If you’ve read any history on the Third Reich, most likely in high school or University then i’m sure you’ve come across the landslide of pejoratives in these works. It’s hard to miss them when on every page you read some kind of backhanded retort to a quote of a major figure in the regime, either insinuating unreliability without basis or the quote is simply paraphrased in the most vile way possible as you’re redirected to another secondary work either not in English or hard to find because of its apparent obscurity. Either way, you’d have to buy another book and just hope a full quotation lies within its pages.
There are of course the more common instances of broad generalisations that prime the reader into accepting a preconceived outcome for history that conforms to the biases of our day and poisons the well long before any research is shown. And when it is shown you can bet it’s through the same preconceived prism.
We all assumed from a young age and even into adulthood if you’re particularly naive, that historians are supposedly tasked to accurately assess the past and write about it dispassionately. Would anybody reading this not purport that to be the job of the historian? I’m sure we agree this is what the historian should do. I argue that they do not. I think historians and other academics openly admit they’re not passive actors doing their duty, and I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that academia lays the moral and political foundation of the current systems governing the European world through it’s published propaganda, polished to the gleam of “consensus” and purported “objectivity”.
If you for some reason disagree with this then answer this question. How do you account for the historical approach taken by historians to the epoch of National Socialism? Could you honestly tell me that you believe there’s any other possible conclusion the historian could come to that isn’t beset by the conclusions already preconceived to fit an established political order? Do you honestly think any historian could write honestly and dispassionately about any aspect of this historical period? The Holocaust, the opening of the war? The unequivocal answer to this is “No”. Historians are allowed to disagree on every other historical topic, but when it comes to the National Socialist period there’s absolute uniformity backed up by laws that do not permit historical inquiry to certain aspects.
And what historical period could be as maligned and controversial? Could you name another? I doubt it.
Academic historians pass moral judgement on their subjects as anyone who’s read any orthodox history on the Third Reich will tell you. They don’t mince words and they’re absolutely resolute in proclaiming the Second World War as a “Good” “Moral” war in the fight against evil. The Jewish “Dutch” cultural historian, plagarist and forger ‘Robert Jan van Pelt’, author of the ‘The Case for Auschwitz” which was subsequently debunked by Italian revisionist Carlo Mattogno made statements which no academic historian could disagree with, and laid bare the most blatant admission of bias I have ever read:
“If the Holocaust revisionists would be shown to be right, we would lose our sense about the Second World War, we would lose our sense about what democracy was. The Second World War was a moral war; it was a war between good and evil. And so if we take the core of this war, which is in fact Auschwitz, out of the picture, then everything else becomes unintelligible to us. We collectively end up in a madhouse.”Robert Jan van Pelt quoted in: Carlo Mattogno, The Real Case for Auschwitz (Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 3rd edition, August 2019), Pp. 16
Who now could deny my statements? Who on the side of the orthodoxy would disagree with this? And who could possibly proclaim objectivity from historians?
Perhaps what i’ve just written is a bit broad but I’ll make it clearer as we go forward.
A few months ago I received in the mail a copy of a book i’ve wanted to read relating to the Nazi Volksgemeinschaft (People’s Community) titled ‘Visions of Community in Nazi Germany: Social Engineering and Private Lives’ published by Oxford and edited by Marina Steber & Bernhard Gotto. I planned to read and finish the book this week, so I got to work and sat down flipping the cover open to reveal a short spiel of text and the subsequent pages giving a short resume of the ‘historians’ involved in compiling the material for this book. Needless to say, redflags went off immediately as I started to read.
When the Nazis seized power in Germany in 1933 they promised to create a new, harmonious society under the leadership of the Führer, Adolf Hitler. The concept of Volksgemeinschaft -‘the people’s community’-enshrined the Nazis’ vision of society’; a society based on racist, social-Darwinist, anti-democratic, and nationalist thought.
This is pretty standard and overall it’s correct. But anyone who’s at least a bit inquisitive will see how it’s framed in a morally judgemental way by the use of the word ‘racist’ to set the tone and force preconceptions into the mind of the reader instead of supplying useful descriptions which objectively without moral judgement describe the National Socialist regime. But as we’ll see in a moment, ‘historians’ of the Third Reich don’t particularly like aversions to moral judgments and objectivist approaches to their epoch of moral lectures true or not.
If I were to rewrite this first paragraph I would write it like this:
When the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) rose to power in Germany in 1933 they brought with them the hopes of many to create a new, harmonious society under the leadership of the Führer, Adolf Hitler. The concept of Volksgemeinschaft -‘the people’s community’-enshrined the National Socialists’ vision of society’; a society based on value of race, Social-Darwinist thought, values of the leader in place of the former Weimar Democracy coupled with Nationalism.
This rephrasing does a lot to improve the ideological and disingenuous shortcomings of the original. It has a reasonable approach to a historical subject that doesn’t feel like the author is writing from a viewpoint, but instead simply stating in an objective way certain facets of the epoch being described.
Moving on to the next quotation:
The contributors engage with individual appropriations, examine projects of social engineering, analyze the social dynamism unleashed, and show how deeply private lives were affected by this murderous vision of society:
Here it’s suggested to us in the not so subtle way that National Socialism was consciously thought up as the worldview intended to bring about a master plan vision of a murderous Society. How fantastical and oh so unbelievable. This is the perfect example of a broad generalisation I spoke of earlier, one that breaks from reality and destroys the readers ability to comprehend nuanced complexity of any kind related to this subject. And this isn’t just a one off, read any book on Nazi Germany and you’ll find thousands of these little phrases.
It becomes abundantly clear that these historians in their works on the Third Reich completely fail in this simplest regard to historical accuracy and prose. You can sense their compulsion to be the arbiters of morality, and the reader cannot help but feel that history is being distorted so it can be written not to document the past, but to direct the future and write with impunity on a historical subject like the Third Reich that they know will never receive a historical defense. I cannot help but suspect that the game was rigged before it even started.
But perhaps you think I’m being unfair? That there’s certainly not any connection between their biased insult ridden works of ‘history’ and any ideological motive that could perhaps impune their craft of objective historical research? I think you’d be wrong.
The preface to the paperback edition of ‘Visions of Community’ in my view thoroughly confirms it’s worthlessness as a reliable piece of history, and in fact it was the end of this preface when I decided to put the book down and perhaps never read it in its entirety. Although I must admit i’ve read a small portion of this book before.
The preface is rather small. Combined without notes the actual text of it would make up just over two pages. They begin by talking about the Volksgemeinschaft and slightly touching on perspectives, approaches, and views of the Volksgemeinschaft through the real and imagined lenses of Germans at the time. Very basic preliminary stuff. On the last page however the curtain slips. Nobody cares, nobody notices. But I noticed, and I care.
While Volksgemeinschaft has lost its controversial smell and figures prominently in new textbooks on National Socialism, it is certainly not the only possible approach to the topic. This is particularly evident in the new, mainly American led re-evaluation of the ‘racial state’ paradigm, but also in the bulk of literature on the holocaust. How difficult it is to transfer a highly elaborated research concept in the realm of history culture is illustrated by discussions about the chances and pitfalls of bringing Volksgemeinschaft approaches into museums, exhibitions, and schools. How necessary such endeavours, however, are became plainly obvious during the last years, when the German right-wing populist party ‘Alternative für Deutschland’ began to consciously and positively, use terminology like Volk or Volksgemeinschaft in political discourse – concepts that have been banished from the political vocabulary of the Federal Republic of Germany in a long time. Historiography has a critical function in a democracy. This is always worth remembering.Visions of Community in Nazi Germany (Oxford), pp. vii
Where to even begin. At this point I lost all my interest in reading further. It became clear what this book was for, and it became clear as it should be to anyone what the purpose of historiography is. Or at least historiography on the Third Reich is. I can only assume the critical function is to promote the political scheme of Democracy. In fact, by simply saying that I’m just repeating in more words what the authors already said. The historians have abandoned history and instead have embarked on their crusade for politicised history, the manipulation of their subjects to push forward the political narratives they agree with and discourage, even shame those they find too ‘right wing’ for their liking. In this case it’s Germany’s AFD party, who is being smeared as the target of the authors for positively using terminology they find problematic and so it’s their duty to compile this book by all their approved historians to not illustrate history as it happened but perform a political crusade to “refute” any kind of positive reading of the Volksgemeinschaft and to most importantly use their badges of historiography to enforce Democracy and the leftist ideals popular among the zeitgeist without regard for historical accuracy and integrity. At this point I see no reason to trust these people and If I do i’ll be constantly hearing the small nagging voice in the back of my head, although unsubstantiated at this point in time, telling me that these people are liars, not to be trusted with relating the past to future generations. They showed their hand, and nobody cares. This is what I mean when I speak of these historians wanting to direct the future. Because they know the Third Reich will never get an unbiased hearing, they know that nobody will clamber to defend it from their attacks and vilifications because to do so would end their careers and utterly destroy their credibility.
The establishment historians don’t like objective history. One only needs to examine their treatment of Allied bombings, particularly of Dresden to understand that much.
I recently bought a new book about Nazi Germany called ‘Travellers in the Third Reich: The Rise of Fascism Through the Eyes of Everyday People‘ by Julia Boyd. What interests me about this book is the view of National Socialist Germany through the eyes of people who witnessed it for themselves. This book seems to be rewarding thus far. I read the afterword in which Boyd, after all the interpretive crap (which I will get to) that’s to be expected from historians on the Third Reich is forced to admit that in Nazi Germany “it was still possible for a foreigner to spend weeks in Germany and experience nothing more unpleasant than a puncture.”.
Throughout the rest of the Afterword Boyd gives us a textbook examples of how historians use the accusation of ‘propaganda’ to lie and skew the Third Reich to fit their epoch of horror narrative.
She consults the experience of African American academic W. E. B. Du Bois in which she expresses confusion about how he seemed not to see how plainly evil the Nazis really were! How could he not see, being black and an academic that he was a prime target of their hateful wrath on two counts? Of course her answer to obfuscate the reason she will expound upon until the end of the afterword. Her claim is that foreign visitors were ‘bewildered’, although that comes off more as her own projection onto those who experienced the Third Reich than it does the visitors themselves. The reality of propaganda in the Third Reich cannot be seen as it is portrayed, as fake as a movie set:
The purpose of Nazi propaganda was not to brainwash ordinary Germans, and it was not intended to deceive the masses even though it did enable the movement to gain new recruits. The principal objective, according to historian Neil Gregor, was “to absorb the individual into a mass of like-minded people, and the purpose of the ‘suggestion’ was not to deceive but to articulate that which the crowd already believed.How Hitler Conquered Germany
She also proposes that propaganda (although she doesn’t call it that) from foreign newspapers had something to do with the confusion: “Newspaper attacks on the Nazis from the earliest months of the regime, anecdotal evidence of street violence and repression, the opening of Dachau just a few weeks after Hitler became chancellor and, above all, the book burning, in May 1933, should have alerted all would-be travellers to the reality of the new Germany.“ This is doubtful, as Boyd knows, travellers were more than welcome to experience the New Germany for themselves, her barebone historical tidbits do little to exacerbate the idea of a Germany that had a dark secret to hide. For example, the book burning occurred once, and was by no means unique to the Third Reich and not even orchestrated by the Party itself even though Goebbels held a speech during that day, the demonstration was organized by the National Socialist students union. The act had nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with being a spiritual act of soul cleansing for the German Volk the same act of German soul cleansing occurred in 1817 when students assembled at Wartburg Castle and burned political pamphlets including books. For comparison it’s estimated that 11,075,000 volumes and patents, which is over a third of all German books, had already been destroyed by the Allied barbarous aerial bombing in West Germany alone; and this does not include those in the areas taken from Germany after the war. Added to the millions of German books destroyed worldwide during the anti-German hysteria of WWI, far more German books were destroyed in the twentieth century than likely exist today. The fact that Boyd only provides this one example, and of minor book burning no less, should be evidence enough that Julia is fear mongering, or rather by the power of suggestion pushing the reader to conclude that there was more to Nazi Germany than met the eye, yet she can only provide us with these three singular and rather poor examples that were supposed to have warned visitors about the Third Reich. These events could be seen by the entire world no less, hardly a “dirty secret”.
The premise she promotes, that many people who talk about the Third Reich promote, is the idea of how evil it is to burn books. This is laughable. In the west, and all around the world, books are banned and burned, the fact that these historians try to make this one example of book burning in Nazi Germany a singular ‘crime’ (as I’m sure they’d describe it) and sign of National Socialist ‘barbarity’ is a hypocritical and an outright lie.
Jews and the Philo Semitic historians that do their bidding had no scruples about burning books, physically assaulting revisionist historians like Ernst Zundel and firebombing his house, or Robert Faurisson who at 60 years old was physically attacked by 3 Jewish thugs in a near fatal act of repression and terror. It wasn’t just individuals who were attacked though; the Institute for Historical Review itself was firebombed and the books and manuscripts set ablaze. One example of the effects from the damage was that it took years to reconstruct the notable book ‘The Forced War’ by David Hoggan which was finally released in 1989 by IHR. Next to no historians came out to condemn this action, and why would they? The burning of materials and terrorism against those they disagree with is totally fine in their eyes which more than adequately puts on display their lack of objectivity and sincerity when it comes to true moral condemnation. These people are only outraged at incidents 85 years ago when Communist and sexually degenerate filth like those works of Magnus Hirschfeld and his “Institut für Sexualwissenschaft” (Institute for ‘Sexual Research’) was burned by the National Socialists and not when actual academic material is published that could put a damper on their parade of atrocity.
The concentration camps, like Dachau should be addressed briefly here. To begin, I would have Julia know that nursing homes are notorious for their abuses of the elderly, but I’m not using those acts as an indictment against our democracies. Of course that example really doesn’t fit the bill, after all the elderly cannot be considered dangerous political agitators except when they’re voting Brexit. Nor can nursing homes be considered concentration camps.
Well okay, perhaps that example isn’t great, but neither is hers. For one thing the temporary camps set up at the beginning of the Third Reich weren’t permanent nor were they holding significant numbers of people, the Dachau camp is the most notorious and perhaps rightly so, but that doesn’t mean the violence and mistreatment that occured went unpunished, in fact the ‘torture’ chambers for political prisoners (Communists and Socialists) set up by the SA were closed and SA men found to have mistreated prisoners were punished.
And indeed the evidence for the street violence was anecdotal, with western newspapers spreading demonstrably false lies about National Socialists and alleged massacres of Jews, but what else is new? No friend of the Third Reich, former German Chancellor Heinrich Brüning during the Weimar Republic years of 1930-1932 addressed the absurdity of these claims by the foreign press, David Irving tells us:
Brüning blamed foreign correspondents for exaggerating the ‘occasional ill treatment of Jews’ at the beginning of the Nazi regime: In the spring of 1933 foreign correspondents reported that the River Spree [in Berlin] was covered with the corpses of murdered Jews. At that time hardly any Jews except for leaders of the Communist party…had been attacked… If,’ he pointedly added, ‘the Jews had been treated so badly from the beginning of the regime, it could not be explained that so very few of them left the country before 1938.’David Irving, Hitler’s War and the War Path, (Focal Point Publications, Millenium Edition, 2002), pp. xxv
This puts Julias claim into serious doubt because it’s based on hoping the readers are too ignorant to know any better. This is how historians lie, but not only that, they absorb themselves into it too. Rest assured though, because Julia Boyd knows exactly how to counter the lack of apparent Nazi terror, she simply declares that whatever travellers saw with their own two peepers was “propaganda”. Ah, now isn’t that refreshing? She continues: “But once they were actually there, the propaganda was so pervasive and truth so distorted that many found themselves uncertain about what to believe.“ Now the problem I have with what she said, isn’t that travellers such as Du Bois would’ve been confused to see that the newspaper propaganda fed to them by their western democracies didn’t at all align with how they actually experienced the Third Reich, it’s that she, the author is telling us that what they saw confused them because it was ‘propaganda’, or in other words ‘a lie’. That’s the implication and it simply isn’t true. We know what travelers saw, Boyd said it herself, they saw nothing out of the ordinary, if anything what they did see was far better than they could’ve expected. So we arrive at this historian crossroad we always come to, when reality even observed by our own eyes cannot be trusted because of some ‘evil nazi conspiracy’ concocted via the ever present ‘propaganda’ to hide their true intentions when the reality is most likely to be a whole lot less dramatic. After all, what would the Traveller to the Third Reich believe? Surely they would believe their own eyes and reject the outright lies of the American and British newspapers spreading as per usual, unsubstantiated horror stories. There’s absolutely no propaganda in that. If you didn’t see the terror it’s because it’s not there, not as Boyd would have us think, that it was somehow ever present in the background being collectively ignored.
I had initially planned for this article to be MUCH longer and include a section about Dresden, however the article has become very lengthy and I started writing it months ago in the later months of 2019. I cannot quite recall all the directions I wanted to go but surely I’ve written enough, or at least something of substance that will already be daunting enough to anyone attempting to read this article. I figured I should stop hesitating and just release what i’ve already written and whatever else can be incorporated into future articles. It’s very possible that I will add more to this article either by adding footnotes or expanding into other areas worthy of example.
I ended up finishing this article by illustrating one example out of thousands on literature pertaining to the Third Reich, one in which every media pundit, every wannabe armchair historian on reddit, and even your own clueless family members have accused Nazi Germany of using. ‘Propaganda’. Just say the word and anything you don’t like is simply propaganda! Nazi Germany might as well have taken place on a Hollywood set, complete with matte paintings and the stereotypical movie villains who terrorize the scene with their desires to ‘take over the world!’ and kill everyone who so much as raises an eyebrow!! All for seemingly no reason! And if there is one, you can be sure it’s all based on ‘propaganda’, with Hitler and his devil disciples seemingly omnipotent and yet so incompetent all at once! You’d have trouble figuring out how such a thing could be possible.
In short, the way “historians” have used propaganda as an excuse is propaganda in and of itself. It’s lazy, and self serving, it spreads the seeds of doubt so readers can never fully take away anything of substance.
 For example, Martin Gilbert in his book on the Second World War paraphrases SS Death’s Head Commander Theodor Eicke “In protecting Hitler’s Reich, Eicke explained, the SS would have to ‘incarcerate or annihilate’ every enemy of Nazism, a task that would challenge even the ‘absolute and inflexible severity’ which the Death’s Head regiments had learned in the concentration camps.” . He provides no coherent quotation, no sources or footnotes in the book are to be found whatsoever. Abysmally deceptive in his portrayal.
 Two examples of this blatant hostile subjectivity intended to skew history into the favour of the historian is recorded by Volker Ullrich and Ian Kershaw. Kershaw states in his opinion that Hitler “had few intellectual gifts and social attributes”, this is utterly false, Kershaw says this in an “attempt” to understand how Hitler “could nevertheless have such an immense historical impact” when it’s really just an unfounded insult towards his subject. Completely removed from objectivity and blatantly false considering Hitler was a voracious reader and led an incredibly social political movement, charming millions of Germans from all sectors of society, surrounding himself with immensely credentialed and intelligent people who were unwaveringly loyal to him. This is not a man who could be considered lacking social attributes. Kershaw thus creates a problem for himself to explain where it doesn’t exist. Ullrich is similarly vain when he states that Hitler “was a well-below average painter and architect”, another patently false lie. Ullrich is no arbiter of what determines an average or below-average painter, nor is he an architect to my knowledge. His assertion is refuted by Hitler’s own experience with the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts, where they suggested he take up architecture because he had such a marvellous aptitude for it. Albert Speer, by no means a “below average architect” commended Hitler’s architectural ability stating that “In conferring with me over plans, Hitler perpetually drew sketches of his own. They were casually tossed off but accurate in perspective; he drew outlines, cross sections, and renderings to scale. An architect could not have done better” Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs by Albert Speer (New York: Macmillan, 1970), p. 143. also see R.H.S. Stolfi, Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny (Prometheus Books, 2011), Pp. 13 for the Kershaw and Ullrich quotes see Volker Ullrich, Hitler: Volume 1 : Ascent 1889-1939 (Vintage Publishing, 2017), Pp. 6-7
 Richard Evans who wrote the “Third Reich Trilogy” which was as vapid and dishonest to the upteenth degree as anyone would expect also wrote a glowing biography of Stalin apologist, Marxist Communist Eric Hobsbawm. In a wonderful slaying of Evans for his obvious hypocrisy and lack of academic scruples, a blog titled “Useful Stooges” wrote this wonderful article. Quoting David Pryce Jones in his review of the Evans biography “Eric Hobsbawm: A Life in History makes Evans “look either a dupe or a fool of the higher sort, in any case earning him a reputation no historian would want to have.” I recommend you read this article to see how these so-called “historians” use history as nothing more than political propaganda.
 American Pravda: Holocaust Denial
 Van Pelt in his books on Auschwitz plagiarized the work of Revisionist turned incognito Exterminationist Jean Claude-Pressac. Mattogno makes this quite plain in his book, see the following footnote. Van Pelt is also a forger. During the Irving trial in 2000 there was a discussion about Gas Chambers and alleged Zyklon B introduction holes that would allow the gypsum pellets of cyanide to be lowered through wire mesh columns. Van Pelt in his “expert” (a word to be used very loosely) report stated “These wire mesh columns do not appear in the blueprints of the crematoria.” (Pelt Report, Pp. 294), yet his book ‘Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present’ co-authored with Deborah Dwork published in 1996 he had a picture of this gas chamber constructed WITH wire mesh columns that he claimed was constructed “using exclusively the data derived from the blueprints” (‘Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present’ , Pp. 270). This falsification of evidence was never spoken about and predictably nobody but revisionists have pointed this out. Goes to show the “worth” of the academic establishment.
 Carlo Mattogno, The Real Case for Auschwitz (Castle Hill Publishers, 3rd edition, August 2019)
 John Wear How Many Germans Died under RAF Bombs at Dresden in 1945? Inconvenient History, Vol. 11, 2019 No. 1
 John Wear, ‘Were the 1945 Allied Bombings of Dresden Militarily Justified?‘ Inconvenient History, Vol. 12, 2020 No. 1
 Julia Boyd, Travellers in the Third Reich: The Rise of Fascism Through the Eyes of Everyday People, ( Pegasus Books, 2018), pp. 415
 “After months of travelling around the Third Reich in 1936, he wrote: ‘It is extremely difficult to express an opinion about Germany today which is true in all respects without numerous modifications and explanations.’1 That an intelligent observer like Du Bois should have found Nazi Germany so confusing comes as a surprise to anyone used to examining the period with the clarity of postwar hindsight. After all, Du Bois was a black academic and as such a prime Nazi target on two counts. Why did he not simply condemn Hitler’s Germany outright?” – Ibid, pp. 411
 “there are surely few totalitarian states that welcome their foreign visitors with as much friendliness and enthusiasm as did Nazi Germany. Cruising on the Rhine, drinking beer in a sunlit garden or walking alongside a happy band of singing school children made it all too easy to forget tales of torture, repression and rearmament. – Ibid, pp. 415
 “For Nazi Germany, much more than Soviet Russia, was open for all the world to see” – William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011), pp. 232
 “After Adolf Hitler, as chairman of the strongest political party, had taken charge of forming the new German government, the German students – acting with reference to the burning of papist literature by Martin Luther, and to the Wartburg Festival, where revolutionary students had thrown symbols of reactionary politics (including publications) onto pyres – publicly burned books of “un-German spirit”. These acts were intended to be demonstrations, and had nothing to do with book banning. – Martin Lüders, Nation & Europa, 47th year, issue 9/1997, pp. 7-11 also see: Book Burning/Censorship and National Socialist Germany
 “Völkisch” Writers and National Socialism: A Study of Right-Wing Political Culture in Germany, 1890-1960 on other examples, including those of allied book burnings see: Book-Burning During the ‘Denazification’ of Germany
 (Source: UNESCO, General Information Programme and UNISIST, ‘Lost Memory – Libraries and Archives Destroyed in the Twentieth Century’) See too: Book Burning – Allied Book Pulping and ‘Re-Education’ Compared and Book Burning/Censorship and National Socialist Germany
 See my thread on CODOH which contains sources: Concentration Camps, the Gestapo and the SA in Nazi Germany a Myth
 Ibid. It wasn’t only the IHR that had their books burned, David Irving has experienced this as well, entire works being confiscated and burned. Chemist Germar Rudolf has also illustrated in interviews how the German government would burn revisionist books after raiding his residence for ‘contraband’ , on this see: Germar Rudolf, Resistance is Obligatory (Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2nd Edition, March 2016)
 “In Prussia, for example, the Interior Ministry (Göring) and the Gestapo (Diels) were successful in closing the SA prisons throughout the fall and even pressed charges against SA goons for egregious mistreatment of prisoners.” – Thomas Childers, The Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, (Simon and Schuster, 2017), pp. 269
 The full quote: “The truth is that many foreign visitors were similarly bewildered. Newspaper attacks on the Nazis from the earliest months of the regime, anecdotal evidence of street violence and repression, the opening of Dachau just a few weeks after Hitler became chancellor and, above all, the book burning, in May 1933, should have alerted all would-be travellers to the reality of the new Germany. But once they were actually there, the propaganda was so pervasive and truth so distorted that many found themselves uncertain about what to believe” Julia Boyd, Travellers in the Third Reich: The Rise of Fascism Through the Eyes of Everyday People, ( Pegasus Books, 2018), pp. 411
 “Yet the Nazi terror in the early years affected the lives of relatively few Germans and a newly arrived observer was somewhat surprised to see that the people of this country did not seem to feel that they were being cowed and held down by an unscrupulous and brutal dictatorship. On the contrary they supported it with genuine enthusiasm. Somehow it imbused them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing faith in the future of their country” William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011), Pp. 231