"In 1932 Hitler had on two occasions made it clear in even more unequivocal than those used after the seizure of power that his ideology was conditioned in the first instance in the negative contrast with the Soviet Union and communism.
In his speech to the industrialists in Dusseldorf on 27 January 1932 he had left the actual domain of the white race in the world and had brought the hereditary superiority, which was then a right but a right under threat. In fact, against it, he said, had raised a world view (Weltanschauung) who had already won a state and that in future the world would collapse if it had not been destroyed in due course, "If this movement continues to grow, three hundred years we will see only a revolutionary Lenin in 1917 but the founder of a new universal doctrine with a veneration equal to that of Buddha. "
Hitler apparently did not address in contempt a "phenomenon so huge," and contended specifically with entrepreneurs who did not think possible a wide industrialization of Russia. Rather, in this case no doubt he meant himself as the anti-Lenin as the only man able to stop this development, so in terms basically identical to those of Trotsky, who had called the "super-Wrangel of the world bourgeoisie." In his eyes, however, the destruction of humanity and the decline was that Trotsky was the sight of progress and emancipation, as the industrialization of Russia and the likely spread of Bolshevism in Asia could be found only on the use of Western resources and ruthless on the lowering of living standards of the Russian masses, or Asian.
Hitler, however, did not attribute the Western world the merit of having improved the lives of Asians and other people and not afraid to declare themselves objectively advocate of egoism that he did not think Western is merely the domain of humanity and more educated, dictated by a law of nature, on the bottom and barbaric. Whether the confession in this case, hitherto inconceivable, the most reactionary of imperialism, whether it is fundamentally correct insight of exaggeration, in any case a man can not propose anything more ambitious than playing a decisive role in the service of a cause in the vast process of world history, and every idea that only wants to see Hitler in a German nationalist is clearly inadequate. A simple nationalist would never expressed as Hitler did in December 1932 in front of Colonel von Reichenau: he argued that Soviet diplomacy was unable to negotiate and conclude treaties as treaties could be concluded that they were only part of contractors on an equal footing in their conception of the world ...
And if Stalin when he presented his ambitious budget before the Congress was not likely under the eyes of Hitler's speech of January 27, 1932, however, directly confronted with it when it discussed the theory of superior races and lower ones.
He said "It is known that the ancient Rome, considered the ancestors of the Germans and French of today in exactly the same way that the representatives of the" master race "now consider the Slavic nations ... But what was the result? That non-Romans, that all the "barbarians", united against a common enemy and as a storm brought down Rome ... Where is the guarantee that the politicians in Berlin literary fascists should have better luck in the old and experienced Roman conquerors? It is no longer just assume the opposite? "" .
From:
National Socialism and Bolshevism. The European Civil War 1917-1945, Sansoni Editore, Florence, 1988, pp. 172-173 and 177:
of Ernst Nolte (German historian and philosopher )
taken from the blog of Andrea Carancini
The same war against the "barbarians" and "inferior" which takes place today from the United States and Istrael, but also Italy and other European countries. And I'm left to wonder:
When will all these "barbarians" is really pissed off and take away for them as we are dealing with?
0 comments:
Post a Comment