Revilo P. Oliver
The Landpost Press has again earned our gratitude. It has republished a book that is indispensable to everyone who wishes really to understand Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist régime: The German Revolution, by H. Powys Greenwood (London, Routledge, 1934.)
We need, first of all, to understand the situation in Germany in 1932-1935 as it appeared to a judicious and objective observer at that time.
That is a task of enormous and daunting difficulty. Our effort to reconstruct that situation in our minds will be inevitably distorted by our knowledge of what happened subsequently. And that knowledge includes awareness of forces that were hidden from contemporary observers, even, perhaps, in Germany itself.
It includes what was the crucial and decisive factor. I doubt that any Aryan at that time, not even Adolf Hitler or Julius Streicher or Alfred Rosenberg, perceived the full intensity of the Jews’ hatred of civilized mankind, the terrible solidarity of the anti-human race, or the enormous power over us they had already attained by centuries of patient infiltration and massive deceit. Even Aryans who perceived the dire menace underestimated it; the vast majority, outside Hitler’s Germany, were totally unaware of it.
For an objective view of Germany in the early years of the National Socialist régime, we cannot turn to American sources. As I remarked in America’s Decline, it was hard, virtually impossible, for an American in the 1930s to form a just opinion. One almost insuperable barrier was the fact that Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt attained power at almost the same time in nations that were in the throes of economic prostration, caused in Germany by the Treaty of Versailles and the Jew-dominated government known as the Weimar Republic, and in the United States primarily by the Federal Reserve, which, owned by Jewish financiers, had been given, in defiance of the American Constitution, almost unlimited power over the national economy. Both leaders attained power by oratorical promises, and it was easy to assume that Hitler’s had been as insincere as Roosevelt’s or even that Hitler had, like the American traitor, won election by flagrant lying. Both Hitler and Roosevelt embarked on programs of socialistic control over their respective nations, and the vast difference between the two was not obvious to observers at the time, and indeed could be surmised only after some years, when the results could be seen and it became apparent that Hitler was not only salvaging a prostrate nation but making of it a world power, while the diseased monster in the White House was working to subjugate and destroy the nation that he had trapped with his perjured pledges to liquidate the socialistic measures of Herbert Hoover and eliminate one-third of the Federal bureaucracy within ninety days after his inauguration. Given the news from Germany that filled the American press, it was easy to make a generalized estimate that both men were unscrupulous and vicious demagogues, intent only on attaining dictatorial power to appease their megalomania and ruthless ambitions. There was even a parallel between reports that Hitler was the hero of German women, who called him “der schöne Adolf”, and the American affliction, whose power depended on his ability by slimily smooth verbiage, rhetorical tricks, and shoddy ‘ideals’ to fascinate American females and make rational men regret that women had been given the right to vote.1
What was essentially the American attitude is shown by the fact that, among rational men, the most common epithet applied to Roosevelt was “Frankie Führer.” Although he had early formed diplomatic relations with his colleague and fellow conspirator, Stalin, on the pretext that it was “good for business” to shore up the Soviet with American machinery and techniques, men who perceived that he was a Communist bent on destroying the United States commonly called him the “American Kerensky,”2 but assumed that his evil cunning would eventually be frustrated by the good sense of the American people. No one foresaw that he and Stalin would be able to start a catastrophic world war that would destroy our race’s position in the world and, as now seems inevitable, doom us to eventual extinction.
The misconceptions about Germany were not countered by empirical knowledge. American tourists flocked to Europe, but they visited England, France, and often Italy, and only seldom – very seldom – Germany. And American tourists, in any case, saw nothing significant of the countries they visited, usually knowing nothing of the languages of continental nations and having no opportunity to talk to persons of any culture. It was amusing to watch them, shepherded by the agents of a tourist agency, going through the Louvre or the Vatican at a dog trot and gawking at the works of art they glimpsed in passing, or being exhibited to the denizens of Montmartre, who provided each group with obscenity measured to its tastes.
To learn something worthwhile about another country, one must live in it for at least several months, and must become acquainted with that country’s élite: literary men, scholars, persons of social standing, and judicious representatives or critics of serious political movements (not, of course, politicians, who are professional liars everywhere).
Intelligent Americans who went to Europe to observe with serious intent followed much the same pattern as the tourists. They visited France and Italy, but not one in a score noticed Switzerland or set foot in Germany. Only a few men, notably Charles Lindbergh, saw Germany or made any attempt to understand that nation. Only innate common sense saved others from becoming victims of the Jews’ lie-machine, which went into high gear after the international race officially declared war on Germany in 1933, almost immediately after Hitler became Chancellor.
Englishmen were in a more favorable position. To visit Germany they did not have to cross the Atlantic; they had only to cross the channel and spend a night on a good train, but they did not generally avail themselves of the opportunity. They crossed the Manche to visit Paris, the south of France, or Italy, their favorite places of residence abroad. In the Eighteenth Century, the Grand Tour, given to young men after their years in Oxford or Cambridge, included a stay in various German states, but after the Victoria became Queen and the Salic Law sundered Great Britain from the Kingdom of Hannover, Germany was gradually dropped from the itinerary, and in the later part of Victoria’s reign, the efforts of the British press,3 dominated, of course, by the world’s trouble-makers, aroused incomprehension of, and hostility toward Germany – a tendency that was fostered by Victoria’s successor, Edward VII, who may have been partly Kike.4 And the hostility became animosity during the war of 1914-1918, when the nation whose navy ruled the world’s oceans fought deliriously against the “evil of militarism” on land, and had its mentality obtunded by swill from Lord Bryce’s lie factory. And, in any case, it requires most unusual powers of objectivity not to hate a nation that seems responsible for the death of fathers, sons, brothers, and friends, and for the hardships that modern “democratic” war inflicts on every belligerent population.
There was a deeper and, for intelligent men, more potent source of incomprehension. Englishmen and Americans were virtually precluded from a sympathetic understanding of Germany in the 1930s. That was obvious then, although it is less apparent in our rotting nations today. By long tradition and ethnic culture Englishmen and Americans still had a ruling aversion from socialism, that is, from state control of the national economy and the lives of individuals, and were largely oblivious of the extent to which their prized personal liberty had been undermined and sabotaged by do-gooders and humanitarian babblers, who, of course, had been incited by our covert enemies. Since the Magna Carta, Englishmen had insisted on the maximum of personal liberty, at least for the upper classes, who, as all serious students of politics in the Aristotelian sense of that word well know, are the culturally determining element in a society.5 When the Americans separated themselves from the Mother Country, they insisted even more absolutely on a maximum of personal liberty for everyone, and adopted a Constitution that was designed to limit government to the absolute minimum. Englishmen and Americans, therefore, felt greatly superior to the Germans, who, under their monarchy in the Nineteenth Century, had elaborated an effective and prosperous socialism, with which they had been well content.
The antithesis between Liberty and Socialism was a dominant force in the 1930s. Even the fairly numerous Americans who were wont to say “We need a Hitler here,” did not approve of the National Socialist régime. What they meant was that we needed some leader who would put the slimy Sheenies in their place and restore a tradition of honesty and integrity in commerce, finance, and law, after which we would, of course, revert to the standard of individual liberty, which was to be maintained absolutely, even if it involved some discomfort for some of the proletariat.
Although Americans and Englishmen felt superior to the socialistic Germans, both under the Hohenzollern and under Hitler, intelligent men understood that what the Germans preferred for Germany was no concern of theirs. They stood aloof from the American boobs’ morbid itch to meddle in other people’s business. If told that the Germans were running the Yids out of their country, a rational man would have only said, “It will be interesting to see what effect the racial cleansing will have on the German economy.”
H. Powys Greenwood, of mixed Welsh and English descent, held the perception then prevalent among cultivated Britons that their superior nation was “the work of a unified and cultured aristocracy.” He naturally was repelled by the socialism of Hitler’s Germany, by its arrant democracy, and by its doctrine of virtual equality among all who were German by race. (Only nations that have become functionally insane could believe in equality between their race and others.) Hitler, by demanding that every German contribute to the full extent of his ability to the renascent nation, was trying to create a “classless” society at a time when responsible British knew that a class structure and class distinctions were a necessary concomitant of personal liberty.
Mr. Greenwood, however, was determined to present, so far as was humanly possible, a dispassionate and objective account of the Germany which he had an unrivaled opportunity to observe at first hand. He was remarkably successful. His portrayal of Germany is the unprejudiced work of a competent observer. It is no criticism of Mr. Greenwood that he did not perceive the clandestine but ruling force of which virtually all of his compatriots (and contemporary Americans) were unaware. It is a pathetic irony that he could say that “We in England have no conception of social conditions in which Jews are definitely paramount.” He could not foresee that within a few years the international vampires would have forced the abdication of a legitimate King of Great Britain6 and would have driven that nation into a mad and suicidal war for revenge on a nation that was treating them with a mildness that will surprise most Americans who have listened to Yiddish wailing when they read this book.
The Landpost Press has now made it possible for you to see the Germany of 1932-1934 through the eyes of an honest Englishman (or, with some adjustments, and hypothetical American).
1 I always remember the lady, a graduate of one of the most select women’s colleges, who was a gracious hostess, but jumped up from the dinner table when it was time to listen to a “Fireside Chat” (known as “Hog Calling” to insiders in Washington), rushed to the radio, and listened raptly and entranced to the vapid verbiage and glutinous voice of her messiah, while her husband sat morosely in a corner and exchanged glances with me, who watched his countenance and exposed scalp became redder and redder with the effort of repressing his opinion of “that God-damned Communist son-of-a-bitch” to preserve his otherwise happy home.
2 Kerensky was the Jew who, masquerading as a White man under the name of his foolish stepfather, prepared the way for the Jewish (Bolshevik) take-over of Russia. Some Americans called Roosevelt “the crippled Caligula,” because they sensed that the diseased creature, like the insane Roman monster, wished that his subjects had only one neck so that he could cut it with single stroke of a knife, but it was not apparent before 1939 that the loathsome creature would become the world’s worst and most infamous War Criminal.
3 See the late Peter H. Peel’s British Public Opinion and the Wars of German Unification. 1864-1871 (College Park, Maryland; International Research Institute for Political Science, 1981).
4 Cf. Liberty Bell, June 1991, pp. 20-23.
5 That is obviously true in the United States today, where the upper class, which consists of Sheenies, traitors, thieves, and degenerates, determines the mores and conduct of our society as a whole.
6 The real reason why Edward VIII was forced to abdicate was the knowledge that he would not have consented to the suicidal war that was then being planned by Churchill and other flunkeys of the Master Race. There is great disagreement about other aspects of Edward’s character. Cf. Liberty Bell, March 1987, pp. 5-7. In that article I should have made it clear that the DeCourcy whom I mentioned was not Kenneth, but his more circumspect and perhaps more opportunistic brother, John.
SOURCE: Liberty Bell, January 1994