The other day someone sent me a very nice 45 minute discussion which included Mark Webber who I thought was a Historian. It was about Operation Barbarossa, Hitler’s invasion of the Jewish Bolshevik Soviet Union.

The audio was quite fascinating, but also disappointing.

I noted certain old themes coming up again and again. Some were different.

I could have laughed at the British claim that somehow, through some of their fights with the Panzers, they had actually caused some harm to one of the Panzer units and that is why Hitler’s tanks couldn’t reach Moscow in the first year of the invasion. If the British excel at one thing, it is talking a lot of bullshit about their capabilities and successes in WW2. (They also like to overstate their contributions in the Napoleonic wars). The British need to make up for bad military performance by twisting and embellishing upon their apparent successes against the Germans.

Mark Webber is something of a problem. All the older people who were involved in this movement have got very bad memories about Weber. I now see that Mark Webber was NOT even a historian. But he posed as one for a long time. Weber got access to very important material, which he never shared with anyone. I can’t remember the exact details, but there was an archive of information that Mark Webber got access to, which he would not let anyone else touch. He then sucked various things out of it for his use. Also, when confronted with the fake Jewish holocaust, Webber cucked and he claimed that the Germans did indeed slaughter millions of Jews … without standing his ground on a single point or without providing any evidence for what really happened. I can’t remember all the details, but I know Carolyn Yeager was very annoyed with him, but I think the Barnes Review people were also very pissed off with him.

As I listened to this interview, Webber was saying that Hitler lost WW2 militarily in 1941 because of the massive production of the Soviet Union, which was helped along by the USA. There is a lot of truth in this.

I was very irked by the references to Stalingrad.

Now that I’ve had a chance to study the military situation of the Germans in more detail, I want to tell you that ALL the analyses of Stalingrad are TOTALLY WRONG. The Germans fought there for good reason and what the Wehrmacht achieved in Stalingrad was excellent.

These are topics that I’ll discuss much later in videos.

I also heard that a modern German General said that Hitler was "the first modern strategist". It is an interesting viewpoint, but I’m not sure I have much faith in "modern military strategy" myself, because it flies in the face of what Napoleon did.

One of the statements was that several of Hitler’s Generals came to him with "pure military plans" which focused only on military objectives, and Hitler killed all these plans because he was thinking in economic terms too.

This topic is EXTREMELY COMPLEX and not an easy one to discuss. Yes, it is actually true that in certain cases, Hitler accurately overrode Wehrmacht military plans because there were economic or other goals that were more important. And Hitler WAS RIGHT on perhaps many or most of those occasions.

The time where I begin differing with what Hitler thought, is when we get to the topic of General Von Manstein.

I am a huge fan of Von Manstein and I’ve read his memoirs.

There are two crucial issues which are never properly dealt with:-

1. Could Hitler have actually won WW2? The truth is, that the Jewish fiends ran around the world telling so many lies and gathering so many nations and armies to fight the Germans, that it is very likely, that it was ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE for Hitler to have won WW2. The Germans were being flooded with too many enemies. However, there are some extreme ideas that might have saved the Germans.

2. Related to this issue of winning WW2, is the FAKE STORY that Hitler lost the war because he made so many mistakes. Then they trot out a bunch of apparent mistakes Hitler made. Most of these mistakes attributed to Hitler are nonsense. They are nonsense, junk analyses of Hitler’s decisions. Among the claptrap they’ll put out there are things like: Hitler made the mistake of invading Russia. If he had not invaded Russia he would have survived. This is total garbage. It presumes he wanted to invade Russia or even had a choice. Not he did not have a choice. Russia was going to invade him 2 weeks later. He launched a BRILLIANT pre-emptive strike, which caught the Russians off guard and he bought, years of additional life for Germany. If he had waited for them to invade him, Germany would have collapsed much sooner. Lots of these fake errors attributed to Hitler, also ignore the rabid hatred and sheer dementia and blood-sucking madness of people like Churchill and Roosevelt who were hell bent to go to war with Germany at all costs. They were surrounded by Jews and were looking for any opportunity to get into war with Germany, no matter the harm it would bring to their own people. Of these fools, Churchill was the dumbest. Churchill is the man who DESTROYED THE BRITISH EMPIRE. Churchill LOST THE BRITISH EMPIRE NEEDLESSLY. Roosevelt was more cunning and he was one of the victors. He managed to carve out a role for America as the leader of the West. But Churchill did NOT SAVE BRITAIN. Churchill DESTROYED BRITAIN. That is a fact. He destroyed Britain totally. Britain came out of WW2 a total ruin and it subsequently lost it’s entire empire very quickly. The biggest winner of WW2 was Russia, followed by the USA in 2nd place. Britain sacrificed EVERYTHING for virtually no reason whatsoever. If there was a moron in WW2, it was Churchill. If there was an idiot and a retard it was Churchill. Hitler had to deal with a blood-lusting fool, for whom no amount of reason or logic would work. No, Hitler did NOT MAKE HUGE MISTAKES. At worst, Hitler made small mistakes. None of his mistakes alone would have destroyed Germany.

3. Von Manstein. Von Manstein is the Napoleon of the Germans. Like I say, none of Hitler’s mistakes were really life threatening. This is just Jewish crap that you’ll hear incessantly in order to try to destroy Hitler’s credibility. 99.9% of it is either pure Jewish garbage or British garbage. But Von Manstein is a whole different kettle of fish. I’ve studied Von Manstein in quite a bit of detail, and Von Manstein was the greatest of the German Generals. If there was one mistake Hitler did make, it is this: He should have promoted Von Manstein to be in charge of ALL of the forces in Russia. In fact, if Von Manstein had been put in charge of ALL the Wehrmacht, that would have been perfect. But even if he had put him in charge of only the Eastern Front, then that would have been fabulous. I’ve looked at Von Manstein’s ideas, and his actual achievements. He was truly the best. If Hitler made one mistake then it is: He did not promote Von Manstein high enough and he did not listen to Von Manstein’s ideas enough. Von Manstein’s military ideas were greater than Hitler’s economic ideas.

Hitler began, later to lose faith in his generals. However, even AFTER he fired Manstein, Manstein kept returning to him and offering his services to him, even in 1945. Manstein was loyal to Hitler to the end. NEVER at any time did Manstein turn on Hitler.

If Hitler had only listened to Manstein, he had the talent, and the sheer genius, to face any military situation. Manstein was amazingly creative and resourceful and he was at his finest when faced with extreme situations.

Manstein was the mastermind behind the plan to conquer France, which worked to everyone’s amazement. Manstein conquered Crimea, which was a very tough fight. Most interestingly for me, Manstein functioned in a situation where the Soviets had TOTAL AIR SUPERIORITY. Manstein survived that through his excellent creativity.

Even in failure, Manstein performed well. At Kursk, which was Hitler’s idea, and which no general thought was a good idea, including Manstein. Von Manstein still managed to slice the deepest into the Soviet bulge. He made much more progress than the General commanding the other Pincer.

When it came to saving the 6th Army in Stalingrad – Manstein was constantly trying to get Hitler to save the 6th Army. Manstein finally, belatedly was given the chance to do this. Manstein sliced into the Russians and almost reached Stalingrad, but neither Hitler nor Von Paulus ever made the attempt for the 6th Army to fight towards Manstein.

Finally, Manstein went on to save the entire southern front in Russia, when the whole Wehrmacht was on the edge of collapse. He did it with his brilliant Third Battle of Kharkov. It was pure genius, and it saved the German Army from total collapse.

Manstein had no shortage of ideas, even with regard to an Anglo-American invasion of France.

The only thing that could have saved Germany from defeat was Von Manstein. He was a man of incredible military genius, and nobody could come up with better strategic ideas which would have torn enemy forces apart. He, alone, could have fought the Russians to a standstill. He had the ability. He could even have defeated the Americans.

Mark Webber mistakenly said that Germany had lost the war in 1941 already.

In Manstein’s memoirs he wrote that as late as 1943, that there was NO REASON AT ALL why Germany should have lost. At worst, he felt the Germans could still have fought the Russians to a standstill.

I will discuss Von Manstein much later in videos. But he was the only German with a greater military sense than Hitler.

Manstein was the Napoleon of the Wehrmacht. There is no question about that. His knowledge and the respect he commanded among other Generals and troops was unmatched. If he had been given more opportunities he would have torn Germany’s enemies to pieces.

And I do think that in certain critical situations, military matters are more important than economic matters. You must tear the enemy army apart at all costs. If you don’t then you will lose everything. Napoleon always focused all his energy on destroying enemy armies. Everything else was second. That is what works.

And Manstein’s thinking was based on trading territory for military operations. Give up territory, smash the enemy, and seize the territory back. It worked in the Third Battle of Kharkov, it would have worked on any other occasion.

He was a far superior General I might add, to Rommel.