Redefining Hitler

If there’s one thing Hank Williams Jr., did last night that’s far more damaging than comparing a sitting president to Hitler, it’s comparing Hitler to anybody, thus diminishing the shock value of the word, “Hitler.”

Williams obviously isn’t the first to travel down this road. If he had been, it’d be far more shocking than the general shoulder shrug a comparison to Hitler elicits these days. Godwin’s Law — as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 — recognizes the overuse of the comparison to “shock” someone involved in a discussion.

The irony is that in the constant comparison of Hitler to people who clearly aren’t in his evil league, it is the Fuhrer who is being redefined.

The chances are that Hank Williams Jr., knows nothing of the 1919 Gemlich

letter, which Hitler wrote while a soldier. Let’s just say it is nothing like playing a round of golf with a political opponent.

“What began as a private letter, one man’s opinion, twenty-two years later became the ‘Magna Carta’ of an entire nation and led to the nearly total extinction of the Jewish people. This is an important lesson for future generations,” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, Wiesenthal Center Dean and Founder. “Demagogues mean what they say and given the opportunity, carry out what they promise,” he concluded.

Today, the letter went on display for the first time at the Museum of Tolerance in California. It’s considered the most significant document in the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s history.

Dear Herr Gemlich,

The danger posed by Jewry for our people today finds expression in the undeniable aversion of wide sections of our people. The cause of this aversion is not to be found in a clear recognition of the consciously or unconsciously systematic and pernicious effect of the Jews as a totality upon our nation. Rather, it arises mostly from personal contact and from the personal impression which the individual Jew leaves­­almost always an unfavorable one. For this reason, antisemitism is too easily characterized as a mere emotional phenomenon. And yet this is incorrect. Antisemitism as a political movement may not and cannot be defined by emotional impulses, but by recognition of the facts. The facts are these: First, Jewry is absolutely a race and not a religious association. Even the Jews never designate themselves as Jewish Germans, Jewish Poles, or Jewish Americans but always as German, Polish, or American Jews. Jews have never yet adopted much more than the language of the foreign nations among whom they live. A German who is forced to make use of the French language in France, Italian in Italy, Chinese in China does not thereby become a Frenchman, Italian, or Chinaman. It’s the same with the Jew who lives among us and is forced to make use of the German language. He does not thereby become a German. Neither does the Mosaic faith, so important for the survival of this race, settle the question of whether someone is a Jew or non­Jew. There is scarcely a race whose members belong exclusively to just one definite religion.

Through thousands of years of the closest kind of inbreeding, Jews in general have maintained their race and their peculiarities far more distinctly than many of the peoples among whom they have lived. And thus comes the fact that there lives amongst us a non­ German, alien race which neither wishes nor is able to sacrifice its racial character or to deny its feeling, thinking, and striving. Nevertheless, it possesses all the political rights we do. If the ethos of the Jews is revealed in the purely material realm, it is even clearer in their thinking and striving. Their dance around the golden calf is becoming a merciless struggle for all those possessions we prize most highly on earth.

The value of the individual is no longer decided by his character or by the significance of his achievements for the totality but exclusively by the size of his fortune, by his money.

The loftiness of a nation is no longer to be measured by the sum of its moral and spiritual powers, but rather by the wealth of its material possessions.

This thinking and striving after money and power, and the feelings that go along with it, serve the purposes of the Jew who is unscrupulous in the choice of methods and pitiless in their employment. In autocratically ruled states he whines for the favor of “His Majesty” and misuses it like a leech fastened upon the nations. In democracies he vies for the favor of the masses, cringes before the “majesty of the people,” and recognizes only the majesty of money.

He destroys the character of princes with byzantine flattery, national pride (the strength of a people), with ridicule and shameless breeding to depravity. His method of battle is that public opinion which is never expressed in the press but which is nonetheless managed and falsified by it. His power is the power of money, which multiplies in his hands effortlessly and endlessly through interest, and which forces peoples under the most dangerous of yokes. Its golden glitter, so attractive in the beginning, conceals the ultimately tragic consequences. Everything men strive after as a higher goal, be it religion, socialism, democracy, is to the Jew only means to an end, the way to satisfy his lust for gold and domination.

In his effects and consequences he is like a racial tuberculosis of the nations.

The deduction from all this is the following: an antisemitism based on purely emotional grounds will find its ultimate expression in the form of the pogrom.[1] An antisemitism based on reason, however, must lead to systematic legal combating and elimination of the privileges of the Jews, that which distinguishes the Jews from the other aliens who live among us (an Aliens Law). The ultimate objective [of such legislation] must, however, be the irrevocable removal of the Jews in general.

For both these ends a government of national strength, not of national weakness, is necessary.

The Republic in Germany owes its birth not to the uniform national will of our people but the sly exploitation of a series of circumstances which found general expression in a deep, universal dissatisfaction. These circumstances however were independent of the form of the state and are still operative today. Indeed, more so now than before. Thus, a great portion of our people recognizes that a changed state­form cannot in itself change our situation. For that it will take a rebirth of the moral and spiritual powers of the nation.

And this rebirth cannot be initiated by a state leadership of irresponsible majorities, influenced by certain party dogmas, an irresponsible press, or internationalist phrases and slogans. [It requires] instead the ruthless installation of nationally minded leadership personalities with an inner sense of responsibility.

But these facts deny to the Republic the essential inner support of the nation’s spiritual forces. And thus today’s state leaders are compelled to seek support among those who draw the exclusive benefits of the new formation of German conditions, and who for this reason were the driving force behind the revolution­­the Jews. Even though (as various statements of the leading personalities reveal) today’s leaders fully realized the danger of Jewry, they (seeking their own advantage) accepted the readily proffered support of the Jews and also returned the favor. And this pay­off consisted not only in every possible favoring of Jewry, but above all in the hindrance of the struggle of the betrayed people against its defrauders, that is in the repression of the antisemitic movement.

Respectfully,

Adolf Hitler

  • Tyler

    Not that I’ve considered Hank the Twoth one of our nation’s greatest thinkers, but from what I caught of the interview, he seemed drunk or high.

    I’ve got more respect for Hank Williams III, and HIS songs are crass and uncouth.

  • phil

    Your recitation of Godwin’s law is missing the value the probability approaches:

    “the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches” should be “the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1″, which is math-speak for the notion that a Nazi comparison is inevitable.

  • redheadwglasses

    Has anyone bothered to tell Hank II that he ceased being relevant, well, he never was relevant, but the last time he did anything most people were willing to listen to was about 25 years ago and that was set to music. Give it up, Hank.

  • Jim Shapiro

    I found it interesting that this drunken redneck cited Herman Cain as his preferred repugnican candidate.

    Does that mean that he’s more afraid of middle of the road, supposedly liberal intellectuals than he is blacks?

  • Kim E

    Bob- Thank you for posting the Gemlich letter. I don’t think I’ve ever actually read it before. Yikes!

  • Mark Gisleson

    Hitler the person is quite fascinating (for all the wrong reasons), but his name is usually invoked as a reference to Fascism.

    Discussing fascism is very trick because it’s the only large-scale political movement that operates differently in each country it’s found in. Fascism isn’t about oppressing Jews, it’s about identifying and oppressing scapegoats who take the blame for all of society’s ills.

    But fascists are much more slippery than that. In many cases it appears that fascist leaders scapegoat a group solely as a tool for recruitment, and not because of actually hatred (the people recruited, however, bring a lot of hate with them).

    Scapegoating homosexuals, women, Muslims or minorities of any kind for society’s woes is a fascist strategy. But if you mention fascism in a discussion, Godwin’s Law is invoked and the conversation (supposedly) ends.

    Godwin’s Law is an arbitrary construct that is exploited by fascists to keep non-fascists from accurately identifying one of the major political philosophies at work in our national political debates.

    Misdirection is a big part of fascism, as the Communist Georgi Dimitrov noted in 1935:

    “It is a peculiarity of the development of American fascism that at the present stage it comes forward principally in the guise of an opposition to fascism, which it accuses of being an “un-American” trend imported from abroad.”

    Or, as Halford E. Luccock said, “When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled ‘made in Germany'; it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, ‘Americanism.'”

  • Jim Shapiro

    Mark – Great stuff. Thanks. And of course our own Sinclair Lewis said, “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.”