Wolfgang Hänel, Hermann Rauschnings “Gespräche mit Hitler” - Eine Geschichtsfälschung (= Veröffentlichung der Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt, Bd. 7), Ingolstadt 1984

During his stay in Canada Otto was often referred to as the Ex nazi, or the Nazi, and government reports made him out to have struggled with Hitler for control of the NS Party. he was often portrayed as anti democratic.

peter Dodge

“You are withdrawing your apology from me?”

Damn straight.

You are withdrawing your apology from me?

That’s just pathetic.

Yours For A Better World — Dutch

• Der Vermittler accuses me of being “biased.” Yes, indeed I am. I will state without reservation that I am a National Bolshevik and that I stand for undiluted socialist principles. It would probably be best if we put aside bourgeois notions of “objectivity” and simply stated our biases openly.

• Several of my critics have stated that Oswald Spengler was a racist. Specifically, Der Vermittler says that “Der Mensch und die Technik” was a racist book, while Friedrich Braun has made the same claim for “Hour of Decision.” I have earlier provided a quote by Spengler (for the record, from Decline of the West, II : p. 129) denouncing the very concept of race. Can my auditors provide documented statements by Spengler that contradict this?

• Der Vermittler has made the statement that “Spengler is not a nasbol (national-bolshevist).” This is much like saying “Marx was not a Leninist,” in the sense that Leninism is derived from, and acknowledges its origins in, the thought of Marx. Spengler, Radek, Möller van den Bruck, and Jünger are the intellectual progenitors of National Bolshevism, and not Hiterlism, despite whoever may have feigned to embrace their thought.

• Alex Zeka states that “Marx’s leftism is against (his desiderata for the workingman).” So what? It is axiomatic that “Leftism” is that political position favoring the working classes. What an actual “leftist” program might be is as debatable as what genuine Christianity might look like, yet this does not discredit the earnest sincerity of the myriad o

• WLindsayWheeler says that “Socialism first and foremost is (a) idealistic, (b) democratic, (c) progressive, (d) chialistic, (e) revolutionary and (f) for the lower classes, i.e. leveller,” and I have three questions for him.
– Wherever did he get that definition?
– What on earth does “chialistic” mean? I have tried two dictionaries and an “on line” search with no success.
– What does he mean by “lower classes?” Classes are defined, not by their relation to each other relatively, but by their relationship to the means of production. By “lower classes” does he mean proletarian or lumpen?

• Fred Scrooby believes that National Bolsheviks “need to get rid of the word Bolshevism in their name,” and he might have a point. Since we are both nationalist and socialist, the name “National Socialist” would seem both more descriptive and more accurate — except that the name “National Socialism” has been forever poisoned by Hitler’s appropriation of that name for his program of imperialism and racial extermination.

• WLindsayWheeler has put forth Hitler’s idea that “(National Socialism is) the fulfillment of Marxist doctrine stripped of its Talmudic teaching.” Could Mr. Wheeler give one example of Talmudic teaching” in Marx? I think not.

• He also claims that “Nazism is ideological, it is progressive,” when frankly it is not. The actions of the Hitler Regime in no way correspond to any of the socialism or even nationalism put forth in their early propaganda. National Socialism, as it played out, was simply Hitlerism: a program of imperialism and race hatred with no actual developed ideology.

• Friedrich Braun has accused me of fostering a “litany of lies and half-truths” because I mention that Dietrich Orlow denies the existence of any actual copy of the Strasser resignation letter. I would invite Mr. Braun to check my facts first! Dietrich Orlow does indeed make this statement on page 292 of his “History of the Nazi Party: 1919 - 1933,” University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 1969 in footnote #230. Please not that I WAS CITING MR. ORLOW! This is what scholarship is all about, listing your sources! Mr. Braun goes on to say that “Stachura reproduces Gregor Strasser’s letter of resignation in full” when in fact Mr. Stachura does nothing of the kind. He dies not provide a photo nor photostat of the supposed letter, nor even the supposed original German text, but instead gives us an English translation of what the letter is supposed to have said. If Mr. Braun had bothered to go to the citation that Mr. Stachura provides (footnote 57 on page 156) he would find the following: “The letter is printed in Schultz, “Rettungen,” pp. 9-11. Kissenkoetter, “Gregor Strasser,” pp. 177 ff., doubts whether this is the full, original version, but does not clearly explain his reasons.” So you see — Stachura himself is forced to admit that this might not be the actual text of Strasser’s letter. Next time, Mr. Braun, try reading the footnotes.

• Braun then accuses me of aiming a “flood of ad hominems aimed at Stachura, alleging ideological bias,” adding that I “offer not a shred of evidence to back up his (irrelevant) claims.” In response to this, let me point out that Stachura is so steeped in this bourgeois/liberal viewpoint that he is able to call the socialism of Gregor Strasser “hollow” because Strasser was anti-feminist (“Gregor Strasser and the Rise of Nazism,” p. 60.), as though opening the path of careerism to bourgeois women was of any use to the proletariat! He calls feminism a “progressive movement,” never questioning its worth or importance for the working classes, never addressing its relevance as “leftist.” Despite the fact that Strasser declares time and again that he “stands for undiluted socialist principles” or that he was the man that made the famous “Bread and Work” speech before the Reichstag, Stachura has the gall to question his leftism. If this is not bias, I don’t know what is.

• Mr. Braun goes on to call me “bonkers” for accusing “Stachura of harbouring a pro-Hitler bias.” I accused Stachura of being a bourgeois liberal. If Mr. Braun thinks that Hitler was a bourgeois liberal then I think we all know who is bonkers.

• Mr. Braun asserts that “Otto Strasser is not a reliable source on anything,” and perhaps that is right. But when did I cite Otto Strasser as an authority on anything? Did I repeat his claims that Hitler was a coprophiliac? Or his accusation that Hitler shot his niece Geli when she caught him flagrante delicto with Emil Maurice? No — I simply mentioned that no account of the National Bolshevik tendency in Germany would be complete without mentioning his contribution to it. I never repeated Otto’s revelation to the OSS that Hitler only had one ball — even though the Soviet autopsy confirmed this!

• Braun give the advice that “Those who care about the truth can read “Gregor Strasser and the Rise of Nazism.” I would say that, while this book is scholarly, it also has a bourgeois liberal bias. A much better account would be Robert Henry Frank’s superlative “Hitler and the National Socialist Coalition,1924 - 1932” (Doctoral Dissertation - Johns Hopkins University, 1969, available from University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan). Not only does this lack the PC bias of Stachura, but it features much more original research, based as it is upon actual interviews with Otto Strasser, Walter Stennis, and others.

• Hot Flash: according to Friedrich Braun “Dutchman is lying again!” This time I refused to acknowledge that “Hour of Decision” “is indeed a racist book where the author postulates a future racial war between the coloured races and the White race.” Let me point out that predicting a war between races does not make one a racist, any more than predicting a Yankee victory in the World Series makes one a Yankee fan. He then goes on to say “nowhere in the said work does he attack National Socialism.” This is completely disingenuous. Spengler never once mentioned either Hitler or National Socialism in the book as an intended slight! Farrenkopf, in his “Prophet of Decline: Spengler on world history and politics” (Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 2001), states “Although mindful of the danger of censorship, the aspiring praeceptor Germaniae advances in this work a politically courageous criticism of the Nazi leadership. Indeed, “Hour of Decision” is one of the few regime-critical and the most sensational to appear during the Third Reich. Spengler criticizes the racial ideology of the Nazi party and its anti-Semitism … adding insult to injury, in a daring affront to the Führer and his cronies, Spengler characterizes Germany as ‘a nation without leaders or weapons.’”

• “Spengler voted National Socialist and exhibited the Swastika flag in front of his home.” Yes — and when asked about it he responded “Hitler is an idiot, but one must support the movement.” (Farrenkopf, “Prophet of Decline: Spengler on world history and politics,” p. 236.) By this Spengler meant that while he supported both socialism and nationalism, he thought that Hitler represented neither — a judgement that proved to be quite prescient.

• “ To now turn him (Spengler) into an anti-N.S., National Bolshevist intellectual is simply false.” It’s not just me that thinks this. Try Klemens von Klemperer’s “Germany’s new conservatism; its history and dilemma in the twentieth century” (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1957). Of course, if a whole book is too much to take in, you could try Klemperer’s seminal article on the subject “Towards a Fourth Reich? The History of National Bolshevism in Germany” published in Review of Politics XIII, April 1951, pp. 191-210.

• Mr. Braun then accuses National Bolsheviks of a “complete dismissal of race or the immigration crisis makes them inconsequential to the 21st Century and the big questions facing the West and the White man,” and I think this sums up the difference between a bigoted position of race hatred and a well considered cultural position. I, as a National Bolshevik, harbor no brief against other races (I am in fact married to a non-white), but this has no bearing on the fact that I consider Western Culture to surpass all others. As people are the vessels of culture, I am deeply troubled by the demographic crisis of the West, of the flood of non-Western immigrants that are turning places like Spain and Italy into Moslem nations, of the “multi-culturalism” that is causing our own youth to abandon their own culture. But that does not mean that I will abandon the Christian understanding that we are all God’s children and succumb to vulgar racism.