In Defense of Hitler?

Given what we “know” about Adolf Hitler, could anyone in his right mind honestly defend the man accused of murdering millions of Jews and many more millions who stood in his way of global conquest? The answer is yes, and the information presented will surprise most Americans.

 

The Barnes Review published its inaugural 2014 volume with a defense of Adolf Hitler, an ostensibly insurmountable feat. However, the historians at TBR pasted together a collage of interesting facts and vignettes which undermines the conventional wisdom about the 20^th century’s most reviled man.

 

One of the leading articles in the edition addresses the subject of civilian bombings of cities during the war. The common view is that Hitler launched the London Blitzes to terrorize Britons, but the truth is much different. While Hitler bombed military targets in Britain, Churchill targeted civilian populations in Germany. Only after months of incessant bombing of Germany’s civilian centers did Hitler retaliate in kind. It is thus evident that Churchill was the butcher who spread death and pestilence throughout Europe.

 

This view is confirmed by Churchill’s refusal to consider any peace offers from the German fuehrer. Taking his love for war a step further, Churchill stated that he would not offer any peace terms to Germany because he knew that Hitler would accept them. How did the butcher of London know this? The answer is given in another revelation in the TBR magazine.

 

In a closely related article, TBR covers the carpet bombing of Germany, with Dresden being the most famous example in which American and British bombers pummeled the city with deathly fire bombs, a city with virtually no military significance. It was the stated policy of Anthony Eden to kill as many civilians as possible. The British, with their vaunted smug aristocracy, are among history’s most blood thirsty murderous hordes. Roosevelt and the Americans were no better.

 

New information about the mission of Rudolf Hess has been revealed in Hess, Hitler, and Churchill written by Peter Padfield which confirms the stories that Hitler sent his deputy to Britain with an offer of peace wherein Germany would withdraw from the occupied countries in exchange for British neutrality in his planned invasion of the USSR.

 

The magazine explains elsewhere that Hitler’s animosity for communism stemmed from its birth as a Jewish-Bankster tool for imposing totalitarianism on its subjects, the USSR being a prime example. Consequently, Hitler was biding his time to attack the Soviet Union in an effort wipe its threat from the planet.

 

When Hess’ plane went down over Scotland in 1941, the British arrested him and placed him in Spandau prison until they murdered him in 1987. Hess was also tried at Nuremburg after the war even though he could not have committed any crimes of any kind while incarcerated.

 

Padfield argues that the British entrapped Hess in a double cross where they feigned an interest in peace in order to lure Hess to Britain where they would betray him.

 

It is well established that Churchill lusted for war, and was hell bent that the United States should join the Zionist instigated war. Thus peace was a non starter for Churchill.

 

On a more personal note, Hitler’s bodyguard, Rochus Misch, the last surviving member of dictator’s inner circle, died September 5, 2013 aged 96. His recollections of Hitler are quite at variance with the common stories of a mad lunatic frothing at the mouth demon possessed rabid anti Semite. On the contrary, Misch reports that Hitler was well composed, considerate, and normal.

 

Finally, TBR published a very brief essay denying that the Rothschilds financed Hitler. While we have maintained that plutocrats indeed financed him, including Wall Street and the Bush Crime Syndicate, the essayist argued that no such evidence about the Rothschilds exists despite what Eustace Mullins or Gary Allen have written.  Cassian d’Ornellas argues that Hitler was the scourge of banksters, and that they turned on him as a threat to their pecuniary interests. This is a subject deserving further investigation. We do not retract any statements we have made about the involvement of Standard Oil and Wall Street funding Hitler, but a revised hermeneutic of the relationship is in order.

 

Most likely, Hitler was propped up to create a thesis and antithesis leading to war, the old favorite of banksters looking to grow rich on the corpses of the poor.

 

Other topics abound in this issue of The Barnes Review. We agree that it is time to re-examine Hitler based upon the evidence – not upon the movies and propaganda of Zionists.

Reference
The Barnes Review, January/February 2014

Copyright 2014 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.