B006OAL1QM EBOK by Heinrich Fraenkel, Roger Manvell Page B
Authors: Heinrich Fraenkel, Roger Manvell
Ads: Link
nowhere near the truth.
Goebbels simply records in this private and unedited diary his disgust at Hitler's reactionary views on every major point of policy—restitution to the German princes, the sacredness of private property, the destruction of Bolshevism, Italy and Britain as Germany's allies, the old twenty-five-point programme still the best, and so on. “I am flabbergasted,” he writes. “What a Hitler! A reactionary! Astonishingly clumsy and unsure of himself…. Brief answer by Strasser. Ach Gott, can we cope with these people down here? A mere half-hour's discussion after Hitler's four-hour speech and summing-up. I cannot get a word out. I am quite flabbergasted. We drove to the station. Strasser is almost demented with rage … I feel like crying…. That was one of the greatest disappointments of my life. I can no longer believe in Hitler! This is the most terrific thing. My faith is shattered and I feel shattered.” But Goebbels' opportunism soon reasserted itself before the spectacle of Hitler's social and political success. He contented himself with shouting a slogan or two just to please Kaufmann and the Strassers.
Kaufmann confirms that Goebbels said nothing at Bamberg and that Strasser was angry because his assistant, who was by now regarded as one of their chief spokesmen, had let him down by remaining silent. In Kaufmann's view Goebbels did not speak because he was shrewdly aware that it would not be in his own best interests to do so. What impressed him about Munich was the money that Hitler seemed able to command compared with the poverty of the movement in Elberfeld. Hitler always had cars at his disposal, and Goebbels loved the attention which Hitler seemed ready to show him. And Hitler cunningly arranged for Goebbels to arrive in advance on 15th February to speak at a separate public meeting where he records that he received “considerable acclaim”. The extent, therefore, to which Goebbels let the Strassers down at Bamberg was that he did not speak up against Hitler's policy. Nevertheless, within two days Gregor Strasser had calmed down and both he and Otto received Goebbels in Berlin. Otto Strasser admits now that he has in the past exaggerated the degree of the rupture between his brother and Goebbels following Bamberg. He was originally responsible for the slogan “the treason of Bamberg” in connection with Goebbels and in his book Hitler and I claims that Goebbels spoke to the effect that Hitler's argument had convinced him and that Strasser was in the wrong. Goebbels himself was subsequently very content to let this apparent act of faith in Hitler stand to his credit. But in fact, he remained in constant touch with both the Strassers and Kaufmann during the ensuing days and weeks, and their intention was to have a further, more private discussion with Hitler to iron things out. “Telegram from Strasser. Must not rush things…. The suggestion being that Kaufmann, Strasser and I are to go to Hitler to have it out with him more thoroughly.” He still refers to the Munich group as political children, politische Kinder . But, he says: “We have the feel of history. History's children … that's us!”
But the children in Munich had what Goebbels wanted, a certain amount of money. Hitler lived in a comfortable flat and had a car with a chauffeur. In Elberfeld Goebbels was sure he had less than his due from Kaufmann to whom he kept talking for endless hours until they must all have been glad to see the back of him when he went away to speak—"a great annoyance, what with my being practically indispensable here in Elberfeld”. He became intensely jealous of a man called Helmuth Elbrechter, a dentist who was on the fringe of the movement and exercised a certain influence over Kaufmann who was some years his junior. 3 It is very evident that Elbrechter disliked and distrusted Goebbels, who was aware of this and saw at once intrigue against himself as well as lack of his due in
Goebbels simply records in this private and unedited diary his disgust at Hitler's reactionary views on every major point of policy—restitution to the German princes, the sacredness of private property, the destruction of Bolshevism, Italy and Britain as Germany's allies, the old twenty-five-point programme still the best, and so on. “I am flabbergasted,” he writes. “What a Hitler! A reactionary! Astonishingly clumsy and unsure of himself…. Brief answer by Strasser. Ach Gott, can we cope with these people down here? A mere half-hour's discussion after Hitler's four-hour speech and summing-up. I cannot get a word out. I am quite flabbergasted. We drove to the station. Strasser is almost demented with rage … I feel like crying…. That was one of the greatest disappointments of my life. I can no longer believe in Hitler! This is the most terrific thing. My faith is shattered and I feel shattered.” But Goebbels' opportunism soon reasserted itself before the spectacle of Hitler's social and political success. He contented himself with shouting a slogan or two just to please Kaufmann and the Strassers.
Kaufmann confirms that Goebbels said nothing at Bamberg and that Strasser was angry because his assistant, who was by now regarded as one of their chief spokesmen, had let him down by remaining silent. In Kaufmann's view Goebbels did not speak because he was shrewdly aware that it would not be in his own best interests to do so. What impressed him about Munich was the money that Hitler seemed able to command compared with the poverty of the movement in Elberfeld. Hitler always had cars at his disposal, and Goebbels loved the attention which Hitler seemed ready to show him. And Hitler cunningly arranged for Goebbels to arrive in advance on 15th February to speak at a separate public meeting where he records that he received “considerable acclaim”. The extent, therefore, to which Goebbels let the Strassers down at Bamberg was that he did not speak up against Hitler's policy. Nevertheless, within two days Gregor Strasser had calmed down and both he and Otto received Goebbels in Berlin. Otto Strasser admits now that he has in the past exaggerated the degree of the rupture between his brother and Goebbels following Bamberg. He was originally responsible for the slogan “the treason of Bamberg” in connection with Goebbels and in his book Hitler and I claims that Goebbels spoke to the effect that Hitler's argument had convinced him and that Strasser was in the wrong. Goebbels himself was subsequently very content to let this apparent act of faith in Hitler stand to his credit. But in fact, he remained in constant touch with both the Strassers and Kaufmann during the ensuing days and weeks, and their intention was to have a further, more private discussion with Hitler to iron things out. “Telegram from Strasser. Must not rush things…. The suggestion being that Kaufmann, Strasser and I are to go to Hitler to have it out with him more thoroughly.” He still refers to the Munich group as political children, politische Kinder . But, he says: “We have the feel of history. History's children … that's us!”
But the children in Munich had what Goebbels wanted, a certain amount of money. Hitler lived in a comfortable flat and had a car with a chauffeur. In Elberfeld Goebbels was sure he had less than his due from Kaufmann to whom he kept talking for endless hours until they must all have been glad to see the back of him when he went away to speak—"a great annoyance, what with my being practically indispensable here in Elberfeld”. He became intensely jealous of a man called Helmuth Elbrechter, a dentist who was on the fringe of the movement and exercised a certain influence over Kaufmann who was some years his junior. 3 It is very evident that Elbrechter disliked and distrusted Goebbels, who was aware of this and saw at once intrigue against himself as well as lack of his due in
Similar Books
