Print this post Print this post

A Table Talk Puzzle

tabletalk2,286 words

There is a brief, interesting reminiscence in Hitler’s Table Talk dated February 21, 1942, titled “A rich Jewish couple.” I suspect the heading was added by an editor; the puzzle is whether or not the couple discussed really was Jewish. It’s easy to discern from Hitler’s description of their ostentatious lifestyle why an editor would assume they were.

Hitler had known the man and woman personally. He identified the husband only as “Consul Scharrer” (it is unclear what the title “Consul” stood for); the wife is categorically referred to as a “Jewess.”

Hitler ridiculed Mrs. Scharrer’s plumpness: “She looked like a ball. Nobody ever checked up whether she was wider or taller,” and so forth. He described her hands as “laden with rings which were so big that she couldn’t move her fingers. She was the sort of Jewess one sees in caricatures.”

A little checking in Hitler biographies (for the entry itself is woefully lacking in adequate detail) reveals that the Führer was referring to a former German military officer named Edward A. Scharrer and his American-born wife. The time period was around 1922–1923, the early days of the NSDAP—prior even to the Beer Hall Putsch of November 1923.

“Werlin,” Hitler said, “showed me Scharrer’s car.” The radiator “was plated, not in nickel, but in gold. It furthermore contained a thousand little articles of everyday use, starting with a lavatory, all in gold.”

Though not identified, “Werlin” is Jakob Werlin, a Benz Motor dealer in Munich who made Hitler’s acquaintance around 1923. Werlin’s dealership was located next to the office of the Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter. After selling a Benz to Hitler for Party use, Werlin subsequently sold more limousines to the Party. After the Daimler-Benz merger in 1926, Werlin became head of the company’s local subsidiary, and started a Mercedes dealership in the city. Despite Werlin being placed in an American concentration camp after WWII, Daimler-Benz gave him a Mercedes dealership after the war because he had shielded the Jewish wife of Wilhelm Haspel, Daimler-Benz chief from 1942–1952. Jakob Werlin died in 1965.

Mrs. Haspel is not the only ultra-privileged Jew who thrived in the heart of Germany at the highest levels of society during the Hitler era. Former Freikorps member Ernst von Salomon, a scriptwriter for the German film industry, likewise sheltered his Jewish lover, who dropped him like a hot potato as soon as the war ended and her protector was tossed into an Allied concentration camp.

Scharrer was “a great devotee of the turf. His wife and his horses were his only preoccupations.” The couple’s estate—where, Hitler observed, white peacocks were kept—was located at Bernried in Bavaria.

Bavaria, a province in southern Germany bordering Austria whose capital is Munich, was National Socialism’s initial support base in the 1920s. “Although he received Prussian princes in his house,” Hitler noted, “in the depths of his heart Scharrer was a Bavarian autonomist [separatist]. A parrot of genius one day made the unforgivable blunder of crying, amidst this brilliant assembly: ‘Prussian swine!'”

Prussia, long Germany’s dominant province, was located in the northern part of the country. With other German states it was effectively merged into the new, highly centralized regime in the 1930s. Nevertheless, Hermann Göring officially served as Prussian Prime Minister from 1933–1945 (though the Reichsmarshall was born in Bavaria, his father was Prussian). At the Potsdam Conference in 1945, large sections of Prussia, including East Prussia, were handed over to the Soviet Union and its newly Communized satellite, Poland. What remained of historic Prussia was abolished by the Allied Control Council on March 1, 1947.

Two Hitler biographers mention a significant meeting between Edward Scharrer and the 33-year-old Hitler in December 1922. Hitler at the time was honing his skills as an orator in a frenetic series of speeches delivered before huge audiences in Munich beer halls. On November 30, 1922, five NSDAP mass meetings were held simultaneously in five beer halls. At each site a program of Nazi speakers was arranged and interrupted when Hitler arrived. After finishing his speech, it was on to the next meeting. On December 13, 1922, Hitler spoke in the same manner to ten NSDAP meetings throughout the city between 8:30 PM and midnight.

Scharrer was then the co-owner of one of southern Germany’s largest newspapers, the Munich-based Münchner Neueste Nachrichten which, three years earlier, had served as the organ of the Revolutionary Central Council of the Bavarian Soviet Republic during the German Communist Revolution of 1918–1919. On December 21, 1922, Scharrer, Hitler, and Prince Wrede held a secret meeting in the plush Regina Palace hotel in Munich.

According to a book called The Gestapo (1964) by Jacques Delarue, Prince Wrede was a cavalry officer who participated the following year in the Beer Hall Putsch, and was jailed with Hitler at Landsberg Prison. Following the seizure of power in 1933 he was incarcerated by the Nazis because he was a leader of the Bavarian People’s Party, which was forced to disband.

Quoting and summarizing “a hitherto unpublished record” of the meeting transcribed by Scharrer’s stenographer, David Irving devotes five pages of Hitler’s War to a detailed summary of what was said by Hitler with “startling frankness” in his “remarkable discourse.” This despite the fact that Irving ordinarily displays little interest in Hitler’s rise to power or German domestic affairs generally during the Weimar and Third Reich eras. (“Between 1920 and his seizure of power in 1933,” the author writes in his thousand-page biography, “the events need only to be sketched in.”)

Irving does not supply any background information about Scharrer or Prince Wrede, not even their full names, identifying them only as “two of [the] Party’s financial backers.” Scharrer is identified as “Consul General Scharrer,” again with no indication of what the title meant. In general the term means a representative of one government to another state or government, but what it signified specifically in Scharrer’s case I could not ascertain.

Irving summarizes and quotes extensively from the stenographic record, providing a detailed account of Hitler’s strategic thinking at that early date. Among other topics, the politician discussed the path to power, Communism, German expansion in the East, and Russia.

Lastly, and at length, Hitler dealt with the Jewish problem in an uncompromising manner. (Despite the Table Talk heading, he did not explicitly say in 1942 that Scharrer was Jewish; just his wife.)

Jews, Hitler said, were “unquestionably noxious.” “They are methodically poisoning our people. I always used to regard antisemitism as inhumane; but now my own experiences have converted me into the most fanatical enemy of Judaism: apropos of which, I combat Jewry not as a religion, but as a race.”

The lion is a predatory animal. It can’t help it—it’s in its nature. [For an elaboration of this theme see “Why Do They Hate Us?”] Man is not bound however to let himself be mauled by the lion. He must save his skin as best he can, even if the lion comes to harm. A solution of the Jewish problem must be arrived at. If the problem can be arrived at by common sense, then so much the better all around. If not, then there are two possibilities—either a bloody conflict, or an Armenianization.

A few weeks later, on February 23, 1923, Irving writes, “the Munich branch of the Nazi Party received a one-million-Reichsmark donation from Consul General Scharrer.” With the exception of this donation, financial backing from Scharrer or Prince Wrede, if any, is unknown.

Adolf Hitler in 1922

Adolf Hitler in 1922

Charles Bracelen Flood in Hitler: The Path to Power (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989) adds important information that Irving omits: “By agreement, his interview was recorded by a stenographer; what is not known is whether Hitler realized that his views would be sent by Scharrer to [German] Chancellor Wilhelm Cuno in Berlin. Labeled a “secret report,” it paraphrased some of Hitler’s remarks, but his characteristic thrust, and impatience with democratic niceties, were present in every line.”

So, despite the gold automobile fixtures (including lavatory), Bavarian estate, status, and other luxuries, the evidence militates against Edward Scharrer being Jewish. Would Hitler have wasted two seconds speaking so frankly and hostilely in private to a Jewish media boss? It seems highly unlikely.

But what about Scharrer’s wife, whom Hitler unequivocally identified as a Jewess in his 1942 Table Talk? It is not the sort of fact one would expect him to get wrong.

Scharrer’s wealth, Hitler said, was entirely the result of his marriage. Unfortunately, Scharrer took a lover, and his wife found out. Furious, she “threw him out of the house. He died in poverty.” As in the Edward Everett Horton-narrated “Fractured Fairy Tales” segment of the old Rocky and Bullwinkle TV show (1959–1964), Hitler discerned a moral in this: “It’s a painful situation for a husband to be so dependent on a wife as rich as Croesus.”

We can identify Scharrer’s wife thanks to Hitler’s observation that she “was a daughter of the big brewer, Busch, who had made his fortune in the United States.” Hitler’s actual assumption, apparently, was that Mrs. Scharrer was half-Jewish, for he adds: “He [Busch] must have been some worthy Bavarian, who by chance married a Jewess.”

The Busch in question was Adolphus Busch I (1839–1913), co-founder with his father-in-law Eberhard Anheuser (1805–1880) of St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch brewery, the maker of Budweiser, Michelob, and Busch beers. Until 2008 the company was headed by August Busch IV (b. 1964), the great-great-grandson of Adolphus Busch and great-great-great grandson of Eberhard Anheuser. Against his will, Busch was forced to sell the company to a multinational Belgian-Brazilian corporation now known as Anheuser-Busch InBev. It is today the world’s largest brewer, with nearly 25% global market share. August Busch IV still serves on Anheuser-Busch InBev’s board of directors, though he and his family do not own or run the company.

The Busches were among a large number of wealthy and successful German American brewers, including the producers of Blatz, Coors, Hamm’s, Leinenkugel, Miller Beer, Pabst, Schlitz, and Stroh’s, among others.

Adolphus Busch, born in the Grand Duchy of Hesse (not, as Hitler wishfully speculated, Bavaria), was the son of Ulrich Busch and Barbara Pfeiffer, who were in the winery and brewery supplies business. He was one of 22 children. He emigrated to St. Louis, Missouri in 1857.

Adolphus married 17-year-old Lilly Anheuser, daughter of St. Louis brewer Eberhard Anheuser, in an 1861 double wedding with his brother Ulrich, who married Lilly’s older sister Anna.

Eberhard Anheuser had been born in Bad Kreuznach in the Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany. Kreuznach had supported a substantial Jewish community for centuries—the Jewish founder of Communism, Karl Marx, married Prussian aristocrat Jenny von Westphalen there in 1843. (Jenny additionally had noble Scottish and English blood.) Apart from Hitler’s suggestive statement, however, I discovered no tangible evidence that Anheuser was in fact Jewish.

Adolphus and Lilly Busch had 13 children, 8 sons and 5 daughters, one of whom, Wilhelmina Busch, married Edward Scharrer, a German lieutenant. The March 4, 1906 edition of the Los Angeles Herald published a long account of their lavish Episcopalian wedding ceremony at the Church of the Angels near Pasadena, California, where Adolphus maintained one of his mansions, including photos of the bride and groom, which can be read online. The first of several Busch Gardens (Pasadena, 1905–1937), still in the incipient stage, is also described in detail. Hollywood films containing scenes later shot there include Frankenstein (1931), The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), and Gone With the Wind (1939). Scharrer and Wilhelmina later moved to Germany, where they maintained the large estate mentioned by Hitler.

In addition to homes in Pasadena and St. Louis, and large real estate holdings in Dallas, Adolphus and Lilly Busch often traveled to Germany, where they maintained a mansion named for Mrs. Busch, the Villa Lilly, in Lindschied near Langenschwalbach, in present-day Bad Schwalbach, Hesse (the province where Adolphus was born). The St. Louis brewer died there while on vacation in 1913.

Another hint that Hitler may have been correct in identifying Wilhelmina Scharrer as Jewish was dropped by Stephen Birmingham, chronicler of America’s ethnic rich in several books about WASPs, Jews, Irish, and Negroes. He noted that “for some reason” a rumor circulated in St. Louis that the Busches were originally Jewish—”though there is absolutely no evidence to support it.” (America’s Secret Aristocracy, 1987)

As far as Birmingham could ascertain, the rumor had to do with the fact that a later head of the company, August A. “Gussie” Busch, Jr., “had to build his own country club” because, supposedly, the St. Louis Country Club refused to accept him as a member.

In sum, the available evidence suggests that Consul General Edward A. Scharrer was not Jewish, and that if his American-born wife Wilhelmina, née Busch, had Jewish ancestry (which is not confirmed), it was probably through her maternal grandparents, the Eberhard Anheusers. Of course, the Busch-Anheuser-Orthwein family was until recently a large clan, and since Jews gravitate to Gentile wealth and power, and genetically intertwine themselves with it, the odds are high that Jewish blood has penetrated the family over the decades, distorting and diluting its whiteness.

In recent years Anheuser-Busch has given money lavishly to Jewish organizations, but whether this signifies a special affinity for the race, or reflects the behavior of big corporations generally—perhaps they all do it?—remains unclear. Between 1994 and 2006, the brewer—a public company—gave more than $1.2 million of its stockholders’ money to the Jewish Federation of St. Louis, and $4.5 million to Jewish agencies nationwide. (Jewish Federation of St. Louis, “Anheuser-Busch Presents $100,000 Check to Jewish Federation“)

Ultra-weird though it is, Jews, the wealthiest and most powerful ethnic group on the face of the planet, are the beneficiaries of endless, unearned largesse and special privileges—perhaps I should say tribute—from every source imaginable.

Source

Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941–1944: His Private Conversations, trans. from German by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens and introduced by H. R. Trevor-Roper (London: 1953).

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

31 Comments

  1. Alexandros Megas
    Posted October 3, 2013 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    The leaders of the Young Turk revolution leaders were jews and crypto-jews, jews targeted Armenia for genocide because they never got to control the Byzantine Empire because of the Armenians. They never forgive or forget.

  2. me
    Posted September 30, 2013 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    Dr. Greg Johnson wrote:

    Jewish ferocity stems from the teachings of the Old Testament. As the Reformation has shown, too much Old Testament can turn any people into spiritual Jews, because Jewishness is a spiritual malaise to begin with. I really think that aggressive Jewish misanthropy is a spiritual/cultural rather than a genetic problem.

    Questions:

    Aren’t most Jews secular? And don’t adopted Jews turn out to act much like Jews who were raised by Jewish parents?

    And shouldn’t it be expected that character is largely determined by genetics?

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted October 1, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

      1. Most Jews are secular, and still their attitudes and culture are defined by the Old Testament.

      2. It would be interesting to study Jewish adoptees raised in non-Jewish households. I think that Jews raised without Jusdaism would be pretty much like Near Eastern Christians, Muslims, or pagans: highly ethnocentric, perhaps, but not a global threat.

      3. Quite a lot is determined by genetics, but quite a lot is determined by environment and ideas. I think it is plausible that one’s favorite colors and foods are genetically determined. But the conviction that the rest of humanity should be treated as slaves of the Jews seems a bit too abstract and specific to be genetically determined. High or low ethnocentrism, yes. But specific modes of relations with other peoples, no.

  3. me
    Posted September 30, 2013 at 7:50 am | Permalink

    Mr. Hamilton wrote:

    I think “totalitarian police state” is a fair characterization. I would not want to have lived there.

    me: That’s interesting since many WN’s are enamored by how wonderful Germany was under Hitler. I hope Mr. Hamilton covers this “totalitarian police state” angle in an article in the (near) future.

    • Justin Huber
      Posted September 30, 2013 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

      At least from an American perspective, how much of not wanting to live in Hitler’s Germany stems from the fact that we have everything here from a geographical standpoint. If there is anything truly “exceptional” about America it is our living space or “lebensraum” as Hitler would have called it. It is probably one of the main reasons that life continues to be tolerable here in spite of many other things being rotten to the core.

    • Junghans
      Posted October 1, 2013 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

      As far as life in the Third Reich is concerned, as well as general misconceptions about the nation of Germany, I would highly recommend Ben Bradberry’s new book entitled: ‘The Myth of German Villainy’. It is a great revisionist work by a former student of Russell Stolfi at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School.

  4. Ulf Larsen
    Posted September 28, 2013 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    This probably has nothing to do with the Hitler quote, but I recall that some nationalist writers have argued that Jews are really Armenians, and that it is there they have gotten their ferocity from. Can anyone remind me of where I could have read that theory? Could it be Revilo Oliver?

    • Andrew Hamilton
      Posted September 28, 2013 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

      I am unfamiliar with the theory you mention, but scientist John R. Baker, the author of Race (1974) (who was not a WN), classified Ashkenazi Jews (i.e., 90% of world Jewry at the time) as members of the “Armenid” subrace, along with Armenians. He wrote from the perspective of physical anthropology, not genetics. I am unaware of population genetics studies classifying Jews and Armenians together. Perhaps there are some, but I don’t recall them.

      Physical anthropology (done correctly, i.e., scientifically, not politically correctly) complements population genetics. The two feed (or should feed) into one another.

      Nevertheless, I was unpersuaded by Baker’s insistence that Jews do not form a distinct subrace, but are simply part of a broader subrace he designated “Armenid.”

      • Raven Gatto
        Posted September 28, 2013 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

        If such a link were to be confirmed, then I think it would add considerably to the ‘Khazar’ hypothesis, as the Khazars – a Black Sea people – would very likely have some physical similarities to Armenians – although Armenians in antiquity may very well have looked different than modern Armenians.

        I think there was a broad similarity in Mediterranean types prior to the ingress of Arab/ Negro genes, and these can be seen in Minoan painting, Greek pottery, Etruscan frescos and so forth. A large eyed, olive skinned, gracile brunette race. ‘La Parisienne’ – who looks a bit like both Cher and Marina Sirtis (and Diamanda Galas!) – is my mental model. That ‘La Parisienne’ also looks like the descendants of Etruscans, a people known to have originated in Asia Minor, supports this hypothesis. It is too bad that La Parisienne has so much hair, otherwise we’d have a better idea of what her occiput looked like! (Pardon my indelicacy)

        Remnants of Roman and Greek style statuary from Armenia in that period is quite revealing. It is also interesting to note that the only Greek temples that survived antiquity intact are in Southern Sicily and Armenia, although the Armenian temple was re-assembled after an earthquake a century or so ago.

        That Jewish ferocity came from the Armenians does strike me as a little far-fetched.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted September 28, 2013 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

          The Khazars were a Mongol-Turkic nomad people. The idea that Askkenazic Jewry descends from such people seems far-fetched on purely morphological grounds: Ashkenazic Jews are Armenoid, not Mongoloid, in appearance.

          The Garni temple is quite a gem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garni_Temple. Apparently, after the Christianization of Armenia, all pagan temples were demolished, but this one survived as it was part of a royal summer residence.

          Jewish ferocity stems from the teachings of the Old Testament. As the Reformation has shown, too much Old Testament can turn any people into spiritual Jews, because Jewishness is a spiritual malaise to begin with. I really think that aggressive Jewish misanthropy is a spiritual/cultural rather than a genetic problem.

  5. Petronius
    Posted September 28, 2013 at 12:28 am | Permalink

    Let me correct this: The facilities where Salomon was tossed into were regular POW and de-nazification facilities and not “concentration camps” (there is really a difference, even in comparison to then-Soviet run camps like Sachsenhausen). He was beaten up and mistreated there a lot in the beginning though. His lover Ille Gotthelft didn’t drop him “like a potato”. In fact, she was arrested together with him and imprisoned by the Americans for almost a year and also severely mistreated as well, in fact she was raped by G.I.s as a “Nazi slut”, as Salomon wrote in his book “Der Fragebogen”, which attacked Allied post war and re-education policies.

    She and Salomon can hardly be called “ultra-priviledged” during the Hitler years. Salomon was one of many minor figures who enjoyed a certain degree of protection because they had contacts to people in powerful positions, in this case mainly his friends from revolutionary days Hanns Ludin and Arnolt Bronnen (who was half-Jewish as well). But in fact he was in constant danger of being targeted by more hostile party members and officials who suspected him to be a Strasserite (which was the case). In fact, he had protected Gotthelft by displaying her as his wife. He also had taken party membership, though as a sort of mimicry. He was in a sort of duck-and-hide mode and published just a few books of Freikorps. But such a status he had could have been revoked at any time, if he had gotten hostile attention and being checked. It was basically a life with a constant sword of Damocles above their heads.

    • Sandy
      Posted September 28, 2013 at 3:49 am | Permalink

      she was raped by G.I.s as a “Nazi slut” which brings us to the real problem facing us today; that even a lot of Whites feel safer in a mildly multicultural society rather than a wholly White society. It would have helped if the G.I. rapists were shot for what they were but they weren’t. The behavior of so many of the “great generation” has made our cause that much more difficult and explains the continual demonization of the old German patriots. On the bright side Counter-Currents is certainly trying to raise the standards.

    • Andrew Hamilton
      Posted September 28, 2013 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

      As for Salomon’s internment, I guess it comes down to what you want to call a “concentration camp.” From my recollection of what he wrote, I categorize the place as one. He may not have used the term, but I would. “Unconditional hatred” is how one author characterized Allied (including, of course, Communist) policy toward Germany—and that’s what it was. Things were particularly grim after the war. Jewish hatred played a big role in this.

      My statements about Salomon and his mistress are based upon what he wrote in Der Fragebogen. I read the entire thing. And I did not skim it. The only fly in the ointment is that that was perhaps 20 years or more ago.

      Nevertheless, I can’t imagine that my recollection is as bad as you make out. The fact that a successful movie screenwriter was harboring a Jewish mistress throughout the entire period made a big impression on me, and I paid close attention to the nuances of the situation. I certainly do not recall anything about her being raped (remember, I read the English translation), although now that you mention it he may have said she was interned (at least briefly); I think he mentioned talking to her once through a fence. My very definite impression was that she dropped him (you’re not contending they got together again as a couple after the war, are you?), although Salomon was exceedingly delicate about how he phrased that fact, because he still loved her.

      A movie screenwriter and successful novelist is “privileged” by my definition. He lives well, enjoys elevated social status, and helps shape society’s views. I suspect you and I come from different social classes. My family and relatives were working class, though several climbed into the middle and upper middle classes.

      Salomon did feel under constant threat—as did many Germans—because that’s the nature of a totalitarian police state, and he was a tough hombre who didn’t conform to the party line. But he made his situation far worse by falsely passing off a Jewess as his Aryan wife. One of the things that shielded him was the fact that he was widely known for having been jailed for his part in the 1922 assassination of Walter Rathenau, the wealthy Jewish industrialist and politician.

      • Petronius
        Posted September 28, 2013 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

        Well, you were talking of political privilege, not class privilege. And my point was, that Salomon not being persecuted for keeping a Jewish wife wasn’t a “hyper-privilege”, given the circumstances and the context. It was life under constant threat and dependance of others. There were others who were in power and otherwise absolutely conforming, and not living under constant threat as he was, and they were truely privileged.

        The point about Salomon displaying Gotthelft as his wife was the protection. As long as the regime lasted he would not separate from her. Their splitting up later came naturally. Now I can’t remember any indication in the book that her behaviour was mean-spirited or treacherous as you suggest.

        Gotthelft was interned from June 1945 to March 1946, which is a considerable time. Salomon was kept for three more months. There is a scene in “Fragebogen” where he describes, how she is taken into a room with six G.I.s , and when she returns, her belt is gone, the dress is falsely buttoned up, the stockings hanging down… the suggestion is clear, he didn’t go into detail. “For ten years I was able to protect her, now I was not anymore.”

      • Petronius
        Posted September 28, 2013 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

        Correction: Salomon was discharged in September 1946, that makes it six more months…

      • me
        Posted September 29, 2013 at 9:40 am | Permalink

        Mr. Hamilton wrote: “constant threat—as did many Germans—because that’s the nature of a totalitarian police state”

        Does he imply that Germany, under Hitler’s rule (from 1933 to 1945), was a ‘totalitarian police state’? I thought many Germans had relative freedom there and prospered, etc. Even guns were allowed for German citizens. There were no death camps for any dissidents like USSR had.

      • Andrew Hamilton
        Posted September 29, 2013 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

        I think “totalitarian police state” is a fair characterization. I would not want to have lived there.

        As for gun ownership, it was permissible—as you point out, for Germans—for hunting and recreational purposes, but I don’t know how widespread it actually was. I doubt that it approached the level of gun ownership in the United States, and certainly it was not grounded in a legal-philosophical ethic of resistance to tyranny, as was the case in America for most of our history (but not now). Hitler would never have countenanced such a view.

        Furthermore, Slavs were forbidden to own guns. Hitler is quite explicit about this in the Table Talks. I suspect the same was true for whites in all German-occupied areas.

  6. Sassen
    Posted September 27, 2013 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

    In the third reich Armenians were identified as Aryans. Every Armenian of race issued wit I’d documents in the Reich had the Aryan imprint on it. Armenians belong to the indo European race group. The Armenian genocide refers to the wiping out an entire race 3000 years old from its ancestral lands in the space of 5 years. It was and it remains the only wholly successful elimination of a race from its homeland. no one can teach the turks the art of genocide .Armenians assimilate and integrate in European societies with incredible ease. More than 1 m Armenians were assimilated and disappeared as armenians in Poland in the xix century. Many more were totally assimilated in Hungary. Armenians assimilated in Russia, gave the USSR. 6 field Marshall’s, and numerous field generals in the ww2. The last Hungarian nationalist leader , in the dying days of ww2 , was zcelasny, which was of Armenian origin. It is incorrect to equate Armenians to Jews. They are poles apart. The diasporan Armenian is the by product of Turkish enslavement and Turkish genocide.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted September 28, 2013 at 12:15 am | Permalink

      Armenians were scattered among other nations in Ancient times, not merely after the Turkish genocide.

      Of course Armenians are very different from Jews, and it is an interesting question: why are two groups with such similar cultural patterns, genetic origins, and ways of life so different in their attitudes and effects on the peoples they live among.

      • Jaego
        Posted September 28, 2013 at 4:01 am | Permalink

        Well obviously the Armenians converted to Christianity pretty early and completely.

        Some say the Turks in power at the time of the Armenian Holocaust were no Turks at all.

      • Raven Gatto
        Posted September 28, 2013 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

        The ‘Turks’ in power then are like the ‘Turks’ in power now: Donmeh. They were the followers of Sabbati Zev, who remained in the Ottoman Empire as ‘converso’ Muslims. They now control the press and economy of Turkey, though no-one knows or talks about their existence.

        If you’re asking, did the Jews do the Armenian genocide, the answer is yes. Armenians know this. They also know that Jews are the reason no one officially acknowledges what happened in Turkey.

        From salon.com:

        “Some of the most powerful leaders in the American Jewish community have stepped forward in recent days to acknowledge the 1915 Armenian Genocide at the hands of Ottoman Turkey.

        On the surface, this would seem unremarkable. As victims of the Holocaust, Jews might be expected to stand beside the Armenians and their tragedy. After all, the massacres and death marches across Anatolia during the fog of World War I became a model for Hitler himself.

        But this sudden embrace of the Armenian Genocide actually marks a shameless turnaround for the major American Jewish organizations. For decades, they have helped Turkey cover up its murderous past. Each year, the Israel lobby in the U.S. has played a quiet but pivotal role in pressuring Congress, the State Department and successive presidents to defeat simple congressional resolutions commemorating the 1.5 million Armenian victims.

        Genocide denial is not a pretty thing, they now concede, but they did it for Israel. They did it out of gratitude for Turkey being Israel’s one and only Muslim ally.

        Now the game has changed. Israel and Turkey are locked in a feud over the Palestine-bound flotilla that was intercepted on the high seas by Israel. Turkey is outraged over the killing of nine of its citizens on board. Israel is outraged that a country with Turkey’s past would dare judge the morality of the Jewish state.”

        http://www.salon.com/2010/06/16/israel_lobby_genocide_armenia/

        A genocide comes, a genocide goes. Whether or not it registers in the brainpan of a European is entirely dependent on one thing only; “Is it good for the Jews?”

        As Alex Linder was fond of saying, there is no longer any politics on Earth, of any kind. There is only the Jewish Question.

  7. Raven Gatto
    Posted September 27, 2013 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

    “Armenians are quite similar to Jews genetically; they live in a diaspora among other peoples as well as in their homeland; they are an ancient people who have preserved their identity over the millennia due to high ethnocentrism; they occupy similar business and professional profiles as Jews. Armenians have even become the ruling elites of their host societies, e.g., the Byzantine Empire (Google the Heraclian and Macedonian dynasties, and Leo the Armenian–about 25% of the 99 Emperors of Byzantium were ethnic Armenians). ”

    All of this is true up to the comparison of ‘becoming ruling elites’. Since Armenia had been Romanized since the time of Mark Anthony, it automatically fell under Byzantine jurisdiction once Constantine created a second capital in the East.

    It is no more odd or sinister for Armenians to have become Emperors of the Byzantine Empire than it was for Spaniards to have become Roman Emperors as often as they did in the West. Spain was geographically close to Rome, cultural and trade ties were centuries old, and the path to power was not limited on an ethnic basis. The relationship of Armenia to Constantinople seems to me to be a better analogy.

    More sinister would be the role of Jews in the Western Empire. They never became Generals or Emperors, but even in the 1st Century BCE, Cicero is complaining that one cannot speak freely because of their ‘power in the assemblies’. I do not think that this is a good model for how Armenians behaved in Byzantium, although their attitude towards Turkish occupation might have been a good deal more hostile. Of course, if that was the case, I can hardly blame them. After all, this perfectly mirrors my own attitude towards the United States. Loyal when it was a legitimate enterprise and unwillingly obedient and looking for any means to harm after the advent of foreign occupation.

    Also, as regards “they occupy similar business and professional profiles as Jews” – this statement certainly applies equally to Anglo-Saxons. Time takes its toll on everybody. Byzantium and Armenia fought Islam for 700 years so that Western Europe could be safe. What did they recieve from the West? A stab in the back and exclusion from the history books. If they were reduced to a rag-tag bunch doing what’s necessary to survive, I ask you: what is the Anglo-Saxon’s excuse?

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted September 27, 2013 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

      Armenia’s place between the Roman and Byzantine Empires on the one hand, and the Parthian, Sassanid, Arab, and other Empires on the other led it to be a contested territory throughout its history. Some Armenian lands were ruled by the Romans and Byzantines, but except for two periods when Armenia was ruled entirely by Rome (114-118 CE) and Byzantium (1045-1071–due to conquest by an ethnically Armenian emperor Constantine IX), there was an independent or semi-independent Armenian kingdom, sometimes several of them. Armenians were, therefore, an alien diaspora people in the Byzantine Empire, who attained elite status in the political and economic realms, but they were a well-disposed foreign people who shared a common religion and broadly Hellenic culture. A good analogy might be the Germans in the Russian Empire.

  8. Raven Gatto
    Posted September 27, 2013 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    “Probably not, since he contrast it with a bloody conflict.”

    I disagree. The actual quote says ‘either a bloody conflict or an Armenianization”. I think this can be taken to mean that the minority population can be allowed to gain power and sow dissent among the host population, leading to a bloody conflict, or they can be force marched out of the country.

    I don’t think Hitler was condoning Turkish behavior towards the Armenians, but at that point in history, what other word was there for an expulsion of that type on so vast a scale?

    Even Stalin’s vast internal forced migrations of peoples in the Soviet Union were still years in the future.

    The only other common point of reference the speakers would have would be Biblical genocides, which would not be at all what Hitler is recommending.

    It should also be noted that the volksdeutsch in Eastern Europe were subjected to Armenianization after the end of WWII, that is to say, force marched back to their ‘home’ with the intention of causing as many casualties as possible. Of 12,000,000 Germans subject to ‘Armenianization’, the low estimate places the death rate at 3,000,000. I don’t know how many Armenians were removed from Asia Minor, so I can’t compare casualty rates, but both procedures were undertaken with maximum malice and no provisions for the ‘transferees’.

    Compare this to a German concentration camp, even the most notorious. Swimming pools, orchestras, plays, medical care, provision against typhus. I’m not joking when I say that, compared to the Germans and the Armenians, that portion of the Jewish population interned by the Germans lived in the lap of luxury.

    At any rate, if Hitler had the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ at hand, he might have used that. But he didn’t. All of the words that we use today were not coined yet. Even the neologism ‘genocide’ was 23 years in the future.

    The statement makes perfect sense if the alternatives discussed are civil war (the Bavarian Soviet) or expulsion of a minority population. It does not imply that Hitler morally approved of Turkish policy towards Greeks, Armenians, and Chaldeans. (It wasn’t just an Armenian genocide).

    In fact, there were Armenians in NS Germany, and though I’ve never looked into it, Guderian’s surname seems like an interesting place to start. We do have evidence of an Armenian NS battalion, the 812th, which fought against the Soviets.

    Wikipedia says they were ineffectual POWs who were untrustworthy and all deserted instantly.

    However, many online Turkish sources say they were all enthusiastic Nazis who rounded up Jews everywhere.

    Since I do not trust Wikipedia or Turks, I cannot comment on this matter except to bring it up as a topic of interest. Actual information about their attitudes or effectiveness, realistically, may never be known – like so much else about WWII.

    For people who are interested in the Greek-Armenian genocide (I do feel bound to repeat that it was not just Armenians), I recommend Diamanda Galas’ superb album ‘Defixiones’, a ritual imprecation against the murderers on the part of the unwilling dead. I recommend it as a physical CD and not at MP3, because the booklet is genuinely necessary to your enjoyment of the record (and, presumably, its effectiveness). The booklet accompanying is well researched and has pictures that, I can promise, you’ve never seen before.

    http://www.amazon.com/Defixiones-Will-Testament-Diamanda-Galas/dp/B0002IQB3K

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted September 27, 2013 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

      It would be interesting to see how “Armenianization” was used by others at the time. Did it refer to genocide, ethnic cleansing, or something more innocuous? A good research topic for a future Counter-Currents article.

      • Raven Gatto
        Posted September 28, 2013 at 3:36 am | Permalink

        “It would be interesting to see how “Armenianization” was used by others at the time. Did it refer to genocide, ethnic cleansing, or something more innocuous?”

        I think Hitler is using it to mean ‘ethnic cleansing’ – removal from the territory. A google search on ‘Armenianization’ doesn’t turn up anything. It is obviously not a common term, and may be an ad hoc neologism on Hitler’s part.

        That he does mean what we would now call ‘ethnic cleansing’ but without the connotation of ‘savage treatment’ is indicated to me by two facts:

        1)German knowledge of the Turkish atrocities would have been limited, for several reasons. The profoundly ‘Darfur’ like propaganda was designed by Jews for use in Britain and the UK, to delegitimate Turkey’s claim to the Palestinian mandate in the eyes of Anglo-Americans. Hence ‘starving Armenians’ – a term used by mid twentieth century Americans to remind children to clean their plates. I don’t think such propaganda was deployed in Germany. The Germans general impression would have been that a troublesome minority was escorted from the country. German ties to Turkey were also more extensive than Anglo-American ones, and Germans would not have heard troublesome details from their news agencies or government regarding an ally unless it served a political or cultural need. What do Americans know or care about the Holodomor? People are not given facts about allies, past or present, that are inconvenient or bring authority into disrepute. For Hitler, the Armenians may very well have been marched home without extreme prejudice. A better analogy than the Holodomor here would be Keelhaul. What do Americans, common people or historians, know about Keelhaul, Eisenhowers’s starvation camps, Morel’s torture operations, the forced expulsion of 12,000,000 Germans? Nothing at all. I’ve seen one discussion of the expulsion in The Atlantic, where editor Benjamin Schwarz was attacking a book about genocide and ethnic cleansing that discussed the facts of this expulsion. He was livid with the author for criticizing the treatment of volksdeutsch, and insisted that this ‘ethnic cleansing’ was not only A Good Thing but necessary for the ‘triumph of democracy’ in Eastern Europe. In fact, that was the first I had heard of the affair as an extremely well informed American citizen in his 30s. I find it easy to imagine that Hitler in the 1920s had a rosier view of Turkey’s own coming into being than his Anglo-American counterparts.

        2)Hitler speaks of accomplishing his end through peaceful means. One of the most interesting facts that WWII revisionists have recovered, it seems to me, is that many documents do refer to a ‘final solution’ to the Jewish Question, and that all of these refer to resettlement in Madagascar, Uganda or some such after the war. To be announced, one might say. However, a strong point that the revisionists have established is that the Endlösung was resettlement, not mass murder. This would tend to make Hitler’s early stated intentions and wartime documentation of German actions mutually reinforcing for historical purposes.

  9. Greg Johnson
    Posted September 27, 2013 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    Does anyone know what Hitler meant by “Amenianization”?

    • Andrew Hamilton
      Posted September 27, 2013 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

      David Irving commented on the statement parenthetically in Hitler’s War. He said: “Was Hitler referring to the secret liquidation of 1,500,000 Armenians by the Turks at the beginning of the century? He was maddeningly vague.”

      That’s probably as clear as we’re going to get. One has to make up one’s own mind.

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted September 27, 2013 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

        Well, given that he contrasts it with a bloody conflict, he is probably not referring to the Armenian genocide, which was hardly secret and quite bloody.

        Armenians are quite similar to Jews genetically; they live in a diaspora among other peoples as well as in their homeland; they are an ancient people who have preserved their identity over the millennia due to high ethnocentrism; they occupy similar business and professional profiles as Jews. Armenians have even become the ruling elites of their host societies, e.g., the Byzantine Empire (Google the Heraclian and Macedonian dynasties, and Leo the Armenian–about 25% of the 99 Emperors of Byzantium were ethnic Armenians). Yet, so far as I know, Armenians do not work to destroy their host societies like Jews do. Could “Armenianization” mean the neutralization of the Jewish menace by completely freezing them out of positions of power and influence?

    • David
      Posted September 27, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

      Probably he is refering to the liquidation of the armenians by the turks.

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted September 27, 2013 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

        Probably not, since he contrast it with a bloody conflict.

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    Reuben

    The Node

    Axe

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance

    Standardbearers

    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    Archeofuturism

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above