Recently I happened to notice this on my ‘Recommended Posts’ on my Substack from an author called ‘Darkagesage1’ whose presumptuous name is typical for the kind of individual that issues these kinds of historically illiterate brain farts.
He writes in a scrofulous rhetorical post about Adolf Hitler that:
‘Kills Poles,
Kills Serbians,
Kills Russians.
Kills Frenchman.
Kills Englishman.
Islamophile.
Hated the German monarchy.
Got his people in an unnecessary war that killed millions of his own.
Why do people on the right like this Nigger?’
This is typically ridiculous ‘logic’ from ‘Darkagesage1’ that breaks down to claims that:
A) Hitler is/was bad/evil because he ‘killed Poles, Serbians, Russians, Frenchmen and Englishmen’.
B) That Hitler was an Islamophile.
C) That Hitler hated the German monarchy.
D) Triggered an unnecessary war that killed millions of his own people.
Vital context is that ‘Darkagesage1’ appears to be pro-monarchy and specifically the Second Reich of Wilhelm II although this latter point may be incorrect it does seem to be true given his responses to negative comments and desperate attempts to make monarchism remotely relevant to our world today.
Now as to point A: this is simply stupid. You can easily make the same argument against almost any monarch and/or historic leader/revolutionary/military leader from Alexander the Great to Otto von Bismarck; it isn’t remotely an argument against Hitler that he killed Europeans in the same way it isn’t an argument against Wilhelm II because of his direct involvement in starting and continuing the First World War.
Next as to point B: this is a hoary old myth promoted by the pro-Israel counter-jihadi crowd in the 2000s – for example Andrew Bostom’s 2008 ‘Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism’ (1) – which is based entirely on ‘Hitler’s Table Talk’ that is not only a text subject to heavy post-war interpolation by Francois Genoud and others, but also is simply unusable as a source about Hitler’s views on anything.
Since as Richard Carrier – one of only two academic experts on ‘Hitler’s Table Talk’ and the other Mikael Nilsson agrees with Carrier – (2) explains:
‘We similarly find every notetaker engaged in deleting or adding or altering entries to suit their own agendas or assumptions about what Hitler said or what they wanted him to have said. Some editions even omit names and details from the notes (or even whole notes) that this or that publisher considered too embarrassing (the basic thinking being, “We can’t publish Hitler saying that”), which only further compromises the Table Talk as a historical source. Not only Heim, but also particularly Picker, did this, who published his own “edited” versions of some of the German he kept for himself (which thus did not go through the hands of François Genoud). And there are two different versions of even Picker’s German text in print, as he edited it twice. And as we don’t have his original pages—they are now lost—and (as Nilsson shows) Picker (as also Heim) frequently lied about practically everything to do with the Table Talk, we can’t know how much of that editing is Picker and how much actually goes back to Hitler. And even insofar as any goes back to Hitler, Nilsson shows it is not the exact words of Hitler, but just Picker’s or Heim’s (or others’) own skewed summaries of what they think they recalled Hitler saying—dispelling the long-perpetuated myth that the German of the Table Talk was ever a transcript from a stenograph dictation of Hitler’s exact words as he spoke.’ (3)
In essence: it is practically impossible to use ‘Hitler’s Table Talk’ as evidence of anything as regards to what Hitler thought or said because it is so heavily modified by a multitude of different contemporary and post-war editors that they cannot be used to say anything about Hitler’s views on the subjects without intensive comparative document research and even then it is extremely difficult to say for certain that any of the words attributed to Hitler in the ‘Table Talk’ are actually Hitler’s at all.
Without the ‘Table Talk’ there is no ‘Hitler was an Islamophile’ argument whatsoever as Carrier himself points out when he says – responding to a comment – that:
‘Hitler did not say he prefers Islam to Christianity. Hitler almost never talks about Christianity in the TT; those lines are usually in fact regarding Catholicism. Which he clearly did despise. He saw Islam as a simpler faith, less corrupted by Judaism (remember, he thought Catholicism was crypto-Judaism) and less governed by an institution competing with the state (the Vatican divided loyalties, which was not to the taste of any fascist who wanted loyalty solely to state-and-party), and generating more “self-sacrificing” soldiers (he said the same of Japanese paganism).
On the German material, “overall” would be too strong a word. My article above explains the problems that have to be overcome before trusting anything from the TT in the German. Bormann’s distortions (in some cases even outright fabrications) are rife, as are the agendas and errors of even the contributors (Picker, Heim, and Müller). So source-wise, it’s a mess. To take anything from it as actually Hitler requires a case-by-case analysis of its content, context, whose hands are annotated as being involved in composing it, and external corroborating or supporting material.’ (4)
So, no Hitler was not an ‘Islamophile’ in the slightest and even those among his officials who were such as his senior diplomat and intelligence agent Fritz Grobba (born Arthur Borg) didn’t see him as such. (5)
However ironically you can argue that Wilhelm II was since in a speech in Damascus on 8th November 1898 while visiting the Ottoman Empire Wilhelm II declared:
‘In the face of all the courtesies extended to us here, I feel that I must thank you, in my name as well as that of the Empress, for them, for the hearty reception given us in all the towns and cities we have touched, and particularly for the splendid welcome extended to us by this city of Damascus. Deeply moved by this imposing spectacle, and likewise by the consciousness of standing on the spot where held sway one of the most chivalrous rulers of all times, the great Sultan Saladin, a knight sans peur et sans reproche, who often taught his adversaries the right conception of knighthood, I seize with joy the opportunity to render thanks, above all to the Sultan Abdul Hamid for his hospitality. May the Sultan rest assured, and also the three hundred million Mohammedans scattered over the globe and revering in him their caliph, that the German Emperor will be and remain at all times their friend.’ (6)
This has often been viewed as part of Wilhelm II’s fascination with both the Orient and Islam more specifically. (7) Indeed, Wilhelm II actually stated that had he ‘come to the Ottoman Empire without a religion’ he ‘would have turned Mahommetan!’ (8)
So much for the ‘Islamophile Hitler’ but… it turns out ‘Darkagesage1’s’ apparent hero was actually so impressed by Islam he actually wanted to convert to it!
Moving on point C: it is complete nonsense to say that Hitler ‘hated the German monarchy’ as he didn’t at all and indeed states explicitly in ‘Mein Kampf’ that he was exceptionally proud of his support for - and military service in - Wilhelm II’s Second Reich; (9) hence why Hitler wore his Iron Class (First Class) in public till the day he died.
Indeed Hitler – like most German nationalists of the time – was deeply disappointed in - and disillusioned by - the weak leadership of both Wilhelm II and the Second Reich (10) which is completely understandable given that Wilhelm II and the leadership of the Reichswehr had completely failed the German people even if their conduct of the war is far more astute than commonly believed (11) and unlike Hitler and his many generals in 1945 they didn’t adhere to the time honoured German military custom of honourable suicide after their failure in war.
The Kaiser simply abdicated, abandoned his people and ran away to live in exile in the Netherlands.
This is what gave impetus to the German nationalist and conservative movements to move well-past the monarchism of the Second Reich resulting in both National Socialism and Revolutionary Conservatism.
Indeed, the Kaiser even styled himself a ‘National Bolshevik’ during the 1920s and was supportive of National Socialism and other similar ideologies almost entirely in relation to perceived willingness simply to giving him his power back while he sat idly and well-fed in Huis Doorn in the Netherlands! (12)
In other words: Wilhelm II demonstrated in practice exactly why the German nationalist and conservative right had long abandoned him, because he wanted them to do all the sacrifice and hard work and then he would just waltz right back over the border and take control of the country.
You can hardly blame Hitler – or anyone else – for not giving him the time of day!
Lastly as to point D: this is a common myth and ironically the war was ‘unnecessary’ but it wasn’t Hitler’s fault that war was triggered precisely because Hitler went out of his way not to trigger a war with it eventually being roistered onto him in 1939 by a combination of an unlimited alliance from Great Britain and Polish belief in their own military superiority .
At every turn throughout the 1930s; Hitler is revealed to have been the peacemaker of the time and Britain to have been the diplomatic aggressor doing precisely what it did during the First World War and trying to create a web of alliances to surround Germany and crush its growing economic and military power by essentially throwing non-British states and their populations as cannon fodder at it. (13)
Indeed, even Hitler’s infamous invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 as ‘Operation Barbarossa’ was actually defensive and simply pipped Stalin weeks, months or at most a year before he was going to launch a massive Soviet invasion of Western Europe! (14)
It is particularly ironic since Wilhelm II has been accused of similar aggression like Hitler but in truth Wilhelm II was more or less forced into the First World War in the same way Hitler was forced into the Second World War this time largely by the Russians and not the British. (15)
We can thus see that ‘Darkagesage1’ is engaging in classic intellectual dishonesty in his attempt to attack Hitler for reasons that one can guess at since dissimulation of this kind usually derives not from principles but rather from the individual themselves.
In other words: ‘Darkagesage1’ is likely mixed (or another) race, wholly or part jewish and/or a sexual deviant of some kind given that Hitler’s Third Reich was hostile to these personal situations/statuses while Wilhelm II’s Second Reich was not.
References
(1) Andrew Bostom, 2008, ‘Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History’, 1st Edition, Prometheus Books: New York, pp. 150-151
(2) Cf. Mikael Nilsson, 2020, ‘Hitler Redux: The Incredible History of Hitler’s So-Called Table Talks’, 1st Edition, Routledge: New York
(3) https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18147
(4) Ibid.
(5) Wolfgang Schwanitz, 2004,‘“Der Geist aus der Lampe”: Fritz Grobba und Berlins Politik im Nahen und Mittleren Orient’, Comparativ, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 145-147
(6) Wolf von Schierbrand, 1903, ‘The Kaiser's Speeches: Forming a Character Portrait of Emperor William II’, 1st Edition, Harper & Brothers: New York, pp. 320–321
(7) Sean McMeekin, 2010, ‘The Berlin-Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany’s Bid for World Power’, 1st Edition, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, pp. 11-16
(8) Quoted in Ibid., pp. 15-16
(9) John Toland,1977, ‘Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography’, 1st Edition, Book Club Associates: London, p. 57; Ian Kershaw, 2001, ‘Hitler’, Vol. 1, Penguin: New York, p. 89
(10) Kershaw, Op. Cit., pp. 77; 80; 180
(11) Cf. John Mosier, 2001, ‘The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War I’, 1st Edition, Harper: New York
(12) John Roehl, 2014, ‘Wilhelm II: Into the Abyss of War and Exile, 1900–1941’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 1243-126
(13) This is covered in extensive detail by Udo Walendy, 1981, ‘Truth for Germany: The Guilt Question of the Second World War’, 1st Edition, Institute for Historical Review: Torrance; David Hoggan, 1989, ‘Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed’, 1st Edition, Institute for Historical Review: Torrance; Simon Newman, 1976, ‘March 1939: The British Guarantee to Poland’, 1st Edition, Clarendon Press: Oxford but for summaries of the archival research see Richard Tedor, 2017, ‘Hitler's Revolution: Ideology, Social Programs, Foreign Affairs’, 2nd Edition, Self-Published: USA and Patrick Buchanan, 2008, ‘Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World’, 1st Edition, Three Rivers Press: New York
(14) Cf. Joachim Hoffman, 2001, ‘Stalin's War of Extermination 1941-1945: Planning, Realization and Documentation’, 1st Edition, Theses & Dissertation Press: Capshaw; Victor Suvorov, 2013, ‘The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II’, 1st Edition, Naval Institute Press: Annapolis; Sean McMeekin, 2021, ‘Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II’, 1st Edition, Basic Books: New York
(15) Cf. Sean McMeekin, 2011, ‘The Russian origins of the First World War’, 1st Edition, Harvard University Press: Cambridge