Warrior-Hero of the West: Erich Hartmann, the Blond Knight of Germany

Erich Hartmann was not a figure of world-historical importance, striding across the earth like a colossus. He was not a statesman or conqueror, nor a paradigm-destroying scientist, nor a virtuoso writer moving the masses. He was a simple airman of the Second World War. Yet, the way he performed his duty, with courage and honor—and deadly efficiency—made him the highest scoring ace in history and one of the genuine heroes of Western history. Erich Hartmann is a splendid example of the qualities peculiar to Western Faustian man, such as an acute sense of individuality, iron willpower, and utmost daring. For a few moments let us leave this modern world with its depressing role models, and look back in time to feast our hearts on the story of a great man, full of character and intelligence, a man whose greatest triumph ironically came after the fighting had ended.

Early Life

Hartmann was born April 19, 1922, in Wűrttemberg, Germany, in the heart of Swabia, a region renowned for its hardheaded, frugal, inventive, and proud people, whose number also includes Hegel and Erwin Rommel. Erich’s father Alfred was a doctor with a broad outlook on life, and his mother Elisabeth was capable, adventurous and beautiful. She apparently gave Erich his very blonde hair—and a daring spirit.

Young Erich was an excellent and fearless athlete. He commented humorously much later that his father thought he was “a kind of dare-devil, or an idiot” (Heaton and Lewis 9). His father wanted his boys to become doctors, and Erich assumed he would eventually follow that line, but really he just wanted to fly. From an early age he dreamed of emulating the aces of the Great War. His mother also wanted to fly, so she earned a pilot’s license and took her two sons flying with her. Later the family started a glider club and Erich was in his element: the air.

Erich went through school without enthusiasm, but passed his courses without difficulty. When he was seventeen he spied the future love of his life: Ursula Paetsch. He pursued her single-mindedly, going so far as to pummel a rival, and won her over with his customary directness, sparking a lifelong love affair.

Erich was blessed with an admirable character. (Actually, since people build their characters from the choices of their free wills, Hartmann was responsible for his own character, which is more virtuous. Temperament or natural disposition is what people get naturally; character is formed.) His biographer Raymond Toliver describes Erich as highly intelligent, with a will “almost fierce in its drive to prevail and conquer” and says he was “an incorrigible individualist in an age of mass . . . conformity.” Hartmann, he continues, had a blunt style of honesty that often mounted to a “devastating” lack of tact. Finally, Hartmann possessed “consummate coolness under stress” (Toliver and Constable 5, 12). All this corresponds very well with the characteristics possessed by Western Faustian man as described by, among others, Ricardo Duchesne.

Service in the War

When Hartmann was seventeen, war broke out. He graduated in the spring of 1940, and realizing that military service was inevitable, joined the Luftwaffe. That fall he began a prolonged and detailed training course. His superiors quickly tabbed him as fighter pilot material.

By October 1942, at the height of the German offensive against Stalingrad, he was posted to the Russian Front to join Jagdeschwader 52 (that’s “fighter wing 52” or JG-52) in the Caucasus. The first day, as his commander was speaking with him, an Me-109 came in for a crash landing, trailing smoke. It landed, flipped over, and exploded. Someone cried, “It’s Krupi!” meaning Walter Krupinski, a famous ace and insouciant playboy. He was certainly dead—but he strode out of the wreckage, grinning and complaining about flak. He demanded another plane, went back up, scored a victory, and was shot down again. He returned to base by car, went back up and scored two more victories. Then he desired dinner. This was life in the Luftwaffe: much different from the ground war, far more “clubby” and informal, and kept loose with alcohol.

His commanders marveled at Hartmann’s youthful looks and nicknamed him “Bubi,” German for “young boy.” Erich’s commanders introduced him to combat very gradually. He had to apprentice as a more experienced pilot’s wingman. In his first mission, intent on his first kill, he separated from his leader—a massive breach of discipline—missed and almost collided with his target, and quickly became surrounded by enemy planes. He escaped but eventually had to crash-land. He had broken virtually every rule of aerial combat, and was sentenced to work three days with the ground crew. Humiliated, he had time to ponder his mistakes.

Eventually he scored a few victories, and developed the tactics that led him to 352 kills. His methods built upon a great foundation: he had superb eyesight, was an excellent pilot, and had uncanny shooting ability. Erich served as wingman for Krupinski, who taught him to open fire from very close range (the same tactic used by the Red Baron—Manfred von Richthofen—in the First World War). Erich also resolved to avoid dogfighting, which meant he would eschew the characteristic swirling, chaotic melee that many pilots delighted in. Hartmann decided to carry out only surprise attacks, sizing up the enemy formation from on high, hitting the target fast if the prospects were propitious, and getting away. He estimated that eighty percent of his victims never knew he was there. He would rarely get into engagements that he couldn’t control from the beginning. His coolness “soon became a legend among all who flew with him” (Toliver and Constable 85). This intelligent Swabian carried Germanic efficiency to a lethal peak.

In May 1943 he got his seventeenth kill. He also got a month leave at home. The atmosphere at home disturbed him, with the general civilian unease about the Allied bombing campaign and worry over the outcome of the war. Erich’s father had always been very skeptical about the National Socialist regime, and was totally pessimistic about the war. Erich did enjoy a ray of light, however: he and Ursula got engaged to marry.

He was back at the front in time for the Battle of Kursk, in July. He now commanded a squadron. The skies were full of Russian planes. The Soviets daily threw hundreds of ground-attack aircraft at the German army in each sector, escorted by fighters. JG-52, stocked with famous German aces (their top six men had 1580 aerial kills), had to interdict these waves. They flew four or five missions a day. Erich’s totals began to mount; on July 5 he scored four victories, and two days later, seven. In the first twenty days of August 1943 he shot down forty-nine planes! (That alone was more than the total of the top American ace.)

It is true that Hartmann’s extraordinarily high number of kills was due in part to Russian ineptitude. He once fired a few bursts at four heavily armored Russian ground-attack planes flying in formation; they responded by uniformly executing a rolling evasive maneuver—too low; they couldn’t recover and hit the ground, exploding on impact. Four easy victories. (Later in the war the Russians did show improvement.) This should not much diminish the credit due Hartmann, because he persevered for long tough months of combat and the incredible strain that entailed.

On August 20, 1943, he had a narrow escape. He and seven other Germans engaged eighty Russian aircraft. Hartmann shot down two planes but was hit by flak (he was never shot down by a Russian pilot, or even wounded). His engine overheated and died. He had to land—fifteen miles inside the Russian lines. Once on the ground, he saw a German truck approach. He looked again and saw it filled with Russians. He immediately pretended to be badly wounded, moaning and sobbing and clutching his midsection. He succeeded in tricking the Russians. They gingerly took him to their headquarters, where Erich also fooled a Russian doctor. In consequence, the Russians never handcuffed or bound him, the usual fate of German pilots. However, he knew he had to make his break when he was loaded into the back of a truck and transported eastward. Luckily, there was only one guard in the back with him, and Erich took his chance when the Russian wasn’t looking. He jumped up, slammed his shoulder into him with all the force of his wiry 145 pounds, and jumped out the back of the truck. He sprinted through a field of sunflowers, dodging bullets. It took him a couple days, but he made it back to the German lines successfully. His quick thinking and courage saved his life.

By the end of October, 1943, he had 148 victories. He was awarded the Knight’s Cross. He was becoming famous; the Russians dubbed him the “Black Devil of the South” and placed a bounty on his head. German propaganda also began featuring him as a war hero.

The Black Devil

By March, 1944, he scored his 200th victory and was awarded the Oak Leaves to the Knight’s Cross. Hitler personally handed out this level of award. Erich travelled to Berchtesgaden with several comrades, including Gerd Barkhorn, the all-time second-highest scoring ace with 301, and Krupinski. Problem was, they all got drunk on the train thanks to an indulgent conductor and had to sober up—not entirely successfully—before meeting the Fűhrer. While waiting, Hartmann grabbed Hitler’s military cap hanging on a stand and clowned around with it, and mimicked Hitler giving a speech. His comrades were “laughing like hell” (Heaton and Lewis 39).

Hartmann then had two weeks at home with his parents and Ursula.

By this time, the Germans were retreating rapidly on the Russian front. JG-52 was stripped of some good pilots to defend Germany from the murderous Allied bombing attacks. Hartmann’s unit moved to Romania to defend the crucial oil fields. Here they had to face American bombing runs coming from Italy, and the formidable and numerous P-52 fighters. Hartmann performed well, shooting down eight of them, but in general the German Me-109s did not fare well against the American planes.

In July, 1944, Erich recorded his 250th kill, and met Hitler again to receive the Swords to the Knight’s Cross. Hitler had just survived Stauffenberg’s assassination attempt, and Hartmann was shocked at his appearance. Hitler did not impress Hartmann, who was not prone to hero-worship. He did not hesitate to disagree with Hitler’s assessment of the war on the Russian Front, but Hitler reacted indulgently. He also complained that his generals were not giving him the type of real information that Hartmann was.

On August 23, 1944, Hartmann destroyed eight enemy planes. His total stood at 290. The next day he shot down eleven planes, and became first man to break 300. German propaganda covered the great event, and his unit threw him a party. He thereby won the highest German decoration, the Knight’s Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds. (Later Hitler created a higher order, the Knight’s Cross with Golden Oak Leaves (the only one so awarded) especially for the legendary Hans-Ulrich Rudel, a ground-attack pilot who had destroyed 519 tanks). Only twenty-seven men won the coveted Diamonds. Hartmann flew out to East Prussia to meet Hitler. Security was tight in the aftermath of the assassination attempt, and Hartmann was expected to hand over his side arm before going in; he refused with his usual bluntness, “Please tell the Fuhrer that I do not want to receive the Diamonds if he has no faith in his front-line officers,” and was quietly permitted an exception (Toliver and Constable 143).

Knight’s Cross

Hartmann went on leave afterward, and decided to marry Ursula. Their hometown held a big ceremony. On the honeymoon Ursula and Erich conceived a child. Then Erich went back to the front. He continued to fly to the end of the war despite the rule that Diamonds winners were usually taken out of front line duty. He accounted for fifty more planes destroyed by the end of the war in May, 1945.

By then, Hartmann had flown over 1400 combat missions, engaged in combat 825 times, and destroyed 352 planes. He scored all but one of them before his twenty-third birthday.

Hartmann was one of the most dangerous enemies of Communist power there ever was, even though his actions were not based on ideology. He simply did his duty, mowing down squadron after squadron of Communist stooges, helping to blunt the Communist advance toward the heart of Europe. His work, together with the epic resistance of the German ground forces, helped to preserve the core of Western Europe from Communist takeover. The outcome of the war could have been far worse but for their efforts.

End of Part 1

64 replies
  1. Karen T
    Karen T says:

    Mr. Nemmersdorf, no offence to you or to Erich Hartmann, but this boyish braggadocio of shooting down planes, of making 250 ‘kills’ by 1944, all boils down to White men murdering White men for masters who held them in contempt. He killed hundreds of Englishmen and Communist “stooges” but your earmarking them as stooges is an admittance of their having been played. So much nobler and better for all concerned if they had killed the players not the played. Millions of White boys murdered in their prime and for what? That elusive and quickly fading freedom? The end of Communism as China insidiously creeps into Australia and Canada? For saving the West while every Western nation is being invaded by envious uncultured malcontents usurping us of our homelands?

    • Rob Bottom
      Rob Bottom says:

      Karen, with all due respect, as a woman perhaps you are unable to understand the importance of celebrating the kind of man he represents. It does not matter who his enemy was, or why he was at war. What matters is how he lived his life under the circumstances. Besides, German soldiers of that era are too often branded as evil and beyond reproach, so articles like this are important to counterbalance the prevailing narrative.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      Karen T,

      Adolf Hitler did not hold his soldiers ‘in contempt.’ Yes, Churchill did, Stalin did, Roosevelt didn’t care one way or the other, but Hitler loved his troops and most loved him back.

      It’s necessary to ask WHY were ‘millions of White boys murdered in their prime?’ It was because Roosevelt and Churchill wanted to destroy Germany’s strength so much they were willing to sacrifice their “own boys” to do it. Was Germany wrong to resist being destroyed? Of course not. Did Roosie and Churchie have to come to the aid of Stalin? No, of course not. They had to know perfectly well that they were in no danger from Hitler, but they propagandized otherwise. So let’s remember who the murderers were and why the world is not any better today. It’s because the wrong people won—and they are OUR people! And they’re still ruling over us.

      Instead of putting down Hartmann’s “boyish braggadocio of shooting down planes”, you should consider what you would have been doing if you were a young adult at that time. It’s too easy to criticize from a distance. Would you have been supporting the (Canadians?) joining the war effort and killing Nazis?

      We just can’t get this period straight, we are totally messed up about it. Hugely hypocritical in reality.

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        Unfortuntley, you seem to have forgotten that the Japanese dragged the US into WWII and Hitler declared war on the US much to his government’s consternation.
        It would seem that we are not the only ones totally messed up about WWII.

        • Graham Jones
          Graham Jones says:

          The US was attacking German U-boats long before NS Germany declared war on the USA.

          • Charles Frey
            Charles Frey says:

            Before even attacking the U-boats, the USArmy Air Corps was surveilling them and passing on their positions to RN sub-hunters and RAF bombers, even guiding them to their locations.

            The USArmy Air Corps also flew interference for the vital Halifax, Nova Scotia-GB convoys. Helpful. Nevertheless acts of war.

          • Peter
            Peter says:

            That point can’t be emphasized enough. I think they call that a lie by omission. And as Andrew and perhaps billions of people still believe the big lie today, the lie that Germany attacked the USA. In 1941 (before Germany declared war on the US) FDR announced the US would attack German U boats on sight. Despite this, U boats were to avoid confrontation with US Navy ships. So, the US started the war with Germany. And in early 1941 the US began giving armaments, free of charge, to Germany’s enemies.

            And in October 1941 FDR spoke one of the biggest lies any American politician has ever said in a broadcast. That the US had obtained a map that the Germans had created of how they would take over South America, and then presumably march on to Washington D.C. And to this day, morons watch this and believe it, as if taking over an entire continent can be done, perhaps in a day. The British announced in 1970 they created the phony map. And the Jews have the nerve to call Goebbels a liar.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak61DaD32Ww

          • Charles Frey
            Charles Frey says:

            @ Peter. The WW I Zimmerman Telegram accomplished its propagandistic goal, inciting Mexico against the US; why not that deliciously hilarious fabrication by Stevenson, The Man called Intrepid. Churchill’s Canadian chum.

            Hitler could not even invade the British Isles, for lack of shipping and landing crafts, yet he was going to conquer Latin America. That map showed alleged future German commercial air-routes into Latin America, so that it at least differentiated itself from school atlases with that somehow significant addition, evidencing intent.

            Only in a country where a member of a purportedly sophisticated audience asked the British lecturer whether he took a train there from London.

          • James Hallman
            James Hallman says:

            So true. Hitlers actuall declaration of war lays out numerous violations of the U.S. neutrality, not including their aid to Great Britain and the Soviet Union.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          Sorry Andrew, the Japanese certainly did not drag the US into WWII. You have it more wrong than I would have even expected. Did you forget the part where Roosevelt worked so hard to engineer events to cause a Japanese attack on the US … so he could get American into the war one way or the other. He had been promising Churchill for a long time.

          Roosevelt had tried his best to provoke German attacks on ships, etc, but failed. Hitler was determined not to let that happen. But after the US Congress approved of war against Japan, and because, as Graham Jones said, was already attacking German U-boats AND aiding Britain and the Soviet Union with arms and necessary industrial goods … Hitler decided he needed to start attacking back.

          Read Hitler’s famous speech to the Reichstag on Dec. 11, 1941 in which he explains it. http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/8/4/Hitler389-416.html

          • Andrew
            Andrew says:

            Carolyn,
            I forgot no such thing. You have a glaring gap in your assertion which is first a number of divisions of the Japanese attacked the Soviet Union in Manchuria and was soundly defeated. The Japanese then agreed to a non-agression pact with the Soviets consequently, they then increased their military presence in China which led to increasing conflict with the US. At this point the rest as they say is history.
            I would suggest you read Admiral Dorner’s take on things regarding Uboat actions.

          • Andrew
            Andrew says:

            Carolyn,
            Personally, I do not worship Hitler as any type of hero. When he continued to issue no retreat orders on the Eastern Front which by any standard would accomplish nothing, I find that to be infantile. In anycase, I did read Hitler’s “famous” speech using the link that you have provided. I found it to be both depressing and tragic. Depressing because I know how WWII ended and tragic because millions of Europeans died. Disconnecting my hindsight I can see where Hitler is trying to be rational and logical while presenting his argument however, while he is addressing regional concerns Churchill, FDR, and Stalin are considering a much larger geopolitical map. For me, this makes Hitler look even smaller as a leader.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          Andrew, you should read more on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury, Morgenthau Jr., had a bum-boy by the name Henry Dexter White [ actually Weiss ] who drafted an American ultimatum to Tokyo, purposefully unacceptable to them in its overweening demands, in order to draw Japan’s attention from Manchuria/SU onto the US instead, in order to protect his beloved Jewish-Bolshevist state and have them attack US territory instead. Dual loyalty in a different shirt.

          Weiss was run by GRU HQ in Moscow. I believe their code-name for handling this versatile Jew was Operation Snow; as in snow-white-Weiss. Look it up ! Also the Architect of Bretton Woods, World Bank, etc.

          Decades ago I drew up a list of 38 incongruities in the bullshit official version. Then added one after Irving recounted a conversation with Churchill’s butler who called him away from an official dinner with J.P. Kennedy, only to be informed by Washington of the attack on Pearl Harbor, with the distinct impression by the butler, that Churchill fully
          ” expected the news “.

          • Andrew
            Andrew says:

            Charles,
            I’m not arguing that Churchill and FDR were against war nor that Pearl Harbor was not pushed along by government economic and military pressure. I am however, arguing against the idea that the US attacked Germany first. Read Admiral Dorner’s personal opinion about Uboats being attacked and how he considered Hitler’s behavior as counter productive to the German naval war effort in relation to the entrance of the US in wwII.

        • Peter
          Peter says:

          David Irving at his best. Funny and educational. The lead up to WW II. Who wanted it and who did what. Great speech.

          youtu.be/2CqcPA_-5Yo

      • Peter
        Peter says:

        Not just that. It is not certain there would not have been a war if Churchill did not push for it and Churchill pushed for it because as David Irving explains in detail (with primary sources to prove it), several Jews paid Churchill to start the war. This began in 1936 when The Focus Group was formed.

        Hitler made it clear that Jews were not wanted in Germany and most would not want to stay under the restrictions placed on them. Many other countries felt similarly. The Jews would have lost a lot of power and wealth and that is why they pushed for war in my opinion.

        Two things. England signed an agreement with Poland in early 1939, just as the serious discussions were going on between Poland and Germany over the stolen German territory Poland had and England said if Poland was attacked, England would come to their defense. A stupid thing to do, but the warmongers were pushing Chamberlain into this probably like the warmongers are pushing Trump today to attack countries like Syria. From the moment Poland received that guarantee from England, they told Hitler and Germany they would get no territory back and their wording towards the Germans was insulting. Maybe not surprising when you consider that between 1919 and 1939 the Poles proposed to France three times that they jointly invade Germany. France declined these proposals.

        Hitler continuously pushed for an agreement with Poland right up to the day Germany attacked and he continuously asked for England’s help in bringing the sides together. The British declined. And when Germany attacked the French and British then declared war on Germany, but when the USSR attacked Poland a few weeks after Germany did the French and British did not attack them. They made the Soviets their allies. So the British agreement with Poland was directed at Germany. They didn’t attack the USSR when the Soviets attacked Poland.

        Also, when Germany attacked the USSR in June 1941, many historians now believe the USSR was planning to attack Germany (and eventually the rest of western Europe) in a few days, but Hitler beat Stalin to it. German and Soviet historians both believe this. Of course, if a German-Polish war was prevented, it would have been unlikely there was a German-Soviet war also.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          A stupid thing to do, but the warmongers were pushing Chamberlain into this probably like the warmongers are pushing Trump today to attack countries like Syria.

          To his credit, Chamberlain at least signed the wrongly vilified and condemned Munich agreement (1938), which with an all-around better will (i.e., a non-Jewish will) might truly have been a major step toward peace in his time. Trump, sadly, shows no similar sign of resisting the current (((push))) to war and mass murder. Indeed, he exults in its eventuality.

          … when Germany attacked the French and British [they] declared war on Germany, but when the USSR attacked Poland a few weeks after Germany did the French and British did not attack them. They made the Soviets their allies. So the British agreement with Poland was directed at Germany.

          Just so. It’s worth noting that at the time, ever-less-Jewish Germany was becoming a major economic competitor to France and Britain in most areas, even, as time passed, in agricultural products—no thanks, certainly, to Versailles’s scorched-earth intent. The (((Soviet Union))), besides being a wholly owned Tribal enterprise, was, of course, no economic threat at all to goyishe malefactors of great wealth in Britain and France. Also, Poland was, if memory serves, the Continent’s biggest economic market for British exports in the late thirties. Losing Poland to German hegemony would have constituted a sizable hit to (((their))) bottom line.

          It’s interesting, too, that in the same period Czechoslovakia was well on the way to becoming a producing competitor to Britain and France (at least the Czech part of that jerry-built country was). This leads me to wonder whether someone better informed than I about pre-war Continental economies would know how deeply infiltrated by the Tribe Czech industry in the late thirties had become. Jewish motivation being pretty much an open book, the alligator tears shed over the “invasion” of Czechoslovakia suggest that no industrial or banking Jews had to delay purchase of a new suit in the year or so after the Munich conference.

      • Karen T
        Karen T says:

        Carolyn, I admire your scholastic and insightful inferences into National Socialism. You are an expert. However, that does not mean that others have not had access to the same books and documents, so please stop preaching to he choir.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          Thank you, I truly appreciate that but I think your comment to the author here was “preaching to the choir.”

          I am not doing that, but being critical of the content of your comment. When you throw all White participants in together as responsible for Whites killing Whites, I will object. Some are far more responsible than others. If you knew this, which I believe you did and do, why didn’t you say it?

          • Karen T
            Karen T says:

            Two glasses of wine and sorrow at seeing White boys killed interfered with my ability to express myself rationally.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Aha, Karen, you’re found out. Another one who drinks at night and then writes comments on forums – :-)) Thanks for coming clean. And though I might be suspected of drinking when I write some of my comments, I want it to be known that I do not drink at all, not even wine anymore. My use of the word “Another” does not apply to me but to some I have received replies from over the years.

            My hat’s off to you.

    • Graham Jones
      Graham Jones says:

      Operation Barbarossa was a pre-emptive strike. The NS Germans/Axis forces were defending Europe from the Gulag and the NKVD torture chamber.

    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      @Karen.

      Taking it a little farther, and not picking on any ethnic group or race in particular – I wonder if the pilots & bombing personnel dropping ordnance on fellow humans ever think for one moment of what they are really doing, or maybe just feeling good about themselves for doing their duty for Amurrika, Old Blighty, The Fatherland or the Motherland.

      Bombarding large numbers of people with explosives while you yourself are tucked away safely in your aircraft is not the same as former, ages-old ways of conducting wars. (I understand that what I’m saying here doesn’t apply to Hartmann and the other fellows, as they were just fighter pilots who did take some risk.)

      https://www.antiwar.com/who.php

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        All pilots were at risk, along with the crews. There is no such thing as being ‘tucked away safely in your aircraft’ while you’re conducting a bombing raid. Bombers were shot at by ground flak and by the enemy’s fighter aircraft; crew members could be hit by shrapnel inside the plane as well as injured or killed in forced landings, sometimes in enemy territory! Most of the Luftwaffe’s bombing on the Eastern Front was against enemy ground forces, in support of their troops, for which they had to fly low, well in range of ground flak as well as enemy fighters.

        Willi Kriessmann was a bomber pilot on the eastern front and he told some harrowing tales. It took a lot of guts for five men to go up in a plane in the deep Russian winter and fly hundreds of miles to drop their bomb load accurately over a heavily fortified location, being shot at the whole time they were there. They really did not know when they took off each time whether they would return. Willi considered himself very lucky to have survived because so many of his comrades did not.

        I am not a pacifist. It’s not conducting war that is the problem. It’s conducting war for the wrong reasons, such as for economic or political gain.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          ” … such as for economic or political gain “, or for all the reasons enumerated by Walt and Mearsheimer; returning to a Recruiting Station near you soon !

          [ ” They hate us because of our Liberty and Freedoms !!! “. ]

  2. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    Karl,

    In your last paragraph you write that Erich Hartmann’s “work, together with the epic resistance of the German ground forces, helped to preserve the core of Western Europe from Communist takeover.”

    You don’t seem to consider that they were only there, fighting as hard as they were, because of the decision and orders of Adolf Hitler to keep attacking and resisting until the fronts were able to grow closer together.

    There were no such difficult decisions for Erich Hartmann to make; he just went up in his plane each day along with all his comrades and buddies, hoping to make his kills. His focus was quite narrow compared to that of the man his “broad-minded” father did not like—his father being someone who would have welcomed the Russians into Germany even early on, I suppose. If Western Europe was saved, it was due to the tough grit of Adolf Hitler, despite the undeniable bravery of his soldiers.

    • Karl Nemmersdorf
      Karl Nemmersdorf says:

      Carolyn,

      Don’t get so emotional. You say I “don’t seem to consider…” The article is about Hartmann not Hitler’s grand strategy. I don’t write articles to validate your pet whims, especially commonplace ones (Did Hitler want the Fronts to grow closer?) Next, you make a giant assumption about Hartmann’s father, slandering him mean-spiritedly in the process. Finally, Hitler didn’t save Europe “despite” the bravery of his soldiers, but because of it.

      Take a break from the shrine of Adolf, Carolyn. Read some poetry. Take a walk. It’ll do you good.

      • Alieu
        Alieu says:

        There’s a small mistake in the article. It should say P-51 instead of P-52. Also I think we have to be honest that Germany started the war with the Soviets by invading them, and many of the “communist stooges” were probably just Russian young men who felt they were defending their homeland against a foreign invasion, regardless of political ideology. I liked the article overall though and have always admired the achievements of Hartman and Hans-Joachim Marseille, despite the tragic circumstances surrounding them. Maybe you could write your next article about him?

        • Karl Nemmersdorf
          Karl Nemmersdorf says:

          You’re correct: it is P-51. Certainly, many Russian men felt they were defending their homeland. However, there were also many who hated and feared their government with an intensity that is hard to imagine, and who fought only because the NKVD literally had them at gunpoint. Finally, I will eventually write an article about Hans-Ulrich Rudel. For an idea of his accomplishments, see (http://www.badassoftheweek.com/rudel.html)

          • Charles Frey
            Charles Frey says:

            Karl, missing from among your categories of the unwilling are the just under 1 million who largely defected and fought for the Germans, including tens of thousands of Cossacks, and those gleaned from the POW camps. Including their commander, Lt. General Helmuth von Pannwitz, a neighbor of your own ancestors, and mine, who was shot in Moscow, though he was not obliged to follow his men there, pursuant to those traitorous/English Yalta Agreement codicils.

            The sense of honor has certainly undergone deleterious changes.

        • ex South African
          ex South African says:

          The Germans did not start the war with the Soviet Union. It was a preemptive strike, just like we in South Africa made preemptive strikes into Angola. Because the enemy was busy with a massive build up of arms for a preparation to invade Europe to bring them the communist blessing.

          Details on it on the VHO and other revisionist website. Or contact David Irving, one e-mail away. Two years before the highly decorated pilot Hans-Ulrich Rudel died, I met him as a young man in Johannesburg (there was a regular exchange between old comrades all over the world). He told me the same story of the huge Soviet build-up of arms on Germany’s borders back then, as he flew over that area during reconnaissance flights.

          The Russians were defending their homeland against a foreign invasion, because this was how Stalin motivated them. He would have had trouble motivating them on the basis of communism alone. In practise this was done by gun-toting Soviet commissars/politruks, often of a certain nationality, who machine gunned the ordinary Russian en masse like cattle from behind into the ranks of the amazed German soldiers. These commissars after the war then turned the tables and spread the story about atrocities being committed against this nationality on a grand scale by the German soldier on the Eastern Front. This was a very effective propaganda, because it still works today, seventy years later after these events.

          It is very easy for the elites to sell propaganda by withholding facts and by deceit to even the white masses, if they can manage to sideline the smart fraction of a nation. Take away the smart fraction, and you are left with what? The less smart fraction. Less smart does not necessarily mean being of low intelligence. It means someone with a smaller associative horizon. Someone who in his career would most probably tend to become a specialist, rather than a generalist.

          Smart fraction:

          http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/imm.htm

          • T
            T says:

            The Russians were defending their homeland against a foreign invasion, because this was how Stalin motivated them. He would have had trouble motivating them on the basis of communism alone.

            Indeed, for Soviet Communism the Russian soldiers were only prepared to surrender quite literally by the million. Once it was presented by the Communist Party (quite cynically on their part it has to be said) as a battle for the Russian motherland, the fighting performance of the Russian soldier markedly improved, something even Orwell commented upon.

            It is very easy for the elites to sell propaganda by withholding facts and by deceit to even the white masses, if they can manage to sideline the smart fraction of a nation.

            All too true.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Dear Karl,

        May I say, with no disrespect to you intended, that hoping that Ms. Yeager won’t “get so emotional” or will “take a break from the shrine of Adolf” is as much an exercise in futility as hoping that the scorpion in the admittedly heavyhanded scorpion-and-frog allegory will do otherwise than kill its froggy companion.

        It is difficult not to conclude that, perhaps because of weakness of character, she is a true believer, not in God, but in the Führerprinzip. That is to say, she seems to require a leader to devote herself to entirely. What’s more, on the basis of her many comments—which in their course invariably increase in hostility toward whoever is her target of the moment—that the leader she has chosen for uncritical devotion is Hitler has come to seem almost a marginal curiosity. Heaven help us, I used to hear people talk about Bill Buckley in strikingly similar worshipful accents and with quite as much cherry-picking of words and deeds!*

        In practical, interactive terms, however, the most troubling thing about Ms. Yeager’s Führerprinzip affliction is that what she writes seems to take for granted that everyone else, her antagonists a fortiori, are likewise morally hobbled, except that the leader they follow is Roosevelt or Churchill or Stalin or Obama or Trump. Put otherwise, she appears to have decisively shut her ears to any appeal to reason that treats the Führerprinzip with the scorn it merits per se.

        Finally, Karl, for speaking out in defense of your own words and of the intention underlying them, I applaud you for acting not just understandably but with genuine propriety. As Karen’s comment above shows, a reader may disagree strongly with a minor or even major aspect of your article without adopting the ill-fitting cap of the historical and psychological omnicompetent whose primary weapon turns out to be a sneer of Herculean proportions.
        ________________
        *In this regard, as I must have written a dozen times before, how very much I long for the return of Michael Colhaze, whose archived articles, full of experiential wisdom and profound reflection, remain true ornaments of this site.

        • Karl Nemmersdorf
          Karl Nemmersdorf says:

          Thank you, Pierre. Happy to see you appearing here again. I was going to include a rude put-down of Miss(?) Yeager, but thought better of it. Thank goodness. Your example helps keep me on a higher plane. In addition, there are aspects of Hitler’s career that I hold in esteem, but his shortcomings and flaws are just as monumental as his accomplishments. When I returned to the Church, and matured as a man and a Christian, I realized this.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Karl,
            Instead of writing a safe article on Hans-Ulrich Rudel, in which you can’t possible say anything new because so much has been written already—even his own books about himself, and even I have written a quite good, though brief essay on his life (http://carolynyeager.net/hans-ulrich-rudel-man-who-might-have-been-next-german-f%C3%BChrer) which is included in my book (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1937787486). Also in my book, co-authored with Dr. Kriessmann, Rudel’s special relationship with Adolf Hitler was revealed to English-language readers for the first time that I know of.

            So I suggest you write about something far more personal and challenging—that is, how your return to the Church matured you and helps you to see Hitler in a more balanced way. This would be very interesting and shed light on the relationship between Hitler and the Church and church people in Germany. Some of us would like to know just how you see his monumental ‘shortcomings and flaws’ so we can put them into historical perspective. What was immoral in Hitler’s leadership that overrode the good he did?

            Now, if you can condense your answer into a comment that is satisfactory to you, please do so.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          Pierre,

          Congratulations. You managed to write all those words without saying anything of substance, except maybe that you think the Führerprinzip merits only scorn. Not being German, it’s not surprising that you are unable to appreciate such a product of the German mentality and personality.

          I could say to you in return that I find the bulk of your comments to be overly cerebral and therefore not interesting because of the lack of any passion behind them. You attempt to be clever, that’s about it. I know you are a favorite of the moderator, and even of Kevin MacDonald himself, and of some long-timers here, but you will not chase me away. I find the subjects that come up to be a good platform for discussion of ideas that are important to me.

          I did respond to Karl’s reply to me last night, but it looks like it got lost in cyberspace. When I hit the “Post” button, I got a Service Unavailable page and could not return to the Comments. That did happen two other times yet my comment did eventually appear—but not that one. I hadn’t made a copy and it needed to be said just right, so I just let it go.

          I did get the impression from his article that Karl is a religious man, and I get that impression from you too, Pierre. It was exactly the religious Germans who developed a problem with Adolf Hitler as Leader of Germany. It was always about religious issues at bottom—moral issues. What I see wrong there is that the Churches and the pious Germans never had as much of a problem with suffering Germans as they did with **suffering caused by Germans.** Were they so concerned with saving the souls of Germans that they thought their bodies, earthly sojourn and homeland were expendable? I admit, that makes me feel a little hostile.

          But Pierre, when you attribute to me a “sneer of Herculean proportions” I have to question your own emotionalism and hostility, and whether it was your complaints to the Mod that made him accuse me of using objectionable “sneer quotes.” I know you feel a sense of propriety for this place because I have been reading this site for a long time and I’ve seen it. But you don’t want it to die for lack of fresh life, do you?

          Regards

          • Barkingmad
            Barkingmad says:

            @ Carolyn.

            I did respond to Karl’s reply to me last night, but it looks like it got lost in cyberspace. When I hit the “Post” button, I got a Service Unavailable page and could not return to the Comments. That did happen two other times yet my comment did eventually appear—but not that one. I hadn’t made a copy and it needed to be said just right, so I just let it go.

            If you lose your comment one way or another, just retry, then “Recover Text” shows up with the beginnings of anything you have ever posted (or attempted). (I think they call this Lazarus – you know, raised from the dead.) Works for me, anyway. You have to go to Microsoft; my boy did this as I don’t know how to set it up myself.

            It is a shame to work on a long comment then lose it.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Poor dear Ms. Yeager, if you think that everyone’s against you now, just wait and see what befalls you when I persuade my pal Abe Foxman to forgo his Dove bar diet for a few hours and get on your case!

            As for your capacity for sneering, I can only marvel at the Moderator’s forbearance in not giving you what-for for the astonishingly insulting suggestion that he dances to my tune. (If only … !)

            Of course, none of this is to say that I am not deeply grateful for the generous words and sentiments I have lately been the beneficiary of. Nor am I such a fool or ingrate as to think that this generosity says more about me than it does about those who have extended it—that is to say, it doesn’t.

            Like Karl Nemmersdorf, I do not consider Hitler uniquely evil or, for that matter, inherently evil at all—and, yes, Hitler undoubtedly had admirable qualities and authentic virtues. Indeed, it’s surely an uncontroversial opinion hereabouts that Hitler had many more of the latter than such men as Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Curtis LeMay, and everyone in a position of power in the Third Republic with only the possible exception of Pétain. But to cite just a single issue, a man who was constructing a new society on the foundation of indoctrinated, brainwashed, semi-militarized children is not a fit object for long-term political support, let alone uncritical worship. Need I even add, look at what the selfsame policy has done to the United States?

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            “Poor dear Ms. Yeager” — not so long ago it was David Ashton who, when he got into trouble, replied to me as “Poor Caroline Yeager.” Karl N. says, ‘Don’t be emotional, take a walk.’ You guys when you are caught up short all do the same thing — turn into male chauvinists.

            Be that as it may, I certainly don’t think everyone’s against me here, and did not say so. The Moderator was very fair to remove an offensive comment about me by David Ashton when I complained about it. It has to be pretty offensive before I will complain because I have developed a tough Internet skin over the years.

            I don’t mean to insist that Hitler was perfect just because I might object to your particular criticisms of him. I certainly disagree that the German folk in the Third Reich were “indoctrinated, brainwashed, semi-militarized children,” as you put it (if that was your meaning). They are certainly indoctrinated (trained) today! What I can say is that if you prefer to present yourself as an **independently thinking, non-aligned individual** who bears no allegiance to anything other than Ideas and Individual thinkers you admire — in other words, something like a Libertarian, you are welcome to it. I have never heard you say what path you think the Germans should have taken. I think they had tried just about everything by then, and so tried Hitler’s way and seemed to flourish under it. The war was intended to put an end to that.

          • Charles Frey
            Charles Frey says:

            @ Pierre.
            Love your assumption, that Abe uses Dove. But hasn’t he been succeeded by Greenblatt ?

            Guess I’ll have to wait for my first reply to my below comment, until some future author here reviews Spielberg’ s opus on the meth-dependent Reich; already brewing in the Jewish media.

            [ By your writing, I can see, that their plan to give you a lobotomy, after anesthesia, instead of open heart, was thwarted by someone’s inefficiency. Your radio-silence had all of us concerned, until Trenchant informed us ].

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Dear Charles,

            Thank you kindly. The lobotomy may not have “taken,” but I’d still gladly have forgone the entire experience at the hands of Organized Tribal Corporate Crime, Medical Subset.

            One thing remains unchanged, however: I still learn something new and valuable from every comment you post. It’s hardly your fault, of course, that few of the things you teach me are also edifying or uplifting. Indeed, that puts you in the same boat with KM—not a bad boat to be in!

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        Karl, though discord here is not in short supply, let me add my own: its resolution would require us all to continue to pull on the same rope:

        01 When I finished your First Part, I was in awe of Hartmann’s indefatigable endurance and fearlessness, that of his pilot comrades and the vital service personnel.

        02 This refreshed a memory from ca. 1948 in Berlin. A friend of even age [9] shared an unusually round bar of chocolate with our group; shaped like a small pan-cake but thinner. We had seen, at a distance, some Cadbury and Hershey bars, ” bartered ” by GIs with mostly pretty German girls, but never this shape.

        We did not notice any extra vigor, euphoria or fearlessness when, shortly thereafter, we collected steel scrap from still standing ruins, to sell.

        03 Our sharing friend got into trouble with his mother for removing this chocolate from their home. She was keeping it as an extra treat for the day her fighter-pilot husband would hopefully return from the SU.

        04 He had left it with her as a personal treat, though, as my very shamefully recent research has disclosed, it was laced with methamphetamines.

        05 Heinrich Temmler had founded the pharma company by the same name in 1917, and was later asked by the Wehrmacht to develop a pill to counter sleep depravation, deemed essential for the Blitzkrieg warfare, as applied; ie for combined air- and ground-forces to be deployed everywhere, almost simultaneously.

        06 The extant record suggests, that initially 35 million tablets were delivered to the Wehrmacht and redistributed exclusively among front-line contingents of all three services. The troops soon dubbed it ” Panzerschokolade “.

        ALL OF WHICH MAY APPEAR HO-HUM, WERE IT NOT FOR THE FACT, THAT THE GERMAN NOVELIST AND AMATEUR SLEUTH NORMAN OHLER HAD AUTHORED THE BOOK ” BLITZED “, WHICH, PREFERENTIALLY FOUND ITSELF INTO THE NYT BOOK REVIEW, MAKING IT A BEST SELLER.

        07 Contrary to NSDAP exhortations to lead a clean life, filled by exercise, we were all drug-addicts, which explains our military prowess, civilian staying power as well as our excesses.

        08 Or so goes the Jewish narrative. Be assured, that at the latest at this time Spielberg, that Mountain of Spiels, has a movie script on his night-table, merely awaiting the advice from a consortium of Jewish psychiatrists, on how to craft the script so as to buttress their argument, without giving the Germans the excuse, ” that it was the drugs, that made them do IT “.

        09 Google the drug Pervitin; the Temmler Werke; the Book
        ” Blitzed “: originally to be titled ” Totally Blitzed “; and of course its author, Norman Ohler: along with voluminous peripheral material, OR COME ON THE STAGE UNPREPARED WHEN, NOT IF, SPIELBERG DUMPS HIS NEXT VERSION ON THE WORLD; RIVALLING WAGNER IN LENGTH.

        [ Whether Hartmann used the pill or not, it is extremely refreshing, that his obstinacy, so detrimentally absent today, did not diminish after his imprisonment. You are absolutely correct, when you state, that the German soldier saved Europe, and by extension, Western Civilization; so far { as I said to Rerevisionist, before he departed, because of our unworthiness }. Hopefully Carolyn will contribute to my
        preemptively sown discord from her archives.

        Is it too much to ask you to write an essay on ” Operation Keelhaul “, that harbinger of things to come ?

        • Karl Nemmersdorf
          Karl Nemmersdorf says:

          Thank you for your comments. I think some type of speed was in very common use among many nations at that time. I don’t know if I’ll get to Operation Keelhaul anytime soon, but it would be very worthy of a treatment, that’s for sure.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Karl, you are right. Willi Kriessmann told me he and the other airmen were supplied with a type of “no-doze” to take at will if they became sleepy during their missions. Only makes sense.

          • Charles Frey
            Charles Frey says:

            @ Carolyn and Karl.

            As an obsessive logician I don’t think much of the verb
            ” think “.

            May I assume, that neither read even the Pervitin story, much less what is brewing in the Jewish media ?

            Churchill, informed of the tremendous initial success of Hitler’s all out final assault on the Allies, through the
            ‘ impassable ‘ Ardennes, comforted the messenger with the assurance, that the Germans would have to sleep sometime.

            Not so; and they were not airmen like Kriessmann, ” with some type of no-doze ” , but tankers who enjoyed their very own ‘ Panzerschokolade ‘.

            But, why worry if we all will be branded as a nation of even civilian drug addicts, which will scientifically explain our attachment to that other addict [ their words ] as well as our military achievements, irrational racial hatred, lust for territory and, most importantly, the holocaust.

            Easier to skip over it now with platitudes and to let Spielberg give us his rendition. After all, we’re so busy already.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Charles and Karl:

            By way of seconding your remarks, let me add that stimulants were available to virtually anyone who wanted them when I was a medic in Vietnam (12/67–12/68). Methylphenidate (Ritalin) was especially widely used to stay alert. Lord knows I handed out lots of them.

        • T
          T says:

          05 Heinrich Temmler had founded the pharma company by the same name in 1917, and was later asked by the Wehrmacht to develop a pill to counter sleep depravation, deemed essential for the Blitzkrieg warfare, as applied; ie for combined air- and ground-forces to be deployed everywhere, almost simultaneously.

          During WWII there was some reference of this drug use by Wehrmacht forces made in a US produced wartime movie which centered upon the survivors of a U-boat sinking adrift in the open sea in a lifeboat. The submarine which sank their ship is in turn sunk and they pull one of the German U-boat crew survivors on to their boat. Whether or not US forces used similar stimulants during the war I don’t know, but it certainly wouldn’t surprise me if they did. One US pilot openly acknowledged some years after the first Iraq war of 1990 that he himself had used such drugs to stay fully awake and alert during the course of missions which often required many hours of flight time at night to perform.

          …we collected steel scrap from still standing ruins, to sell.

          I’ve seen some of those ruins (perhaps the very same you observed in real time as a child) albeit from afar in time and space. In 1950 or 1951 there was an early US television series which had a Buck Rogers like theme (many like those then) which had in one episode the action take place in a still very much war ravaged Berlin. At no doubt some considerable expense the series executive producer(s) had paid for the actors and actresses to travel from the US to Berlin to do the live action filming there. What it showed five years after the war was that there were still large sections of Berlin that remained un-rebuilt and uncleared, and that consisted of what can only best be described as vast mountains, or, more accurately mounds, of broken brick (ie literally rubble) where lengthy blocks of buildings had once stood. The occasional VW beetle is seen on the street. This might have been filmed on the eastern side of Berlin where rebuilding was slower, possibly.

          There was another US film made earlier, ie 1948, or 1949, about the Berlin airlift, with much of its action naturally taking place in Berlin. The main character, a US airlift pilot, ‘falls’ for a German girl. His friend, a fellow US pilot of Polish extraction, and one of the descendants of wage slaves (ie ‘cheap labor’) imported from ultimately everywhere into the United States, quite bluntly warns him against this, advising him (paraphrasing only slightly from memory) that ‘all Germans are bad and not to be trusted’. Lo and behold, it turns out the friend of the US pilot had been right all along, in that the young German woman had been shamelessly using the young pilot for her own ends from the beginning of their relationship, and that she still despite the war, harbored unapologetic thoughts and beliefs that in the broad scheme of things amounted to the Germans having the simple right to exist as a sovereign people. Whether or not she somehow ‘redeems’ herself before the movie’s end and thus becomes ‘a good German’ I don’t recall. One thing with certainty I do remember of the film are the almost unreal street scenes of Berlin where still standing amidst the vast mounds of rubble (though damaged by bomb blasts) are great monuments, one being the German Reichstag. Another monument, though war damaged and due to this plainly leaning a bit, was something like a gigantic arch of triumph. This all had the effect of creating imagery (intended by the film’s director or not) eerily reminescent of those 17th and 18th century water colors and sketches made of the then still partially buried ruins of the ancient city of Rome.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        To Karl, who wrote the following to me on May 9, 7 a.m. —

        “Don’t get so emotional. You say I “don’t seem to consider…” The article is about Hartmann not Hitler’s grand strategy. I don’t write articles to validate your pet whims, especially commonplace ones (Did Hitler want the Fronts to grow closer?) Next, you make a giant assumption about Hartmann’s father, slandering him mean-spiritedly in the process. Finally, Hitler didn’t save Europe “despite” the bravery of his soldiers, but because of it.
        Take a break from the shrine of Adolf, Carolyn. Read some poetry. Take a walk. It’ll do you good.”

        There was nothing “so emotional” in what I said and I don’t think you would use that comeback to a man who wrote the same words I did. It’s the answer of a man who doesn’t have a defense or won’t bother giving it, so uses a putdown instead. Easy to see through.
        My reference to Hartmann’s father was probably smack-on (thus not mean-spirited) because it was the idea of most anti-Hitler elements that the war against the Soviet Union was a mistake (and even should be ended), which meant the Russians would have walked into Germany. These fools thought everything could be negotiated.

        The word “despite” is used correctly by me but you are misinterpreting it in your paraphrasing. Hitler himself said he owed his success to his great soldiers BUT they would never have been there if it were not for Hitler seeing the intentions of Stalin and making the very, very tough decision to take on that fight and come up with a far-seeing strategic plan that could have been successful if it was carried out. (The Wehrmacht generals saw that it wasn’t.) The young men of Germany and in the European Waffen SS units would not have spontaneously said “Let’s go fight in the Soviet Union.” It just doesn’t happen that way.
        I believe in your article you intentionally, though not blatantly, wanted to convey the message that German soldiers of WWII should be seen separately from Adolf Hitler and therefore honored, while we can set him aside. This is what I’m expressing my disagreement with.

        Read some poetry? Take a walk? Very condescending and not at all orignal.

        I don’t have to be a worshiper at the “shrine of Adolf” in order to see that as falsified history, making concessions to the Jewish narrative and to the Communists … and also to the ‘White Rose’ Church types who I believe were totally in the wrong and are not heroes.

        • Karl Nemmersdorf
          Karl Nemmersdorf says:

          I thought you were being emotional in that you chastised me for not explicitly mentioning Hitler’s role in the German Armed Forces’ resistance to the Communist tide. That idea really had no necessary place in my essay, which was about Hartmann and not higher strategy. You are definitely very defensive about Hitler and do not want to see him slighted in any way. In addition, I absolutely did not mean to divide the war effort of the German military from the role of Hitler. I did not mean to make a distinction there. I did want to show that the Hartmanns were not uncritical worshippers of Hitler, but not to slight Der Fuhrer, only to record true history. I also admit it was somewhat petty of me to pick on the “despite.” Sorry.

          The point about writing an article about Rudel is not to tell anything new, but to bring his story to people who might not know it already.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Thank you for this, Karl. Yes, I think now that starting out saying “You did not consider …” was not a fair way to begin. It’s a tendency I have and it always leads to a problem. But communicating on the Internet is prone to misunderstandings like that. It’s always best to try to ask what was meant, but time and space pressures us all.

            However, I do think you wanted to be sure people reading your article didn’t think YOU were an uncritical worshiper of Hitler, perhaps along with the Hartmann’s, which is very common here, and elsewhere too. That is, not to be fond of Hitler. I think there are quite a lot who don’t like to see anything good said about him at all. This is why I react the way I do. If there were a more easy-going, balanced attitude toward him, I would also be more easy-going, I’m sure.

            I’m not so sure you would tell the Rudel story right. The “Badass” blog you linked to had quite a few major mistakes and very little understanding of Rudel the person. It was like a bad caricature. It would be far more interesting to hear your views on Hitler and the Third Reich from your Christian perspective. Of course, a lot more challenging too.

  3. Andrew
    Andrew says:

    Carolyn,
    Your arrogance is amazing to “see” however I would suggest, if you have not already done so, reading Admiral Dorner’s account of what happened in the Atlantic regarding Uboat activities. If you have read his book, then what is your opinion?

    • Andrew
      Andrew says:

      Carolyn,
      Personally, I do not worship Hitler as any type of hero. When he continued to issue no retreat orders on the Eastern Front which by any standard would accomplish nothing, I find that to be infantile. In anycase, I did read Hitler’s “famous” speech using the link that you have provided. I found it to be both depressing and tragic. Depressing because I know how WWII ended and tragic because millions of Europeans died. Disconnecting my hindsight I can see where Hitler is trying to be rational and logical while presenting his argument however, while he is addressing regional concerns Churchill, FDR, and Stalin are considering a much larger geopolitical map. For me, this makes Hitler look even smaller as a leader. Throughout my responses I have incorrectedly called Admiral Donitz, Admiral Dorner.

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        For Heaven’s sake kids, wash your dishes even in the midst of this weary food fight. He says Dorner. She looks up Dorner under US Admirals. He then says Doenitz, who fought US Admirals.

        This ain’t a CNN news cycle, where they habitually complain of a country-wide lack of civility, then defecate on it. We have been here for some time and should by now know one another’s quirks: accept them and reply with civility, which does not obviate conviction. Let’s check our inevitable egos at the door folks.

        I pursued our general topics here academically for 6 years: however each week of reading here is easily the equivalent to a semester. The comments at times outstrip the articles. Superb contributions: differences aside. Let’s enjoy it.

        And two questions for Carolyn:
        01 Do you have anything in your archives on my Pervitin and other official drug use/abuse comment; and
        02 were there four government-run centers in the Reich, where Jews received instructions on how to become farmers and home economists, to help them adapt to life in Palestine ?

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          Charles,
          I also looked in German Admirals, all admirals, in WWII-Dorner, etc., not only in US Admirals. It’s not up to me to correct his errors and ignorance. IMO, people should not be dashing off comments based on memory, while too lazy to even check their facts let alone supply a source. That’s my opinion of ‘Andrew’.

          No, sorry, I don’t have anything on Pervitin per se. I do have correspondence with Willi Kriessmann about his correspondence with a doctor who wrote a book about Hitler’s alleged use of drugs, mainly through Dr. Morell. I thought he was making stuff up and Willi eventually proved he lied about a number of things and contradicted himself to Willi. I’d have to hunt for the name of the doctor and the book.

          I agree that if Hollywood is now ready to exploit that issue, it is bad news. It will be mainly lies and exaggeration, like all the rest. Karl N. writes that Erich Hartmann was shocked by Hitler’s appearance in July 1944 after seeing him only 4 months earlier in March. That is strange because we have pictures of Hitler then (before and after) and he did not look bad and stood up straight. So I take everything with a grain of salt. Also, Karl referred mostly to a book written by Toliver, who was an English pilot during the war–a friend of Hartmann (later) but certainly not of Hitler.

          Okay, Question 02: There were certainly training programs for the Jews on how to become farmers and live a self-sufficient life in Palestine (what a joke), but just how many or what they were I have not researched myself. I will look into it now.

          • Charles Frey
            Charles Frey says:

            Carolyn, I read decades ago, that there were four camps, run by the Reich, to assist Jews to continue their lives in Palestine, teaching the men farming, husbandry, carpentry and mechanics, while their women were instructed in home economics and child-rearing to facilitate their communal paradise.

            That, in conjunction with the Transfer Agreement, by which the Germans, inter alia, froze their assets, but allowed them to draw on these accounts for purchases in Germany, engendered by their economic boycott, paints a narrative at complete odds with the usual propaganda respecting that period.

            Recently Jabotinsky was commemorated in Israel. His Hitler Youth type Betar, similarly attired, was marching openly in Berlin until 41, as I read and observed on photographs, with their Star of David flags; also counter to official history, if correct. Perhaps a brief addendum to your promised research and report: and certainly of significance to your blog guests.

            Of course the German Federation of Zionists in Berlin also assisted them to populate ” a land without people “, making the difference between the Federation and the Reich significant.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Charles, you are correct about all that. It’s all history written somewhere (I have read it too), but “official history” can change at any time since historians will not protect it. As Barkingmad wrote: Were the National Socialists a bit naive to think Jews would actually live in peace with Arabs after all that Hitler had written about them in Mein Kampf? Well, they just wanted to get rid of them and had to put them somewhere.

            The doctor who wrote the book with some false or fake references is Leonard Heston (https://www.amazon.com/Medical-Casebook-Adolf-Hitler-Amphetamine/dp/0595423531/ref=pd_sbs_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0595423531&pd_rd_r=VEY6B3R8MVQ2BDFFVPTR&pd_rd_w=V2l1c&pd_rd_wg=ndirz&psc=1&refRID=VEY6B3R8MVQ2BDFFVPTR.
            Willi met him at a dinner party and Heston gave him a copy of the book. The thing is, those in the bunker who had been around him all along did not describe him in such a debilitated condition. Even though he was physically worn out, his mind and ability to keep control as Fuehrer and give orders, etc. functioned right up to the end.
            Dr. Morell is definitely not as bad as he’s been made out to be, either.

        • Barkingmad
          Barkingmad says:

          @Charles. I know you weren’t talking to me as regards this question for Carolyn but everyone is entitled to my input:

          were there four government-run centers in the Reich, where Jews received instructions on how to become farmers and home economists, to help them adapt to life in Palestine ?/i>

          LOL. Dear Lord, more & more LOLs! I knew a jooish fellow from New York back in the 1970s who got a bunch of money from an inheritance, so among other things he wanted in on the kibbutzim movement (you got to give your life some meaning, doncha…) even though he like most of his kind was 100% urbanized and from a well-off family to boot. Well, that experiment didn’t last too long. He like all of them was too weak and in his heart looked down on this form of labor. I cannot believe that the Germans especially in the 3rd Reich were stupid enough to think that any such training would have any substantial results once they got to Palestine.

          Today, the kibbutzim are worked by, yes, foreign workers (orientals and Africans). And there is no doubt that they are mightily mistreated from what I read. They are not allowed to apply for citizenship, either.

          I knew a jue who claimed that his kind wanted to farm (oh, God, I am falling off my chair) but that they were not allowed to own land. Well, they’ve been in the Kwa for hundreds of years now and I still don’t see them plowing & seeding, never mind cleaning out barns.

          While I am here – it is disturbing that the large farms in California seem unable to recruit whites to do farmwork, either; we are getting to be as weak as those we are contemptuous of.

  4. Larry Petersen
    Larry Petersen says:

    “His work, together with the epic resistance of the German ground forces, helped to preserve the core of Western Europe from Communist takeover. The outcome of the war could have been far worse but for their efforts.”

    I used to think this way. But after all this time, it is now evident that Communism, in spite of all it’s horrors, ( and I have relatives that served time in the Gulag and who defected to the Germans in that tragedy), was less corrosive to national identity than Western Liberalism.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Larry, there is an unbridgeable chasm between nationalism and communism. One is national, the other international. Which does not mean, that when the nationalists attacked the internationalists [ excepting 36 Spain ] the latter did not allow a calculated reversion to nationalism; as they did; including religion. Mom and apple pie were in.

      You must not have had any germane conversations with your Gulag relatives.

      If you compare the disintegrative effect of Western Liberalism as it is practiced now, to Putin’s traditionalist Russia, I could understand where you are coming from. But then think of Taiwan and the Mainland.

      Or consider, that the East German Army, singing the
      ‘ Internationale ‘, yet displaying its nationalism, sported uniforms identical to those of the Wehrmacht, except for that god-awful helmet, but included their parade ‘ goose-stepping ‘.

      Hundreds attempting to flee that ‘ First Peasants and Workers State on German Soil ‘, paid with their lives.

      [ Unlike those we got across the Danube between Warsaw Pact Romania and nonaligned Yugoslavia, after Nixon visited Ceausescu; halving their mutual suspicions, and, more importantly, as we calculated, their border vigilance ].

      It’s confusing: but keep thinking it through. It’s not
      ” evident “.

      • Larry Petersen
        Larry Petersen says:

        My point was regarding the actual affects of Communism , not the international theory.
        This observation was first pointed out to me by a Lithuanian friend who traveled there frequently during the Cold War. He pointed out that under Soviet power, Lithuanians clung to their national identity as their only form of resistance. Soviet power never resettled even minuscule numbers of non-white refugee/ invaders in their domain. In the meantime, “free” Western Europe embraced every form of spiritual and racial decay. When I was stationed in Germany in the 1980s, it was very common for many black soldiers to have German girlfriends; with their resulting mulattoes. Soviet soldiers stationed in East Germany , for example ( which included Mongolians and Turks ) were restricted to their barracks, preventing such liaisons. On my first visits to London , Paris , Frankfurt, and West Berlin, I was shocked at the numbers of Non-Whites. East Berlin remained lily White; until the wall came down.
        Now, in the present so called “freedom”, much of the youth of Eastern Europe cannot wait to follow suit, embracing the hip hop culture that infected the west, to include sexual liaisons of every imaginable sort.
        The fact is that as long as Soviet power remained intact, the rising tide of color that was allowed into Western Europe , was kept out of Eastern Europe.

        By the way, the uniform of the German Democratic Republic originated with the Weimar Republic, which made it ideologically acceptable. The N. S. era Wehrmacht simply used it as a carry over.
        ” that god-awful helmet” was German designed in the later stages of W W 2 , but not put into production until the DDR made use of it

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          Larry, I agree with you that ” “free” Western Europe embraces every form of spiritual and racial decay,” (spread by Jews, by the way), but I want to point out that National Socialist Germany honored the national identity, etc. of areas/countries it occupied and/or liberated. And it would never have allowed racial mixing to go on, let alone encourage it, for any White person with any non-White, non-Aryan person. This very standard is, in fact, part of it’s reputation for being an evil, repressive, non-democratic (racist) regime today!

          The only people who could complain of any sort of genocide were the Poles, since Poland was not slated to exist anymore as an independent nation. Qualified, non-Jewish Poles were to be allowed to become German citizens. Otherwise, the variety of ethnic cultures were regarded with utmost respect. That is far better than the record of Communism which has always embraced and protected its Jews.

          So there was then and still is another alternative, a better alternative, to the choice between “Western Liberalism” and “Jewish Communism” … and that, imo, is why it was destroyed and not allowed to rise again.

          Yet, it still lives.

Comments are closed.