Today we enter “The Twelve Days of Hitler,” the period between the anniversary of the birth of the Adolf Hitler (20th April) and the anniversary of the announcement of his death (1st May). It’s a bit like Black History Month for 1488ers, but many other people also take an interest.

One problem with evaluating Hitler is that, for many people, he is all that they know about German history, so he exists in kind of de-contextualized, detached, and over-dramatized space that is more mythic than historical. This may be one reason he is viewed as either uniquely good or, more commonly, uniquely evil. To get beyond this, it is important to see him in the context of the wider flow of German history.

When considering him in this way, the thing that strikes me most about him is not how exceptional he was, but instead how consistent he was with the rest of German history.

This opinion will inevitably surprise some, but the essence of Hitler is not his anti-Semitism, his hatred of Communism, or even WWII. Whatever he did to the Jews, the Soviet Union, and Europe in general between 1938 and 45 are merely details. The real essence of Hitler was a kind of overstretch, lack of proportion, and deformity of purpose and effort. In other words, what he did he did too much or too little, and with a lack of "tone," balance, and sense of the bigger picture. Why else would he end up declaring war on three superpowers? One is reminded of Oscar Wilde's famous witticism about losing parents:
"To go to war with two major powers may be regarded as a misfortune; to go to war with all three looks like carelessness."
Frederick II of Prussia
More importantly, this is exactly the recurring characteristic of German history that we see time and again, from the period when a German state – Prussia – first began to dominate German history to the modern day race-suicide-by-mass-migration overseen by Angela Merkel. In short, the Germans have always been a bit “iffy.”

Hitler’s extremism, his lack of proportion, and his inability to find balance are sometimes explained – or justified – by referring to the “brutal” peace of Versailles that involved heavy financial reparations and the loss of colonies and much territory. The English economist John Maynard Keynes famously described this as a "Carthaginian Peace," comparing it to the extremely harsh terms the Romans imposed on their defeated Punic rivals:
"Two rival schemes for the future polity of the world took the field,—the Fourteen Points of the President, and the Carthaginian Peace of M. Clemenceau. Yet only one of these was entitled to take the field; for the enemy had not surrendered unconditionally, but on agreed terms as to the general character of the Peace."
In this view, Hitler’s reckless and doomed career of revenge, geopolitical over-ambition, and military overstretch were all forced on him by this supposedly unjustified national humiliation. But, actually, Germany had been defeated militarily – relatively fairly and squarely – and was hardly the first beaten country to be subjected to onerous peace terms, which, in effect, were imposed rather laxly, as proved by Hitler's subsequent career.

Kaiser Wilhelm II - nice hat!
More interestingly, Germany's path to war in WWI has similar characteristics to its path to war in WWII, and even to post-war German history – the same sweaty mania and tendency to overdo things – suggesting that something inherent in the nature of Germans was the cause of WWII, rather than merely the petty vindictiveness of Monsieur Clemenceau at Versailles. Just as Hitler was pushing too fast and too far in the 1930s, so too was Kaiser Wilhelm in the years leading up to 1914. There too we see the same indelicate haste, arrogance, and insensitivity, something that is also mirrored in the present age with Angela Merkel and her über-signalling on migrants.

Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, Angela Merkel, and even the string of German post-war leaders who helped turn Germany’s military blitzkrieg into a manufacturing and export-driven "economic miracle," all share the same essential characteristic, namely a reckless desire to do whatever they do, as intensely and fanatically as possible, to the point where it ultimately causes terrible blowback.

Thanks to the wise guidance of Bismarck, the one great German leader exempt from this lamentable tendency to push things too far, Germany, by the end of the 19th century, was – economically, industrially, and politically – an emerging giant. This giant was seeking its place at the top table, along with the established powers like Great Britain and France. This drive to push the older powers aside was encapsulated in the phrase a "place in the sun," meaning that Germany too wanted its slice of the colonial pie.

Apologists for Germany argue that the British – often referred to as "Anglo-Jewry" – were bent on stifling Germany’s "natural ascendancy." Interestingly these often anti-Semitic narratives tend to downplay the fact that German society at that time was much more "Jewed" than Britain’s, with 615,000 German Jews to 275,000 in the UK in 1910. Indeed, a case could be made that the British victory in WWI was that of a Goyish nation over a Germano-Jewish entity.

But the truth is that Britain had no wish to crush Germany. The royal families were closely connected, as were the economies. As a laissez-faire nation, Britain wanted to avoid expensive alliances and military entanglements. Indeed, a strong Germany even served Britain’s interests as a useful counterweight to two dangerous traditional enemies, France and Russia.

In the same way that Britain gradually acceded to the rise of America in the 20th century, it would have been willing to countenance the gradual rise of Germany in the early 20th century, as long as the Germans had acted with tact, consideration, and proportionality. This was precisely the reason there had been so few difficulties with Germany during Bismarck’s chancellorship (1862-90), as he was the diplomat par excellence. The problem, however, was Kaiser Wilhelm’s impetuosity, impatience, and disregard for the accepted way of doing things – or, in a phrase much used in those days, his "bad form."

Hemmed in by other major European powers, Germany sought to expand overseas through the acquisition of colonial possessions. Britain, the nation that ruled the seas, smiled on this, allowing Germany to quickly acquire a string of colonies – Kamerun (1884), Togoland (1884), German South-West Africa (1884), German New Guinea (1884), German East Africa (1885), Kiautschou (1898), and German Samoa (1900). But, dissatisfied with this, Kaiser Wilhelm decided to aim for nothing less than German naval supremacy, and ordered a massive expansion in the Kriegsmarine. This was an obvious existential threat to a naval power like Britain, and effectively pushed her into alliance with Germany’s less nautically aggressive neighbours, France and Russia, thus ensuring Germany’s ultimate defeat in WWII.

Just as Kaiser Wilhelm’s shrill, overwrought Germanism was the driving force behind the horrors of WWI, so Hitler’s unhinged revanchism was the factor leading to WWII.

Many 1488ers like to share the meme about the "Jewish declaration of war on Germany" in 1933. This is a story from the Daily Express newspaper reporting on a Jewish campaign to boycott Germany. Obviously that didn’t work out, as the German economy was doing better than ever several years later. The Jews were, of course, unable to declare an actual war on Germany as they didn’t have their own state, unless you want to count the Soviet Union, where many Jews remained in high positions, even under Stalin.

Slow news day.
Also, the Jews were in a poor position to persuade other "Goys" to fight Germany. In the wake of WWI, pacifism was strong, with powerful supporters across the West. It was only Hitler’s excessive exploitation of this anti-war feeling that finally rekindled the will of Europeans to resist further German expansion, and an all-out invasion of Poland in conjunction with the Soviet Union that forced the reluctant hand of the Western allies. In short, Hitler had plenty of options and was making great progress, when his "inner German" got the better of him and madness ensued.

But just as Kaiser Wilhelm and Hitler’s political incontinence caused problems that then collapsed in on Germany, so the political incontinence of Hitler’s successors created the aberration of post-war Germany, an entity that sought blitzkrieg by other means, namely through a combination of extreme moral signalling and insane over production with deleterious effects on society.

The moral signalling led to dangerous levels of ethnomasochism, feminism (aka "low birth rates"), tolerance for perversions, as well as a bloated Culturally Marxist "Green" party. The over production led to a stress-ridden, workaholic society, beset with constant currency overvaluation and devaluation of its own people. This resulted in an unbalanced, self-loathing society with the lowest birth rate in the world that is now in the process of replacing its own population with Third Worlders.

Green Party politician Claudia Roth,
the ancestor of the Morlocks.
If any people or ethnicity should ever be told to "dial it back a bit," it is clearly the Germans. Whatever they do, they end up overdoing it, lurching to extremes, and trying too hard. The result is that things get pushed out of their natural form to become lopsided and skewed. Hitler is merely one of many examples of German leaders who exemplify this tendency; Merkel merely the latest.

But what accounts for this remarkable tendency and how can it be stopped?

The first question is the most baffling. I am inclined to suspect it may even be a psychological tendency, inculcated in them by the ungodly grammar of their native tongue, which renders the use of syntax – a strong element of form in our language – largely unnecessary in theirs, or at least a lot less so than in English. Perhaps in this "one simple trick" lies the difference between the equilibrium of the Anglo mind and the characteristic lopsidedness and tendency towards extremism of the German. Someone more gifted in that atrocious language than me will have to study the matter in greater depth.

As to the solution, perhaps what is needed is something akin to the unjustly infamous Morgenthau Plan, namely the splitting up of Germany into smaller political units so that its unbalanced drives, both in peace or war, can be weakened and dissipated, as they were for a thousand years before the rise of Prussia, Hitler, and Angela Merkel by the mosaic of the Holy Roman Empire – the best "form" for the German people!



  1. I went to an American public school in the 1950s and 1960s - a very good one, BTW - and I never could grasp the Holy Roman Empire. For almost a millennium, it was "there", but never quite in focus. I've taught my kids to mentally substitute the term "Germany" for "HRE" every time they hear the latter term in school, but sadly, their history lessons begin in 1963 so they never hear it anyway.

  2. But seriously though....imagine how much better off we would all be f the good guys had won World War II? (((Perfidious Albion))) would have been cleansed of its 500 year-old degenerative disease.

  3. What happened to Disqus?

    Also, this is an old article, isn't it?

    I'll say something like what I said a year ago in a comment: the Brits overdo things when it comes to "muh economic liberty." The Anglo-imperial system ultimately backfired horribly on the British people, as well as on their cousins on the continent. The British have a tendency to assume that ethnic integrity happens "automatically" rather than as something that has to be consciously struggled for -- no doubt this is a consequence of Britain being an island.

    German history by contrast is nothing but struggle: against Romans, Franks, Slavs, and the condition of encirclement during the 19th century. But the French weren't so different, nor were the Austrians: these were all land powers with very strong militaristic traditions. It's the destruction of those traditions which explains the deformed, self-annihilating cultures we see on the continent today.

  4. "But the truth is that Britain had no wish to crush Germany."

    "In the same way that Britain gradually acceded to the rise of America in the 20th century, it would have been willing to countenance the gradual rise of Germany in the early 20th century, as long as the Germans had acted with tact, consideration, and proportionality."

    Oh, jolly good! We'll be happy to allow you to rule the world. Circle of Life and that sort of thing. Just be superficially polite and make sure your actions are all cricket!

    Whether or not the British "people" or the British "Aristocracy" was opposed to Germany is irrelevant. Who owned the Bank of England? Follow the money, follow the power. When the goal is a worldwide financial hegemony, you cannot allow another non-controlled financial entity to exist. They must be controlled.

  5. I don't agree the war reparations imposed by Clemenceau were that benign or "normal". Surely the economic collapse of Germany in the 1920s, pre-dating the 30s crisis which followed it and collapsed Germany further, is a sign something was amiss... Furthermore, I am convinced Clemenceau was an evil bastard, ruining as he did the last chance of the Austro-Hungarian empire to remain as a factor of stability in Europe, even if in a greatly reduced form. The Versaille treaty clauses were not closely enforced because they were so obviously disastrous to everyone, something that has to be laid at the feet of the French, who can only be said to have richly deserved their subsequent military humiliation, itself a symptom of their pioneering materialistic anti-religious moral decay (the one thing on which they were ahead of everyone)... French moral relativism/decay of the 1920-30s -Les annees folles"- went on to contaminate, after the delay of WWII, the entire Western World in the late 50s and 60s, the tip of the decay spear being French theories widely taught throughout the West's universities... Probably not the only factor of decay, but certainly a major one.

  6. Claudia Roth and the Greens: Morlocks or Eloi? Unless I'm missing something, Eloi is the correct moniker. The entire West has turned Eloi, IMHO.

  7. Most white Europeans are in the same boat, it is not just Germany. Hungary, Sweden, etc. face the same demographic cliff- do these countries suffer from the same "bad form" ? ... The article places blame for both world wars and the current immigration mess squarely upon Germany, the tone ends up being overtly anti-German, when we all know enemy alien forces have manipulated too many minds and has constructed events and outcomes.

  8. I don't see the argument for Germans' "overdoing things" prior to the 1930s.

    Blame for WW1 seems to be evenly distributed among all the parties: Germans, Austrians, British, French, Russians and Serbs. The British were probably the major party in a position to keep the peace. Had Britain sided with Germany and Austria, Russian would have kept out of the Balkans, and hey presto no war.

    Germany trying to build up a navy to protect its overseas colonies is not a credible example of "overdoing things." If Britain wanted Germany with no navy, they might have tried to help Germany gain an inland empire in Eastern Europe, rather than put the Germans in Africa and the Pacific.

    Frederick II of Prussia, the "King of the German Enlightenment," is pictured above. Why?

    1. Read Carlyle's history of Frederick "the Great," all 10 volumes, to find out.

    2. if you're such a fan then i'm you're eager to give me the gist.

  9. One thing the Alt-Right doesn't have currently is someone with the oratory gifts of Hitler. We have some good speakers, but no one at that level. Bowden was probably the last great speaker. Rockwell had the gift but isn't taken very seriously outside of neo-Nazi circles. This orator is out there, he just doesn't know it yet. PerHaps he's reading this rigHt now? Fear is what holds us all back.

    1. I've always thought Richard Spencer made a dapper Hitler.

  10. Your reference to the morgenthau plan (lower case intentional) as "unjustly infamous" , and the German language as "atrocious", is disgusting. You have insulted the greatest nation on earth. Clearly you have an inferiority complex.

    1. "Clearly you have an inferiority complex."
      Isn't that precisely what Jews say when they fail to receive the homage they consider their due? Do they not, also, consider themselves " the greatest nation on earth"?

  11. Reply from Anonymous 16:39

    I think you are correct MaryC, it certainly wouldn't surprise me!

    But the difference, in this instance, is that I am responding to an insult and an expression of ill-will directed at the German people, rather than demanding and expecting homage for them.

    All the best to you.

  12. Simon in London24 April 2017 at 13:55

    The Germans have an excess of the Faustian spirit. We Anglos are too legalistic. The Great men like Bismarck can temper us towards the Golden Mean.

  13. Answer me this! What about Stalin's victims? Is it fair that Hitler's are so remembered, yet Stalin's are so forgotten? Indeed, if it were so wrong and evil for Adolf Hitler and his Nazis to exterminate off all the millions they did; why, pray tell, was it not wrong and evil for Joseph Stalin and his Commies to exterminate off all the millions they did? I never understood!

  14. It would be real shame if there were any bitterness, between the Russians and the Germans, over what had occurred during The Second World War. After all, both Nations are thoroughly hated by the Americans. Indeed, Germany and Russia are about the only two countries, besides, of course, Japan itself that Americans feel true enmity towards.
    Moreover, despite what the vile Televangelists claim, America was not founded as a Christian Nation. In truth, America is neither Christian nor even a Nation at all. It is not a National State in any meaningful sense of the term. No, America was founded on Freemasonry, on the entire religious conception of Deism. Indeed, from Deism we get The Separation of Church and State, and from the Separation of Church and State, we get the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
    Indeed, it is precisely those two Nations, over in Europe, that Americans hate above all others, that actually were founded as Christian Nations: yes, the Russians and Germans. And that is precisely why the Russians and the Germans have been more than a bit anti-Jewish.

  15. Is that satire?

    If not, what is the reason for such a hate piece (I mean example of British evenhandedness in action)?

    Liddell having a hangover from too much German beer the other day? Or his VW Golf II finally broke down? Or he failed his belated A-term test in our "atrocious" language? Remember, it is not our fault that English is a mongrel language and the womb of Newspeak, or that Brits are not skilled in learning foreign languages. Or he had a glance at soccer championship statistics recently?

    But personally, I guess Liddell is still butthurt people prefer Anglin's over-the-top Hitler pics web tabloid over his balanced scribbling, and after really, really hard head-scratching has finally found the root problem of the alt-right. After all, if no Germans, then no Hitler. If no Hitler, then no Anglin.

    BTW, what benefits did the vaunted British "even handed and stable" approach towards things during the last 100 years yield the Brits? At least our capital is not (for the time being) governed by a "religion of peace" mayor.



by Hewitt E. Moore @hewittemoore Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a potential 2020 presidential candidate, addressed her claims o...