*

"Enemy of the German People, eh?"


Rebutting Michael Hoffman's Rebuttal


 by Mike King

Fighting the daily hurricane of lies emanating from Fake News communist scum and other assorted Establishment vermin is already a full-time endeavor. The last thing right-wing revisionists need to be doing is engaging in literary ping-pong matches with each other. However since Michael Hoffman II has posted a rebuttal (recopied below) to my own critique (here) of his mono-maniacally hateful view of Hitler (I say monomaniacal because Hoffman is very solid on many things, especially the Holohoax) -- I am compelled to return the volley -- one last time.


Here we go --- line by line:


Hoffman: Mr. King’s Hitler veneration ….

King: To the charge of venerating The Great One, I plead guilty. F-yeah!


Hoffman: ... entails acceptance of Nazi propaganda ….

King: Though the term “propaganda” generally has a negative stink to it, in reality, propaganda (another word for advertising) can either be truthful or deceptive. Therefore, whether one "accepts" Hitler's explanation / propaganda for events at face value or not, tells us nothing.


Apart altogether from the fact that “Nazi” (itself a derisive term of propaganda used by Hitler’s enemies) propaganda had a remarkable track record for honesty – the cases set forth in my piece (specifically about the Soviet invasion and the vile Strasser Brothers) are corroborated by other original sources, some of them even hostile towards Hitler. My arguments "entail acceptance" of neutral data (some of which was provided in my article) and reason, not anyone's "propaganda."


Hoffman: About Hitler’s murder victims ...

King: Manipulation of language here. The execution of violent coup plotters (who controlled the fearsome "Brown Shirts") cannot logically nor morally be called "murder" any more than the execution of an assassin or a traitor.


Hoffman: ...  including Gregor Strasser.  On no evidence he accuses Gregor of plotting the overthrow of Hitler.

King: The term "on no evidence" is a tricky one. When ferreting-out moles and traitors, one soon learns how clever they are at concealing their dark deeds. Indeed, the standard defense of the embedded Red moles targeted during "the McCarthy Era" was always, "there's no evidence."


After Hitler's consolidation of power, Gregor Strasser -- who, along with brother, Otto, was an ambitious enemy of Hitler who had earlier conspired with elements of the existing shit Wiemar Republic government  to bust-up the NSDAP -- was permitted to make a living in Germany, provided he cease his political activity. The fact that Hitler's boys put a bullet in his head after the suppression of a treasonous attempt at a coup and civil war, indicates that Slippery Strasser was still being political -- as was his traitorous brother who had already fled Germany to live under the protection of the crypto-Communist western stooge Eduard Benes. Mr. Hoffman's "veneration" of the Strasser Brothers is baffling.


Hoffman: He claims Gregor was part of his brother Otto’s political party; that is not true.

King: True or not --- a meaningless technicality -- a splitting of hairs. Gregor and Otto were joined at the hip and worked toward the same end. Whether or not Gregor was an actual card-carrying member of the Leftist "Black Front" party which Otto founded in order to divide & conquer NSDAP is no more relevant than whether or not your writer here -- a strong advocate for gun ownership and the Second Amendment --  is an actual member of the Gun Owners of America. What the hell difference would it make? None -- because GOA and me are both in total agreement and working for common purposes -- as were Otto, Gregor and the homosexual thug and SA Chief, Ernst Roehm.


Hoffman: He claims Otto supported Lenin and the Bolsheviks; also not true.

King: According to the British-based online Encyclopedia Spartacus Educational -- which certainly doesn't appear to have any axe to grind against the Strassers :


"In 1924 he (O. Strasser) joined forces with his brother, Gregor Strasser, to establish the Berliner Arbeiter Zeitung, a left-wing newspaper, that advocated world revolution. It also supported Lenin and the Bolshevik government in the Soviet Union."


I shall reach out to SE for sourcing on this statement. Fair enough? Regardless, the fact that the Strassers were far to the left of Hitler and closer to the Communists is not in dispute -- as further evidenced by the fact that, in 1950, the hard-core Communists of East Germany invited Otto (living in Canada at the time) to join the Party and to come live there.

*********************

April 8, 1950

Frontpage Teaser, The Manitoba Ensign (Canada): Soviets Want Strasser in Germany (Page 2)

Headline, Page 2: Strasser Asked to Join East German Reds


"The communist dominated government of East Germany has invited Otto Strasser , former Nazi who broke with Hitler in 1930 to form the "Black Front," to return to Germany to join its Soviet (Stalin) sponsored Nationalist German Movement, Strasser told The Ensign last week.


Bruno Fricke, a friend and personal aid of Strasser's for 20 years, recently wrote an open letter to Stalin .. backing a Russia Germany alliance." (emphasis added)


PLEA TO STALIN

Fricke, who wrote the preface to Strasser's book, Hitler and I, asked Stalin in his letter to cooperate (with Germany) "in the coming third world war" (against the West)

(article here)


Nice friends ya got there, Otto.

*************************

Hoffman: He says the Strassers were "anti-business.” They were anti-usury. This had been Hitler’s platform, which he subsequently betrayed.

King: Hitler the usurer who "betrayed" the German debtors, eh? Is that why he ushered in the strongest labor-backed currency and economy in the world while the rest of the West remained mired in debt-based-currency Depression? Is that why he wiped away the cruel, unpayable debt from the Versailles Treaty atrocity the moment he came to power?


Hoffman: Gregor never did betray it; that was his “crime."

King: No. The crime of the Strasser Brothers – before their expulsion and execution, respectively, was treason. Hoffman continues to beatify Strasser as a sainted idealist loyal to his principles when, in reality, Strasserian opposition to Hitler was motivated greatly by jealousy, ambition and control. A West German Court got it right in 1969 when it rejected Otto Strasser's appeal for a state pension as a "resister of the Nazis."  The court ruled that the surviving Strasser had been a "personal opponent of Hitler rather than a principled opponent of nazism."


A Final Word on the Strasser Brothers


As noted in my original piece, Odious Otto later agitated against what was by then the immensely popular and beloved Hitler while being safely hosted in Czechoslovakia -- a nation headed up by Eduard Benes -- a crypto-communist chummy with both Winston Churchill and Joe Stalin,  and deeply hostile to Germany. That alone proves that he, and his dead brother, were indeed self-centered traitors -- ya might call em: "Enemies of the German People," all along.


But the most fascinating thing that I discovered about this bizarre and lingering phenomenon of Strasserphilia is -- that when you dig deeper and deeper into its foundational origins -- the astute researcher (that'd be me), upon arriving at the very bottom of the rabbit hole -- must eventually discover that almost all of what the Strasserphiles claim to know about the Strasser Brothers and their bitter rivalry with Hitler comes to them, whether they realize it or not, either directly or indirectly, from the poisonous pen or the mendacious mouth of ---- Otto Strasser! And Odious Otto (surprise surprise) assures us, in his 15 or so written works -- with titles like, "The Gangsters Around Hitler," "Hitler and I," and "Gregor Strasser" that it was Hitler = bad and Strassser = good, and not the other way around.  OK, Otto -- whatever you say.


To paraphrase Hoffman's opening line aimed at yours truly: -- "Mr. Hoffman's veneration of Gregor Strasser entails acceptance of Strasserian propaganda." What type of scholarship is that? Heck! Why don't we all just pull up the ghost-written, self-serving volumes of that drunken, cigar-chomping, boy-buggering, bloody pig Winston Churchill to judge both Churchill and Hitler by?!


(palm to face, shaking my head, sighing)

1. Ambitious  Otto Strasser was a radical Leftist who remained anti-Hitler EVEN AFTER Hitler's economic and cultural miracle was apparent to all. // 2. The 1920's  NSDAP was divided between two factions: the Hitler conservative faction and the Roehm-Strasser Leftist faction (which was loaded with Homosexuals at the top). The Leftists lost the bitter internal struggle to Hitler, and then, in 1934, tried to stage a treasonous coup after Hitler became Fuhrer. Above: L-R: Hitler, Gregor Strasser, Homosexual head of the powerful "Brownshirts / SA," Ernst Roehm, and Hitler loyalist Herman Goering // 3. Storm Troop Coup broken by Hitler -- Roehm and G. Strasser got what was coming to them.

Hoffman: King says the Nazi Party gained power by popular vote. Not true. Where is there any proof a majority of the German people wanted Hitler in power at the turn of the years 1932/1933? The NSDAP still had no more than one-third of the electorate supporting them in that time period.

King: In 1932 / 1933, German elections and politics were crippled by the infestation of as many as 50 political parties -- nine of which were able to garner whole-number-percentage voting blocs; and a boatload of others that could score fractional points. (here) By design, it was therefore impossible for any political party to gain a 50% + (or even a 40% +!) majority. The fact that the NSDAP did manage to garner a clear plurality 33.09% of the vote in November of 1932 -- with the Jewish-owned Fake News agitating relentlessly against Hitler as it did -- was an ASTONISHING achievement.


So, Hoffman’s point about NSDAP not achieving a majority in 1932-33 is not only deceptive by omission – but subsequent developments render his argument a moot point anyway. Hoffman -- who is clearly dabbling outside of his  fields of specialty -- doesn't seem to realize that there was yet another election in March, 1933. This time, among "only" 14 political parties. NSDAP won 44%, which was 3 points more more than the next three parties combined (here). By 1934, the NSDAP clearly had majority approval; and by 1936, Hitler had achieved superstar, 99% approval status in Germany -- a fact which even many of Hitler's detractors conceded then, and still do now.


Hoffman: Hitler gained power because President Paul von Hindenburg named him Chancellor of Germany….

King: Hoffman skips the part about the attempted Communist Revolution and chaotically chronic destabilization of multi-party Germany (51 friggin' parties at the time!) which prompted Hindenburg’s decision. (I really hope Hoffman doesn’t believe that discredited rubbish (here) about Hitler staging the Reichstag Fire to frame the oh-so-innocent Communists.)


Hoffman: As for Hitler’s invasion of Russia, he had been planning it since the 1920s,...

King: Hitler wasn’t in power during the 1920’s, so how could he seriously be "planning" an invasion of the Soviet Union? Hitler's talk of "living space" -- a few sentences written while Hitler was in a Munich jail cell in 1923 -- is cheap. Let’s focus on his actual foreign policy of the 1930’s – which, in both word and deed, renounced any territorial expansion in either the East or West (except for the justified and popular unification with Austria and the Sudetenland) and worked for the perpetuation of peace with all nations, including expansionist Poland and even the evil, rotten Soviet Union.


Hoffman: ... when no pretext about any imminent attack by Stalin existed.

King: The 1941 invasion was based on a clear and present threat of invasion from Stalin. Hoffman’s continuous and fallacious use of the term “pretext” manifests a stubborn ignorance of both the bloody history of "Uncle Joe" and the undeniable reality of his massive military build-up along German lines.


Hoffman: He despised the Slavs ….

King: This is one of those oft-repeated slanders that gets perceived as truth because no one ever challenges it. Though it is true that Hitler wanted to maintain Aryan purity within the German nation (where today, already 30% of children under age 10 are non-White!) -- in no way did he “despise” the Slavs, the Mediterraneans, the Arabs, the Orientals or any other ethnic group – so many of whom voluntarily and valiantly fought and died for Germany in the Waffen SS. Can anyone cite an actual historical record of Hitler saying, writing or insinuating: “I hate the Slavs?” --- Or are we supposed to simply infer this to be true simply because every other circle-jerking "historian" repeats it?


Hoffman: … and wanted their land.

King: And even if, for the sake of argument, we accept Hoffman’s erroneous claim of unnecessary German aggression --- what would have been so bad about eradicating the most evil genocidal regime ever to disgrace the face of the Earth? Indeed, the Slavic subjects of the Soviet Empire --- in Russia proper itself -- actually welcomed the Germans with flowers and kisses.


Hoffman: Mr. King avoids how Hitler prosecuted the war in Russia — with gross, suicidal incompetence.

King: It’s easy for General Hoffman to play “Monday Morning Quarterback” as he talks of Hitler's "incompetence." In reality, had it not been for FDR’s massive (and I do mean, MASSIVE) aid to the U.S.S.R. and the second and third fronts opened up in Africa and Western Europe – the Germans would have finished off the Evil Empire in 1942.


It is Hoffman who "avoids" acknowledging what Stalin himself openly admitted in November of 1942 (here)-- specifically, that U.S. military aid and the Second Front were critical to beating back the Germans. Hoffman avoids this truth because it clearly contradicts his central thesis of a debacle in the East which was doomed from the start.  Final Analysis: Without the U.K. & U.S., Hitler wins in the East in 1942 and comes off looking like a military genius.

Was Hitler popular? 1. Former UK Prime Minister, Lloyd George, visited Germany and met with Hitler in 1937. He then wrote:  "There can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook. . . There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change. . . As to his popularity, there can be no manner of doubt. The old trust him; the young idolize him. It is not the admiration accorded to a popular Leader. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country from utter despondency and degradation. . . He is the George Washington of Germany --the man who won for his country independence from all her oppressors.


 Did Hitler hate Slavs?  2. Croatian Slavs fighting for Germany on the Soviet front. // 3. Hitler honors Prince Paul of Yugoslavia.


Hoffman: He absolves Hitler of any blame for the massacre of hundreds of thousands of German military youth in Russia.

King: What was Hitler supposed to do? Retreat back to Germany and allow the Soviet hordes to just follow the retreating Germans to the gates of Berlin? By the way, 500,000 of those brave fighters came from the International divisions of Waffen SS – volunteers who flocked from just about every nation in Europe because they understood what Hoffman evidently will not or cannot, namely, that if the Soviet Monster was not killed in its lair; then all of Europe would suffer the same horrific fate that the terrified people of the Russian Empire had after the Revolution and during the subsequent Red Terror. The Germans and other Waffen troops who died in the East kept the Soviet hordes back long enough to allow Western Europe to survive.


Hoffman: It was all, in his words, “Franklin Demon Rosenfeld’s” fault.

King: Again, and again, and again (to quote one of Demono Rosenfeld’s famous lines) Hoffman refuses to acknowledge FDR’s role in saving Stalin’s ass from Hitler’s presciently-motivated and brilliant-executed DEFENSIVE invasion. The disaster in the East is all in Hoffman’s words, “Hitler’s fault.”


Hoffman: You may find such “arguments," accompanied by drawings of toilets, compelling, I do not.

King: These professorial types often tend to be humorless. I thought the image of the bull sitting on a toilet was rather witty, in a populist sort of way. But that's just the eternal "Jersey Boy" in me.


Hoffman: Frankly, I don’t see how Mr. King has credibility.

King: And frankly, Hoffman never will because a change of belief requires humility -- a trait lacking in many intellectuals and prolific writers on both the Left and the Right.


Hoffman: He makes sloppy claims and numerous egregious errors …

King: Project much? To the contrary, all my stuff is backed-up by original source data -- which is why Hoffman's only rebuttal to my work is to simplistically dismiss it all as "Nazi propaganda." You can be sure that if indeed there were actual "sloppy claims" in my case, that one as erudite and articulate as Mr. Hoffman could easily tear it to tatters with facts and reason --- instead of needing to resort to trite bromides, sleight-of-hand deflections, outright evasions, and doubled-down repetitions of the same errors in question.


Hoffman: … in fact that have more in common with NSDAP disinformation than any documented history.

King: Hoffman's idea of "documented history" here amounts to the uncontested claims of Otto Strasser -- a traitor who originated the absurd "Hitler was a Bavarian Communist" smear.


Hoffman: He is preaching to the already convinced. 

King: To the contrary -- many of my readers were, as I once was,  lifelong Hitler haters who have, due to the quality of my research, since seen the light. Included among their ranks are a handful of Jewish readers, three college professors and an elderly (if still alive) Soviet WW2 veteran whose review of The Bad War proudly appears on the back cover. Many of these decidedly non-predisposed converts have thanked me for opening their eyes.


Hoffman: I don’t see how he could persuade very many people who are not already predisposed to support Hitler.

Translation: If you agree with King's assessment of Hitler and World War II, then you are either biased or just plain stupid. That's about the extent of Hoffman's defense of his irrational Hitler hatred; and equally irrational love of the Brothers Strauss.

1. FDR's aid to Stalin was indeed "Russia's Life Saver." The sheer volume and broad range of weapons, supplies and even food (much of  the weaponry being state-of-art) is a thoroughly documented part of the historical record. // 2. The Second Front (and before that, just the imminent threat of a 2nd front against Germany) had the effect of diverting / depleting 33% of German manpower and material away from the East. That is why Stalin and the U.S. Communist Party (as confirmed by images 1 & 2) demanded it.  It was FDR's 2nd front, combined with the Lend Lease aid -- and NOT Hitler's "incompetence," that doomed the absolutely necessary and morally just invasion of the Soviet Union.

If Hoffman will not accept Hitler's explanation for invading the Soviet Union as a matter of necessity and self preservation (what he calls "Nazi propaganda" and "pretext"), then perhaps he'll listen to Viktor Suvorov -- a former Russian Military Intelligence Officer whose books on the subject  support and confirm Hitler's claim that Stalin was preparing to pounce upon a distracted Germany and all of Europe.

LIKE THIS PIECE? TIP THE WRITER ...

FREE Excerpt -- Click on Image

COMMENTS / FEEDBACK / INSULTS / KUDOS

This site uses Google reCAPTCHA technology to fight spam. Your use of reCAPTCHA is subject to Google's Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message was sent successfully.

Pdfs / Books

by M S King

CLICK HERE

PLEASE SUPPORT OUR WORK!

*

**************

AUTO-MONTHLY DONOR / SUBSCRIBER OR 1-TIME OPTIONS

**************

By becoming an automatic monthly donor of $5 or more, you get all 23 of our pdf books and a permanent subscription to the almost-daily Anti-New York Times.


TWO SIMPLE STEPS

1. Click on image button below to quickly & securely sign up at SUBSCRIBESTAR. (Look for "Sign Up" in top right corner)

2. (Important!!!) After signing-up, E-mail us at: [email protected] with the word "Monthly" in the subject line.

*Allow a few hours to receive the pdf links.

*

For 1-Time Donation Options

(also with PDF rewards)

CLICK HERE

To send a check / MO or cash by mail:


Payable to:

PASCAL PUBLICATIONS, P.O. BOX 804, SADDLE BROOK, NJ 07663

FREE REPORT & FREE UPDATES

"How to Respond to an Anti-Conspiracy Theorist"

Never again be at a loss for words when some ignoramus tells you: "Aw that's just a Conspiracy Theory." .

No self respecting 'conspiracy theorist' should be without this essential BLOCKBUSTER REPORT!

SIGN UP now and receive a link to the FREE report plus periodic FREE summaries of Historical & Current Events.

Be sure to CHECK YOUR JUNK / SPAM BOX in case report doesn't go through.

This site uses Google reCAPTCHA technology to fight spam. Your use of reCAPTCHA is subject to Google's Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message was sent successfully.