World Tribune.com


Hitler's advent to power as a warning


See the Lev Navrozov Archive

By Lev Navrozov
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972 He settled in New York City where he quickly learned that there was no market for his eloquent and powerful English language attacks on the Soviet Union. To this day, he writes without fear or favor or the conventions of polite society. He chaired the "Alternative to the New York Times Committee" in 1980, challenged the editors of the New York Times to a debate (which they declined) and became a columnist for the New York City Tribune. His columns are today read in both English and Russian.
Lev Navrozov

August 23, 2004

In August, 84 years ago, Hitler's party became known as the National-Socialist German Workers' Party. The anniversary deserves those observations that are missing in Western post-WW2 histories of Germany of the first half of the 20th century, yet which may be relevant today.

Why and how did Hitler establish dictatorship in a Western democracy and the world's best educated country?

In his 500-page biography of Hitler “The Psychopathic [!] God [!] Adolf Hitler,” Robert Waite, professor of modern German history at Williams College, answers the question already in the title of his volume — Hitler was psychopathic, or to put it simply, insane, but to a majority of the German people he was God because they were also psychopathic. It is not clear how this explains other “right-wing” dictatorships over most of Europe from Italy and Spain to Hungary and Roumainia.

In elections to the Reichstag in 1932 Hitler's party received more votes than any other and hence the greatest number of seats. So Hitler became — legally, constitutionally, democratically — Reichschancellor (prime minister).

But did those who voted for Hitler's party in 1932 do so because they and Hitler himself were psychopathic?

In 1918 the Communists were so powerful in Germany that it came to be feared that they would seize power, even without the aid of Soviet troops, as they did in Bavaria, for example. At the same time, under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was defenseless against Stalin's invasion.

Why did not Stalin invade Germany? This question is discussed even today, and there is no convincing answer. But if the military experts cannot answer it today, more than seventy years later, how could those who voted for Hitler's party in 1932 be sure that Stalin would NOT invade Germany in alliance with the German Communists, who had become Stalinists after Stalin's advent to power in Soviet Russia?

What awaited the German middle class in Stalin's Germany? Goebbels showed — no, not his own, but SOVIET newsreels that eulogized the “liquidation” of ten million prosperous farmers and uncountable millions of urban “small businessmen.” The German middle class voted for Hitler as its savior from death in Stalin's “corrective labor camps,” if not before Stalin's firing squads.

Professor Waite regards the voting for Hitler insane and Hitler himself psychopathic. But those who voted for Hitler regarded him as the only sane German statesman promising and able to abrogate unilaterally the Treaty of Versailles and thus save Germany from Stalin.

Nine years later, they also regarded Hitler's invasion of Stalin's Russia as a preemptive war. Did not Churchill call for the invasion of Russia in 1918 in order to destroy “the bacillus of Bolshevism”? Surely by 1941 the bacillus had become much stronger and more virile due to Stalin's growing military might!

When Professor Waite's volume appeared in its first edition (1977) he did not (want to) know that Stalin's successors were developing post-nuclear weapons. Or that Mao's successors would begin to do so in 1986. Professor Waite assumes that he and Americans in general are a normal healthy nation because it has been blind to these dangers, while the Germans who feared in 1932 Stalin's invasion were pathological .

So what am I driving at? To prove that those who voted for Hitler in 1932 did the right thing? No! What I want to show is how easily the fear of a danger leads democracy to dictatorship.

Hitler became the Reichschancellor owing to a democratic vote in a democracy. So far so good. But taking advantage of his power thus gained, he began to demolish democracy until he became the dictator in dictatorship, just as Stalin was in Soviet Russia.

He launched the war against Soviet Russia with a dictator's boldness. Democracies suffer from willful blindness, passivity, irresolution. But dictatorships suffer from grandiose recklessness. Hitler's war on Russia was reckless, and after the rout of his troops at Moscow in the winter of 1941Ý42, he himself privately declared that the war had been lost. So the enormous casualties “at the Russian front” and the hinterland under Allied bombs were to be in vain.

After the defeat of the winter of 1941Ý42, he decided (correctly) that now his subordinates would begin to betray him to “the Anglo-Saxons.” To prevent this, he resorted to what is known in the criminal world as “the blood bond”: the chieftain of a criminal gang involves members of it in a crime so heinous that they cannot expect anything but death sentences, and hence will not denounce their chieftain to the police to save their own skins.

Hitler pretended that he did not even know about the blood bond massacre: the extermination of 12 million civilians, including 6 million Jews.

This was “the biggest crime” in the civilian history of the West and can be compared only with the extermination by the Mongols of all Tatar males except children in order to produce a Mongol-Tatar nation. That is, when Hitler lost the war, Germany, the country that gave the world most of great music, had been disgraced as no Western country ever before.

East Germany, with part of Berlin, became Soviet: Hitler had promised to defend Germany against Stalin, but here Stalin came into the possession of Eastern Europe — owing to Hitler's war.

In short, Hitler's dictatorship was born of the well-justified fear of Stalin's invasion of defenseless Germany and of the blindness of the German democracy to the danger. But it left Germany as a war wrack and ruin, perceived internationally as a (fortunately, dead) monster.

Hitler had disgraced not only Germany but the West as a whole, for had not Germany been, before Hitler's dictatorship, the cultural pride of the West where even under the Kaiser the Jew Einstein had held the most prestigious scientific posts?

Let us face it: The pre-1933 democracy of Germany (Weimar Republic) was unable to cope with the danger of Stalin's invasion of Germany. So the German democracy refused to notice it. Hence the vote for Hitler's party in 1932. But Hitler's dictatorship failed to keep Stalin off East Germany, yet brought about grave losses, disasters, and the heinous crime against humanity.

Today's Islamic terrorism is the lesser danger to the democratic West than “the China threat” — as enormous as was for Germany the threat of Stalin's invasion in 1932. Today's Westerners may decide, in order to cope with such threats, to do what those voters in Germany decided to do in 1932. Oh, the appearances will be different, but the essence may be similar. Thus, a leader thus elected will never be called “Fuehrer” as Hitler is called in histories, published in the English-speaking countries after WW2 to show how different the Germans are or were in 1932 — they voted for a Fuehrer, not a leader! How psychopathic! “Our” leader will be called a leader! Incidentally, the German word “Fuehrer” has wider meanings in Germany than do the English word “leader” in the English-speaking countries. For example, “driver's license” is in German “Fuehrerschein.”

* * * * *

For more information about Drexler's Foresight Institute and its lobbying in Congress, see www.foresight.org

To learn more about the Chris Phoenix report, suggesting a “nano Manhattan Project,” go to crnano.org.

For information about the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., including how you can help, please e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net.

The link to my book online is www.levnavrozov.com. You can also request our webmaster@levnavrozov.com to send you by e-mail my outline of my book.

It is my pleasant duty to express gratitude to the Rev. Alan Freed, a Lutheran pastor by occupation before his retirement and a thinker by vocation, for his help in the writing of this column.

Lev Navrozov's (navlev@cloud9.net] new book is available on-line at www.levnavrozov.com. To request an outline of the book, send an e-mail to webmaster@levnavrozov.com.

August 23, 2004

Print this Article Print this Article Email this article Email this article Subscribe to this Feature Free Headline Alerts


See current edition of

Return to World Tribune.com Front Cover
Your window on the world

Contact World Tribune.com at world@worldtribune.com