Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 30th, 2009 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Nazi Policy on Brown Johnsons

NATIONAL SOCIALIST POLICY TOWARDS HOMOSEXUALS
(from "Das Schwarze Korps", official newspaper of the SS, probably 1936)

[Translated by Carlos W. Porter]

"ENEMIES OF THE STATE"

More than a year and a half have gone since the famous and once violently controversial provision of Article 175 of the Constitution in June 1935. This revision was necessary prior to the introduction of a new Criminal Code since the wording of the old paragraphs offered no basis for the application of the legal concepts of the National Socialist state. It may therefore be time to look at the practical results which have followed this change in legislation.

Homosexuality is a "field" in which the bourgeois citizen's favorite flower is the "touch-me-not". The average person probably knows many people whose hair stands on end at the very mention of such a topic. But how poorly this problem lends itself to solution through the methods of the ostrich, and how seriously it affects every member of the racial community, is proven by the facts which confronted the new State when it began its work in this field. Following the accession to power, the new State drew up an inventory of clubs and associations embodying the "third sex" concept with vast torrents of "scientific" and "intellectual" verbiage. These organizations were then discovered to have 2,000,000 members! If we subtract children and old men from the total number of male citizens of the Reich, 2,000,000 men represents nearly 10% of all males of working age, in full possession of their mental and physical capacities.

TWO POSSIBILITIES

Faced with this horrifying discovery -- the concealment or minimization of which would be criminal negligence -- the State has only two possibilities to choose from: delicate accommodation, or a ruthless combat on this front. That it opted for the latter was a matter of course: any other choice would have been abject surrender.

Even if the struggle against this pestilence of the racial community -- the epidemic contagion of which was an inheritance from the era of liberalism -- had not been the logical consequence of our racial ideals, the State would have been compelled to make hard decisions by its own saddest experience [the Röhm Putsch].

What appeared to be a tragic misfortune, a bitter stroke of fate one and a half years after coming to power, may, to the historians of coming generations, even look like a stroke of luck: the young State was compelled by a cruel fate which appeared to strike out against it, to take cognizance of the plague in its most dangerous forms, and to take up clear front line positions.

At a time when people were still inclined to view homosexuality as a medical problem, and to make cautious adjustments accordingly, homosexuality was found to be a political problem, capable of overthrowing weak governments. The value of this discovery can hardly be overestimated.

It gave our leaders the inner conviction they needed to combat the “medical” problem with political weapons.

THE DEEPER MEANING

Thus, the struggle shifted away from the field of science at the very outset. It no longer mattered against whom one struggled, but rather, the ideal for which one struggled. The “whom” was of no importance, but the “ideal” was obvious to everyone. It was necessary to heal the German body politic, to maintain and reinforce the strength of the German people.

Experience shows that persons whose characters had been infected by this pestilence were mostly weak, unreliable, and mendacious people, sometimes subservient, sometimes power-hungry: people who, in the long run, were incapable by nature of holding political office in a community of the Folk. But unless we assume from the outset that the 2,000,000 people mentioned above are all of them unfit material for reinforcing the strength of the people, it is obvious that the plague still withdrew many – possibly hundreds of thousands – of men from the reproductive process during the best years of their reproductive lives.

A people faced with the task of raising the birth rate by 1.5 million per year cannot afford the luxury of doing without a great proportion of its fathers just because they have fallen victim to a decades-old, unchecked attrition tactic directed against the health of the German people. This consideration defined the political task to be performed in the interests of the racial community. The task was clarified first of all with regards to the “findings” of “experts” who had puzzled over the “etiology and symptomatology” of the pestilence. The “scientific knowledge” of the outstanding “experts” in this field – whether we consult Kraft-Ebing, Schrenck-Rotzing, or Magnus Hirschfeld – are always based on the assumption that homosexuality is an inherited, or, in any case, innate anomaly: the various experts only contradict each other in the assumed causes of the “anomaly”.

The resulting “moral” attitude, expressly formulated by the Jew Hirschfeld, speaking in his own case, was simply a logical consequence: homosexuality is inborn, like a cleft palate or a hare lip; just as we may not punish people or persecute them for the possession of a hare lip, nor should be persecute homosexuals or place restrictions upon their personal freedom.

The men who took up the task which confronted them in the Third Reich – this must be stated unambiguously regardless of any humanitarian outcry – would have carried out that task unsparingly even if Hirschfeld & Co. had been right. But their work led to a discovery which was surprising even to them personally: the number of “anomalous cases” was totally insignificant compared to the totality of cases treated. Of 100 homosexuals, not even 2 belonged to the class with which scientific research had heretofore been exclusively concerned! This gives another face to the tear-jerking theory of the “poor sick people who just can’t help it”.

Our opponents may object that such “police findings” are very poorly grounded scientifically: people who have been arrested are motivated to portray themselves as capable of rehabilitation, and their statements are worthless. To this, we reply: if we simply confined ourselves to the statements of criminals, we would obtain a much higher rate than 2%, since the whole theology of homosexuality rests upon their “not being able to help it”. And the smartest of these criminals – the most experienced – are very quick to refer to Section 51. But our responsibility, set forth for us on political grounds, is not concerned solely with the punishment of those who have committed criminal acts: it also comprises educational efforts, and, finally, an appraisal of success, of which the persons affected are mostly unaware. Here is where the “anomalous cases” may be clearly distinguished from their fellow travelers and from those seduced by them. This is also a scientific method. It may even be the only scientific method, since its enquiries are not just concerned with cases which have been sought out to fit the theory but which cannot be generalized: it is directed at the totality of those indiscriminately washed ashore into police custody.

If we simply take these men as they arrive, and if we observe them closely, we find them to be creatures without any strength of character, who have never exercised any will power or felt any inclination towards character building; so that upon superficial observation, we might well conclude that they are incurably ill. But if we compel them to perform systematic labor – which most of them have never before experienced in their lives – if we segregate them from “normal” men under strict guard; if we prevent them from playing the self-exculpatory role of their “illness”; if we compel them to look upon their failure as human beings reflected in the faces of their own kind; a transformation takes place with astonishing rapidity. The “patient” gets well. The “anomaly” is found to be perfectly normal. He undergoes a simple phase of development through which he failed to pass in his youth. This leaves only the 2% of truly anomalous cases, who, just as they constituted the focal point of infection in the outside world, now become the crystallization point of aversion, separating them the chaff from the still useable wheat.

ONLY 2% ARE SICK

Unfortunately, such a healing process cannot be applied across the board in practice. The State cannot build sanatoria for two million “sick people”. The battle lines are only clearly drawn during the initial phases.

But experience in individual cases also shows how correct it was to apply political pressure in a field where criminal proceedings were bound to fail. Only about 2% are sick, and these are not as little to be pitied as born criminals.

The danger of this 2% exceeds all powers of imagination. 40,000 “anomalous cases” who could easily be excluded from the racial community are, if allowed complete freedom, capable of poisoning 2,000,000 other people.

It will be objected that these 2,000,000 must undoubtedly be inclined, due to weakness of character, to allow themselves to be poisoned. Of course, a race cannot consist solely of people as strong as an ox. All the more reason to protect the weaker; the science of hygiene was not developed solely for the benefit of people with a constitution of iron, who throw off every infection effortlessly, but for the benefit of the more susceptible.

Above all, we know that all human beings unconsciously pass through a period in which they are receptive to the poison to some extent. The life of the instincts awakens at a point of development at which the other sex has not yet appeared as the definitive object of desire.

And experience unfortunately teaches that the carriers of this infection approach precisely youths in this age group; not openly – unfortunately – but behind the mask of the “well-meaning friend” who resorts to every conceivable subterfuge to conceal his true aim. This enormous number of petty offenders can only be explained by the misuse of youthful trust.

An accomplice who wrings his hands before accusatory facts can no longer wash those same hands in innocence. For decades, the “intellectual leadership” of the German people tolerated open homosexual propaganda, and even considered it a praiseworthy showcase of “democratic liberalism”.

They stood by and did nothing when the youth movement of the pre-war generation fell increasingly into the hands of the inverts. They didn’t reach for the horsewhip when the “Wandervogel Apostle” Hans Blücher, in his book “Wandervogel: The German Wandervogel Movement as an Erotic Phenomenon” (!), openly admitted that “the Wandervogel movement would have been entirely inconceivable without inverts” (p. 35), because “an inclination towards a person regardless of sex was in the last analysis erotically conditioned. A Wandervogel need not be ashamed of his love for a younger comrade, there is nothing “immoral” about it, etc. Blücher admitted it was no accident that one of the largest youth associations in the district was overwhelmingly controlled by inverts!

That is the theology with which criminals seek to win our youth. That they turn to youth deliberately is proven not only by their criminal tendencies, but by their criminal intent. That intent is aimed at destroying the community of the Folk.

One homosexual teacher can corrupt a whole school. One homosexual “youth organization leader” (may he rest in peace) can corrupt a whole generation entrusted to him. One homosexual “friendly fellow who just likes young people” can corrupt the youth of a whole district. These people are criminals against the State, and should be treated as such.

They are criminals against the State, because they act from expediency just as much as from inclination. Constantly surrounded by their own kind, as soon as they hold a position of leadership they become the superiors of dependent subordinates.

They then build a state within a state: a secret state whose interests run counter to those of the Folk, and which therefore constitutes an organization hostile to the State. Thus the circle is closed.

They are not “poor, ill people” who must be “treated”, but enemies of the State who must be destroyed!

FROM DAS SCHWARZE CORPS (official publication of the SS), date unknown; probably very late 1936 or early 1937.

Translated by Carlos W. Porter, 1996

http://www.cwporter.com/enemies.htm
 
Old December 30th, 2009 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

- Experience shows that persons whose characters had been infected by this pestilence were mostly weak, unreliable, and mendacious people

Bingo. Describes Greg Johnson to a T. I would add neurotic and subject to being pressured, too. Johnson, per his queer affliction, has grown used to hiding his nature, and adopting as many covers as a hermit crab shells.

- attrition tactic - in Weimar Germany then, as in AmeriKwa today, the jews promoted homosexuality in order to shrink the White population.

- But their work led to a discovery which was surprising even to them personally: the number of “anomalous cases” was totally insignificant compared to the totality of cases treated. Of 100 homosexuals, not even 2 belonged to the class with which scientific research had heretofore been exclusively concerned! This gives another face to the tear-jerking theory of the “poor sick people who just can’t help it”. This means that the vast majority of homosexuals express not their genetic nature but learned taste preferences.

- 40,000 “anomalous cases” who could easily be excluded from the racial community are, if allowed complete freedom, capable of poisoning 2,000,000 other people. The question is: how many other good WN is Greg Johnson going to be allowed to poison? He has already indicated in post #69 on one of the mental patient's threads (if Brad Griffin did not erase it) that he attends AmRen not to hear the jews speak, but to share a room with another man. Maybe it's me, but I really hate to see a celebration of jews turned into a gay orgy. It just doesn't seem right. But seriously - how many other 175ers is Johnson going to seduce/draw into white ass-passionalism? Must one pass a litmus test to be published in OQ? Must one hold the "correct" attitude toward sodomites? How extensive is the homosexual network Johnson has constructed in his haven at TOQ?

- One homosexual teacher can corrupt a whole school. One homosexual “youth organization leader” (may he rest in peace) can corrupt a whole generation entrusted to him. One homosexual “friendly fellow who just likes young people” can corrupt the youth of a whole district. What can one editor do? What has he already done?

Last edited by Alex Linder; December 31st, 2009 at 01:25 AM.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #3
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,145
N.B. Forrest
Default

Quote:
Above all, we know that all human beings unconsciously pass through a period in which they are receptive to the poison to some extent. The life of the instincts awakens at a point of development at which the other sex has not yet appeared as the definitive object of desire.
Yes, turd burglars "born that way" are probably only about 2%, and they do indeed represent a grave threat to the young at that brief-but-critical transition phase between childhood & sexual maturity. Like their kike enablers, they're vampires forever in search of weak, confused prey.

I've read that faggotry in animals can now be foretold in the womb. Despite the thick pink jewfog Shmuel constantly wafts, almost no one - not even Pavloved mouthers of lib bullshit - wants a disgusting sex freak kid. If pregnant women were given access to such tests for their oven buns and the option to act on the information accordingly, I'd bet the coon tune that the 2 Percenters will virtually vanish from the face of the earth - along with their victimized recruits.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #4
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,961
George Witzgall
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.B. Forrest View Post
Yes, turd burglars "born that way" are probably only about 2%, and they do indeed represent a grave threat to the young at that brief-but-critical transition phase between childhood & sexual maturity. Like their kike enablers, they're vampires forever in search of weak, confused prey.

I've read that faggotry in animals can now be foretold in the womb. Despite the thick pink jewfog Shmuel constantly wafts, almost no one - not even Pavloved mouthers of lib bullshit - wants a disgusting sex freak kid. If pregnant women were given access to such tests for their oven buns and the option to act on the information accordingly, I'd bet the coon tune that the 2 Percenters will virtually vanish from the face of the earth - along with their victimized recruits.
no one would be so inhuman as to abort their own unborn child just because he is homosexual.
__________________
I understand and do not understand.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Witzgall View Post
no one would be so inhuman as to abort their own unborn child just because he is homosexual.
If you're joking, that's funny. If you're not, you're wrong.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #6
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.B. Forrest View Post
If pregnant women were given access to such tests for their oven buns and the option to act on the information accordingly, I'd bet the coon tune that the 2 Percenters will virtually vanish from the face of the earth - along with their victimized recruits.
I don't think the homo lobbyists really thought it all the way through when they started pushing the line that Brown Johnsons are "born that way." They thought pushing that line would make them immune from criticism by giving them a status akin to that of blacks or women. It apparently never crossed their minds that if it turns out to be true, it'll be a simple matter to abort or modify queer fetuses.

If you ask me, they would've been better off saying that it's a choice and for others to mind their own business. But then they wouldn't be getting all those special privileges they're after.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #7
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

It's fascinating that this "queers are born that way" line that even many in WN have fallen for today was being touted as far back as 80 years ago by jews like Magnus Hirschfeld.

Almost nothing has changed in the jewish MO since that time.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #8
Rounder
Senior Member
 
Rounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 12,684
Rounder
Default

Wow !! An excellent, deeply insightful, NS article on faggotry, from 1936. I'd never read it before.

(quote)

"They are not “poor, ill people” who must be “treated”, but enemies of the State who must be destroyed!

(unquote)

2 percent of faggots are born that way. So what'll we do with them after we take power ?? I'll tell ya.

1) Shame and threaten them back into their closets, first off, while we cure the 98% via the aforementioned NS method. During which, the 2% will be identified and "encouraged" to undergo surgery in order to prevent procreation of faggot genes. We can even provide them financial incentives and convince them and their familes that they're doing their people a great service.

2) Our ever increasing high tech capabilities to detect faggot genes will enable us to breed them out of existance via our Bureau of Selective Breeding programs.

3) Presto !!

No problem is unsolveable for determined, courageous, and committed Aryan men.

Sieg Heil !!!
__________________
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire




 
Old December 31st, 2009 #9
Bassanio
Hath not a Goy eyes?
 
Bassanio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Venice
Posts: 4,287
Blog Entries: 6
Bassanio
Default

Who cares about what ze Nazis had to say on homosexuality? We're interested in White MANism and not White ANTism.

Bombers of decency plooping incendiaries on larval militarists and their goose-stepping stroller pushers in Dresden was a good thing. Remember, Linder?

Fuck ze Nazis and zer autocratic bureaucracy.
__________________
The Goy cries out in ecstasy as the Jew strikes him.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #10
T.Garrett
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Manhasset, NY
Posts: 4,774
T.Garrett
Talking hahaha ...wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Witzgall View Post
no one would be so inhuman as to abort their own unborn child just because he is homosexual.
LOL, millions of women have aborted their unborns for the simple reason that being a mother 'doesn't fit into their lifestyle' ...you think such creatures would think twice about snuffing a fetus that they perceived to be somehow 'defective'?

Hell, most broads would have that unfortunate pre-human ripped from their wombs the way they do cancerous tumors and be found sitting post-op with other commiserating specimens of modern female at the local Starbucks whining about 'what a painful ordeal it was for her' ...what fucking planet did you just beam in from fagboy?

Where do you think you live, fucking Disneyland?
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #11
Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,027
Gott
Default

That wasn't NSDAP actual policy, obviously. What you posted is just empty talk - bureaucratic baloney. Rohm was openly homosexual - Hitler not only served under Rohm in the Great War, he revered/respected him greatly, and asked him (not the other way around) to work with the new party. After the dismal failure of the Revolutionary Hitler (Munich, 22), Rohm went to South America to help organize and run an army (Bolivia?). Hitler repeatedly pleaded with Rohm to come back and so same for the NSDAP. Thus the SA was born.

Oh yeah, Hitler had Rohm and his homosexuals offed in 34, because they were homosexuals, right? Baloney again. Yes, Rohm and his guys were killed, but not because Hitler was for it (he had to be pushed, pushed and aggressively manipulated for hours and hours before he went along, and then, only because he was told that Rohm was plotting rebellion - which he wasn't), but because that was, actually, the first step in Hitler shaking hands with the fucking devil. In that, Rohm was trying to establish the SA as the German army - to bypass the elitist boys with all the 'Vons' in the regular army. Rohm, limp wristed homosexual that he was, was the real revolutionary of the NSDAP (with Goebbels, until he suddenly became far less so after he too was almost killed that night in 34). Rohm wanted a 2 million man SA fully armed and trained, and if Germany had had that army when the war started, they might just have had a chance to smash the swine decisively right at the start, which is the only possible way Germany could ever have won.

The homo stuff (as justification for killing Rohm) was just public relations in the aftermath of the 34 killings. Like everybody else, Hitler knew Rohm was homosexual, and he didn't fucking care. The Army insisted that the SA be neutralized in exchange for its 'acceptance' of the new NS government. The others killed that night were also seen as political enemies of either the army, or of the more conservative (as opposed to revolutionary side) of the party. Against his better judgment (apparently Hitler was always regretful about having Rohm offed), Hitler went along, and his reward was a General Staff and officer corp. the hated his guts, hated NS, and did everything it could to sabotage Germany, and more or less succeeded.

Reality is a little more complicated that it is generally made out to be here. Simple answers are for simpletons. The current doctrinaire stuff here is really boring even if it does play well to the pin heads.

One more analytical (as opposed to emotionally hysterical) argument to disprove the Rohm was killed because he was a homosexual spin: The SA was killed/neutralized/deballed decisively that night. The SS became a small, elite Praetorian guard, the NSDAP army disappeared. Rohm and a few of his guys in the SA were homosexual...the SA was not. The SA was destroyed, and was nothing of any importance whatsoever after that night. Rohm was killed to destroy the SA, as per the army's demands, not because Rohm and his top men were homosexuals.

By the way, there is a good article from 32or 33 that is fairly well known in which an American journalist relates a luncheon with Rohm and also a drive with Hitler's personal body guards. In this article, which of course might just be enemy propaganda, but then, which might also be on the level, Rohm is a screaming queen, as openly swishy as it is possible to be, and the bodyguards are all drop dead gorgeous pretty boys (but also good fighting men) who opening showed each other, and the journalist, pictures of their boy friends.

The place get crazier by the minute... People who make a very, VERY big deal about their manly credentials, are, so goes one argument, perhaps a little too obsessed with, ah...men? Howard Hawks was sometimes taken to be a bit off because of his overwhelming preoccupation with the man thing. Just a FUCKING THOUGHT, which you might consider amidst the 99.9 percent male membership, swilling down a dozen or so brews over big cigars, with a foot on the bar and the spittoon handy, here at the SHOW TRIAL STALIN stick your nose into other peoples bedrooms LOUNGE.

This new VNNF thingy is almost as repulsive as the nigger porno pictures you once posted (with the same perfect and unassailable logic) on the main page.

Last edited by Gott; December 31st, 2009 at 10:46 AM.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #12
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

No bad blood intended btw Gott: since it isn't meant to a personal attack on you, but rather a correction/discussion (and you know me well enough to know I easily drift into polemic). Spelling errors etc are probably numerous, but please forgive them as I am exhausted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gott View Post
Rohm was openly homosexual - Hitler not only served under Rohm in the Great War,
That isn't true as far as I know: Der Chef met Roehm in 1919/1920 when Roehm was assigned to investigate the DAP (later NSDAP) while acting as liason between the nationalist groups in Munich, the Freikorps and the Reichswehr. Roehm then joined the DAP/NSDAP to become its link to the Reichswehr in the event a further socialist/communist rising.

Quote:
he revered/respected him greatly,
Well yes: Der Chef had a lot of respect for old comrades (altkameraden) and was a sentimental man (strange but true), which was actually one of his chief weaknesses.

Quote:
and asked him (not the other way around) to work with the new party.
Well it is a bit more complicated than that, but he did ask him to work with the NSDAP. I'd have to check my notes, but Roehm was as interested in the NSDAP as it was with him. Although the interpretation is rather disputed even among NS thinkers.

Quote:
Rohm went to South America to help organize and run an army (Bolivia?).
He went to Bolivia in 1925/1926 if memory serves not in 1923 after the failure of the putsch. He continued to lead the SA and it was he who successfully pleaded with Der Chef to come back to lead the NSDAP after he got out of Landsberg.

Quote:
Hitler repeatedly pleaded with Rohm to come back and so same for the NSDAP.
That's not true as far as I know. For one thing the NSDAP had higher level and better officers in its ranks who were still Reichswehr at the time. Eduard Dietl is an obvious example as he joined the party in the early twenties (1922/1923 if memory serves) and was a member until he was killed in action in a plane crash (if memory serves) in 1944. There was also Ludendorff but his influence in the NSDAP was minimal in real as opposed to his large ceremonial influence (he was much more interested in attacking Christianity and restoring his version of Wotanism than most other things [you might like to look up the publishing house he set up and that his daughter continued during the Reich, which was the publisher of the strongest anti-Christian material in Germany [might have been 'Nordland Verlag' but don't quote me on that since that might have been an SS publishing house]).

Quote:
Thus the SA was born.
The SA was born before Roehm went to Bolivia. Roehm went to Bolivia after his ideas about the SA as a revolutionary force were not accepted by Der Chef. Roehm then resigned and went to Bolivia as a army advisor. He was asked back when the SA started causing trouble in the 30s, because he was someone that Der Chef felt he could trust at that time.

Quote:
Oh yeah, Hitler had Rohm and his homosexuals offed in 34, because they were homosexuals, right? Baloney again.
Actually that did have something to do with it: Der Chef did look the other way about the homosexuality in the upper echelons in the SA, but he never endorsed it. Why did he not deal with it earlier? Because it would destroy the party if it was found that some of its public leaders were faggots. The two strongest opponents of homosexuality in the NSDAP were Goebbels and Himmler both of who basically wished to purge the SA of them. How much did Der Chef know about the homosexuality in the SA is the question. On balance the likeihood is that he was aware that it existed but not of its extent, which was only revealed later on to him probably in the crucial years of 1930-1932 (which would make sense of Goebbels' remarks on the subject in his diaries in that period).

Quote:
Yes, Rohm and his guys were killed, but not because Hitler was for it (he had to be pushed, pushed and aggressively manipulated for hours and hours before he went along, and then, only because he was told that Rohm was plotting rebellion - which he wasn't),
Well you are using a logical fallacy are you not? You are suggesting that because Der Chef took some time to be persuaded that he was for homosexuality. This is nonsense I am afraid and the reason (which you find in most biographies or works on and/or around this subject) that Der Chef was so intransient was because he valued old comrades and friends of which Roehm was one of the oldest. This is also evidenced by how long it took for Der Chef to order the death of Roehm (carried out by Theodor Eicke by the way) compared to the other SA officers who were taken at the spa hotel.

Quote:
but because that was, actually, the first step in Hitler shaking hands with the fucking devil.
Who the Reichswehr? It was a necessary act. The SA needed reeling in and soon as they'd be behaving little better than thugs and were becoming a PR disaster. Hindenberg was also close to declaring martial law and envoking the clause in the constitution of the Weimar republic (see Carl Schmitt's 'The Crisis of Parilamentary Democracy' on all this if you wish to know more). This meant rule by the Reichswehr and probably the reestablishment of the Imperial monarchy in Germany.

I can't imagine many things worse than that for that time personally, but there we go. After it was only the NSDAP who stopped the KPD and the SPD turning Germany into a satellite state of the USSR.

If you want a brief breakdown of Communist ideology on this point see Chris Harman's trotskyite account 'The Lost Revolution: Germany 1918 to 1923' [1997, 2nd Edition, Booksmarks: London] and/or Chapters 1, 2 & 6 of Joachim Hoffman's 'Stalin's War of Extermination 1941 - 1945: Planning, Realization and Documentation', [2001, Theses & Dissertatons: Capshaw]. You could also read Marx and Engels if you like since it derives from the orthodox as opposed to Leninist/Stalinist/Trotskyite revisions of it: if you like I can probably find the particular work(s) that it is all in by going back through my notes. I think it is most talked about in Engel's 'Anti-Duehring' as that is the one that deals with historical materialism, the progression of the revolution in the Marxist view and the dialectic applied in practice, but don't quote me on that.

Quote:
In that, Rohm was trying to establish the SA as the German army - to bypass the elitist boys with all the 'Vons' in the regular army.
There was a reason the 'vons' were so dominant in the Reichswehr and I grant you some were incompetant, but they were in general very good at what they did. Calling the Reichswehr under generals like von Seekt 'old-fashioned' is somewhat absurd (Roehm was a good soldier, but I can't help feeling he was no general), but they were conservative about somethings (particularly camoflage and it took the Waffen-SS to popularise that and a new system of training [that designed by Steiner and Hausser for the Waffen-SS]). However at the same time referring to them overly cautious would be valid as it was Der Chef personally who caused von Manstein's ingenious plan to defeat France to be accepted as opposed to the simple repeat of the variant of the Schlieffen plan used in 1914, but using a less adventurous version of Guderian's 'Blitzkrieg' (I recommend reading 'Achtung, Panzer!' btw: interesting book).

Quote:
Rohm, limp wristed homosexual that he was, was the real revolutionary of the NSDAP
Depends on your meaning concerning the phrase: 'real revolutionary'. He was on the Party 'left', but he wasn't a leading figure in it and his ideology was probably a lot less 'left wing' then you might think. It appears to have been a fairly standard synthesis of populist ideology, nationalist socialism and a strong dose of Arthur Moeller van den Bruck (whose 'Das Dritte Reich' developed a synthesis between Nationalism and Marxism-Leninism as Revolutionary Conservatism. The English translation by E. O. Lorimer [a public anti-Nazi] is dodgy so I'd use the original German if possible).

There is an English version of one of Roehm's effusions published by a neo-nazi group if you'd like to read it.

Quote:
(with Goebbels, until he suddenly became far less so after he too was almost killed that night in 34).
Again not true. Goebbels' socialism and left-wing ideological politics has been the subject of long debate, but the basic consensus (you can read it in Toby Thacker's new biography 'Joseph Goebbels' [2009, Palgrave MacMillian: London]) is that his 'socialism' was of the nationalistic variety (similar to Spengler) and that despite having read a lot of left wing literature (including Marx, Engels, Lenin etc), courtesy of his friend Richard Flisges [Goebbels' book 'Michael' is based on Flisges (killed in 1923 in a mining accident if memory serves)], was not a 'left wing revolutionary' at all and the former orthodox view with Goebbels as this sort of pseudo-marxist on the party left (he was close to the Strassers for a while but this is misleading if one consults his work and diaries as well as his underlying philosophy one sees this very clearly) has been more or less abandoned.

Quote:
Rohm wanted a 2 million man SA fully armed and trained, and if Germany had had that army when the war started, they might just have had a chance to smash the swine decisively right at the start, which is the only possible way Germany could ever have won.
I am sorry my friend, but this is utter nonsense.

I could go into a lengthy dissertation about the military issue, but it would be an essay in itself. Suffice to say the Wehrmacht would have become all but useless had Roehm had his way as the Red Army did when Stalin decided to 'reform' it by getting rid of most of the senior officers and creating a 'people's army'.

If you want another example look at the performance of the Volkssturm units that Goebbels raised against the Allies and Soviets in 1944/45. That's why 'people's armies' tend to be rather crap, while professional armies tend to elitist (per Sparta).

Quote:
The homo stuff (as justification for killing Rohm) was just public relations in the aftermath of the 34 killings.
Hardly: his homosexuality was not exactly mentioned tonnes before, during or after the Night of the Long Knives. The main justification was that there was a plot within the SA to kill Der Chef and it is debatable as to whether it existed or not. Certainly quite a few people in the higher echelons of the NSDAP thought it was genuine despite the, as usual, machiavellian interpretation placed on it (as with most things Reich related) by most authors on the subject.

Personally I think it was entirely justified with or without a plot, but that's personal opinion.

Incidentally one should also note that it, in the conventional view, is one of the main reasons that Goebbels and Himmler (both key proponents of the 'plot' to kill Roehm in the standard version) wanted to see Roehm's brains decorating a prison wall. The SS were notoriously anti-homosexual, which is represented in Herbert Jankuhn's (an SS archaeologist) publications on the Danish bog bodies when he conjectured that they were homosexuals who had been ritually killed as punishment for their crimes and to appease the gods (see Heather Pringle's somewhat torpid and occasionally absurd 'The Masterplan: Himmler's Scholars and the Holocaust' for more information [can't recall the precise reference off hand]).

Quote:
Like everybody else, Hitler knew Rohm was homosexual, and he didn't fucking care.
Of course he did: I've discussed this above as you are misrepresenting Der Chef as pro-homosexual when he was a sentimental man who didn't like to betray his friends (contrary to the Langer and Shirer interpretation of him). If you want to understand Der Chef then I'd suggest reading Max Domarus' collection of his speeches and writings (the four volume version not the one volume 'condensed' version called 'The Essential Hitler') along with memoirs about him from friends/aides (an obvious one is August Kubizek's 'The Young Hitler I Knew', which while written with condiserable hindsight seems to offer an interesting peek into to Der Chef's personality and mind).

Essentially you are confusing a suggested action with a specific belief, when the specific belief did not exist because the actual action was rooted in a different specific belief to the one you are thinking of.

If you want a further example then look at the way Der Chef handled Streicher when Streicher was found to be committing fraud in 1944 by the SS who advocated his immediate execution as a 'shylock' (a tinge of irony there given 'Der Stuermer's' line on the JQ, Freemasonry and the Catholic Church in general) to use 'Das Schwarze Korps' parlance. See Randall Bytwerk's short biography of Streicher if you wish to know a bit more.

Quote:
The Army insisted that the SA be neutralized in exchange for its 'acceptance' of the new NS government.
It was rather necessary or do you think the SA/NSDAP could have taken on the Reichswehr and Police (possibly the Stahlheim as well, which was as big as the SA not to mention the remnants of the KPD/SPD forces or the external forces that may well have been sent in)?

Quote:
The others killed that night were also seen as political enemies of either the army,
Well I can't name any political enemies of the army other than Roehm who were executed on the Night of the Long Knives. I can name plenty of enemies of different sections of the NSDAP, but not the army, who were killed.

Perhaps you could list them?

Quote:
or of the more conservative (as opposed to revolutionary side) of the party.
That's based on the execution of Gregor Strasser I presume. I'd be interested if you could name any other 'left wing' figure in the party, apart from Roehm who is rather debatable as I've said above, who bit the dust as part of the Night of the Long Knives. The reason Strasser was executed was because he betrayed the NSDAP in late 1932 just before it came to power in early 1933 by his intrigues with General Schleicher (who, along with his wife, was also killed) [Carl Schmitt advised Schleicher on this as a point of curiosa]. He threatened to split and destroy the NSDAP for his own personal gain: I don't see how that makes his death part of an organised attempt to wipe out the 'left' of the NSDASP. As it is usually argued that it was Goebbels not Der Chef who got Strasser's name on that list precisely because Goebbels and the Strassers were old enemies from the early days of Goebbels' tenure in Berlin when Kampf Verlag (the Strasser's publishing house in Berlin) started attacking Goebbels' methods and intrigued to stop Goebbels being allowed to start 'Der Angriff' and then stopping party funds for it coming from Munich by a series of schemes (these are related to why Otto Strasser was expelled from the NSDAP as well).

Quote:
Against his better judgment (apparently Hitler was always regretful about having Rohm offed),
Precisely and that is why what you argued on the homosexuality issue kind of falls apart, because of the motivation for hestitation wasn't acceptance of homosexuality, but because Roehm was an old friend from the Munich days (Goebbels called it the 'munich set' for a good reason).

Quote:
Hitler went along, and his reward was a General Staff and officer corp.
Well it is kind of necessary to have the support of the military isn't it?

One of classic problems with revolutionary ideologies is that they forget the idea that the military is not likely to be for them unless they placate its officer corps. The two revolutions in Russia were anomalies more than anything due in part to the lack of communication between rank and file troops and the officer corps (which was distinctly extreme version of 18-19th century military philosophy).

Quote:
the hated his guts, hated NS,
Some of them did: some of them didn't. There were quite a few high ranking Wehrmacht officers, such as Ramcke, von Greim, Hausser, Steiner, Dietl, Model and Rommel, who were extremely strong NS. Most of the high level officers agreed with the basic policies of the NSDAP, but didn't like Der Chef much because he wasn't an aristocrat in the class sense.

There was some notable opponents such as Hans Oster, among others, but the Generals by enlarge did what they were told and the less ranks tended to be loyal Germans and quite often party members (most of the SA was drafted into the army after the Night of the Long Knives allowing the Wehrmacht to put into practice its military preparations from 1918 for the reexpansion of the armed forces [I can describe them for you if you'd like]).

Quote:
and did everything it could to sabotage Germany, and more or less succeeded.
Bit baby with the bath water: no?

Yes: there were officers who opposed the Reich. There were also several Gestapo officers and SS members who turned out to be traitors: does this mean, because they were turncoats and traitors that the Gestapo and the SS should be condemned?

Quote:
Reality is a little more complicated that it is generally made out to be here. Simple answers are for simpletons. The current doctrinaire stuff here is really boring even if it does play well to the pin heads.
And there we are in agreement.

Quote:
One more analytical (as opposed to emotionally hysterical) argument to disprove the Rohm was killed because he was a homosexual spin:
Roehm was killed for several reasons, it as you said more complex than simple answers, one of which was his homosexuality but the main one was that the SA had become an extreme liability and having been given the chance to reform itself in its new responsibilites (as a propaganda distribution and domestic intelligence organisation) it refused and was dealt with. Der Chef gave the SA more than one chance to reform, but it was clear in the end (particularly after the 1932 Stennes SA revolt in Berlin) that the SA needed to be put in its place as its leadership were not loyal to the principles of National Socialism.

Quote:
The SA was killed/neutralized/deballed decisively that night.
Yes and then drafted into the Wehrmacht.

Quote:
The SS became a small, elite Praetorian guard, the NSDAP army disappeared.
No: it reformed as the Waffen-SS and the Wehrmacht (which apart from parts of the officer corps, particularly in the Abwehr circles, was loyal to the Third Reich).

Quote:
Rohm and a few of his guys in the SA were homosexual...the SA was not.
True.

Quote:
The SA was destroyed, and was nothing of any importance whatsoever after that night. Rohm was killed to destroy the SA, as per the army's demands, not because Rohm and his top men were homosexuals.
Well the truth is more complicated than that, but the homosexuality was a factor in it as I've pointed out in extensio above.

Quote:
By the way, there is a good article from 32or 33 that is fairly well known in which an American journalist relates a luncheon with Rohm and also a drive with Hitler's personal body guards. In this article, which of course might just be enemy propaganda, but then, which might also be on the level, Rohm is a screaming queen, as openly swishy as it is possible to be, and the bodyguards are all drop dead gorgeous pretty boys (but also good fighting men) who opening showed each other, and the journalists pictures of their boy friends.
Its likely true from what I've read of Roehm's behaviour at that point, but then Der Chef felt he needed Roehm at that point and when he became a liability and wouldn't retire quietly he was executed as befits traitors. If you want a close parallel as to the situation with Roehm (in terms of constantly speaking out) then look at Edgar Julius Jung (who despite being a laudable intellectual [his critique of liberalism is devastating] couldn't shut up [he wrote the famous 1934 von Papen speech] and was executed accordingly).
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; December 31st, 2009 at 01:24 PM.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #13
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Bombers of decency plooping incendiaries on larval militarists and their goose-stepping stroller pushers in Dresden was a good thing. Remember, Linder?
Small chance I didn't mean that literally but ironically? Bueller? Bueller?

The above document is interesting. It shows jews pursued the same tactics then they pursure now. One of those is exaggerating about the percentage of the population that is homosexual. Another is lying that they were born that way. Another is trying to remove laws that in any way restrict the pervert from exercising its mania resplendently and publicly. Another is using ostensibly neutral science to push their anti-White social agenda.

They didn't just do these things in Weimar Germany, they did many of them in the USSR a decade earlier.

Jews should not be tolerated in White nations. They are more dangerous and unappetizing than cockroaches, and we exterminate cockroaches.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #14
Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,027
Gott
Default

Hi Karl, and I figured what I wrote would piss you off. I thought of you when I was knocking the post off, at lightening, furious, mad as hell speed.
Mostly, you aren't disagreeing with me, it seems to me, except in the exact, precise detail dept. I'm all for that dept. but, at the same time, I stand basically by what I said.

For instance - the NSDAP existed for what, 25 or so years? And for the important, formative, and 'pure' part - the first part (before 'The Golden Pheasant' phase) Rohm was right there, smack in the middle of things. His being homosexual had something to do with his being offed...ok, yes. Something though, is not everything, and, I would and do say that his homosexuality was a minor consideration next to the demands of the army, which was the major reason.

I though Hitler served under Rohm in the war. Sorry about that then, and thanks for the correction. You tell me they then met in 19 o 20...and Rohm was just as homosexual then as he was in 34. Hummmm...that's only 13 years that Hitler knew and didn't feel the need to do anything...ah ha...

Again OK, if they were mutually interested in each other. It doesn't matter to me, what does matter is that the SS 36 document cited here is hogwash in the context of the history of the Party and the behavior of the Party leader...13 years....is a lot of years when the total years are 25.

I never meant to imply that Hitler endorsed homosexuality, nor do I say that anywhere in my post or in any other post. He didn't much care (on the basis of his actions - his non actions for 13 years) is what I meant to say, and is what I mean. He didn't care about it the same way he didn't care about Goebbels womanizing or Goring's corruption or idiotic decorations/uniform fetishes. He told Goebbels he couldn't divorce Magda and marry Lida Barova...that is as far as he went with Goebbels' mania for bedding anything that moved, especially if it was a movie actress. He let Goring pester the King of Italy for decorations (one of the funniest stories of the Third Reich, I think), and suffered his Green Velvet fantasy uniforms, stolen art collections and vast manorial estates for the same reason. He must have, because he allowed all of these things.

One thing I like very much about Hitler is the interesting combination of idealism and pragmatism...the polar opposite of ivory tower, utopian academics who stick resolutely to their dogmatic positions no matter how removed they are from any real world (IE, people are not perfect except in PC utopias) context.

Hitler was not homosexual, but he didn't care that Rohm was, as long as Rohm did a good job. Hitler was not a womanizer, and it was OK for Goebbels, as it was OK for Goring and all for the same reason...if they did their jobs well. He sure made a mistake with Goring...a drug addict to boot...even if it wasn't he fault.

I only really disagree with you Karl, about the Reichwehr. I don't see it your way at all on this. Hitler was not an aristocrat, and the officer class was aristocratic. The army was not NSDAP, the army didn't want to take back the Ruhr, the army didn't want to take back Austria...in fact, the army almost never wanted to do what Hitler wanted them to do. I can't write a book here, and I'm not equipped to either. But I've read plenty on this subject too, though not nearly as much as you have. Hitler became profoundly distrustful of the army leadership as any number of prominent scandals, removals from office, trials and executions will attest. History isn't chiseled in granite, and facts are interpretable in a number of, hopefully related, ways. I interpret the facts as I do and stand by them.

For instance, a PR disaster is a lot better in my book than launching into a war that one's army leadership does not want to fight, says can't be won and is unprepared to wage (not that big an army). I know the charge is treason - against Rohm. I haven't read anything that leads me to believe it to be true. As I see it this was a power struggle, and Rohm lost. He wasn’t any more of a traitor then were the guys who won that round. They all were squabbling for their piece of the pie...Hitler ruled that way...it was anything by a dictatorship a la commie centralization.

Rohm would have bypassed the army, and Germany would have had a vastly bigger pool of trained fighting men on the day the war started. What if when the giant encirclement battles took place, instead of 300,000 captives, it had been the entire Soviet army as was INTENDED, and didn't happen? Only if it had gone as intended did Germany have a chance to win. When I put a PR disaster (which could have been fixed the same way the Goebbels Magda divorce was fixed) against the extinction of Germany and the White race, I go with the PR disaster every time.

Frankly Karl, I have no problems contemplating a restoration of the Hohenzollerns at that point in history. I revere Hitler, but you know what? There used to be this glorious place called Germany and now, it is gone. There used to be this wondrous thing called The White Race, and now it is gone. In that context, what's wrong with the Kaiser?

As far as I can see from a quick reading (I'm exhausted from work too and don't even know what I'm writing here but do know I should be working instead) of your paragraph on the 'vons' - you basically are saying the same thing I did. They said no to everything (if there is one thing I really can't stand in a person it is the saying of no to everything...that's the mark of a bad person, to me). They were instinctually opposed to NS as NS was not blood aristocracy, but achievement aristocracy. Hitler was not of noble birth, he had been nothing more than a corporal, he wasn’t even German, let alone Prussian, etc. etc. You need people that agree with you, who are positive, who you feel comfortable with, who you can trust. Hitler never could trust them, they hated him and his, and he grew to hate them and theirs. Is there a better recipe for absolute disaster in a war of survival? The SA were men like Hitler...he could have trusted them.

By the time it was too late, the SS grew is scope to fill the grievous hole where the army's full-blooded commitment should have been. Way, way too late. Rohm would have had them ready, willing and able to go on the first day of the war.

Well, I knew you'd see what I wrote and reply and I expected the kind of reply (including the absolutely impeccable manners). So, I got what I deserved as in so much for work! Work that should have been finished by today and which I haven't yet...ah...started.

Heil Hitler kamerad.

PS - Oh come on Karl...the 44 defend Berlin 'army' is remotely to be compared with what the SA was on the way to being in 33? I disagree totally and find the logic - to put it mildly - dubious. A nation in ruins with millions of men dead and only boys and old men and physical defectives left amid the rubble, having no chance whatsoever and knowing it is the same thing as what the SA could have been had Hitler gone with Rohm rather than the industrialists and the General staff? Not a chance, but of course I can only speculate, which is all you can do either, as Rohm never got that chance. But I'll admit I'm speculating while you are pretending to work with facts here!

Many of the SA men came out of the Freikorps, they were hardly a bunch of dillitantes in fancy dress uniforms.

Last edited by Gott; December 31st, 2009 at 01:54 PM.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #15
Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,027
Gott
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post

Jews should not be tolerated in White nations.
With this I'm in full agreement. Jesse Owens - the American 1936 Berlin Summer Olympics big winner - always remarked on how polite, civil and just plain NICE Germans were to him, and on how Hitler would smile at him and give a little wave of his hand every time they saw each other (Owens on the field, Hitler in his box). This all, of course, radically reworked into the exact opposite by the jew propaganda ministry.

Similarly, as mentioned at length in this post, Hitler not only let Rohm do his thing, but was, for the most part, and for most of the time, actively his friend.

There are niggers and there are blacks. At least I hope there are still some blacks. And there are professional gays and there are homosexuals - the latter living quiet, private lives and who are out to shove nothing in either anyone's face, or butt.

There are free spirited women who are not cut out for marriage and domesticity as well (I'm theorizing), who are not nightmare feminists out to destroy men and the world we made, but who just don't quite fit into it for some reason or other.

People are different from each other (sorry for being quite so greeting card profound). I have no personal or even philosophical beef with people who leave me and my culture/race alone. If they respect me, I'll respect them back.

The only group I know of that will not do that is the jews. They are out to destroy everything that isn't jew, and history proves (the Romanoffs and the NSDAP) that if you don't absolutely kill their entire fucking race (humane but total sterilization) they will indeed kill you instead.

With the jews gone, the professional homosexuals, feminists and niggers will also be gone.

So, in other words, the only - ONLY - group I hate and want to see entirely exterminated and removed from the world and erased from all fucking HUMAN HISTORY is the jews.

The other special interest groups don't count for diddly squat and aren't even worth the trouble of addressing, except as sock puppets of the kikes.

I think you are wasting your time when you go off subject.

Last edited by Gott; December 31st, 2009 at 08:21 PM.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #16
James Hawthorne
Senior Member
 
James Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,037
Blog Entries: 89
James Hawthorne
Default

Little known fact:

Hitler shook hands with Owens in 'Der Fuhrer' reception area inside the stadium. He also gave Owens a signed photo of himself, which Owens treasured until the day he died.



I agree Rohm's homosexuality was the excuse for his execution. The Army top brass demanded Hitler "reign in the SA", from that point, Rohm was doomed.
__________________
Aryan Matters

VNN Media

Last edited by James Hawthorne; December 31st, 2009 at 07:43 PM.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #17
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,145
N.B. Forrest
Default

Quote:
There are niggers and there are blacks. At least I hope there are still some blacks. And there are professional gays and there are homosexuals - the later living quiet, private lives and who are out to shove nothing in either anyone's face, or butt.[/B]
If they were all like that, they would be at least tolerable. I've stated before that if they keep their filth behind closed doors and involving adult Sodomites only, I wouldn't be the one to kick in that door.

But of course, it's the prancing, foot-stamping pro fags who perpetually have the floor: Shmuel sees to that. Which is why I look forward to a prenatal Final Solution for the Froots and a postnatal one for the Snoots.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #18
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl
The main justification was that there was a plot within the SA to kill Der Chef and it is debatable as to whether it existed or not. Certainly quite a few people in the higher echelons of the NSDAP thought it was genuine despite the, as usual, machiavellian interpretation placed on it (as with most things Reich related) by most authors on the subject.

Personally I think it was entirely justified with or without a plot, but that's personal opinion.
I think you also have to take account of a common tendency of revolutions: each revolutionary government is overthrown by increasingly radical factions. Given that Roehm commanded a large paramilitary organization and was expressing bitter dissatisfaction with the state of affairs under Hitler. the possibility for Hitler's being made into a German Kerensky must have seemed quite credible.

On top of any concerns about a conspiracy, the SA, having outlived its importance as a security force for the party, needed to be reined in.

When Hindenburg got the news of the executions he said, "It's high time!"

Prior to the executions Hitler may not have been interested in Roehm's private life as long as he could keep it private. According to that article in Das Schwartze Korps, however, there was a realization after the fact that homosexuality had been important in constituting the disloyal faction in the SA. It doesn't matter if Hitler had been willing to overlook it earlier. This is not hypocrisy. This is learning from bad experience.

Last edited by Hadding; December 31st, 2009 at 10:01 PM.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #19
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Has it been proven that Greg Johnson is a homosexual or is this still just innuendo?

Linder says that he is weak, unreliable, and mendacious, but I don't know that, and even if it's true that GJ has an effeminate character it doesn't quite make him a bugger.

Last edited by Hadding; December 31st, 2009 at 10:11 PM.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #20
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
Has it been proven that Greg Johnson is a homosexual or is this still just innuendo?

Linder says that he is weak, unreliable, and mendacious, but I don't know that, and even if it's true that GJ has an effeminate character it doesn't quite make him a bugger.
There's an AmRent conference coming up. Why don't you share a room with him and report your findings?
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:28 PM.
Page generated in 0.21744 seconds.