Saturday Afternoon: Hitler's "fatal mistakes" and Germany's "mixed people"

Published by carolyn on Sat, 2014-11-15 20:16

Nov. 15, 2014

Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels (far right) meets with POW Soviet Generals Vlasov (far left) and Schienkow (center) in February 1945. Enlarge

Carolyn Yeager begins by addressing the silly, gossipy attacks floating around about her which have their source with Rodney Martin. She points out that Martin is losing decent radio hosts because of his in-the-gutter behavior, which is just what he deserves.

Carolyn then critiques her friend Wolf Wall Street's presentation on the "Nordic Myth" and Germany's "mixed ethnicity people", plus Adolf Hitler's "fatal" mistakes" from Wolf's latest podcast (on 11-9). Wolf came on during the second hour to discuss our differences, as well as Markus who was a big help and was appreciated by both. During the overtime, things heated up and Wolf left the conversation, but Markus and I continued a little longer. I think it was an informative program; the listener can judge for himself. Nothing essential was removed in the editing.


It was hilarious to me to hear from Bob that six tribes in Germany constitute a mixed race of Germans, more diverse than any other European country.  Just saying.  It really did sound like a variation on somebody's crackpot theories.  And it really did not make common sense to me.
My big dream for radio is I would like everybody not to interrupt each other when talking on the radio.  Literally, everybody needs to learn to curb enthuasiams so as to give the listening audience a chance to listen and to think.  That's really the polite way to make headway, and yet it's just all too rare nowadays.  
Ruthlless witih the truth, yes, but not with each other, I say.    

"The German folk consists of several races: Nordic, Eastern (Alpine), Dinaric, East Baltic, Phalian, and Western (Mediterranean). (cf. Guenther, Brief Racial Study of the German Folk). The concepts Germanic, Romance, Slavic, etc., delineate not separate races but language- and folk-groups, which certainly also exhibit a distinctive racial imprint." -Hansjoerg Maennel, The Political Primer of National-Socialism

I'm having a lot of trouble with my site today; I can barely get anything to move. That's why the program was posted so late. Maybe I'm being attacked, I don't know. I'll find out tomorrow.

Here is the link to what Bob was referring to, it's not long at all:

This is the text of the "secret protocol":

"The new movement categorically rejects any division into estates or classes, and in their place proclaims an all-embracing German outlook. ... In place of the currently prevailing international outlook, the movement thereby consciously and deliberately substitutes a sharply defined nationalistic orientation; in place of democracy's worship of the masses, the unconditional authority of the individual personality; and in place of the plague of pacifism, training to resist and struggle. The movement knows first of all that such a development cannot be launched from above, but rather has to be generated in the heart of a nation and develop from there ...

"From the hitherto misconstrued and consequently divisive concepts, "nationalism" and "socialism," the movement has formulated a new compounded concept by pointing out that nationalism in its highest form is identical with supreme concern for the welfare of the folk, and that socialism in its highest form is identical with supreme love for folk and fatherland, so that both represent the responsible fulfilment of one and the same folkish duty.

"The movement has thereby created a concept which can serve to unite the finest members of our folk, whatever camp they may come from. ... It knows that this means declaring war on gigantic interest groups, on selfish individuals in all camps ...

"In these seven years of progressive deformation of the German national body, a state within the state has slowly evolved which ideologically as well as politically will be the Prussia of the coming era.

I sure can't see how this could possibly be considered Hitler's First Mistake. I was right when I said, just from Bob's description, that it was the right thing to do ... not a mistake.

In spite of all Bob's frustration, I learned a lot from this program and I'm glad it took place. Sometimes it's not an easy process, but it's very clear to me now  how empty this "Strasserism" is; how easily it can be refuted. One thing Bob does not have sufficient appreciation for is that there can be only one plan and one leader. But Bob wants leadership tiers under the Leader so he can be taken out  if "they" don't like what he's doing. How does that differ from democracy and parlimentary government? The same instability and need to please people.

Yesterday on his Sunday radio program on Talkshoe, Wolf Wall Street (Bob) made a big deal of my "not hitting the button" or clicking the link-title to what he gave as accessory information to his 8 minutes of discussion of his topic the week before. (See the two links in my comment above) In fact, he even turned this into my "methodology" in everything I do! That is, I take a superficial approach to all my writing and radio work; I don't "dig deep enough"; I only want to get the answer I'm satisfied with or am looking for.

Is Bob describing himself here?

Did Bob have any direct knowledge of whether I had clicked on the title or not? No, he depended on what he thought was indirect knowledge based on what I had written (above). Did I say I had not read the whole thing? No. But these 4 paragraphs are all he thought it important to post to "show" that this was "Hitler's first mistake." The fact is that none of the rest of it (which I did go to and read over quickly) has any bearing on what he's trying to prove, which is WHY he didn't post it at That you can click on the title to go to the original is obvious, and I did so.

So in this, Bob made his own assumptions about what I did or did not do. In addition, he has to pull back and admit the only thing wrong with what Hitler wrote, in his eyes, is that it was secret. So the whole thing was much ado about nothing, which is what was irritating me about Bob's manner of responding on my program. It was "lack of response" and spinning.

That little "info tab" of his is also deceptive. The links he includes all run together and are not even clickable. One has to copy and paste them. How many listeners will bother, or ever look at them - maybe those in his chat room do. And to hear Bob say it, he does that Sunday program only for his chat room audience. Or that's how it was originally set up. I think I know why. Because for the 1st year and a half (5-2011 to 12-2012) his show was devoted to silver, gold and stock market dealings and tricks. Thus "Wolf Wall Street." After the enthusiam for silver and gold declined he branched out to current events and eventually pro-White advocacy and Tom Metzger's brand of Hitler-blame.

Is he new to this material? Darn right. But his background did not interest me, only what he is saying now. And on his current words, I will answer a few other items he brought up yesterday.

Josef Goebbels

He said he found the source of his belief that Goebbels (and Himmler now also) fought with Hitler over the Vlasov thing. It comes from David Irving's book Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich, published in 1996. But he doesn't quote the passage so we can know exactly what Goebbels said; he doesn't even give us a page number. He is either too lazy to find the pages or he does not really want us to read what Irving actually wrote. I've noticed that Bob hardly ever uses quotes - he gives his own understanding of it or tells you to go look for it yourself, or both.

Anyway, Is David Irving infallible? Are there other references to this that can corroborate Irving? The story of Goebbels' philandering is just the kind of juicy stuff that Irving wants to put in his books. Most all historians do. But did Hitler give Goebbels the cold shoulder for '41-42-43, as Bob ended up saying? And was Goebbels arguing to put Vlasov in the fiield? If not, this is irresponsible talk. It certainly does not answer my objections to Bob's take on the Goebbels-Hitler relationship.

Carrying out "Sea Lion" would have won the war

This was another easy way to have won the war, according to Bob.

Martin Linstedt, his 'trusted' friend

Letting a known filthy-mouth and insulter-of-women (he called Mona Montgomery a heifer) come on his show, just because he knows he will insult and tell lies about Carolyn Yeager in ways that Bob won't do himself, is as low as it goes. Bob put up a couple of very weak objections, but allowed Linstedt to continue for a long time ... UNTIL Linstedt himself got irritated by Bob's long-winded speeches that prevented HIM (Linstedt) from getting a word in edgewise lol. On his own show, Bob doesn't allow people to continue saying things he doesn't like.

Emails he received from me

Funny he didn't quote anything from our emails. Why just say "I never saw anything like them before" ... "Boy, they're really something" ... etc. in order to imply it was really terrible. For that reason I'm going to publish my two and his one right here. I wrote the second one because he seemed to have taken the wrong idea from my first one, which I thought was appropriate to send him since he felt unfairly treated.

From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: Bob in DC <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: Fourth Position

Bob, I am sorry we had such a tough time on my show today. I was glad you called in and stayed on the whole time. I realize you were trying to respond to my critique as best you could and that I am a very impatient person. I just wanted to get down to the nitty-gritty of whether something was true or not, rather than generalized explanations that don't explain anything.

As the host, I should apologize to you for interrupting. I learned a great deal, though, and now feel myself on more solid ground when dealing with these criticisms of Hitler. That "secret protocol" is an eye-opener, considering it was not a mistake at all. After reading it, that is certain. So I'm glad you brought it to my attention. The other thing about Goebbels: I am sure that whoever wrote that was WRONG. You really should drop both those beliefs of yours in the future. And you should re-examine the Vlasov question because the way you speak about it is over-the-top. I think all this stuff comes from sources that simply want to discredit Hitler.

I was never angry and I'm not angry now. You might be and I can understand that. But I'm always happy when I feel I've gained greater understanding. For me, that's what it's all about.

[A sentence on a totally different subject deleted]


From: Bob in DC,boardman ... Sun, 16 Nov. 1:23 AM

Carolyn ~ Forgiveness and repentance mean little – we must learn from our own mistakes and those of others. Our friend was not perfect; but a brilliant leader who needed assistance to fill in those 'blank spots' to which all human beings are susceptible. That too often was lacking in our Germany of the lost era. Continued existence relies on we few who understand and care. Extreme internecine squabling will most assuredly lead to our extinction. ~ Bob

To which I replied:

Dear Bob - Please understand. I am not repenting of anything. As I said, I felt good about the program because I think the truth came out. Your "critiques" of Hitler fell apart but you think that is of no account. I think your critiques are of no account. I also think you assume more brilliance and influence for yourself than you possess. Fourth Generation warfare indeed. All that labels and new-names-for-the-same-old-things do is to make the men who use them feel smarter than they are. That is just how I see it. What we need is Truth - not superficial togetherness. I'll continue my emphasis on truth. -C

There you go folks, and Bob -- full disclosure. Not a problem for me. One last thing:

Bob said several times I was a poor hostess. I may be, but I don't consider my work to be a "hostess" for giving a platform for (mostly men) who have done, in some cases, less than I have to speak their minds and often talk down to me. I have never called myself a "hostess" but a host but I don't even like that role.  WinkLaughing

family - clan (Sippe) - tribe (Stamm) - population - race or subspecies (Rasse oder Unterart)
The family is the physical breeding unit and the population is the breeding pool.
There are 3 races (subspecies): caucasoid, mongoloid and negroid (negroid may be another species H. ergaster).
Populations of caucasoids are germanic, keltic, slavic etc.
"Alpine", "dinaric" etc are traits of populations.
Volk is a cultural unit, but based on tribes and a dominant population.

The following is from Peter in Germany who cannot post it himself due to his security measures. He sent it to me as an email.

Hi Carolyn,

Again opportunity to remark that I very much profited from the past programs, Hitler and the Slavs, and Table Talks; because: it so much again changed - because augmented - my whole view of the things, of that time. It simply depends on the facts that one knows, how to make a judgement. And the more I hear, thanks to your great enlightening efforts, the more I get the impression that Hitler and all his endeavors are just simply the most normal, "common sense", legitimate, decent, correct, right, adequate proper... things to do!  All makes sense, all appears sensible, to be agreed upon.

Now I´m in the "truth", or revisionist, thing... maybe not long but also not so short time and still I have to come across things that make quite differences in how I see and judge all that.

It reinforces the understanding to what extend we are lied to, how much disinformation is put out, how much disorientation is caused by those lies. Which conversely makes clear how meritorious your work is. So at this occasion again thank you very much for your work (and all the more because you don´t shy away from the difficult subjects, those that likely make you no friends, are controversial, and it´s multiple times as difficult to address such things).

Bob seems intent on expanding 'worthy whiteness' by attacking Nordicism plus the Germans.  If the Germans are divied into several tribes, so what? Germans are still Germans, one basic people, speaking one language even if its different in Vienna or in the Saar. They all were targeted  by Allied bombs too.  Bob, or Wolf or whatver, denies the obvious- for the last 350 yrs or more, most of the great intellectual and cultural achievments  have been products of "Nordics"  these achievments  all stem from a tight geographic zone and its diaspora.  We dont have much to thank for coming from the peripheral edges of Europe (during this recent era) . Also, the Nordic physical ideal is sought after by all the worlds peoples- Asian girsl and Africans dye their hair blond or have surgery to be more 'Nordic' looking.   Its just natural to want this, to look like the great ones...
Germany is more diverse than anywhere else in Europe? Ha. Related German tribes somehow make Germany diverse? No. 
I think France, Southern Itlay, Spain, and the southern Balkans are way more ethncially and racially diverse than Gerrmany.  The Romans pumped black slaves into Italy, the Arabs and Berbers colonized by force parts of France and Spain, Jews became well established in Spain, Turks settled in the Balkans, after the Mongols ....... Germanic tribes swept through Spain and France too, so no, its these countries, not Germany, which has been histroically 'diverse'
Setting up the customs exchange in Germanic lands  in the 19th century was more  due to the various Germanic principalities being politically fractured by the breakup of the Holy Roman Empire and the  aftermaths of this breakup , rather than Germans being so distinct from each other that they needed this  trade mechaninsm to overcome their alleged huge racial ethnic differences...Bob/Wolf  is flat out wrong.

I thought the show went well. You had some fundamental differences. I don't really think that there was a need to attack one another over them though. The debate probably should have been moderated in hindsight.
It was disheartening to see WWS giving that half-bearded degenerate Lindstedt any air on his show today. Why he would allow an alleged child molester on his show is beyond me. The guy doesn't even hold a valid ordination in his own faith. He's just some nutjob that crawled out of a mental institution and called himself "Pastor".

I was just going to use what Bob said in his Sunday program because it gave me the opportunity to give another side of the story. I told Bob I was going to do it and he said he would listen and probably call in. I did not think it would dissolve into what it did, but I also was irritated by his lack of candor ... as I saw and felt it. I admit I have a hard time staying quiet when I hear that. Of course, others will see it differently.

What Mr. Bob maybe hasn't taken into consideration is that according to August Heinrich Bauer and Peter D. Stachura's works, the very leftist class concious socialist faction of the Strassers were not only funded by heavy industry as well, but they were financed by the Jewish head of the R.A.G Paul Silverberg. Gregor Strasser also received an anual fundung in the beginning of spring 1931 from other heavy industries. 
I don't know if Hitler knew about it, but I'm sure those who supported the Strasser brothers didn't. It seems like they also had their own secrets after all. 

I also noted that WWS discusses this topic with one Mike Sledge. Is this the type of "fact finders" that he associates with?

It's pretty funny that Wolf Wall Streets guest "Pastor" Lindstedt is now running around calling him "Wailing Wallstein"....
By their fruits...

But totally typical. Linstedt tears into everyone. I'm working up a new post about Bob's Goebbels-Irving car crash.

Bob and Carolyn sound like an old married couple. Being smarties, they both waited for the safety of retirement and collecting a pension before starting their movements.
Seriously, you've got one person admitting to read questionable Wikipedia articles, the other is misquoting and admitting he doesn't remember where he read or heard what he's trying to repeat.
This program should be removed entirely.

What "questionable" Wikipedia articles have I admitted to reading? Maybe you are misquoting.

But you're right about the old married couple - it does sound like that. LOL The frustrated husband declares "I'm going for a walk" and slams the door behind him.

What does a customs union between German states have to do with ethnicity? If the Netherlands (plural) would be a confederation as Germany was for centuries, instead of a union, would that make Nederlanders less Dutch? Bob also doesn't really understand the Greater vs Lesser German question. If Thuringia, instead of Austria, would stay out of the German Union, that would not constitute Thuringia less or non-German. Austria is of the Bavarian tribe but has been politically separate for some periods for varying reasons. 
Today at the DailyStormer, the Eastern European question is asked. Some commenters say that Britain is rich because it robbed the world for centuries. There are two misunderstandings here. First, why did no Eastern European country other than Russia have had an empire? And why are non-colonial Western states, such as Switzerland more successful than Eastern Europeans? Plus colonialism is over now. Germany had colonies only for a few years, long after slavery, and Germany only owned what other Western empires didn't want. The German colonies, other than Cameroon were net losses and were maintained only for prestige.  
And the "Communism is at fault" is not valid either. The DDR was the most successful state of all Soviet states. And Eastern Europe was less developed than Western Europe before Communism in 1917, as well. 

I don't believe that there is anything that Hitler could have done differently, once the war had begun, that would have brought a different outcome. There was too much of an imbalance of resources and production favoring the USSR and USA combined. Adding a few million men to the German side sooner rather than later doesn't fix that.
The only arguable exception that I see was declaring war on the United States in December 1941. It would have been politically awkward for FDR to get the USA directly involved with land forces in the European war without that, but the USA had already been waging an undeclared naval war against Germany for some months, and supplying the USSR with equipment. Without an Anglo-American invasion of Italy and France, the war on the Eastern Front would have dragged on longer. Perhaps with more time and no openly declared war the death of FDR in 1944 would have caused a change in policy. It is hard to tell exactly what would have happened, longterm, if Hitler had not made the conflict overt in December 1942. The prospect of all of Europe being overrun by the USSR might have prompted Truman to let up hostility toward the Germans, since at some time he had taken the position that both sides should be encouraged to wear each other down.
The biggest mistake wasn't made by Germany, but above all by Britain, which had the possibility to make peace even after the fall of France and thus to retain the British Empire but chose not to do so. Hitler's calculations in 1939 were based on the assumption that Britain and France would not commit suicide in order to destroy Germany, but the fact that the FDR Administration and Jews were pushing them behind the scenes meant that they would do things that made no sense. Hitler predicted in his third book of Mein Kampf that if Britain did not ally with Germany, the world would end up being dominated by the USA rather than the British Empire, which he considered a turn for the worse.

I see your point, but I would blame Japan for that. Germany acted honorably assisting Japan but Japan did not attack her neighbor, the Soviet Union to help Germany. If Japan had done this, Stalingrad might have succeeded, quite possibly so. 

Ribbentrop advised against declaring war on the United States, but certainly it is much easier in retrospect to say that it was a mistake.
I think that the fundamental motive is likely that it just grated on Hitler's character to let Germany be bullied at sea without retaliating, and also not to come to an ally's aid. With those combined considerations, honor spoke louder than prudence.
For a while the German U-boat campaign was spectacularly successful.
Posted by DanielS on November 19, 2014, 01:40 PM | #
There was a point in the interview when GW was citing Hitler’s capacity to inspire great enthusiasm..
I don’t know that enthusiasm to that extent is good of itself - and especially not for Hitler of course who, in the end, betrayed the motivating genesis for the participation that became swept up in that sort of enthusiasm.
The motivating genesis of Hitler’s popular support was in appeal to a leftist means, where the whole people are the class - I advocate the same concept in that part:
In that manner, with people united, the rank and file is accountable, has less reason to betray, and has motive to remain loyal and participate as they will have their fair necessity and incentive to go beyond duty where they can mage it.
But especially as vigil is maintained toward any potential betrayal of the powerful elite.
Hitler betrayed his elite capacity exactly with imperial and supremacist aspirations while demonstrably betraying the trust, authentic and honest motivation of the rank and file in the night of the long knives.
That’s why the level of enthusiasm for him was dubious - because he went beyond accountability. He had only used the notion of uniting the full group of people as a fully accountable leftist class in order to gain popularity among Germans. It was that holistic notion of the nation as synonymous with the leftist class union, and the popular understanding of that, which provided the authentic motivation.
In his exceptionalism from the class Hitler betrayed that sincerely motivated participation.

I'm glad you're commenting on it.

DanielS is an avid follower of this website (, as well as others, of course. He uses it to feed his anti-Hitlerism, to get ideas of what to be against. But Wolf Wall Street (Bob from D.C.) said a couple of months back that he had two Slavic friends: Alex the Serbian and DanielS the Pole. (Daniel insists he doesn't consider himself Polish, but everyone else does, so ....)

That makes for a tie-in but Bob also said he had not talked to Daniel for a couple of years! Some friendship. (I have a sneaking suspicion he'll be talking to him again, if he hasn't already started - I imagine Daniel has contacted him.) But yes, Daniel definitely is a mimic - he's still trying to find himself. (Well, he's also desperate for something to write about.)

DanielS, master of turgid, opague prose, does not think very highly of you:
"The old Nazi Whore Carolyn says..." -DanielS
"An avid follower? I think not. I check there to see what BS that pro-Hitler assholes are trying to pull." -DanielS
"I’m not trying to find myself you old pig." -DanielS
"Carolyn, you will be dead before too long and that is good.  Good riddance you old bag." -DanielS

I am obsessive-compulsive enough myself to have to correct my spelling in this instance.While I am at it, it has always been clear to me that in spite of DanielS' primary objective being an attempt to discredit Adolf Hitler and National-Socialism, the only tangible results his (other) efforts are likely to have had are the very comprehensible, yet countless, headaches his lousy writings have without a doubt resulted in. His "ideas" "articulated" in text format serve no function save total obfuscation.

"You have a nerve calling people dishonest you disgusting old bag." -DanielS

I can't stop giggling over it. I read it a little while ago but have been busy and was just going to mention it myself. I'm glad you reported on it, it is hilarious. He is now mimicking "Pastor" Linstedt and Rodney Martin/Dave Jones. How low can he fall?  I know he will see this because he reads every word I write. He could not resist answering my comment to you here with his own comment at MR. (I imagine he tried because GW advised him to ignore me, but he can't.) He always has to reply to every single sentence or phrase, too. I would say Daniel is obsessive, probably Obsessive/Compulsive.

And for MR to be reduced to interviewing Jan the White Uniter on their very infrequent podcast -- oh, what a fall is taking place there.

Carolyn, I have just listened to your exchange with Bob, and I would like to congratulate you on rertaining your cool with a fellow who has lost the plot.
You are quite right, Bob is being so 'ordinary', and his language has put me off him because he embodies the classic example of "wisdom through hindsight".
Well done - and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Let me inform Bob of a book, in German, by Georg Kausch, which dispells his nonsense about the Germanic people - 
Die unbequeme Nation
- which traces the religious and economic war against the Germans! 

Thanks Fredrick - Maybe this link works better.

However, I'm pretty sure Bob doesn't read German. But it's good to know about the book. In English:

The inconvenient Nation: 2000 years of economic and religious war against the Germans

Add new comment