A Response to the tales of Jim Condit Jr. - by Curt Dietrich

Dear William Finck,

As a kid my father once told me "Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see". I couldn't begin to tell you how many times this advice has came to mind due to some unassociated event that has just occurred. This happened just recently after hearing Mr. Jim Condit Jr. debating with you Mr. Finck on a radio program. I simply couldn't believe my ears. While Mr. C would have you believe that his work is groundbreaking and one of a kind this is the very reason I was shocked; the truth is that it is nothing more than a compilation of some of the worst myths, legends, distortions, and oddball conspiracy theories of the past 70 years or more. Nothing much he said was new or even original, as we are led to believe, but a rehashing of some of the most dubious books on the shelves of history. What separates a historian and a researcher from an amateur or a fiction writer is the nature and reliability of their sources. The collection of source material that Mr. C uses for his theoretical work has set the new standard for absolutely abysmal research and shows that Mr. C has a relatively poor grasp of the history of this era as well. In fact no credible historian would dare touch most of these books with a ten foot pole unless they added a pop up tab with a flashing clear warning message that the source used is no more credible than an IOU from Bernie Madoff. He is NOT a historian by any stretch of the imagination and the quality of the research he has compiled should earn him notoriety of the worst kind. The best sources he does use, like Sir Ian Kershaw, completely contradict and disagree with his theory so he only uses choice words like 'unexplainable' which he carefully crafts to indicate that Sir Kershaw not only supports this theory but wholly agrees with Mr. C on the issues he has put forth. Nothing could be farther than the truth. Yet it seems no fact or contradictory evidence is capable of changing the mind of Mr. C or impeding his agenda. Whatever that might be. The result is that Mr. C flips and flops, appeals to the emotions of the listener in order to thwart critical thought, and relies on the fact that most people do not follow up on the footnotes and references. He comes across as an overzealous used car salesman and sucks in those who do not know history or military operations well enough to see his work for what it is. So let us look at some of his main points.

Mr. C's biggest argument for his theory seems to be his claim that Dunkirk is 'unexplainable' unless you realize that Adolph Hitler was a Rothschild agent who sought to lose the war by letting the British and French rescue 338,000 soldiers. Now to put this in proper perspective you must know that at full strength a German Panzer Grenadier Division was about 17,000 men. If we divide 338,000 by 17,000 we get a grand total of roughly 20 divisions which is less than the Germans used at the Battle of the Bulge. Germany fielded 3.9 million troops in Operation Barbarossa alone and a grand total of 98 divisions while still garrisoning France and the other occupied territories to prevent a British invasion. These 20 divisions worth of British and French soldiers were without equipment and were irrelevant when you consider that the last successful invasion of the British Isles was conducted by William the Conqueror. The number one impediment to an invasion has always been and will remain the Royal Navy. Hitler was very aware of the difficulty of invading Great Britain and knew he needed both air superiority and control of the channel to invade. This is why Operation Sea Lion would never have taken place even if it had not been designed to fool Stalin into believing Germany was still tied down in the West and had no plan to invade the USSR. Whether they rescued one man at Dunkirk or 338,000 Adolph Hitler knew that he would have to strangle them by a U-boat campaign and a massive air campaign to force Britain to the negotiating table. He also realized that if the USSR was to fall Britain would have to sue for peace. So whether he crushed the British at Dunkirk or not is not of any real significance. In fact the British would not be a factor in Europe until 4 years later after the Normandy invasion. Even Churchill states that the only thing that ever truly worried him during the war was the battle of the Atlantic and the 'U-boat peril'. Yet this is not all there is to the equation at Dunkirk. Truth be told this was a disaster by any standard which British propaganda tried to portray as a victory. Hitler even said only Churchill could count that as a victory and he is probably right. It was far from a win.

There were also military factors that played into the decision making process. Blitzkrieg in general has several dangerous shortcomings that the Germans learned in Poland and France and which they also experienced in the Soviet Union. In fact it was also experienced in the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom to use more contemporary examples. With a long logistical tail and a limitation of distance that is often given as 250 miles, it often overextends itself and the Divisions in the spearhead or schwerpunkt are forced to halt for repairs, refitting, and maintenance or to allow the infantry and supplies to catch up. By the time the Panzer divisions reached Dunkirk they had taken significant losses and considerable wear and tear to the tanks and equipment. They were also gearing up for the second phase of the Battle for France called Fall Rot. Many of the Generals were concerned about this and were determined not to have a second Battle of the Marne which stalemated the last war and led to the awful trench warfare that was WWI. So the decision to halt the Panzers for three days had perfectly reasonable military explanations. During that period Goering sought and received permission to eliminate the pocket with the Luftwaffe alone therefore sparing the valuable Panzer Divisions all together. No one at OKW or OKH complained at the time. The Liebstandarte Division continued on despite the order to gain better defensive terrain and a few Generals question the decision in their memoirs but at the time it was considered the right choice by all who were concerned. In fact General Guderian begged Hitler for a similar halt during Operation Barbarossa for the very same reasons. The Panzers were saved to continue the Battle of France and in a short time took Paris and France fell. No one knew that it would go so smoothly at the time of Dunkirk. Hindsight is 20/20 but the military reasons are there and are easy to find in memoirs and military history books.

You also have to consider the personal reasons that Adolph Hitler gave to others post facto. He told General Blumentritt, then a member of Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt's staff, the following along with the rest of the staff.

"Hitler was in a very good humor, he admitted that the course of the campaign had been ‘a decided miracle,’ and gave us his opinion that the war would be finished in six weeks. After that he wished to conclude a reasonable peace with France, and then the way would be free for an agreement with Britain. He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying.’ He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church, saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere. He remarked that the colonies were primarily a matter of prestige, since they could not be held in war, and few Germans could settle in the tropics. He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain on a basis that she would regard as compatible with her honor to accept."

He told fighter ace Adolph Galland, as well as many others, that he did not like this war against the British because they were German stock in Great Britain and that he hated this fratricide. He only sought to make an alliance with Britain against the USSR and never sought any conflict at all with the UK. Yet in Mr, C's words this is "unexplainable" unless Hitler was a Rothschild Jew who was their front man and sought to lose the war and destroy Germany. No it is not unexplainable. In fact it has been explained but Mr. C has decided to ignore any explanation that he finds that disproves his theory in any way. That is supposing he has actually read the books instead of simply cherry picking phrases, relying on the word of his informant Deepthroat 'Ratisbone', and other things that serve his purpose from other sources that more often than not come to a very different conclusion or are on par with Area 51 or Yetti books. This glaring weakness is apparent when he uses other sources on other topics but here it is less obvious so he clings to this in the belief that it is impervious and impossible to explain adequately in any other way. This is supposed to be indicative of a clear plan by Hitler to intentionally throw or lose the war on Rothschild orders but as you can see these 338,000 men could have just as easily been 3 and it would have had the same result. The largest obstacle was the Royal Navy and not the Army or the Royal Air Force. All and all this is a moot point and if it was presented as evidence in a courtroom he would be laughed out of it.

One of Mr. C's other favorite points is that the US couldn't have gotten into the war in Europe unless Hitler declared war on the US. I find this to be rather amusing in and of itself. Roosevelt had every intention of joining the war even if it took inciting the Japanese and the Germans or breaking the law and while it may have delayed the action it certainly wouldn't have stopped FDR's thirst for intrigue and war. Both Stalin and FDR had made comments to the effect that they would not be there when it started but planned to get in it in time to capitalize on a weakened Europe. So let us look at this a little more closely. The Third Reich declared war in December 1941, at that point the US was already fully mobilized economically for war and we were fully militarized by the time war was declared due to the lend lease program. We were cranking out the tanks and airplanes and started raising an army to fight in Europe even before war was actually declared by Japan or Germany. So just how did this effect Germany at this point? The truth is it didn't hurt them much at all. In fact now they could fire on US ships and convoy escorts without creating an international incident. So it actually took the kid gloves off of Germany and allowed them to legally attack US interests that they couldn't have attacked until war was declared. Until then the Germans had to smile and bear it when the US interfered or escorted the shipping to Britain or replaced the British troops in Iceland. The US did not get actively involved in the war in Europe for another year when Operation Torch was launched in late 1942 and did not actually engage the German Afrika Korps until February 1943 at the Kasserine Pass. So as you can very easily tell this was not the big deal Mr. C tries to pass it off as and that it had no real measurable impact until October of 1942 at the very soonest. This was not a dumb or irrational decision at all but a level headed calculation. Knowing war with the US was inevitable he decided to honor the treaty with Japan and turn the U boats loose on US shipping, which was the only real impact the US made until 1943. Had the Germans won the Battle of the Atlantic it may well have been the best decision of the war. Or had the Japanese attacked the USSR as Hitler had hoped it may have had a very different result but the Japanese had recently lost a war against the Soviets in Manchuria and did not attack the USSR as Hitler had hoped. They simply did not reciprocate the favor.

The worst errors of all in Mr. C's repertoire lie in his sources. For instance his heavy reliance on people like Otto Strasser whom Condit erroneously calls Strausser. When Mr. C places his faith in the testimony of Strasser and others just like him he has fed into the lies of a man who volunteered his services to the OSS and British Intelligence for the purposes of helping the Allies create propaganda and to defeat his hated rival the Fuhrer. This was undertaken from exile in Canada after fleeing Europe with a 500,000 reichsmark bounty on his head. He was expelled from the NSDAP in 1930 because of his radical positions including a proposed alliance with the Soviet Union as the cornerstone of foreign policy and complete nationalization of the economy and other Trotsky-ite policies from the far left. He certainly had a major axe to grind and lacks credibility and objectivity as a witness to say the least. In short he was damned near a red bolshevik himself and this brought him into direct conflict with Hitler and others in the NSDAP. When Douglas Reed, who Mr. C calls 'one of the most respected historians of the 20th century' but in reality was not known as a historian at all but a journalist, playwright and novelist with zero credibility as a historian and was dismissed from the London Times for his work there, says the following, he says it because of the disciples of Strasser not Hitler's followers. Here is what the novelist/journalist wrote in The Managers, The Messiahs, and the Masses...
“ In this matter, too, the Western masses were hopelessly misled by years of propaganda, presenting 'the Nazis' and our 'Soviet allies' as opposites, whereas a close affinity always existed. Mr. Karl Stern, a Jew from Germany who migrated to North America and became a convert to Roman Catholicism, records his own misunderstanding of this, during German days when he was on the staff of a psychiatric institute: 'A couple of Nazi doctors held forth on the so-called 'Theory of Permanent Revolution' of Trotzky. This theory was new to me. . . but that it should be propounded by these people was something entirely new and quite astonishing. . . I said, 'Gentlemen, I understand that you draw a good deal of your theory on political strategy from Trotzky. Does it not strike you as extraordinary that you, Nazis, quote Trotzky, a Bolshevist and a Jew, as if he were your evangelist?' They laughed and looked at me as one would look at a political yokel, which I was. . . They belonged to a then quite powerful wing in the Nazi party which was in favour of an alliance of Communist Russia and Nazi Germany against what they called Western Capitalism . . . When one was not listening very carefully, one was never quite sure whether they were talking Nazism or Bolshevism, and in the end it did not matter much.' ”
Strasser was the far far left of the NSDAP and spent the rest of his life trying to get revenge after his expulsion from the party. The allies refused his re-entry after the war because of his radical beliefs. This is hardly the kind of witness you want to rely on in a thesis and as I said before it would be laughed out of a courtroom. Benjamin Freidman once summed it up well by stating that in most courts a Judge instructs the jury to dismiss the testimony of a witness if they have lied even once. When it comes to Strasser he has told more than just one as you will soon see.

From exile he started the Black Front and enlisted Jews to go to Germany and kill Hitler. One of his Jewish would-be assassins was caught after entering Germany only because the group had been heavily infiltrated and the authorities had advanced warning of the plot. So he ended up in Canada with a healthy fear for his life. His brother was killed on what has become known as the Night of the Long Knives on Goering's initiative and he was not on the original list of 7 people who Hitler sanctioned the SS to arrest and execute. So Strasser eagerly assisted Dr. William Langer when he was asked to create a profile on Hitler and other leading National Socialists and this is where much of Mr. C's info comes from. It was from Strasser via Langer and if you know anything about Langer's work on the subject it is full of nonsense and not credible in any way, shape, fashion or form. He hated Hitler and filled Langer's head with all kinds of rumors and outright lies, most of them about depraved sexual activities that Strasser seemed to stick on anyone who remained loyal to Hitler. Langer even claimed Hitler had liked to involve feces and urination in the bedroom amongst many other unsubstantiated claims. To use Strasser as a credible source is a first class mistake. To use the work of Langer is even worse if you know the subject. Here is a sample of Strasser and Langer's work...

In addition to the eyes, the anal region has also become highly sexualised and both faeces and buttocks become sexual objects. Due to early toilet training, certain inhibitions have been set up which prevent their direct expression. 

[…]

We may, therefore, regard Hitler's perversion as a compromise between psychotic tendencies to eat faeces and drink urine on the one hand, and to live a normal socially adjusted life on the other. The compromise is not, however, satisfactory to either side of his nature and the struggle between these two diverse tendencies continues to rage unconsciously.

Another book Mr. C uses a lot is the book I Paid Hitler by Fritz Thyssen. The funny thing is it wasn't written by Thyssen at all but by Emery Reves a British propagandist in 1941; Google it and see for yourself if you doubt it. It is written in French in its original manuscript form and is not a credible source at all. Thyssen himself testified to this fact but Mr. C has no qualms with using it. Maybe he is unaware that it was written while Thyssen was in the concentration camp system or maybe he doesn't consider a literary work by a paid propagandist to be a questionable source but either way this is far from the only example of Mr. C using books that are ghost written or not credible. Thyssen like Strasser had a axe to grind after spending time in the camps with his wife for 7 years. Yet this is a main pillar of his theory and it is incapable of standing up to any kind of scrutiny. Poor research or oblivious to the facts; it all ends with the same result. A complete work of fiction not any contribution to history or the truth movement. It is more like the works of a muckraker than a self professed amateur historian.

My next point in case is his insistence that the Rothschilds used their 'agent' Hitler to launch WWII and that Hitler was Jewish and a Rothschild contradicts both the history and evidence too. Mr. C claims 'everyone' agrees that Hitler was Jewish but this was dis-proven long ago by truly respected historians, some of which Condit uses like Sir Ian Kershaw even though they do not agree with him, and was written off as allied propaganda and the lies of Hans Frank whose alleged Frankenbergers simply do not exist despite many efforts to locate them. Do not let Mr. C mislead you there have been extensive efforts to locate the Jewish Frankenbergers or to validate the theory. It is sometimes hard to pin down whether Condit professes that Hitler was a actual agent/front man or a unknowing dupe because I have heard him put it both ways which is the first sign that he is clueless and that something is wrong. Yet the Baron Louis Rothschild was locked up in 1938 during the anschluss with Austria and ransomed back to the family so that he could leave the country. How does Mr. C explain that? He simply doesn't mention it at all like he does with most inconvenient truths. The Palais de Rothschild was destroyed by the Germans, Goering stole whole art collections that belonged to the Rothschilds and much of that is now in the Austrian art museums or was lost to looters and was never returned to them. Now unless you believe the Rothschilds had retained Goering as a highly prominent art guard or curator and later had him put on trial for it and would have hung him if not for the fact he took cyanide then maybe there is a point to that statement. Unfortunately that requires you to believe that Goering kept this a secret while he was fighting for his very life in Nuremberg. Where Weisenthal and others have failed Condit has picked up the torch and 'proved' Hitler was Jewish; only in fairy tale land or to the uninitiated. After all this cover up it is Mr. C who has brought out the truth but wouldn't that put his life in danger dealing with such deadly adversaries that control the world? I guess not as far as Condit is concerned because he is still selling his overpriced video..

Last but not least are the facts that Hitler fired their real agent in Germany Hjalmar Schacht, because he felt he couldn't trust him, and took over their banks as nationalization of banking and printing of money progressed. When all else fails Condit is forced to rely on books by people who do not exist like the fictional Sidney Warburg and he even tells us that because an effort was made to recall this book that it must be true and all facts. It couldn't have been due to a threat of legal action by those it libeled, as is the case with most recalls of the sort, but the sign that this is the ever elusive golden truth or the holy grail of history. It is simply 'unexplainable' in the words of Condit. The real kicker is that he talks about the documents that the Austrian leaders Dollfuss and Schuschnigg were supposed to possess, according to a third party, that proved he was both Jewish and a Rothschild yet Schuschnigg never made this claim from the day he was born until his death in the late 1970's. I am sure he was questioned on it by real historians but nothing has ever came of this myth that Condit uses to prove his case. Instead he claims it disappeared. So the whole case is built off of sources of the worst sort. Nothing holds water in this area at all. Even the Sydney Warburg book is still readily available to this day. So much for cover ups and keeping this dark secret a secret right?

Now had Condit only made it a point to say the Rothschilds and Warburgs helped finance him in order to use him to get a new war started in Europe and that the Zionists collaborated with the Third Reich both before and during the war in order to create a large Jewish population in Palestine I would be fine with his theory so long as he used actual sources. Or that after creating the holohoax they provided reasons for the world's Jews to want to leave a nice cushy parasitic life in Europe for a worthless strip of desert, I would have little to complain about because I feel that this is closer to the truth and it is fairly well documented. One thing I feel is certain is that Adolph Hitler was not a Rothschild or even a Jew let alone an agent of the Rothschilds. Hitler battled them throughout the history of the regime and even threatened International finance, i.e. the Rothschilds etc, in what is now referred to as the 'prophecy speech'. Not only did he threaten his masters and lock several of them and their true agents up; he also died in 1945 as a result of this wonder deal. Of course Condit insists he escaped despite evidence to the contrary and he has no explanation for the jawbone and teeth that are in fact Hitlers. I suppose they surgically removed his lower mandible to fake his death. The Condit theory is so far fetched it belongs on a shelf next to UFO or ghost books and should be kept far away from the history section. All and all Mr. Condit has to break all the rules of true credible research and mold and shape the assortment of contradictory material to his own design to make a case which is still so weak and impractical in light of the accepted evidence that it is amazing. It is the product of abysmal research and is a terrible attempt to rewrite history by someone who doesn't know a bad source from a credible one. I could spend a week dissecting his work and it isn't even hard because of the nature of his work and it's source material. Once one dives into this 'PREPONDERANCE' of evidence, a term which Mr. C is very fond of using in his movie and interviews as if you can add two lies together and make it a fact, you cannot help but be amused at this fantasy of two men who haven't a clue as to how real research is done let alone how complex the history of this  era truly is. In short nothing that Mr. C claims as 'unexplainable' or to use another of his favorite terms 'inexplicable', is truly explained by him, his theory, or is even unexplained in the first place. This theory is good for a laugh at best but very weak in substance. Thank you for the time Mr. Finck and best wishes.

Curt Dietrich