A reader sent me this comment: Hi… I have been listening to your videos for 1 month now. I want to challenge your views about the coup against 3rd Reich seized in 1941. There is a rare Anglo-Saxon man or Englishman named Richard Tedor, who wrote a book called Hitler’s Revolution: Ideology, Social Programs, and Foreign Affairs. If I am making a confusion between what determines an Anglo-Saxon or Englishman, that is because I’m a non-white man. The author, Tedor, claimed that the Reich’s headquarters were infiltrated with traitors even to the end of World War 2. They lied to Hitler’s face, and cooperated with the Soviet Union’s , Great Britain’s, and the U.S.’ special intelligence (Especially on the invasion of Normandy.) The people who wanted to end the Nazi regime were mostly German aristocrats (upperclassmen), and a few ex-communists. The author had compiled extensive German sources written during Hitler’s regime with over 1000 footnotes. I want to go on and on, but my email is on the above link. I’m also curious to hear about your opinions on Erwin Rommel, "The Desert Fox." Tedor doesn’t mention him once in his book.

My Reply:
It is rare for non-whites to write to me, but I do appreciate an interest in the truth.

I am aware of Tedor’s book about Hitler’s Revolution. I’ve heard rave reviews about it and possess a copy but have not had a chance to read it. I have such a list of books to read, its hard to figure out which is the most important! I will answer as best I can.

I’m not quite sure what you are referring to when you write:

I want to challenge your views about the coup against 3rd Reich seized in 1941.
I’m not sure what event you are referring to above. Is this the invasion of Russia?

About the German Aristocrats and Traitors:
I will reply as best I can, but I’ve not studied this deeply. You are right in saying there were traitors and spies. But this is quite normal too. Traitors and spies can do a lot of damage, but they alone cannot bring down the system. Any system that exists, including Liberalism, Conservatism, Communist and any other … always has its enemies. And any system always defends its own power structure. The traitors and spies do harm, but generally the power structure wins. In Hitler’s case he executed people. e.g. When Von Staffenberg placed the bomb. The traitors and spies can, and do weaken a system, but that alone is not the reason Hitler lost. In the end, Germany was massively overwhelmed by sheer raw force of invasions from all sides and by massive powers using every resource, and man they could find.

I will remember when I look at the book to study the list of traitors, etc.

In the very end, after D-Day, in 1944, Hitler so distrusted the Generals that he began giving direct orders in the war. Many criticise him for it, but I see it as a natural result of a TOTAL DISTRUST of these aristocrats who were against him. There is also a quote from Hitler where he says he needs "Revolutionaries" because the Generals think war must be fought like a tournament with knights of old. It is clear and apparent, to me, that Hitler was EXTREMELY DETERMINED and he wanted the men to give it their UTMOST. In this regard, the Waffen SS went and did the most incredible things in order to function like this. However, there is a question as to which method was better. Von Manstein wrote about Hitler’s views on the German army and its methods and he seemed quite keen to vindicate the "old methods" of the Army, as opposed to the more radical methods of the SS. This is an area of study I need to look at more closely myself because I cannot say whether Hitler was right or Von Manstein was right on this score.

So yes, Hitler did have opposition, but on the whole, the vast majority of people were on his side. In fact, I have seen charts of NAZI party membership and the number of people joining the party actually go up as the war continues. There was no collapse of morale. The people believed deeper and deeper in their system. They were only defeated through massive military attack from outside Europe.

Even in Hitler’s invasion of Russia, people totally underestimate what he was up against, and the incredible feats his army pulled off.

But yes, the German officers and upper-class were among his greatest opponents later. This, by the way is also why Rommel was forced to commit suicide, because he went against Hitler. Hitler had to make a difficult choice earlier in his night of the long knives when he killed certain people in the SA. The SA wanted Hitler to annihilate the officer class. Hitler did not like the idea because it would deprive the German army of experienced men. He did NOT want to do what the Jewish Bolsheviks did in Russia – to slaughter the officers. So he decided to kill the revolutionaries. It was one of those compromise situations where Hitler made a choice between two unpleasant options. I think his choice was wise. It was not perfect, but it was generally much better for Germany. Unfortunately, later, those same upperclass officers did turn on them – some of them. But many remained loyal to the end including Von Manstein whom he fired.

Re: Erwin Rommel.
Rommel was a good officer and soldier. He was very good actually. However, he was NOT as brilliant as some of the best like Von Manstein. There is a fascinating difference of opinion between Manstein, Hitler and Rommel re: defending Europe. Hitler chose Rommel and Rommel chose to fight on the beaches. Manstein and Rommel argued intensely over this. This entire episode is fascinating and I must say, I think Manstein was a step or two above Rommel in this regard. I have studied some of Manstein’s campaigns, and I have no doubt he would have done better than Rommel. Manstein even believed the Allies could be defeated in France – a thought which most would think is unachievable. Rommel was fabulous in France. Rommel was good in Africa. He was well above the calibre of the British. Most definitely. But he wasn’t of the same calibre as Caesar, Napoleon, Frederick the Great or Manstein. It is sad that Hitler did not use Manstein to command the entire eastern Front or that he did not use Manstein instead of Rommel in the West. I think the outcome would have been better. Manstein did fight the last great victory that the Germans had in Kharkov. He explained the plan to Hitler and it was a plan that took a long time to come to fruition, but it was sheer genius.

There are many of these topics I will return to later.

The Tedor book is excellent. There are many fascinating things to study regarding Hitler. One thing one cannot take away from him, though, is the scale of what he achieved, given the tough situation he was in. I don’t think Germany will ever again hit those same heights as under Hitler. I think a thousand years from now, Germans themselves will marvel at what Hitler did, just as the French will never quite be the same as under Hitler. When you have true leaders of total genius, you might rarely, if ever, find others come even close to it. One must not take away from that man the things he achieved by himself, which no group of people together could have achieved. Napoleon also spoke of these things.

Keep in mind, that if Hitler was not truly able to convince the people about his ideas and methods, that they could have rejected him. In the end, the Germans decided to throw in their lot with him, and these are not things that they would do lightly since their own lives and future depended on it.