Quotessence
Home / Topics / Hitler Quotes

Hitler Quotes

Browse 178 quotes about Hitler.

Hitler Quotes

“When, in May, tensions reached a high point, London warned Berlin that if it attacked Czechoslovakia and the French were embroiled as well, "His Majesty's Government could not guarantee that they would not be forced by circumstances to become involved also". Ar the same time, English officials were telling their counterparts in Paris that they were "not disinterested" in Czechoslovakia's fate. I learned in the course of my own career that British diplomats are trained to write in with precision; so when a double negative is employed, the intent, usually, is not to clarify an issue but to surround it with fog.”

“Finally, we arrive at the question of the so-called nonpolitical man. Hitler not only established his power from the very beginning with masses of people who were until then essentially nonpolitical; he also accomplished his last step to victory in March of 1933 in a "legal" manner, by mobilizing no less than five million nonvoters, that is to say, nonpolitical people. The Left parties had made every effort to win over the indifferent masses, without posing the question as to what it means "to be indifferent or nonpolitical." If an industrialist and large estate owner champions a rightist party, this is easily understood in terms of his immediate economic interests. In his case a leftist orientation would be at variance with his social situation and would, for that reason, point to irrational motives. If an industrial worker has a leftist orientation, this too is by all mean rationally consistent—it derives from his economic and social position in industry. If, however, a worker, an employee, or an official has a rightist orientation, this must be ascribed to a lack of political clarity, i.e., he is ignorant of his social position. The more a man who belongs to the broad working masses is nonpolitical, the more susceptible he is to the ideology of political reaction. To be nonpolitical is not, as one might suppose, evidence of a passive psychic condition, but of a highly active attitude, a defense against the awareness of social responsibility. The analysis of this defense against consciousness of one's social responsibility yields clear insights into a number of dark questions concerning the behavior of the broad nonpolitical strata. In the case of the average intellectual "who wants nothing to do with politics," it can easily be shown that immediate economic interests and fears related to his social position, which is dependent upon public opinion, lie at the basis of his noninvolvement. These fears cause him to make the most grotesque sacrifices with respect to his knowledge and convictions. Those people who are engaged in the production process in one way or another and are nonetheless socially irresponsible can be divided into two major groups. In the case of the one group the concept of politics is unconsciously associated with the idea of violence and physical danger, i.e., with an intense fear, which prevents them from facing life realistically. In the case of the other group, which undoubtedly constitutes the majority, social irresponsibility is based on personal conflicts and anxieties, of which the sexual anxiety is the predominant one. […] Until now the revolutionary movement has misunderstood this situation. It attempted to awaken the "nonpolitical" man by making him conscious solely of his unfulfilled economic interests. Experience teaches that the majority of these "nonpolitical" people can hardly be made to listen to anything about their socio-economic situation, whereas they are very accessible to the mystical claptrap of a National Socialist, despite the fact that the latter makes very little mention of economic interests. [This] is explained by the fact that severe sexual conflicts (in the broadest sense of the word), whether conscious or unconscious, inhibit rational thinking and the development of social responsibility. They make a person afraid and force him into a shell. If, now, such a self-encapsulated person meets a propagandist who works with faith and mysticism, meets, in other words, a fascist who works with sexual, libidinous methods, he turns his complete attention to him. This is not because the fascist program makes a greater impression on him than the liberal program, but because in his devotion to the führer and the führer's ideology, he experiences a momentary release from his unrelenting inner tension. Unconsciously, he is able to give his conflicts a different form and in this way to "solve" them.”

“آدم علی رغم همه ی استقلال طلبی ها و خودخواهی هایش به این که شرایطش، محیطش و حرف هایش را با کسی سهیم باشد تمایل دارد. هیتلر با آن همه خودکامگی عاشق اوا براون بود. چرا؟ چرا کسی که میخواهد دنیا را به سلطه ی خودش دربیاورد هم، نیاز دارد تمام دستاوردهایش را با کسی شریک شود و حتی قبل خودکشی شان آن را رسمی هم بکند!" پیک "شاید روزهای آخر فهمیده فتح نگاه یک زن از فتح تمام مرزهای دنیا با ارزش تر است." ------------------------------------------------- Despite all his independence and selfishness, one tends to share one's circumstances, one's environment and one's words with someone. Hitler loved Eva Braun with all his dictatorship. Why? "Why does anyone who wants to dominate the world need to share all his achievements with someone and make it official even before they commit suicide?" "Perhaps in the last days he has realized that conquering a woman's gaze is more valuable than conquering all the borders of the world.”

“Hitler was invading every European country surrounding Germany, and it was obvious that eventually we would also be at war. At the time, some Americans joined the German American Bund that backed what Hitler was doing. Others advocated that we stay out of the war.... Charles Lindbergh was of that persuasion and supported the isolationist “America First Movement,” advocating that the United States remain neutral. You could not blame people for their hostile feelings towards the German-Americans, when Nazi Bund meetings were being held at many locations around New York City, as well as in the neighboring Schuetzenpark, the German word for the riflemen’s or shooters’ park, in North Bergen. In April of 1941, after President Roosevelt accused Lindbergh of being a fascist sympathizer, Lindbergh resigned his commission as a colonel in the United States Army Air Forces. Later in the war, Lindbergh flew 50 combat missions in the Pacific Theater as a civilian consultant, but Roosevelt refused to reinstate his commission. The majority of Americans just wanted to stay out of what they considered a European matter.”

“[Germany's] political establishment--big business, the military, and the Church--had initially dismissed the Nazis as a band of loudmouthed hooligans who would never attract wide support. Over time, they saw value in the party as a bulwark against Communism, but nothing more. As for Hitler, they were not nearly so scared of him as they should have been. They underestimated the man because of his lack of schooling and were taken in by his attempts at charm. He smiled when he needed to and took care to answer their questions with reassuring lies. He was, to members of the old guard, clearly an amateur who was in over his head and unlikely to remain popular for long.”

“(...)- Sou otimista com relação ao homem. Não penso em Hitler sem me lembrar também de Mozart. Acho que o homem é um animal agressivo, não há dúvida, mas a diferença entre ele e o lobo é que a criatura humana pensa, é ao mesmo tempo sujeito e objeto, tem a capacidade de ver o seu lado negativo e deplorá-lo. Não ignora que tem um futuro. Tem também a consciência de sua finitude. É - salvo as aberrações - capaz de compaixão, de contrição e de amor. E a crise do mundo moderno não será principalmente a falta de amor?”

“The destruction of representative government and private capitalism of the old school was complete when Hitler came to power. He had contributed mightily to the final result by his ceaseless labors to create chaos. But when he stepped into the chancellery all the ingredients of national socialist dictatorship were there ready to his hand… The aim in which Bismarck had failed was accomplished almost at a stroke in the Weimar Constitution – the subordination of the individual states to the federal state. The old imperial state had to depend on the constituent states to provide it with a part of its funds. Now this was altered, and the central government of the republic became the great imposer and collector of taxes, paying to the states each a share. Slowly the central government absorbed the powers of the states. The problems of business groups and social groups were all brought to Berlin. The republican Reichstag, unlike its imperial predecessor, was now charged with the vast duty of managing almost every energy of the social and economic life of the republic. German states were always filled with bureaus, so that long before World War I travelers referred to the ‘bureaucratic tyrannies’ of the empire. But now the bureaus became great centralized organisms of the federal government dealing with the multitude of problems which the Reichstag as completely incapable of handling. Quickly, the actual function of governing leaked out of the parliament into the hands of the bureaucrats. The German republic became a paradise of bureaucracy on a scale which the old imperial government never knew. The state, with its powers enhanced by the acquisition of immense economic powers and those powers brought to the center of government and lodged in the executive, was slowly becoming, notwithstanding its republican appearance, a totalitarian state that was almost unlimited in its powers.”

“Thus we can say with some confidence that the breakthrough of the NSDAP in 1930 was less a result of the movement's inherent qualities, which until then seemed to have been a tough sell, but an expression of protest against the minority governments of late Weimar, which ruled, without the endorsement of parliamentary majorities, by presidential emergency decrees and responded to the economic crisis with ill-advised austerity measures that did little to alleviate economic progress but were guaranteed to raise ill will.”

“İyilik ve kötülük, bir millete ya da dine ait özellikler değildir. İnsana ait özelliklerdir. Tarih boyunca, pek çok milletten veya dinden iyi ve kötü insanlar çıkmıştır. Bundan sonra da çıkacaktır. İşin asıl karanlık tarafını söyleyeyim mi sana? Kötüler, halkın kafasında korku yaratarak, zihinlerini teslim alırlar. Bunun için milli ve dini değerleri kullanır, mümkünse ortak bir düşman icat ederler. Bu sayede, yaptıkları tüm kötülükler haklı görülür. Bugün Hitler'in yaptığı da aynen budur. Baksana, hiç utanmadan, 'Beni Tanrı görevlendirdi!' diyor, 'Hepiniz Almansınız, birlikte üçüncü büyük imparatorluğu kuracağız!' diyor, 'Yahudiler Almanya'nın düşmanıdır!' diyor! Burada bile halkın çoğunluğu aklını kaybetmiş gibi peşinde!”

“Some critics argue about the exact number of millions of people murdered in the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part) under Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and other socialists. I remember the retort of the historian Dr. Rex Curry: a million murdered here, a million murdered there, pretty soon you are talking a lot of people.”

“The breakdown of the European party system occurred in a spectacular way with Hitler's rise to power. It is now often conveniently forgotten that at the moment of the outbreak of the second World War, the majority of European countries has already adopted some form of dictatorship and discarded the party system, and that this revolutionary change in government has been effected in most countries without revolutionary upheaval. Revolutionary action more often than not was a theatrical concession to the desires of violently discontented masses rather than an actual battle for power. After all, it did not make much difference if a few thousand almost unarmed people staged a march on Rome and took over the government of Italy, or whether in Poland (in 1934) a so-called "partyless bloc," with a program of support for a semifascist government and a membership drawn from the nobility and the poorest peasantry, workers and businessmen, Catholics and orthodox Jews, legally won two-thirds of the seats in Parliament.”

“How could a large land empire thrive and dominate in the modern world without reliable access to world markets and without much recourse to naval power? Stalin and Hitler had arrived at the same basic answer to this fundamental question. The state must be large in territory and self-sufficient in economics, with a balance between industry and agriculture that supported a hardily conformist and ideologically motivated citizenry capable of fulfilling historical prophecies - either Stalinist internal industrialization or Nazi colonial agrarianism. Both Hitler and Stalin aimed at imperial autarky, within a large land empire well supplies in food, raw materials, and mineral resources. Both understood the flash appeal of modern materials: Stalin had named himself after steel, and Hitler paid special attention to is production. Yet both Stalin and Hitler understood agriculture as a key element in the completion of their revolutions. Both believed that their systems would prove their superiority to decadent capitalism, and guarantee independence from the rest of the world, by the production of food. p. 158”

“Love has an immense power. Love is the strongest creative force in life. Love is what makes life meaningful. But love has a very different kind of power compared to what we usually define as power. We are acquainted with the power of the ego, the power of violence, aggression and destructivity. The basic problem for humanity is that people do not grow. That is why we go on writing human history about people like Alexander the Great, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan, The stout right-wing Christian Ronald Regan, who murdered Osho, one of the most intelligent spiritual teachers of the 20th century. Osho was elected by Time magazine as one of the most influential people of the 20th century. The murders of John F. Kennedy and Osho caused the United States to regress as a moral, sane and humane country. Initiated sources in the U.S. say that the decision to murder Osho was taken on the highest levels in the U.S and the Vatican. American magazine Elle wrote: "Like Socrates, Osho was considered a corrupter of the morals of young people. Like all true philosophers he demolished a belief system that produced only unhappiness, not joy."The Dalai Lama said: "Osho is an enlightened master who is working with all possibilities to help humanity overcome a difficult phase in developing consciousness.", Joseph Stalin, George W. Bush, who started a war on Iraq built on lies, and murdered 1 million men, women and children to privatize Iraq's oil and sell it at a bargain price to Western oil companies. In modern times, Benjamin Netanyahu is repeating the darkest time in human history that humanity has sworn never to repeat again, by creating a modern concentration camp where defenseless Palestinian men, women and children are killed every day with high-tech weapons. The Western countries look the other way, only saying that Israel has the right to defend itself. Jacob Wallenberg, owner of the Swedish war industry, and the Swedish fascist, racist and bourgeois government, exports weapons to Israel, in order to more effectively murder more women and children per day, Donald Trump is currently dismantling American democracy, education and freedom of speech and is introducing fascism and racism all over the world. These people have a power that is violence, aggression and destruction. It is a power that is against life. It is a power that is against existence. It is a power that is against God. These people are the real psychopaths, narcissists, criminals. who suffer from a deep-seated inferiority complex. History should be erased from these people. Children should not be forced to read about these people and their disgusting and destructive actions. History should be concerned with people like Buddha, Jesus Christ, Kabir, Lao Tzu, Socrates, Rabiya and Osho, who are men and women of love, They are the salt of the earth. These people also have a power, but that is a totally different kind of power, which creates. To be destructive is easy. No intelligence and awareness is needed to be destructive. But to create needs intelligence and awareness. To be creating can only be done by people, who experience love, joy, truth, freedom and beauty. To be creative means to be part of God, because God is the creator. To be creative means to be part of the creativity of God. That is the power of love. The man of love is always creative. Whatsoever he does is creative. And the man of creativity slowly learns about love. Start from love and let love become creativity in your life. Love is our center of being and creativity is our periphery. Love plus creativity is equal to religion.”

“[Said during a debate when his opponent asserted that atheism and belief in evolution lead to Nazism:] Atheism by itself is, of course, not a moral position or a political one of any kind; it simply is the refusal to believe in a supernatural dimension. For you to say of Nazism that it was the implementation of the work of Charles Darwin is a filthy slander, undeserving of you and an insult to this audience. Darwin’s thought was not taught in Germany; Darwinism was so derided in Germany along with every other form of unbelief that all the great modern atheists, Darwin, Einstein and Freud were alike despised by the National Socialist regime. Now, just to take the most notorious of the 20th century totalitarianisms – the most finished example, the most perfected one, the most ruthless and refined one: that of National Socialism, the one that fortunately allowed the escape of all these great atheists, thinkers and many others, to the United States, a country of separation of church and state, that gave them welcome – if it’s an atheistic regime, then how come that in the first chapter of Mein Kampf, that Hitler says that he’s doing God’s work and executing God’s will in destroying the Jewish people? How come the fuhrer oath that every officer of the Party and the Army had to take, making Hitler into a minor god, begins, “I swear in the name of almighty God, my loyalty to the Fuhrer?” How come that on the belt buckle of every Nazi soldier it says Gott mit uns, God on our side? How come that the first treaty made by the Nationalist Socialist dictatorship, the very first is with the Vatican? It’s exchanging political control of Germany for Catholic control of German education. How come that the church has celebrated the birthday of the Fuhrer every year, on that day until democracy put an end to this filthy, quasi-religious, superstitious, barbarous, reactionary system? Again, this is not a difference of emphasis between us. To suggest that there’s something fascistic about me and about my beliefs is something I won't hear said and you shouldn't believe.”

“Ik heb me laten inspireren door Hjalmar Schacht. De man was een briljant economist. Hij moest van Hitler 60 miljard mark vrijmaken voor openbare werken terwijl er maar 150 miljoen in de staatskas zat. En toch slaagde hij erin om die openbare werken te financieren met wisselbrieven die door de staat gewaarborgd werden. We moeten iets gelijkaardigs doen. Er moet in ons land een parastatale holding gecreëerd worden”

“Carl Schmitt could boast with some justice that the Nazi revolution was orderly and disciplined. But the reason lies not so much within the Nazis themselves as in the lack of an effective opposition. For millions the Nazi ideology did assuage their anxiety, did end their alienation, and did give hope for a better future. Other millions watched passively, not deeply committed to resistance. "Let them have a chance" was a typical attitude. Hitler took the chance and made the most of it.”

“Ik zeg aan Iedereen, als je de Koran ergens kunt vinden, Koop hem en lees hem, dan weet u wat uw lot zal zijn, als kafir, als ongelovige, als zij het ooit voor het zeggen krijgen! Besef dat in negentien vier, vijf zesendertig toen het nationaal socialisme nog niet aan de macht was men ook, al perfect kon weten wat Hitler en zijn NSDAP zou doen, je moest alleen maar Mein Kampf lezen, het stond er allemaal in... Wel het staat ook in de Koran, dus je moet de Koran niet verbieden, je moet de Koran niet verscheuren, je moet de Koran niet verbranden, je moet hem vooral lezen!”

“[Hitler wasn't] the first one to claim that God was on [his] side. But claiming it and keeping with His character are two different things. Jesus walked with the weak of this world--the sick, the lame, the blind. [Hitler] called them weaklings, the refuse of society, and said they had to be done away with. [God] talked of humility; [Hitler] talked of pride. [God] talked of submission; [Hitler] talked of conquering. [God] talked of love; [Hitler] talked of hate. [God] even allowed those who opposed Him to speak; [Hitler] silenced even those who just wanted to ask questions. [God] allowed those who despised Him the freedom to make their choice. For [Hitler], the only freedom possible was to implement [his] plan for world domination.”

“It is the fate of great achievements, born from a way of life that sets truth before security, to be gobbled up by you and excreted in the form of shit. For centuries great, brave, lonely men have been telling you what to do. Time and again you have corrupted, diminished and demolished their teachings; time and again you have been captivated by their weakest points, taken not the great truth, but some trifling error as your guiding principal. This, little man, is what you have done with Christianity, with the doctrine of sovereign people, with socialism, with everything you touch. Why, you ask, do you do this? I don't believe you really want an answer. When you hear the truth you'll cry bloody murder, or commit it. … You had your choice between soaring to superhuman heights with Nietzsche and sinking into subhuman depths with Hitler. You shouted Heil! Heil! and chose the subhuman. You had the choice between Lenin's truly democratic constitution and Stalin's dictatorship. You chose Stalin's dictatorship. You had your choice between Freud's elucidation of the sexual core of your psychic disorders and his theory of cultural adaptation. You dropped the theory of sexuality and chose his theory of cultural adaptation, which left you hanging in mid-air. You had your choice between Jesus and his majestic simplicity and Paul with his celibacy for priests and life-long compulsory marriage for yourself. You chose the celibacy and compulsory marriage and forgot the simplicity of Jesus' mother, who bore her child for love and love alone. You had your choice between Marx's insight into the productivity of your living labor power, which alone creates the value of commodities and the idea of the state. You forgot the living energy of your labor and chose the idea of the state. In the French Revolution, you had your choice between the cruel Robespierre and the great Danton. You chose cruelty and sent greatness and goodness to the guillotine. In Germany you had your choice between Goring and Himmler on the one hand and Liebknecht, Landau, and Muhsam on the other. You made Himmler your police chief and murdered your great friends. You had your choice between Julius Streicher and Walter Rathenau. You murdered Rathenau. You had your choice between Lodge and Wilson. You murdered Wilson. You had your choice between the cruel Inquisition and Galileo's truth. You tortured and humiliated the great Galileo, from whose inventions you are still benefiting, and now, in the twentieth century, you have brought the methods of the Inquisition to a new flowering. … Every one of your acts of smallness and meanness throws light on the boundless wretchedness of the human animal. 'Why so tragic?' you ask. 'Do you feel responsible for all evil?' With remarks like that you condemn yourself. If, little man among millions, you were to shoulder the barest fraction of your responsibility, the world would be a very different place. Your great friends wouldn't perish, struck down by your smallness.”

“History has seen many who claim to be deliverer and saviour of the people. They might come with force and violence and parade their might and splendour as conquerors. The pharaohs of Egypt, Sennacherib king of Assyria, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, Darius of Persia, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Napoleon, Clive of India, Bismarck, the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin. The story and scene is always the same. They claim to deliver the people from bondage and to establish justice, freedom and peace. They come in might, riding in splendour, dragging prisoners.”