our Giesler translations in the upcoming July issue of The Barnes Review. It is the first of three “War Campaigns” — the Western Offensive. After that comes Sea Lion and then Barbarossa. None of them will change your thinking, but there’s a lot of interesting stuff in each one, especially if you’re interested in Hitler as a man. You might not be.

  19. Carolyn on June 19th, 2010 12:00 am

    Bob,
    I confused myself. The Dunkirk decision is in the upcoming West Offensive article in the July TBR. So you won’t have long to wait.

  20. Bud Frank on June 19th, 2010 12:53 am

    I am also looking forward to the upcoming articles in BR.

    IMO, SeaLion was not a real possibility because the Germans lacked the necessary transport barges and amphibious assault craft. Also, the Luftwaffe was unable to establish command of the air over the Channel.

    The threat of invasion of the British home isles may have been intended to divert Brit resources from other theatres of operation.

    I am interested to read the Geisler material to see how my own “Monday morning quarterbacking” stacks up.

    Thanks again for these programs, Carolyn.

  21. molecular on June 19th, 2010 7:22 pm

    Hitler was too civil , too much the honorable man .
    Wars are not won with honor . They are won by the ruthless.

    He allowed 300,000+ to escape at Dunkirk as a peace gesture to the English . He was an Anglophile when the English government didn’t deserve it .

    He had a ‘no pursuit’ policy on Spitfires , allowing them to escape to fight another day.

    He stopped the Luftwaffe from completing the fire bombing of London. He had a fit , that anyone had started such a barbaric act.

    He had a jewish doctor , Morrell , ruining his health by giving him methamphetamine ( how Hitler kept his sanity , I’ll never know ) while telling Hitler they were vitamins .

    He didn’t release Me 262′s for fighter defense , until very ( read; too) late in the war .

    He didn’t push nuclear developement , even with Germany being years ahead of anyone else .

    He was becoming delusional , because of the methamphetamine and lack of sleep ( only 2 hours per day ).

    He was a great genius , but no one can be a polymath genius in all aspects in a modern technocracy .

    Yes , we have and will suffer because he tried to do more than any human can be expected to do .

  22. Carolyn on June 20th, 2010 10:05 am

    You could make a list for Churchill, Roosevelt and even Stalin … and, if they had lost the war, say This is why they lost the war.

    I think it could be put in one word: The Jews.

  23. molecular on June 20th, 2010 2:16 pm

    Amazing , that tiny Germany could fight off 3 gigantic empires, USA, UK and USSR ( all 3 were more than countries , really empires in size and hegemony ) for a month , much less 4 years .

    Like 3 heavyweight pro boxers going after 10 year-old kid .

  24. Carolyn on June 20th, 2010 3:19 pm

    Yes, and after that, they make the 10 year-old kid take the blame for it all. And rob him of everything he owns. Real heroes.

    But all is not lost. A legacy has been left … about honor and all that … which inspires to this day, while the winners are more and more sickening to behold.

  25. Nationalist Realist on June 23rd, 2010 2:07 am

    “Unfortunately there is not among them the nation I wooed most strongly, Britain. The British people as a whole do not bear the sole responsibility. On the contrary, there are a few people who, in their deep hatred, in their senselessness, sabotage every attempt at such an understanding supported by that enemy of the world whom you all know, international Jewry.” Adolf Hitler Oct.3,1941

    Whether for reasons of defect in the national character, or Jew-friendly leadership, Britain was not going to support NS Germany of its own accord. Wooing them was a mistake; a waste of valuable time.

    Not marking Britain as a hostile regime – perhaps a hostile people – from the outset was a major strategic blunder. Germany, as I said, should have destabilized Britain through the tried and tested, and relatively simple, means employed by the Brits and Americans today against other hostile nations. I.e. funnel money into opposition, build up anti-establishment organizations, aggressively push propaganda. Of course direct intervention is an option also.

    I believe that it is worthwhile to make note of these mistakes, these strategic blunders; it is worthwhile to plot out strategies that may have been more effective. You object Carolyn, but I see this as a worthwhile exercise. After all, the victors (the Jew-Liberal axis) have written the history books; they have written the narrative. We should attempt to change this.

    Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it, they say.

  26. Nationalist Realist on June 23rd, 2010 3:34 am

    Heretical.com

    “‘Wet’ nationalists are nationalists who just do not understand the enemy: they project their own notions of fair play and decency onto their opponents, just as foolish, misguided liberals think that once ethnics take control, they will treat us with as much generosity of spirit as we treat them. It just ain’t so. Contrary to what some may think, this writer is no great admirer of Hitler, but an example from modern history is appropriate.

    During the debacle of the retreat from Dunkirk in 1940, Hitler, against the advice of the German High Command, allowed the British army to escape back to Britain. It would have been a simple matter at that point for German forces to annihilate (or capture, if that were feasible) almost the entire British army. Slaughtering the 338,000 professional soldiers stranded at Dunkirk would have averted any threat from Britain for a decade at least. I contend that Hitler believed that the people he was fighting had some vestige of honour and of restraint, and that his magnanimous gesture would be reciprocated by an end to the war he had never wanted from the start. This latter is historical fact, not ‘Nazi propaganda.’ It is well known that Hitler admired the British empire, and wanted to see it preserved.

    Thus it could be said that Hitler was too soft. However the adversary – our adversary, as nationalists – has no honour and no restraint, only self-interest.”

  27. Carolyn on June 24th, 2010 11:23 am

    Nationalist Realist wrote:
    I believe that it is worthwhile to make note of these mistakes, these strategic blunders; it is worthwhile to plot out strategies that may have been more effective. You object Carolyn, but I see this as a worthwhile exercise. After all, the victors (the Jew-Liberal axis) have written the history books; they have written the narrative. We should attempt to change this.

    Me: I don’t object to pointing out “strategic blunders” at all, but I think we must keep in mind how easy it is to say what leaders should have known at the time, that we can see now after their decisions have played out over the decades.

    I said myself on previous program pages that Hitler was not the ruthless man he is presented to be — either that or insane. He was honorable and saw that trait as essential to be retained in an ascendant German nation. I cannot disagree with that. Should we all become vicious animals? Completely lacking in compassion for others, like the Jews are?

    In the upcoming translation by Wilhelm Mann and myself in the July Barnes Review magazine about the “West Offensive,” Hermann Giesler quotes Hitler as telling him when he found Giesler looking at photographs of the Hamburg bombing (carried out by British planes in case anyone doesn’t know):

    “Let it go, Giesler, don’t look at the pictures anymore. After a while, I had to rethink. It didn’t agree with my character to step on the one who lies on the ground. I was mistaken—magnanimity will not be recognized. They repay my sparing them at Dunkirk with bombs and phosphor on women and children whose men and husbands were fighting for Europe. What you see there is destructive brutality”—he pointed to the photographs—“again and again one tries not to believe this; now I know—no mercy!”

    You can criticise Adolf Hitler for being too soft — you have every right– but don’t say he should have been a different person than he was. He was a true representative of the German nature.

    And how do you know what would have happened if he had put out a different order at Dunkirk? You don’t. You simply assume that somehow the Axis would have beaten the Allies from that. It could have created even worse catastrophes for Gemany, and certainly even worse incriminations up to today. You would have to closely anyalyse every move that everyone involved *could* have made from that point on.

    Read the article to see what else Hitler said. Everyone talks today about how awful it was in WWII when white Europeans slaughtered each other (as they did in WWI). Hitler didn’t want to do that. Churchill did. THAT’S what needs to be straightened out in history.

  28. Carolyn on June 24th, 2010 11:42 am

    Quote: “‘Wet’ nationalists are nationalists who just do not understand the enemy: they project their own notions of fair play and decency onto their opponents, just as foolish, misguided liberals think that once ethnics take control, they will treat us with as much generosity of spirit as we treat them.

    Hitler saw the ENEMY as the Jews and the Communists, not the British. He was right, too. He was very sorry when Churchill got in and Germany did work with the anti-Churchill forces.

    Quote: During the debacle of the retreat from Dunkirk in 1940, Hitler, against the advice of the German High Command, allowed the British army to escape back to Britain.

    It was not against the advice of the German High Command, but against the advice of some of the field generals, who didn’t all have the big picture.

Bottom