Refuting the "refutations" - π―πππππππ edition
They're not sending their best
I have a very hard time keeping track of detractors. All the anime profile pic accounts blend together in my mind. That may have something to do with them all sharing the same poorly-thought-out objections to the claims Iβve made on my twitter account. Some of these types Iβll be responding to are probably the same person, but I donβt care enough to try and sort it out. In this post I will be responding to @rassenpapst (π―πππππππ) and his latest βHHC DEBUNK THREADβ.
This wonβt be exhaustive because I donβt have a fully perfected Godly level of patience yet. I have to respond to these things in small doses because I reach a critical mass level of annoyance.
Letβs hop right into it.
Here π―πππππππ is claiming that the statement βOne Volkβone Empireβone God.β was never a common nationalist phrase. I donβt really care if it was a βnationalistβ phrase but it absolutely was a known phrase to Germans under the Second Empire. For instance, hereβs a Kaiser Patriotic medallion with the phrase you can buy on ebay right now for around 14 bucks plus shipping. βEin Reich Ein Volk Ein Gottβ is clearly visible on the coin. Iβm also fairly certain that βEin Reich Ein Volk Ein Gottβ was a direct quote from the Kaiser but I donβt care enough to go find that at the moment.
The point is, π―πππππππβs claim that it wasnβt a common phrase is false. The most I could concede to him here is that perhaps the phrase was used with "FΓΌhrerβ rather than βGottβ prior to Hitlerβs rise to power. Regardless, the fact those words became interchangeable and then ultimately became ubiquitously βOne Volkβone Empireβone FΓΌhrerβ under Nazism is the point.
Moving on, we find the claim that Hitler loved Christian art due to him painting Mary and churches 23+ years prior to making this statement.
It ought not be shocking that people tend to change opinions between 24 years old and 47 years old. Further, his possession of a Christian painting in his bunker ~9 years later also doesnβt seem to indicate anything more than that he may have been inconsistent in his personal value of historical art in comparison to his public statements. Imagine that: Hitler being wildly inconsistent. As for the source being βdubiousβ, these public statements were recorded on two different occasions in contemporary transcriptions. At this point Iβm beginning to wonder if π―πππππππ knows how to read citations.
Kristallnacht did occur. Synagogues were burned. This isnβt disputed by anyone remotely serious.
π―πππππππ finds himself in a situation here where he canβt rely on just groveling, he has to entirely dismiss the Goebbels diary as authentic. The problem with this is, virtually no one with remotely any form of historical credentials agree with him on this. Even David Irving and Mark Weber, renown holocaust revisionists, affirm that the diaries are authentic.
Further, there are several instances where Goebbels and Rosenbergβs diaries reference the same conversation or controversy, like this instance from April of 1941.
Or this one in December of 1941.
There are even certain controversies that are recorded in Goebbels diary, Rosenbergβs diary, AND Table Talks.
I can only presume the claim against their authenticity must rest on the belief that someone independently fabricated in part or in whole hundreds of pages of different documents (some of which are hand-written) possessed by different people all over the planet over the course of decades in order to record what amounts to fairly unexciting records of Hitlerβs religious views. If we bring this standard of βskepticismβ to any historical research effort it would be virtually impossible to ever come to the conclusion any document was reliable.
It does make one wonder what π―πππππππβs response would be to someone who questioned the authenticity of the Christian gospel accounts.
Some fragments of the Goebbels diary were published in English translation as early as 1948 in the UK with incomplete originals discovered in Berlin in 1945. Microfilmed copies of the diaries were rediscovered in the soviet archives in 1992 and included passages previously found, confirming the authenticity of the previously discovered portions. Mark Weber didnβt believe in their authenticity until the microfilms were discovered and they backed all the original documents we have. He now affirms they are authentic.
It really shouldnβt surprise anyone that something like this ended up in Soviet hands. I guess it would have had to be the CIA working with the Soviet Union to forge this stuff in the middle of the cold war. Pretty incredible if you ask me.
He then goes after the Roseberg diaries directly, again I can only assume that he believes thereβs a secret CIA team that worked for multiple generations to forge 420+ handwritten pages of Rosenbergβs handwriting to create a document about which Jurgen Matthaus, director of applied research at the museumβs Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, says βIf you are looking for shattering revelations about the Nazi era, youβre not going to find them,β. βHis diary often seems muted, if not silent, on crucial topics and important events, including the persecution of Jews,β.
Further, the claim the Goebbels diary doesnβt contain solid acknowledgment of the Holocaust is rather odd considering it quite literally does:
π―πππππππ proceeds to claim that because the Goebbels diary demonstrated that Nazi ideology was inconsistent when it comes to holding to antisemitism and also revering Nietzsche, that they must be fake.
This doesnβt imply anything other than a reaffirmation of the already near-universally acknowledged fact among historians that Nazi ideology was inconsistent when it comes to holding to antisemitism and also revering Nietzsche.
I love this part where he throws in with Houston Stewart Chamberlain by claiming Jesus was Aryan βin a senseβ. Thereβs no explanation of what this means but if you read the replies below, thereβs some random crackpot posting bizzarro memes like this:
The claim here seems to be that Hitler clearly was a Christian because he said βthe apostle Paulβ once and also considered his writings βpure and nobleβ. Iβm glad to hear that π―πππππππ considers Otto Wagenerβs memoirs an authentic and reliable source! Letβs take a look at some other things he recorded about Hitlerβs religious views:
The keen (or even remotely literate) among you may notice that this is Otto Wagener claiming Hitler directly denied the resurrection of Christ. Donβt worry though, π―πππππππ is here to tell you that Hitler is clearly only βspeaking poeticallyβ. He also completely ignores Otto quoting Hitler saying St. Paulβs teachings βsoon became falsifiedβ. Ironically this directly corresponds with and validates the authenticity of Table Talks, which contain Hitlerβs later claim that the Apostle Paul corrupted Christianity.
More from Otto:
Hitler claimed the Old Testament to not be the ethos of Nazism (interestingly enough, this falls precisely in line with the tenancy of Nazi ideologues to remove the Old Testament and portions of the sermon on the mount from scripture) and held deeply unChristian and murderous eugenic views.
I dozed off reading this one but the TL;DR is that he pinky promises that Hitler was only talking about Nature in some βnatural lawβ sense and not a deification sense. The problem is this is all just random extrabiblical assertions with pretty obviously anti-Christian results. For example: A race can become more genetically fit through murder of all weaker members of the race. Ergo God must desire for us to murder each other to remain in keeping with the βlaws of natureβ he established.
It really doesnβt take a deep understanding of theology/philosophy to see how this is ridiculous.
I canβt imagine why Adrien Arcand, the βCanadian FΓΌhrerβ, would have motivation to minimize Mit Brennender Sorge. When issuing these types of condemnations, the Catholic church rarely if ever names politicians. The fact is the Reich considered it an affront to their ideology, destroyed printing presses, and threw people in prison for distributing it. Why would a document condemning the elevation of race and the state above God infuriate a regime where this was not clearly occurring? Is the claim that the Vatican issued this for no reason at all, or that Hitler wasnβt the clear ideological figurehead of the Nazi regime in 1937?
The little 4-digit numbers in the citations are years π―πππππππ. Itβs not that difficult to understand that in 1924 he expressed the need to camouflage his views on religion and then over time he became more vocal. Hitler also became more frustrated with the church publicly as time went on. Party leaders were ultimately forbidden from holding leadership in religious organizations as of 1938.
Now on to the question of the photographβ¦
I really donβt understand this one. I can only presume the claim being made here is that Hitler was comfortable with the original unaltered photograph being published with the cross over his head (1935). That was never in dispute. Weikart and I affirm that, and claim that the original photograph was edited in a future edition (1938) to remove the cross. This is confirmed by the negatives of the photograph which can still be observed today. Did Hoffman later edit the photograph without Hitlerβs permission? That would seem extremely unwise if Hiter was truly a devout Christian/Catholic as claimed.
Iβll end here because Iβve dealt with the majority of his responses and itβs getting rather repetitive. This response is quintessential of π―πππππππβs dishonest behavior. Keep in mind he has already affirmed that he believes Otto Wagnerβs memoirs are authentic and trustworthy. When he comes across Hitler DIRECTLY accusing the Catholic church of paganism and idolatry, he doesnβt cede the point that Hitler obviously wasnβt a Catholic, he focuses only on it as evidence Hitler wasnβt a pagan!
My claim has never been that Hitler was genuinely a religious pagan in any structured sense, merely that he was not a Christian (especially not a Catholic) and that he held to a sort of Panentheism.
You are absolutely amazing here. In a world that consistently tries to make Hitler some sort of savior against modern degenerate, one forgets the degeneracy his parry also did.