Refuting the "refutations" - ๐ฏ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ 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 Iโve made on my twitter account. Some of these types Iโll be responding to are probably the same person, but I donโt care enough to try and sort it out. In this post I will be responding to @rassenpapst (๐ฏ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐) and his latest โHHC DEBUNK THREADโ.
This wonโt be exhaustive because I donโt 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.
Letโs hop right into it.
Here ๐ฏ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ is claiming that the statement โOne Volkโone Empireโone God.โ was never a common nationalist phrase. I donโt really care if it was a โnationalistโ phrase but it absolutely was a known phrase to Germans under the Second Empire. For instance, hereโs a Kaiser Patriotic medallion with the phrase you can buy on ebay right now for around 14 bucks plus shipping. โEin Reich Ein Volk Ein Gottโ is clearly visible on the coin. Iโm also fairly certain that โEin Reich Ein Volk Ein Gottโ was a direct quote from the Kaiser but I donโt care enough to go find that at the moment.
The point is, ๐ฏ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐โs claim that it wasnโt a common phrase is false. The most I could concede to him here is that perhaps the phrase was used with "Fรผhrerโ rather than โGottโ prior to Hitlerโs rise to power. Regardless, the fact those words became interchangeable and then ultimately became ubiquitously โOne Volkโone Empireโone Fรผhrerโ 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 doesnโt 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 โdubiousโ, these public statements were recorded on two different occasions in contemporary transcriptions. At this point Iโm beginning to wonder if ๐ฏ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ knows how to read citations.
Kristallnacht did occur. Synagogues were burned. This isnโt disputed by anyone remotely serious.
๐ฏ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ finds himself in a situation here where he canโt 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 Rosenbergโs 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, Rosenbergโs 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 Hitlerโs religious views. If we bring this standard of โskepticismโ 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 ๐ฏ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐โs 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 didnโt 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 shouldnโt 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 thereโs a secret CIA team that worked for multiple generations to forge 420+ handwritten pages of Rosenbergโs handwriting to create a document about which Jurgen Matthaus, director of applied research at the museumโs Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, says โIf you are looking for shattering revelations about the Nazi era, youโre not going to find them,โ. โHis diary often seems muted, if not silent, on crucial topics and important events, including the persecution of Jews,โ.
Further, the claim the Goebbels diary doesnโt contain solid acknowledgment of the Holocaust is rather odd considering it quite literally does:
๐ฏ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ 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 doesnโt 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 โin a senseโ. Thereโs no explanation of what this means but if you read the replies below, thereโs some random crackpot posting bizzarro memes like this:
The claim here seems to be that Hitler clearly was a Christian because he said โthe apostle Paulโ once and also considered his writings โpure and nobleโ. Iโm glad to hear that ๐ฏ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ considers Otto Wagenerโs memoirs an authentic and reliable source! Letโs take a look at some other things he recorded about Hitlerโs 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. Donโt worry though, ๐ฏ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ is here to tell you that Hitler is clearly only โspeaking poeticallyโ. He also completely ignores Otto quoting Hitler saying St. Paulโs teachings โsoon became falsifiedโ. Ironically this directly corresponds with and validates the authenticity of Table Talks, which contain Hitlerโs 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 โnatural lawโ 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 โlaws of natureโ he established.
It really doesnโt take a deep understanding of theology/philosophy to see how this is ridiculous.
I canโt imagine why Adrien Arcand, the โCanadian Fรผhrerโ, 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 wasnโt the clear ideological figurehead of the Nazi regime in 1937?
The little 4-digit numbers in the citations are years ๐ฏ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐. Itโs 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 photographโฆ
I really donโt 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 Hitlerโs permission? That would seem extremely unwise if Hiter was truly a devout Christian/Catholic as claimed.
Iโll end here because Iโve dealt with the majority of his responses and itโs getting rather repetitive. This response is quintessential of ๐ฏ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐โs dishonest behavior. Keep in mind he has already affirmed that he believes Otto Wagnerโs memoirs are authentic and trustworthy. When he comes across Hitler DIRECTLY accusing the Catholic church of paganism and idolatry, he doesnโt cede the point that Hitler obviously wasnโt a Catholic, he focuses only on it as evidence Hitler wasnโt 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.