And we all know that the claim that Hitler was of partially Jewish ancestry has been dying particularly hard for over eighty years. So imagine my surprise when I listened to a three-hour interview with "traditional Catholic" (i.e., schismatic) Jim Condit, Jr., conducted by palpable lunatic Christopher Jon Bjerknes and discovered that not only was Hitler Jewish, but he was a Zionist and, furthermore, most of the Nazi leadership was similarly Jewish.
Most of this crap is covered in Condit's film The Final Solution to Adolf Hitler, which can be viewed online here. I'm going to tackle this video in three parts. Here's Part I.
The main thing that impressed Bjerknes so much with Condit was that Condit allegedly had sources for everything that he stated. So I decided to look at Condit's film (all two-plus hours of it) with a view toward assessing his sources. I'm inclined to numbered lists, so here are Condit's sources in numbered order.
- Barbarians Inside the Gates by Donn R. Grand Pre. Condit cites this book as the one he read that got him interested in this whole "Hitler was a Jewish Zionist" conspiracy theory. Grand Pre was apparently the biggest arms dealer in the Carter Administrator -- or some he claims. (I'd always thought that honor had gone to Adnan Khashoggi) I can't vouch one way or another for this book, except to say that if this is where Condit got his start, it's probably crap.
- Hitler's Policy Is a Jewish Policy by P.R. Masson and Borge Jensen. This book purports to be the correspondence between the above-listed authors and a "Jewish publicist" (not named -- of course). I couldn't find much information about Masson, but Borge Jensen has at least two books to his name: The "Palestine" Plot and The "World Food Shortage": A Communist-Zionist Plot. I think we can see from that second title where Mr. Jensen's sympathies lay. The publisher of the pamphlet cited here is KRP Publications, Ltd., which a Google search revealed mainly published books on banking and "social credit," an economic scheme adopted by a variety of malcontents, most notably Ezra Pound.
The key points that Condit draws from this pamphlet are (a) The Nuremberg Race Laws were merely the "transplantation" of Jewish Law about "race" onto German soil; and (b) Otto von Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm II were "surrounded" by Jews. In the first point, we should consider that while Jewish Law will allow any Jew except a male on the kohen (priestly) line to marry a convert -- in fact the Book of Ruth in every standard Bible is a story of conversion to Judaism -- the Nuremberg Laws would not permit such a thing. On the second point, consider that Bismarck once quipped to Benjamin Disraeli, presumably about South-West Africa, that "the Germans have just bought a new country in Africa where Jews and pigs will be tolerated," to which Dissy responded, "Fortunately we are both here in England." As for Kaiser Wilhelm, while he found the Nazis to be thugs, he had no love for Jews. An informative quote from The Jewish Encyclopedia on both men:
As long as Bismarck was in power Anti-Semitism was checked; for though an anti-Semite by birth, as he himself confessed, he never permitted the turbulent elements to gain the upper hand. In fact, after his retirement he said that the Conservatives, in their attempt to fight Socialism with anti-Semitism, "had got hold of the wrong insect-powder" ("Allg. Zeit. d. Jud." Nov. 11., 1892). The accession of Emperor William II. to the throne (June 15, 1888) soon gave encouragement to the anti-Semites and their allies. An attempt was made to induce the emperor to refuse his confirmation of the election of Prof. Julius Bernstein as rector magnificus of the University of Halle. Bismarck evidently advised the emperor to decline so to act. It was also Bismarck's influence that brought about Stöcker's retirement as court chaplain.In short, the allegation that these men "surrounded" themselves with Jews is a bit ludicrous given the times.
- American Free Press. Condit cites this article. He suggests that this AIPAC meeting was "suppressed" by the mass media, and yet the article itself mentions both the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post.
But the issue, again, is the source. American Free Press is published by Willis Carto, a man who sued the National Review for having called him a "neo-Nazi," only to have the judge rule that this was "fair comment." On any subject dealing with Jews, a Carto publication (he founded the Institute for Historical Review, to boot) cannot be trusted.
- Hitler's Jewish Soldiers by Brian Mark Rigg. I think most of us have heard of this book. What Condit only says once is that these "Jewish soldiers" were Mischlinge, i.e., of only partial Jewish ancestry. And, if you've read the Nuremberg Laws, you know that people with one Jewish grandparent had very few restrictions on them, and even people with two Jewish grandparents could be exempted for reasons such as prior military service.
No big revelations in this book, in other words.
- Here We Go Again by Doug Collins. Collins is a deceased Canadian journalist, whose obituary in his own newspaper you can read here.
- IBM and the Holocaust by Edwin Black. I'm not exactly sure what Condit's point is in bringing in this book. He seems to agree with Black's account that Tom Watson, the founder of IBM (and a man my own grandfather knew), worked with the Nazis.
- Open Secrets by Israel Shahak. Shahak might be a useful source were he not a court-affirmed liar.
- "Secret Contacts: Zionist-Nazi Relations" by Klaus Pohlken. Condit uses this article from the Journal of Palestine Studies to prove, among other things, that while Hitler closed all other Jewish-published newspapers, he let the Zionist newspapers continue to operate.
So what? Isn't it clear (and made further clear in the Nuremberg Laws) that Hitler wanted the only Jewish voice that could be heard one that had no loyalty to Germany?
What's funny about this source's inclusion by Condit is that Condit is an anti-communist, but Pohlken was a East German, Marxist historian with the full approval of his government. I thought communism was a Zionist endeavor? So why anti-Zionism from a communist writer?
- The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black. Yawn. Condit said in his interview with Bjerknes that Black broke this story. Actually, it was "broken" at least as early as 1963 by Hannah Arendt in Eichmann in Jerusalem. Condit claims that the Transfer Agreement (Ha'avara in Hebrew) was a money-making endeavor for the Zionists. Actually, what the yishuv got in Palestine was people, not money. I discuss this in my article on Kristallnacht, which you can read here.
Condit makes a big deal that "Hitler never complained" about the Transfer Agreement. Why would he? It got Jews out of Germany and it made money for the Reich. What's to complain about, from Hitler's point of view?
- A pamphlet by Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld. Yawn again. This anti-Zionist rabbi "reveals" that Jewish police helped round up Jews for deportation.
Didn't Hilberg write about this in 1961?
- Hitler's Youth by Franz Jetzinger. Condit never explicitly says what this book is supposed to reveal, but he seems to imply that it proves Hitler's alleged Jewish background.
- Bevor Hilter Kam by Dietrich Bronder. Condit can't read German, but he claims that this book also supports the "Hitler was Jewish" theory.
- Hitler's Vienna: A Dictator's Apprenticeship by Brigitte Hamann. This Condit cites for Hans Frank's "deathbed confession" that Hitler was Jewish. Writes Hamann, "What needs to be pointed out is that the Frankenberger story [see below] has one single source: Hans Frank. In looking for a motive for his equivocal insinuations one cannot but suspect that the raging anti-Semite Frank even wanted to place the responsibility for an allegedly Jewish Hitler on the Jews, or at any rate rattle them by way of rumors" (p. 52). Incidentally, despite claims elsewhere by Condit, this book also states clearly that William Patrick Hitler, Adolf's half-nephew by half-brother Alois Jr. and his Irish wife, never claimed Jewish ancestry.
At this point in this film, we're told by Condit that, during the Anschluss, Hitler had records, etc., in his hometown of Braunau, Austria, destroyed. And yet the house of his birth was still standing. Furthermore, given that Hitler was born in Braunau, not far from Linz, while his father (who was legitimized before Adolf's birth) was born near Vienna, it makes no sense to destroy records in Braunau -- there wouldn't have been any about Alois's allegedly Jewish father.
I'll give the last word to Ian Kershaw:
Frank's story gained wide circulation in the 1950s. But it simply does not stand up. There was no Jewish family called Frankenberger in Graz during the 1830s. In fact, there were no Jews at all in the whole of Styria at the time, since Jews were not permitted in that part of Austria until the 1860s. A family named Frankenreiter did live there, but was not Jewish. There is no evidence that Maria Anna was ever in Graz, let alone was employed by the butcher Leopold Frankenreiter. No correspondence between Maria Anna and a family called Frankenberg or Frankenreiter has ever turned up. The son of Leopold Frankenreiter and alleged father of the baby (according to Frank's story and accepting that he had merely confused names) for whom Frankenreiter was seemingly prepared to pay child support for thirteen years was ten years old at the time of Alois's birth. The Frankenreiter family had moreover hit upon such hard times that payment of any support to Maria Anna Schicklgruber would have been inconceivable. Equally lacking in credibility is Frank's comment that Hitler had learnt from his grandmother that there was no truth in the Graz story: his grandmother had been dead for over forty years at the time of Hitler's birth. And whether in fact Hitler received a blackmail letter from his nephew in 1930 is also doubtful. If such was the case, then Patrick -- who repeatedly made a nuisance of himself by scrounging from his famous uncle -- was lucky to survive the next few years which he spent for the most part in Germany, and to be able to leave the country for good in December 1938. His `revelations', when they came in a Paris journal in August 1939, contained nothing about the Graz story. Nor did a number of different Gestapo inquiries into Hitler's family background in the 1930s and 1940s contain any reference to the alleged Graz background. Indeed they discovered no new skeletons in the cupboard. Hans Frank's memoirs, dictated at a time when he was waiting for the hangman and plainly undergoing a psychological crisis, are full of inaccuracies and have to be used with caution. With regard to the story of Hitler's alleged Jewish grandfather, they are valueless. Hitler's grandfather, whoever he was, was not a Jew from Graz.