You are here

Am I “Unfair to Hitler” ?

Just when you thought American political discourse had reached its nadir, and obligatory Hitler references had reached their apogee…

Truth Jihad Radio Sat. 1/15/10, 5-7 pm Central, American Freedom Radio (archived here.) Call-in number: (402) 237-2525 or post your questions to my Facebook page.

First hour: Was Hitler the good guy?
Guest: Carolyn Yeager, host of Heretics’ Hour radio show. Carolyn has been emailing me for years to tell me I’m unfair to Hitler. Recently she attacked Gordon Duff of Veteran’s Today for supposedly being unfair to Hitler. So, in fairness to Hitler–and to Carolyn–I decided to invite Carolyn on my show to see what kind of pro-Hitler case she could make. In preparation, I’m (re-)reading some Hitler books including the Bullock and Toland biographies, Waite’s The Psychopathic God, Hitler’s own Mein Kampf, and Irving’s Hitler’s War.

When I try really hard to be fair to someone or something, I list their plusses and minuses.

Hitler +’s

*Kick-ass economic policy turned a basket-case nation into a powerhouse almost overnight
*Declared war on international bankers, freed Germany from their stranglehold
*Gave a good speech
*Knew a lot about a lot, thanks to his incredibly retentive memory
*Was a soft-hearted vegetarian oozing kindness to animals and little children

Hitler -‘s

*Uber-racist obsessed with fantasies about “purity of Aryan blood”
*Uber-militarist who loved war and struggle and despised peace and tranquility (leading to the murder of 60 million people)
*Staged false-flag attacks to seize power and start wars
*Promoted hatred and persecution of religious/racial group perceived as “Semitic” and “Middle Eastern”
*Approved of genocidal colonialism of British, French, Belgians, Americans, etc. and wanted to imitate and surpass it
*Personality traits suggestive of narcissism and psychopathy
*Authoritarian, enemy of free thought
*Fanatic, enemy of balance and the juste milieu

Overall, the negatives overshadow the positives…especially considering the upshot of the positives:
*Built up the German economy only to destroy it.
*Temporary victory over international bankers turned to long-term defeat
*”Great speeches” were sound and fury signifying nothing
*”Knew” a lot of trashy trivia and misinformation, misused what genuine knowledge he had
*Was nice to animals and children, but was largely responsible for the death of 60 million human beings (along with untold suffering)–some humanitarian!

So Hitler was bad news. But are today’s American leaders – especially the neocons – that much better? I made national news a few years ago by saying that comparing Bush to Hitler was “unfair to Hitler, who had at least 30 IQ points on Bush.” I see no reason to revise that judgment. Going over the list of Hitler’s positives and negatives, it looks to me like Bush/Cheney and the neocons, and to a lesser extent their Democratic and Republican enablers including the current administration, have all of Hitler’s negatives and few of the positives. The Bush-Cheney reich, which continues under Obama: *Destroyed America’s economy; *Subjugated the nation even further to the international bankers; *Waged de facto racist war against poor people, who are disproportionately people of color; *Launched a war for imperial-colonial world domination far beyond Hitler’s wildest fantasies–a war likely to end in the deaths of hundreds of millions; *Launched the worst wave of bigotry in world history–the global phenomenon of Islamophobia–through a series of false-flag attacks of which 9/11 was the flagship; *Presided over an Orwellian suppression of free thought.

So if Hitler earns a D minus as a statesman and national leader, the leaders of the Cheney-Bush-Obama American Reich deserve an F.

Is that fair enough, Carolyn?

2nd hour: Gordon Duff, editor, Veterans Today.

Gordon Duff, one of the most provocative and prolific political writers working today, will discuss whether the recent Arizona shooting was a false-flag attack; Susan Lindauer’s revelations of CIA 9/11 foreknowledge; and whether the received good-guys-vs.-bad-guys myth of World War II fits the facts. Gordon’s recent forays into World War II revisionism drew an angry response from first-hour guest Carolyn Yeager, who feels that Gordon is–you guessed it–unfair to Hitler. So Gordon and I will spend an agreeable hour doing our best to be fair to everyone and everything.

21 Thoughts to “Am I “Unfair to Hitler” ?”

  1. Anonymous

    High 5 with arms/fists shaking in the air!

    Re: So if Hitler earns a D minus as a statesman and national leader, the leaders of the Cheney-Bush-Obama American Reich deserve an F.

    The on point that I'd like to make concerning the current and prior administration is that THEY KNOW BETTER!

    That being said their not even on the radar insomuch as deserving a grade (period)

    These idiots don't even have a soul! I'm still appalled over Susan Lindauer's interview.

    Kudos to you and all your hard efforts; it refreshing to know that there are bloggers totally independent and not on the government back-door payroll.

    Even more interesting is that not one of the major alternative news sources gave the interview any publication….sad.


  2. Anonymous

    > Kick-ass economic policy turned a basket-case nation into a powerhouse almost overnight

    Not true. The German economy began recovering in 1932 before Hitler came to power. There is no evidence that any policies enacted by Hitler played any role in facilitating the recovery. Germany's economy (like that of Italy and Japan) was always on the outer edges of the Great Depression. The Depression was mainly centered in the USA, which was the country with the most over-developed unused productive capacity. It also affected to a lesser degree the over-extended imperial powers of Europe such as Britain. The Axis economies (Germany, Italy, Japan) were agricultural by comparison to the much more industrialized USA, and they did not yet have any major colonial holdings (although they clearly desired such). As a result it was easier for these nations to recover economically at a swifter pace. But that does not reflect any special achievement by Hitler, Mussolini or Hirohito. Look up the essay by Ritschl, "Deficit Spending in the Nazi Recovery" for more details about the German economic recovery.

  3. Waite, not exactly a sympathetic biographer (his book paints Hitler as a deeply twisted psychopath) writes: (Hitler's) capacity to push through one clear policy among the confusions of complex social and economic issues was brilliantly demonstrated as soon as he got into office. John Kenneth Galbraith has noted that Hitler had the insight to perceive the right economic policy at the right time. Immediately in 1933 he instituted a concerted and coordinated policy of deficit spending and public works. Like Franklin Roosevelt he "sensed that reputable economists were poor guides to policy" but he went well beyond FDR in the energy and clarity of his actions…A careful student of Hitler's economic policy (John Heyl) agrees and concludes that he was one of the most underestimated statesmen of the twentieth century, a man who "succeeded spectacularly in the area of economic recovery." -Waite, The Psychopathic God, pp 64-65 Ellen Brown, also not a Hitler fan, pointed out on my show last year that Hitler's policy of taking currency-creation away from the banks, and having the government issue currency directly through paying for public works, was brilliant — and is the one economic reform all of us today, everywhere, need the most.

  4. Hi Kevin,

    Thanks for the introduction. So I don't have to waste time on the 40 minutes or so we'll have to talk together on this HUGE topic, I'm taking this opportunity to correct you already [!].

    "Carolyn has been emailing me for years to tell me I'm unfair to Hitler."

    For years? Time flies, but I'd say no more than 2 years have I sent you a relatively small number of emails, always to the point of what you and/or your guests are saying that is simply incorrect. I think accuracy is important. The same with Gordon Duff, who, like most people that like to refer to Hitler occasionally, is simply passing on things he's heard or read in questionable sources. So I guess you could call 'not being accurate' 'not being fair.' Fair enough. 🙂

  5. Anonymous

    > John Kenneth Galbraith has noted that Hitler had the insight to perceive the right economic policy at the right time.

    Galbraith had an ideological stake at hand in pushing a Keynesian view by citing Hitler, as does Brown. The fact is that the German economic recovery was not very much affected by anything which Hitler did and had begun before Hitler took office.

    Deficit Spending in the Nazi Recovery, 1933-1938: A Critical Reassessment
    Albrecht Ritschl

  6. Well, I'm from the "we're all Keynesians now" generation, and I think Ellen Brown's basic outlook is correct, so you're going to have to overturn my economic views to overturn my impression that the conventional wisdom is right: Hitler's ultra-Keynesian policies were exactly right, and stimulated Germany's recovery.

    My economic bottom line is that usury is the root of all economic evil, and that currency should be a community resource, created by a transparent, public, nonprofit agency that spends most of it into existence through public works, and loans the rest into existence through no-interest loans to targeted sectors. I believe these are basically Brown's views as well.

  7. Anonymous

    The story of "Hitler's ultra-Keynesian policies" is a myth. Whatever level of Keynesianism was involved had already been in process before Hitler gained office. And it is not true that Hitler ran up his military spending with no-interest loans. A major reason why Hjalmar Schacht broke from Hitler was because Schacht did not think Germany could afford Hitler's push for a military build-up.

  8. I'll also save time by telling you now that your borrowing of the German word *Reich* to describe our recent and current U.S. regimes as in:

    "So if Hitler earns a D minus as a statesman and national leader, the leaders of the Cheney-Bush-Obama American Reich deserve an F.

    Is that fair enough, Carolyn?"

    … is symptomatic of your lack of understanding of German history and culture. You can't transfer the idea of Reich to the U.S. executive branch. You're doing it for the purpose of equating AH's NS with C-B-O, but it doesn't fly.

    Also, I'm going to suggest (insist) that the comparison of AH be made with FDR, Churchill and Stalin … even de Gaulle if you wish. That's the only comparison that means anything. So study up on them. 🙂

  9. Anonymous

    Saw your announcement for the upcoming interview with Carolyn Yeager. Hope you allow her to make her case without too much interruption and argumentation. Sure, some. You disagree with her, so hopefully you can both say what you want.

    Also, I've purchased a book on the Reichstag Fire by Fritz Tobias, and have just started reading it. He's no fan of the National Socialists, but without having read the entire book, I can see that he's concluded that it was no "false flag" operation. Obviously, no book should necessarily be believed at face value, so I will read others. In the meantime, I don't see any glaring contradictions in the National Socialist account except that they were suspicious that it involved more than just one man and were accusing "Communists" in general. But there is no patently obvious reason to say with certainty that it was a false flag operation. I tend to think it wasn't.

    With regard to one of your points in your announcement re Carolyn Yeager, I am seeing evidence in books such as "Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II that it was the Allies, and especially Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and their Jewish allies (not to mention Josef Stalin) who did everything they could to make sure there was no peaceful resolution to the Danzig problem in Poland prior to the war, so as to induce an attack by Germany, which would give the Allies a pretext for declaring war on Germany. If that is true, then the chief culprits for the start of the war would be Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt, and they should be the ones who are held accountable for the massive loss of life.

  10. You're being overly fair to Hitler.

    Even the relatively sympathetic Hitler's War by David Irving makes it clear that Hitler was after a massive geopolitical shake-up of the kind that always requires a major war. Specifically, he makes it clear that Hitler was a racist who wanted German/Aryan world domination through the conquest and colonization of Eastern Europe (which other world powers including Britain and Russia weren't going to permit). Yes, that's no worse than the other racist Europeans conquering and genocidally colonizing Asia, Africa and the Americas — but no better either. Hitler is one in a long line of racist Euro-American war criminals, unusual mainly in his frank racism, genocidal colonization of fellow Europeans rather than just non-Europeans, and upfront and "might makes right, war is wonderful" philosophy. The main reason he'd demonized, of course, is that he lost. Other war criminal leaders are still worshiped as heroes in our textbooks, and still run our country.

  11. Anonymous

    You have a lot of guts, which I greatly admire. I compared Adolph Hitler to Franklin Roosevelt once. My conclusion was not subjective. I think Roosevelt was worse because he ruined our country. Hitler only ruined Germany and the rest of Europe, but he had a lot of help from Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.

  12. I thought it might be helpful to post my own list of Hitler's pluses to balance out what Kevin has posted.

    Why Hitler was the good guy, among Churchill, FDR, Stalin and Daladier/Reynoud/De Gaulle [after German victory, D and R were turned over by French to Germans and imprisoned until the end of the war, then released. Not killed and then called a suicide, as the Allies were wont to do]. The German occupation of defeated France was mild and friendly, unlike the Allied occupation of defeated Germany.
    1. Hitler economic genius for Germany; FDR economic failure. The German economy did not improve because of armament manufacturing but because of Hitler’s economic policy that wealth=labor & production, not gold. Roosevelt remained wedded to international banking policies which enriched the bankers, not the people.
    2. Speeches were intelligent, straight-talking to fellow Germans; FDR’s and Churchill’s were meant to deceive their citizens; they lied. How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America into War.
    3. Hitler was incredibly more intelligent than FDR and/or Churchill. These two former naval officers were 100% political animals. Not only that, they got by using subterfuge because they weren’t very bright.
    4. Hitler was actually a great humanitarian, a strong German trait. [Bismarck introduced the world’s first social welfare/security system.] He respected nature, had a connectedness with animals & dogs, saw German children as a national treasure and the future; he was a vegetarian because he couldn’t stand to eat animals, thought it barbaric. His regime passed the world’s first Protection of Animals laws, incl. laws for the humane trapping and cooking of lobsters!
    5. Hitler was “advanced,” i.e. ahead if his time, and generally above the level of humanity of his day. Everything about his early life, his military service in WWI, his political struggle years in the 20s, and his Chancellorship of Germany in the 30’s tells you that. There is nothing that says otherwise except fabricated lies and distortions. He did nothing wrong during all that time.
    6. Hitler wanted and worked for peace. Churchill, FDR wanted/worked toward war (since 1933). French were OK with war; saw their advantages in it.
    7. You say: Hitler despised peace and tranquility. That is absolutely false, ridiculous. Hermann Giesler’s book [just for one] proves that AH’s greatest desire was to leave a legacy of impressively rebuilt cities for the happiness of the German people. He was also adamant that Germany have a position of respect and relative power in world affairs, as it deserved to have as a great people. The humiliation of Germany during and after WWI was a deep wound that he believed (rightly) could only be prevented in future by strength and resolve to remain strong. Hitler did not believe in weakness or in turning the other cheek. What national leader does? At the same time, he believed in negotiation to work out differences; he showed great patience and willingness to compromise.
    8. AH was not a racist in the way you say. He was a nationalist and a champion for the German people. Any non-white people are perfectly ok if they do this, but if you’re white, it’s not considered ok to do this. He didn’t even believe in the purity of Aryan blood. He knew Germans were a mixed people and wanted all Germans to see themselves as brothers. What was a German? A German speaker, and those living in lands where they retained the German language, values and cultural norms. But … if Germans had assimilated to other national loyalties, they were not proselytized. His dislike of Jews and desire to remove most of them from Germany was for the reason that he considered them an alien race that was a threat to the German people because of their concerted efforts to wield inordinate influence and control over key industries and professions. Jews were only 0.87% of the population, but owned 30% to 80% of the German economy.

  13. Anonymous

    Great show!

    By the way, AJP Taylor who is a famous historian, and not really a court historian, repeatedly calls Adolph "wicked" in his book on the origins of WWII. But my reading of his conclusions is that he apportions blame pretty much equally between Britain, France and Germany.


  14. David McIntosh

    Hi Kevin. Boy, you sure know how to pick topics!

    Re the Hitler +, "Declared war on international bankers, freed Germany from their stranglehold," I've been under the impression that Prescott Bush funneled international bankers' money to Hitler, based on John Loftus' article re how the Bushes made their millions. If true, then Hitler's "war on bankers" is only HALF true—and as Benjamin Franklin once said, "Half a truth is often a great lie."

    My question to you and Carolyn is, how many of Hitler's bankers ended up making money from the deaths of millions, and how many of their descendants are now making money again from the "war on terror"?

    FYI in the case of Japan, Mitsui Corporation, which had its eyes on Manchuria's soy, coal and other resources when some of its employees staged the fake "Mukden Incident" in 1931, quadrupled its assets over the course of the next 14 years, during which some 20 million Asians (including Japanese soldiers and civilians fooled by the false flag) lost their lives. Mitsui remains one of the largest gonglomerates in Japan, and would stand to profit very handsomely if Japanese apologists for the "war on terror" have their way and the doors to foreign deployment of JSDF soldiers and weapons manufacture/export are opened more widely.

  15. Hello David McIntosh,

    Thank you for using your real name. No criticism of those using Anonymous though.

    Hitler and international bankers. Boy, such misinformation abounds about that subject. I have just finished doing further study on the purported "Bush-Nazi connection", which is going to be the topic of discussion on the 2-hour "Spingola Speaks", RBN, Feb. 15 … for those who would want to tune in.

    This connection is non-existent. Further, John Loftus is not – I repeat, is not a reliable authority on this. He is a former Nazi prosecutor for the U.S. Justice Dept. and currently the director of the Holocaust Museum in St. Petersburg, Fla. He is or has been a security commentator for Fox News and ABC News. He has an ax to grind, or a point of view to push, truth be damned. He also has a book to sell, and the more it promises to "reveal secrets", the better.

    But more important than the conflict of interest of Loftus, are the "facts" which he does not respect. I have done two radio broadcasts on this subject, on Dec. 6 and Dec. 13, that can be found on my Heretics' Hour archive page
    The whole thing can be described as "much ado about nothing." Propaganda that fits into certain people's interests.

    Why is Loftus so interested? Two "holocaust survivors" Kurt Julius Goldstein, 87, and Peter Gingold, 85, began a class action suit in America in 2001, but the case was thrown out by Judge Rosemary Collier on the grounds that the government cannot be held liable under the principle of "state sovereignty".

    Why were these two old guys bringing this lawsuit? Because G.W. Bush had his political career to protect, and the Holo Industry saw the possibility of setting a precedent of suing an entire national govt. for "holocaust slave labor" damages. Mr Gingold was honorary chairman of the League of Anti-fascists.

    That is what got this stirred up, and a lot of opportunists have jumped in to cash in. Their work is lacking in true scholarship, however.

    Your idea that "Hitler's bankers" were making money off of death is sadly misplaced. Hitler's main banker was Schacht, whom he fired before '39 and used more loyal National Socialist bankers. There were no Jewish bankers involved by then at all, in that Banking is controlled by Jews and no one can function apart from using banks. International bankers were making money off of war, not off of Hitler. Listen to my broadcast on this –

    The problem is, you read something from one place and think that makes you an expert, or at least that what you've read is true. You and Kevin and others at least need to realize that no one in history is lied about more than Adolf Hitler. Start from there.

  16. Anonymous

    Hi Kevin,

    Your "(archived here.)" links to 2010…

    Thanks for your work, looking forward to more in 2011

  17. One last post to point out that Gordon Duff made numerous errors when demonstrating his ability as a Revisionist. First about Buchenwald, which he said he had visited. He said the Buchenwald camp was liberated by the Russians; that the crematorium there was a “huge building” and a couple of movies were filmed there; that the Buchenwald Crematorium was totally destroyed and rebuilt by the Russians. All of this is plain wrong. Please read a true account here:

    He also made a lot out of Hermann Goering doing the most to initiate peace talks during the lead-up to the German invasion of Poland. True, but what he didn’t say was Goering was with Hitler in the Reichschancellery during all that time – it was an official govt. effort that included Foreign Minister Ribbentrop and ambassadors.

    Duff’s inference that the Reichstag Fire and the Polish radio station announcement prior to the Polish invasion were unquestionably false-flags done by the "Nazis" is not supported by a close inspection of the facts. If Duff were really an “historian” as he claimed several times, he would be more circumspect concerning these two disputed events.

    Duff said that he took some time out to “read all of Hitler’s diaries” and learned a whole lot. But there are no Hitler diaries. There are accounts written by others that purport to be quoting Hitler, but all Hitler left in his own words, other than Mein Kampf and speeches, was his Last Will and Testament, which was short. Speaking of "Hitler's diaries" is careless and misleading, or worse.

    The last major error I recall is Duff saying that the 6 million number of Jewish dead did not come from the Jews but from the Russians. No, the Soviets came up with much larger numbers at first. The 6 million was quoted by Jewish organizations from the 1890’s through WWI, the in-between time, and during WWII. That’s the number the Jews insist on; no one questions that fact.

  18. Anonymous


    I've just finished listening to your recent interview with Carolyn Yeager and I must say it stands out in bold relief as one of the worst shows of yours that I've listened to. Everything from the title "Have I been unfair to Hitler," to your refusal to allow Yeager to make her points reminded me more of Glenn Beck's circus-style tactics than reasoned debate. But it was oh so balanced because …….(drum roll) Kevin read two books on the subject. One, by a self-proclaimed revisionist. Good for you, Kevin.
    If you're serious about wanting to debate the subject of WWII revisionism, then you should read a third book — "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War" by P. Buchanan. Then, and only then, you should try punching with someone in your own weight class, Michael Collins Piper, for example. I'm sure he'd be happy to be a guest on your program. But beware, he wouldn't be a strawman…

    A disppointed fan,

  19. I'd love to read Buchanan's book and try to get him on the show. Send me the book @ POB 221 Lone Rock WI 53556 and I promise to read it. Or send me contact info for him and for the publisher's publicity department and I'll request a review copy and interview.

    Sorry you thought I was unfair to Carolyn and Adolf.

  20. Anonymous


    Incredible program on Hitler. Learned a ton. I like your shows because you don't take differences in opinion as personal attacks. You take it clearly as someone elses views. Hats off to you for that. When came out and said your list was a cynical list, you didn't blurt out this or that, but just let her talk. I wish all radio hosts would do what you do. They could learn a ton. Absolutely great show Kevin. Obviously i like your other ones too.


  21. Opa

    Thanks for informative discussion and comments.

    What you are calling Adolf Hitler's economic policy was the program of the economist and REICHSTAG member Gottfried Feder, which he presented in his book KAMPF GEGEN DIE HOCHFINANZ (The Struggle Against Globalism), especially the first part, “BRECHUNG DER ZINSKNECHTSCHAFT” (The Abolition of Interest Slavery.)
    As AH points out in MEIN KAMPF, he attended Prof. Feder’s Munich lectures while recuperating from war wounds in 1919 –20, and was strongly influenced by them.

    Statements such as “Hitler was a good man” or “Hitler as a bad man” are subjective and melodramatic, but one can objectively state that he was a man of his time, a man of his people, and the only national leader who had had combat experience in the trenches of the “Great War.”
    And 65 years after his death, the most slandered man in world is the only World War II leader who has maintained a large and growing following and is still widely read and quoted today.
    As David Irving points out, Real History has already absolved Adolf Hitler!

Leave a Comment