The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Is his absolute demonization warranted even if we consider the Holocaust claims pinned against him by exterminationists? Of course, he would be extremely bad if they were truthful, but I'm curious as to what makes him especially bad as opposed to someone like Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Leopold II of Belgium or even contemporary figures like Obama and Bush according to these "historians"? Would it not cast doubt into the narrative if a good justification could not be found?

The short answer of course is "no", however the long answer is not only very long, but very complex. I'll make some initial points here to get us started.

========

Adolf Hitler’s shifting image over time

While it’s fair to note the growing demonisation of AH from 1945 to the present day, culminating in something that quite figuratively equates with Satan today, the kneejerk opposite reaction that he was viewed as an angel pre-1945 is also not accurate. AH was rightly viewed as a threat to Western liberal democracy, both inside jewish circles and outside. Let us also not forget that even without the spectre of the Holocaust, relations between Germany and Poland / France / Britain were becoming particularly strained. For Poland we can cite the Danzig crisis, and for both France and Britain we can cite the Locarno crisis. Alot of these diplomatic breakdowns are at least in part down to AH’s staunch Nationalism and fiery rhetoric, and while to a Nationalist or indeed even merely a German were viewed favourably, to the Internationalist class these were viewed with disdain.

With all of this in mind, a more reasonable examination of his shifting image across time looks less like “Angel to Satan” and more like “Serious political threat to Internationalism to Satan”

German War Crimes

The whole central thesis of the Holocaust is that Germany was uniquely evil during WW2 and therefore destroying it was not only necessary but good. Of course WW2 didn’t start like this, and it started off in a much more conventional sense, over territory disputes, and the (alleged) defense of Polish sovereignty in the face of Nationalist agression. So it’s interesting to see the spectre of the Holocaust grow and develop over time, especially in this context.

If only we had a somewhat compatible analogy of “Germany were the bad guys in this World War” we could draw upon! Oh wait, there is a perfectly compatible analogy available to us: World War 1.

After WW1, the initial interpretation of “Germany as the agressors” was almost immediately undermined by credible academics, I’ll cite Sidney Bradshaw Fay who’s authoritative work makes a compelling case for Germany as fall-guy. This was understood as early as 1926. However that’s not important here, what’s important is the punishment doled out, that being the Treaty of Versailles (TOV). This was even according to mainstream historians, overly punitive on Germany, and gave very good cause for being overturned, and with great resentment too – which would only increase German Nationalism and resentment for Internationalism. That is, the TOV had very little sticking power. Neither did the propaganda, because the propaganda was very routine and well, forgettable.

Enter the Holocaust! What if this time, the Germans were not a conventional enemy to be defeated and their punishment overturned – what if this time, they were uniquely evil, and their destruction can be interpreted as a modern day Crusade. We need a face for that, a central, evil Satan figure. It needs to be narratively emotive, compelling, and personified. Hitler is the face of Satan, a focal point for all the reasons why Nationalism cannot exist in a world of growing Internationalism.

In the decades following, you see this personificatoin growing, cumulating in the present day where any Facebook thread even tangentially related to politics will invoke Hitler or the Nazis as an “I Win” button for anyone shameless enough to use it that way.

The Cold War

Similarly, we cannot ignore the Cold War here. As early as 1944 and 1945 where the Allies were preparing to dissect Germany and Berlin, significant distrust amongst themselves was already present– I’ll use just one citation here, “Berlin On The Brink” – by Daniel Harrington, who makes a compelling case for the Allies being unable to agree on specific agreements for Western access to Berlin all being rooted in the yet again, the spectre of Hitler, and the threat of German military might returning once again! To Stalin and the Soviets, Hitler was not only Satan, but he will be re-incarnated if Germany was not utterly micromanaged into Communism. Similarly the French, who enjoy a very rich rivalry with Germany, were glad to make the emotive case for Germany’s disarmament based on the Holocaust, and gain access to the Rhineland for economic reasons. All of this paranoia and distrust of course, would culminate in the Berlin Blockade, kicking off the Cold War proper, over the corpse of Satan himself.

Modern Politics

As briefly mentioned above, Hitler and the Nazis are a sort of convenient “I win” button in the modern day, to be used at your leisure, especially for laypeople. However, it is not limited to just laypeople. Even today, “Denazification” is used at least in part to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin nonetheless, Israel are called “Nazis”, even in mundane partisan politics Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently invoked America’s identity as having “beaten the confederates and Nazis” seemingly in her criticism of Elon Musk’s DOGE. **Edit I’ve just re-watched her clip, as I’m writing this, and she goes one step further from the political into the emotive and states “this is foundational to me as a human being”.

None of this would have the staying power that it does, were it not for Hitler as Satan and the Holocaust. Americans like AOC don’t thump their chest that their foundational identity is going to fight against Ho Chi Minh, for example. That would be a ridiculous thing for her to say, yet to an informed reader of history, that would be an equally compelling insight into American identity. She just won’t ever say that.

Jewish Identity

I’m going to refrain from making the case that the Holocaust is a central pillar to modern jewish identity, and therefore is a central pillar to everything jews in turn influence. There are jews present and active on this board and so I’d be interested to see what they have to say first, and probably I’ll respond if they say anything interesting

Summary

To bring my point home: No, the demonisation of AH is of course not justified, or even makes sense to an informed reader of history. However, it doesn’t need to. The Hitler = Satan image exists, because it needs to exist. Without it:

- The entire WW2 narrative collapses just like WW1 did before it
- Ethno Nationalism has valid reasons to exist
- The (early) Cold War becomes an even bigger farce than it already was
- Modern politics is robbed of its “i win” button
- The entire post-Nuremberg Liberal consensus is on such shaky grounds as the TOV was by 1926
- Jewish identity is (redacted)

That was a pretty interesting analysis. I have a few comments though.

HansHill wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 10:16 am Modern Politics

As briefly mentioned above, Hitler and the Nazis are a sort of convenient “I win” button in the modern day, to be used at your leisure, especially for laypeople. However, it is not limited to just laypeople. Even today, “Denazification” is used at least in part to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin nonetheless, Israel are called “Nazis”, even in mundane partisan politics Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently invoked America’s identity as having “beaten the confederates and Nazis” seemingly in her criticism of Elon Musk’s DOGE. **Edit I’ve just re-watched her clip, as I’m writing this, and she goes one step further from the political into the emotive and states “this is foundational to me as a human being”.

I think Russia invading Ukraine was a pretty minor use of the "Nazi" trick, since they have other justifications such as protecting their ethnic Russian minority. A much bigger use would be against Saddam Hussein, they even accused him of having gas chambers!
Also, I think it makes a lot of sense that people are comparing Israel to Nazis, since the stories of the holocaust came from sick Jewish minds.

None of this would have the staying power that it does, were it not for Hitler as Satan and the Holocaust. Americans like AOC don’t thump their chest that their foundational identity is going to fight against Ho Chi Minh, for example. That would be a ridiculous thing for her to say, yet to an informed reader of history, that would be an equally compelling insight into American identity. She just won’t ever say that.

That's a pretty good point that I hadn't thought of before. Something that would make this even more apparent than taking part in their "identity" is that no one is saying "we have to invade Iran before they become the next Ho Chi Minh", or "Russians are literally the Viet Cong" (those even sound silly writing them here), so why is "invading them before they become Hitler" used as a justification?
I would love to hear what the exterminationists in this forum have to say about this (incl. the original post).

Since the Ukraine has been brought up, I feel it fair to mention that the 'Donbas' was Putin's Polish Corridor.

There were atrocities being committed by tornado, misanthropic division, Azov etc. Basically the CIA and Ukraine were using 'partisans' and 'paramilitary' units to terrorize ethnic Russians in the Donbas to provoke a response. This has parallels with the Danzig Crisis and the atrocities that commenced post invasion didn't happen in isolation.

Just as Poland was the powder keg that set off ww2, it is my opinion that the Donbas in Ukraine is meant to be a powder keg for ww3.

goyim terror alarm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 4:38 am ...but I'm curious as to what makes him especially bad as opposed to someone like Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Leopold II of Belgium ...

The obvious answer is that Jews have disproportionate influence in media, academia, entertainment, etc and are highly effective lobbyists (due to their wealth and coordination), and accordingly their perspectives have become predominant. If all the producers in Hollywood were Cambodian, then we'd probably get more Pol Pot references in movies and TV. Jews have Hitler on the brain and so that gets reflected in media, and that in turn influences the non-Jewish masses.

If you asked people in the 1940s in the US and Britain why Hitler was evil, most of them probably would have said something about trying to take over the world. But over time, that answer has become "he killed six million Jews."

This question is complicated by the factual disputes in addition to the subjective question of how certain actions would correspond to a certain level of evil and how this would compare to other "evil" figures. And if you believe in the Holocaust, there's the question of the level of premeditation and Hitler's personal involvement. David Irving's 1977 theory would have reduced Hitler's blame while not challenging the Holocaust directly. Most mainstream theorists do not accept anything like this, but some of the less organized theories are a bit in this direction.

Archie wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 2:11 am The obvious answer is that Jews have disproportionate influence in media, academia, entertainment, etc and are highly effective lobbyists (due to their wealth and coordination), and accordingly their perspectives have become predominant. If all the producers in Hollywood were Cambodian, then we'd probably get more Pol Pot references in movies and TV. Jews have Hitler on the brain and so that gets reflected in media, and that in turn influences the non-Jewish masses.

And that answer is still problematic to those who uphold the "official narrative", except for the people who are so brainwashed they're in the "Jews control us and that's a good thing!" camp.

Hitler fully believed in Racial Supremacy and the right of the "Superior" Race to subjugate or even exterminate the "Inferior" Races. He also proceeded to construct his New State fully embellished in such principles, there would be no Supreme Court for a man like Martin Luther King Jr. to appeal to in order to have his rights respected, as no such rights even existed in the 1st place.

“Thus, the struggle for daily bread becomes in reality a struggle for the soil which produces this daily bread; that is, for space itself. It is an iron principle: the weak fall in order that the strong may live. From all the innumerable creatures a complete species rises and becomes the master of the rest. Such a one is man—the most brutal, the most resolute creature on earth. He knows nothing but the EXTERMINATION of his enemies in the world. This struggle, this battle has not been carried on by all men in the same way. Certain species stand out, and at the top of the list is the Aryan. The Aryan has forged the weapons with which mankind has made itself master of the animal world. There is scarcely anything in existence which when traced back to its origin cannot claim an Aryan as its creator. Never have votes and majorities added one iota to the culture of mankind. Every accomplishment is solely the result of the work and energy of great men, and &s such, a flaming protest against the inertia of the masses.”

Hitler Struggle—The Source of Strength (Munich, Nov. 21, 1927; Voelkischer Beobachter, Nov. 23, 1927) Page 6

"The inventions of mankind are the result of eternal struggle. Never would aviation have progressed so remarkably had it not been for the war, had not countless thousands sacrificed their lives in this cruel struggle against nature. The struggle against the great beasts is ended, but it is being inexorably carried on against the tiny creatures—against bacteria and bacilli. There is no Marxian reconciliation on this score; it is either you or I, life or death, either EXTERMINATION or servitude."

Hitler The Nonsense of Humanitarianism (Munich, April 2, 1927; Voelkischer Beobachter, April 5, 1927) Page 5

Hitler's Words: Two Decades of National Socialism, 1923-1942 : Gordan W. Prange : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/hitlers-wor ... 4/mode/2up

Hi Fyre, this is a very interesting post you chose to make. Made all the more interesting in the thread you chose to make it in (Is the demonization of Hitler as we see even warranted at all?) And even more interesting with the choice of citation you bring to the thread. From the Introduction section of your citation I quote:

It is to be hoped that those who read these chapters will not leave them in any complacent spirit of pride that they are not as this man is, nor in any confident mood that he and all the evil he symbolizes will soon be expunged from the earth in fire and blood. One great source of Hitler’s power has always been the fact that he is the embodiment not only of all that is base and barbarous in the German soul but of all that is narrow and selfish, provincial and fanatical, foul and poisonous in the souls of all men and women everywhere in an epoch of insecurity and fear.

FREDERICK L. SCHUMAN

Certainly the right thread for discussing the demonization of Adolf Hitler, if not the entirety of the German people.

On to the Editor's Preface, and we find this:

Anyone who translates and edits Hitler’s words invites an unhappy task. It is exceedingly difficult to translate his German with complete accuracy and convey his meaning and feeling with clarity. Sometimes his words do not make sense. It is then that one must decide, upon the basis of long familiarity with Hitler’s style and thinking, what he really means. On occasion I was forced to take editorial liberties in order to avoid utter confusion. In all such cases, however, I followed Hitler’s original meaning as closely as possible.
Gordon W. Prange

He spends the next paragraph detailing out some editorial liberties he has taken for certain words, admitting certain words either a) don't translate well into English, or b) don't translate at all into English as the concept does not exist. I will challenge you, Fyre, that he omits to discuss the word "Exterminate", his rationale in any editorialising he made around that word, or anything tangential to such a central editorial decision. Do you care to comment on this?

I'll cut to the chase here, Fyre because I don't know how long you will choose to stick around this forum; we interpret words of this kind in their German to mean "remove" or "uproot" or "eradicate". It seems you, along with your sources, are bringing a genocidal interpretation to this. If you wish to demonstrate Adolf Hitler genociding (or attempting to genocide) whole races of people, you can bring your best evidence to the "Debating" sub-forum here. Good luck!

Onto what seems to be your main point, I'll summarise it as "Non-White people were and/or would have been persecuted / refused access to State rights under Adolf Hitler". I believe this is a fair summary of your point, I don't wish to strawman you but that seems clear to me.

My main rebuttal to this point is that you are viewing the 1920s through a lens of Western Liberalism which will never be compatible. National Socialism in its entirety is incompatible with Western Liberalism, and especially the modern "woke" ideology it has become in today's world.

It's an Enlightenment value, supplemented by Western Liberalism to suggest that non-Citizens of a State should enjoy full access to that State and it's resources. You seem to be suggesting a priori that an African-American or I assume even just an African, should demand access to the State resources & apparatuses of any State he so chooses. The speeches you chose to select are from 1927 so i will use that year so I cannot be accused of cherrypicking.

I challenge you to write an opposing speech, to be aimed at a German voter in 1927, detailing to that German voter why an African-American or African should enjoy the same state privileges that he does. I will then judge your speech, and I will ascertain which of the two, yours or Adolf Hitler's, would be the most attractive to the German voter in the year 1927. You can trust that I am a good fit for this exercise, as I (just like the German voter in 1927) will not be viewing your speech through the lens of 2025 Western Liberalism.

HansHill wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:35 am Hi Fyre, this is a very interesting post you chose to make. Made all the more interesting in the thread you chose to make it in (Is the demonization of Hitler as we see even warranted at all?) And even more interesting with the choice of citation you bring to the thread. From the Introduction section of your citation I quote:

It is to be hoped that those who read these chapters will not leave them in any complacent spirit of pride that they are not as this man is, nor in any confident mood that he and all the evil he symbolizes will soon be expunged from the earth in fire and blood. One great source of Hitler’s power has always been the fact that he is the embodiment not only of all that is base and barbarous in the German soul but of all that is narrow and selfish, provincial and fanatical, foul and poisonous in the souls of all men and women everywhere in an epoch of insecurity and fear.

FREDERICK L. SCHUMAN

Certainly the right thread for discussing the demonization of Adolf Hitler, if not the entirety of the German people.

On to the Editor's Preface, and we find this:

Anyone who translates and edits Hitler’s words invites an unhappy task. It is exceedingly difficult to translate his German with complete accuracy and convey his meaning and feeling with clarity. Sometimes his words do not make sense. It is then that one must decide, upon the basis of long familiarity with Hitler’s style and thinking, what he really means. On occasion I was forced to take editorial liberties in order to avoid utter confusion. In all such cases, however, I followed Hitler’s original meaning as closely as possible.
Gordon W. Prange

He spends the next paragraph detailing out some editorial liberties he has taken for certain words, admitting certain words either a) don't translate well into English, or b) don't translate at all into English as the concept does not exist. I will challenge you, Fyre, that he omits to discuss the word "Exterminate", his rationale in any editorialising he made around that word, or anything tangential to such a central editorial decision. Do you care to comment on this?

I'll cut to the chase here, Fyre because I don't know how long you will choose to stick around this forum; we interpret words of this kind in their German to mean "remove" or "uproot" or "eradicate". It seems you, along with your sources, are bringing a genocidal interpretation to this. If you wish to demonstrate Adolf Hitler genociding (or attempting to genocide) whole races of people, you can bring your best evidence to the "Debating" sub-forum here. Good luck!

Onto what seems to be your main point, I'll summarise it as "Non-White people were and/or would have been persecuted / refused access to State rights under Adolf Hitler". I believe this is a fair summary of your point, I don't wish to strawman you but that seems clear to me.

My main rebuttal to this point is that you are viewing the 1920s through a lens of Western Liberalism which will never be compatible. National Socialism in its entirety is incompatible with Western Liberalism, and especially the modern "woke" ideology it has become in today's world.

It's an Enlightenment value, supplemented by Western Liberalism to suggest that non-Citizens of a State should enjoy full access to that State and it's resources. You seem to be suggesting a priori that an African-American or I assume even just an African, should demand access to the State resources & apparatuses of any State he so chooses. The speeches you chose to select are from 1927 so i will use that year so I cannot be accused of cherrypicking.

I challenge you to write an opposing speech, to be aimed at a German voter in 1927, detailing to that German voter why an African-American or African should enjoy the same state privileges that he does. I will then judge your speech, and I will ascertain which of the two, yours or Adolf Hitler's, would be the most attractive to the German voter in the year 1927. You can trust that I am a good fit for this exercise, as I (just like the German voter in 1927) will not be viewing your speech through the lens of 2025 Western Liberalism.

Something about the extreme social Darwinism screams Hitler is not excluding Killing as a apart of the “Struggle” he so dearly exalts.

“Thus, the struggle for daily bread becomes in reality a struggle for the soil which produces this daily bread; that is, for space itself. It is an iron principle: the weak fall in order that the strong may live. From all the innumerable creatures a complete species rises and becomes the master of the rest. Such a one is man—the most brutal, the most resolute creature on earth. He knows nothing but the EXTERMINATION of his enemies in the world.”

Does it sound like in the following sentence using the Word “Extermination” in an uproot/deport but totally not kill kind of way, or in a kind of way that would involve Killing?

"The inventions of mankind are the result of eternal struggle. Never would aviation have progressed so remarkably had it not been for the war, had not countless thousands sacrificed their lives in this cruel struggle against nature. The struggle against the great beasts is ended, but it is being inexorably carried on against the tiny creatures—against bacteria and bacilli. There is no Marxian reconciliation on this score; it is either you or I, life or death, either EXTERMINATION or servitude.“

Aside from the whole paragraph being about bloody struggle, He also says “life or death.” then follows with “either EXTERMINATION or servitude”. Does it make sense that he’s referring to a kind of Uprooting/Eradication that is totally just moving people out of an area, or the kind that results in Death?

As for the Lens of Liberalism, the Draconian Racial laws of the German Reich didn’t exist before the NSDAP took power, they occurred after. This is not to say Racism did not exist prior to Nazi control in Germany, but it was institutionalized in a way that previously was not.

Frye wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 12:23 am Something about the extreme social Darwinism screams Hitler is not excluding Killing as a apart of the “Struggle” he so dearly exalts.

“Thus, the struggle for daily bread becomes in reality a struggle for the soil which produces this daily bread; that is, for space itself. It is an iron principle: the weak fall in order that the strong may live. From all the innumerable creatures a complete species rises and becomes the master of the rest. Such a one is man—the most brutal, the most resolute creature on earth. He knows nothing but the EXTERMINATION of his enemies in the world.”

Does it sound like in the following sentence using the Word “Extermination” in an uproot/deport but totally not kill kind of way, or in a kind of way that would involve Killing?

"The inventions of mankind are the result of eternal struggle. Never would aviation have progressed so remarkably had it not been for the war, had not countless thousands sacrificed their lives in this cruel struggle against nature. The struggle against the great beasts is ended, but it is being inexorably carried on against the tiny creatures—against bacteria and bacilli. There is no Marxian reconciliation on this score; it is either you or I, life or death, either EXTERMINATION or servitude.“

Aside from the whole paragraph being about bloody struggle, He also says “life or death.” then follows with “either EXTERMINATION or servitude”. Does it make sense that he’s referring to a kind of Uprooting/Eradication that is totally just moving people out of an area, or the kind that results in Death?

As for the Lens of Liberalism, the Draconian Racial laws of the German Reich didn’t exist before the NSDAP took power, they occurred after. This is not to say Racism did not exist prior to Nazi control in Germany, but it was institutionalized in a way that previously was not.

Hello, Frye. Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are trying to use that 1927 quote as a prooftext to show that Hitler wanted to ... what exactly? Execute all non-Germans?

If Hitler had been plotting to kill and/or enslave all other peoples, why is it that in 1940 the Germans were seriously discussing sending the Jews to Madagascar after the war? Even as late as 1942 Goebbels was still talking about this idea.

I read a detailed report from the SD and police regarding a final solution of the Jewish Question. This involves a tremendous number of new viewpoints. The Jewish Question must be solved within a pan-European frame. There are more than 11 million Jews in Europe. They will have to be concentrated first in the East; perhaps later after the war, an island can be assigned to them, such as Madagascar. In any case, there can be no peace in Europe until the last Jews are totally excluded from the European territory. (Goebbel's Diaries, 7 Mar 1942)