"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

03 October 2019

Will Trump become USA's Dictator?



Thomas Edsall of the New York Times wrote a column (2 October 2019) presenting and endorsing the paranoid projections of degreed and tenured leftists who accuse President Donald Trump of intending a "coup" in the form of refusing to leave office if he loses the next election. Hadding explains why the accusation is sadly unjustified. (This is an excerpt from the Outlaw Conservative show of 2 October 2019.)


Trump Not Alone in his Assessment

On Tuesday 1 October 2019 President Trump made a post on Twitter to the effect that the movement to impeach him amounted to a coup. Trump's enemies are acting as if this were some kind of crazy talk, but Trump is far from alone in that opinion. Even some of his enemies have been using that word to characterize the efforts to undermine or terminate his presidency, for more than a year.

24 August 2018, Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency:

“I think impeachment would be a bad idea. If President Trump is somehow forced to leave office before the end of his first term, one-third of America will believe it was a soft coup...."

5 September 2018, David A Graham, The Atlantic, discusses Bob Woodward's book Fear, and an anti-Trump op-ed written anonymously (probably by Jon Lerner) for the New York Times:

"... the actions described in the book and in the op-ed are extremely worrying, and amount to a soft coup against the president.

6 September 2018, Chuck Todd:

"There is either a soft coup underway or the president is unfit for office."

The point of the concern about Trump's use of the word coup, and his comments in 2016 about electoral irregularities, is that if the electoral process is now being voided by a "coup" or if the elections themselves are crooked, then the system is already dead and there can no longer be any moral argument for respecting the Constitution and not simply seizing power. Michael Hayden warned against trying to remove Trump from office precisely because it would induce "one-third of America" that currently respects the Constitution to begin thinking outside of the Constitutionalist box (as has been for decades the exclusive prerogative of the anti-White left, especially in the form of crooked rulings by courts). The fear is that the White majority, struggling against reduction to minority status, may cease fighting with one arm tied behind its back.

We have been headed in this direction for some years now. See my article  from 2012, Welcome to the Banana Republic.

23 July 2019

German Rocket-Scientists Not Getting Their Due




Eugene Cagle, NASA's engineering manager for the Saturn rocket program, regarded the role of Wernher von Braun in the American space program as crucial:

“(Von Braun) was the main player in all the work that went on. We might have been successful (without him), but not in the '60s. He was a great leader.” (V. Whitman, Times Daily, 20 July 1999)

How strange it is, then, that on the fiftieth anniversary of the first landing of Americans on the Moon, we have heard so much about the astronauts but very little about Wernher von Braun and his team of rocket-scientists from Germany – and that what we do hear about the German rocket-scientists today is largely negative.

Cagle's assessment is clearly correct. In the early 1950s the United States had two rocket programs, one run by the Army, which had the Germans, and one run by the Navy, which was plagued with failures. When the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was formed, it was built mainly around the team of Germans brought to the United States after the Second World War. We can safely conclude, therefore, that without Wernher von Braun and his team, there would have been many more failed rockets, and perhaps there would never have been a NASA.

As with some other big ideas, the idea of traveling to the Moon was a German elaboration of a French inspiration. Jules Verne's novel of 1865, De la Terre à la Lune, contained insights like the fact that Florida would be a good location for launches, but it was Hermann Oberth in the early 20th century who made the physical calculations of how acceleration out of the Earth's gravitational pull and into outer space might be possible. Fritz Lang's movie about a voyage to the Moon, die Frau im Mond (1921), and Oberth's book die Rakete in den Planetenräumen (1923), inspired a schoolboy named Wernher von Braun to learn the mathematics and the physics involved so that he himself might one day travel into outer space.


20 July 2019

Hadding & Cantwell, 8 July 2019: the March of Political Correctness



Funeral Scene from The Wild Angels with Peter Fonda, 1966. The movie represents the swastika and the cross as antitheses, reflecting Anglo-American propaganda more than historic National-Socialism, but the swastika as a symbol of rebellion against restrictions had a certain appeal, and was used that way in a number of cinematic productions in the 1960s.  Today you won't see that.

Musicians also used the swastika to indicate their independence from restrictive authority. From left to right, Siouxsie Sioux, Lemmy Kilmeister of Motorhead, Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones, Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols, and members of the Slovenian band Laibach. Several of these people in one way or another apologized under pressure. Sid Vicious most likely never apologized, but when the movie Sid and Nancy was made (1986), the swastika shirt was bowdlerized, replaced with a hammer-and-sickle shirt. Even the portrayal of a total degenerate like Sid Vicious wearing a swastika, as he often did, is for some people too much of an endorsement to be allowed. It would be surprising to see this today.
Talking to Cantwell, I conflated the plastic model kit of Tom Daniel's "Red Baron" with "Rommel's Rod." These were created in the late 60s and were sold for years in K-Mart. Both show that attitudes were very different in the 60s and 70s compared to now. "Nazi stuff" was cool -- and permitted.


Sadly the cutout of Adolf Hitler ultimately did not appear in the famous album-cover.

Bowie later apologized and proved that he really was a degenerate after all.

Two of the most popular series that ever aired on CBS Television featured characters whose cherished emblem was the Confederate Battle Flag -- which now, in the ratcheting-up of Political Correctness, has become a target for moralizing lunatics on a par with the swastika.

The Kurt H. Debus Conference Facility at Kennedy Space Center, named after the former ardent National-Socialist who was the USA's chief authority on rocket-launches from 1952 and retired as director of Kennedy Space Center in 1974. The conference-center has kept its name so far perhaps because there is no university-campus nearby.

04 July 2019

A Couple of New Memes

It has annoyed me for some months, seeing a two-frame cartoon that has an SA-man in the left frame and an Antifa thug in the right frame, both attacking "Free Speech." In the aftermath of the attack on Andy Ngo (and some others who got much less sympathy because they were straight, White non-journalists) in Portland, Oregon, this stupid cartoon has been trotted out again. I have altered the cartoon to make it more enlightening.



A few days ago I saw a photo that showed Dinesh D'Souza with an expression on his face that seems to me to convey more about his character than he would want anyone to know.

I have made a few variants on this meme, with different words for different contexts. This is the most general-purpose one. You can make your own variant with different text, but it should resemble something that D'Souza actually says, or at least implies. I don't know that he ever verbatim said, "Republicans believe that everybody is equal!" or, "Democrats are the real racists!" but a lot of his verbiage can be boiled down to those propositions. When it's stated so plainly, the ridiculousness is easier to see.

This one is about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which, to the embarrassment of today's cowardly Republicans, presidential candidate Barry Goldwater opposed. 


Speaking of cowardly, backstabbing Republicans, there's this. It's not a meme in the normal sense but the information conveyed is important. The Republican Party has tried to give the pro-White voter just enough winks and dogwhistles to induce him to vote Republican instead of Democrat, while treating him more and more as an unwanted stepchild. Especially disgusting is the acquiescence of Southern White people in this abuse. I try to make them aware of it.

13 June 2019

Dinesh D'Souza teaches White Americans to Despise their own Great Men





Here is a 45-second adaptation from the above that I made for Twitter:




Dinesh D'Souza makes unsubstantiated categorical assertions and invalid arguments in support of reckless false conclusions. 


Dinesh D'Souza admits Republican
involvement in eugenic sterilization.
(In fact it was 19 out of 32, not 20.) 
When somebody produces a counterexample to one of his categorical assertions, his typical reaction is to minimize the counterexample's importance and to continue making the same general assertion. After I spent weeks in 2017 battering D'Souza on Twitter with the fact that eugenic sterilization a century ago was mainly a Republican cause, he began admitting that some Republicans like Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant had supported eugenic sterilization, but marginalized them as "RINOs," which they clearly were not. He also has put qualifiers on some of his other sweeping assertions: it is now not "all," but "the vast majority" of KKK leaders that he says were Democrats, and he no longer says that no Republican ever enacted a segregation law, but instead no Republican after the 1880s. When one of Dinesh D'Souza's unverified sweeping assertions is proven wrong, he makes an excuse and then keeps on saying it. 

In this video I go into detail about one example, D'Souza's argument that the Democrats were "the party of slavery," which employs bad logic and pretends to be based on the spurious assertion that no Republican owned a slave in 1860. The text for this presentation was written on 9 June 2019, after I noticed that someone had adduced the name of Francis Preston Blair as a slaveholder who was not only a Republican in 1860 but had helped to found the party. On the following day, Dinesh D'Souza did as I predicted, minimized the importance of the counterexample that he had tauntingly solicited for several years, and asserted that he was essentially correct in spite of it. 

An important principle in dealing with a dishonest interlocutor like Dinesh D'Souza is not to let him set the rules of discourse. The leftist "twitterstorians" arguing with D'Souza made this mistake. They foolishly allowed D'Souza to tell them how they must approach his argument, and now -- surprise, surprise -- after they've jumped through his hoop D'Souza is still not admitting that he was wrong.

27 May 2019

Dinesh D'Souza's Holocaust Propaganda

"Hitler Didi," about a young Indian woman with the strict, righteous, and forceful character of Adolf Hitler, was a soap opera produced by Zee TV in Dinesh D'Souza's hometown of Bombay.

Discrimination based on ancestry is traditional and normal in India. Indians do not believe in equality, and they tend to be somewhat sympathetic toward Adolf Hitler, since he was the enemy of their enemy. Therefore it is natural that Dinesh D'Souza, as an immigrant from India, would feel no affinity for the kind of propaganda that has been used to cow the White man in the West.

D'Souza's early work reflects that kind of inegalitarian outsider's perspective. With Illiberal Education (1991) he criticized the unreasonable arrogance of uppity minorities at universities. With The End of Racism (1995) he explained that Blacks in the United States had only themselves to blame for their misfortunes. As late as 2014 D'Souza declared that there was no "genocide" of the Red man in North America.

Then came a change. There were always touches of distortion and exaggeration in D'Souza's work, but with his arrest and incarceration for campaign finance fraud in late 2014 he seems to have come unhinged.

By 2016 D'Souza had taken a sharp turn toward dishonesty. He decided, instead of attacking the holy myths of leftist history, to make tenuous, hairsplitting arguments about who is to blame for those alleged crimes. Much of this new rhetoric from Dinesh D'Souza relates in some way to the Holocaust, which is of course the most powerful of the anti-White accusations.

Unfortunately for D'Souza's followers, the most important arguments that D'Souza uses to try to link real and alleged phenomena of Hitler's Germany to the Democratic Party turn out, on closer examination,  to show much more influence from Republicans. Eugenicists Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, and Paul Popenoe were all Republicans. The 1924 Johnson-Reed Act restricting immigration, which Hitler admired, was enacted mainly by Republicans. A man like Adolf Hitler, if a citizen of the United States in the 1920s, would much more likely have been a Republican than a Democrat.

D'Souza's argument that Hitler was a socialist and therefore more like the Democrats than the Republicans is nugatory, because economic policy is not the point of comparison. (Incidentally, Republicans are foolish to disdain Hitler's economics. They would do well to recognize Hitler's economic policy as a way to keep working-class support.)

After Republicans and conservatives have loudly endorsed the playing of the Holocaust Card in American political discourse, only to find that it applies mainly to themselves, what defense can they make?

Republicans and conservatives who parrot Dinesh D'Souza's arguments undermine their own cause.

Read the article at CODOH.com

20 April 2019

The Greatest German - tribute to Adolf Hitler on the 130th anniversary of his birth





By Carolyn Yeager

JUST IN TIME FOR ADOLF HITLER'S BIRTHDAY ON APRIL 20th, I came across some new images of him that I like very much. They're said to have been taken by Heinrich Hoffmann, Hitler's friend and personal photographer, and have just recently been discovered, or recovered. 

So here they are, with my best wishes for one and all to thankfully remember our great friend and leader for the inspiration he was and continues to be.

Read more from Carolyn Yeager.

12 April 2019

White Nationalists are Innocent of this Crime!





The main exhibit in the House Judiciary Committee's recent hearing on "Hate-Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism" (9 April 2019) had nothing to do with either hate-crimes (so-called) or White Nationalism. 

The supposed hate-crime was in fact committed by a hotheaded anti-racist enraged about his Muslim neighbors' repeatedly and incorrigibly violating his parking space over a long period.

The perpetrator, Craig Stephen Hicks, was not charged by Obama's justice department with "hate-crimes" and also escaped the death-penalty for his three execution-style first-degree murders.


Dr. Abu-Salha says that he and his family are firmly convinced that Craig Stephen Hicks murdered his two daughters and son-in-law “because of bigotry and hate.” 

On that basis, his moving testimony about this crime from four years ago might have a place in this hearing about “Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism.” But the evidence for the murderer's motive that Dr. Abu-Salha offers is extremely thin. It is unverifiable hearsay from one of his daughters that Mr. Hicks had said that he hated the way she looked and dressed.

It was a reasonable hypothesis that this triple murder might have been caused by anti-Muslim bias.

However, in an article for The Occidental Observer that I wrote shortly after this crime occurred, I noted some strong indications that murderer's motive was NOT RACIAL.

Yahoo News reported that Craig Stephen Hicks' Facebook page indicated that he was a fan of the Southern Poverty Law Center. He was a proponent of RACIAL EQUALITY.

Craig Stephen Hicks' motive for this crime was clearly not racial.

I accepted the possibility, however, that Hicks might have been stoked to violence by Zionist War on Terror propaganda. There was widespread speculation that this crime was meant as revenge for the killing of some Americans by ISIS, or for the Charlie Hebdo massacre that happened in the month before this triple murder. There was a lot of anti-Muslim rhetoric in Republican talk-radio at the time.

That was a credible hypothesis, but it does not seem that Hicks had any particular dislike of Muslims. He was a militant atheist who despised all religion, but he despised Christianity more.

The finding of the investigations by the local police and the FBI was that these killings were the result of a running dispute over parking-spaces. It was Obama's FBI and Obama's Justice Department that made that finding. If there had been evidence to support making hate-crime charges, you know that they would have done it.

That is why Craig Stephen Hicks was charged only with first-degree murder and unlawful discharge of a firearm in a dwelling. No hate-crime charges were brought because there was not sufficient evidence to support such charges. This was Barack Obama's FBI and Justice Department. If there had been evidence to justify filing hate-crime charges, you know that they would have done it.

So, why was Mohammad Abu-Salha invited to give testimony in a hearing about “Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism” when his family's misfortune had nothing to do with any kind of anti-Muslim bias, much less with White Nationalism?

Why this spurious example like this chosen to represent hate-crimes? Obviously because of the superficial points of resemblance to the Christchurch incident a few weeks earlier, which served as the excuse for this inquisition.

06 April 2019

Abraham Lincoln was a White Nationalist!




This is a response to Dinesh D'Souza's silly pretense that Abraham Lincoln was a goody two-shoes according to the standards that leftist Jews have established for us in recent decades, and therefore, necessarily, not at all racist. 

Of course Lincoln was racist! He regarded slavery as immoral but he urgently wanted the freed Blacks to leave the country, and he never changed his mind about that. 

More specifically, it is a response to the Insolent Immigrant's recent statements on Fox News that we should be "American Nationalists" like Lincoln instead of White Nationalists. An "American Nationalist like Lincoln" is a White Nationalist! Lincoln certainly did not want a multiracial society!

D'Souza says that Lincoln was an "American Nationalist" instead of a White Nationalist, but they would have been practically interchangeable terms during Lincoln's lifetime.

It is 45 seconds long, for posting on Twitter.

01 April 2019

Holocaust Skepticism in 45 Seconds!


Now on Bitchute instead of Youtube, which removed the video after three months (alleging that it violated "terms of service" although this is not at all evident):


In 1945  Hollywood director Billy Wilder made Die Todesmühlen
for OMGUS (U.S. occupational military government of Germany). This film told the German people that TWENTY MILLION people had been murdered in THREE HUNDRED concentration camps operated by their government during the war. 

The clip here is from the War Department's English-language version, Death Mills, apparently made for indoctrination of U.S. armed forces.

The information at the end of the video is from an article that I wrote for CODOH, "Anti-Gentiles Deny the 5 Million!" The statement from Professor Yehuda Bauer, that "no more than half a million" non-Jews died in the German concentration-camps, was published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 31 January 2017.

The point here is to show what kind of extreme accusations were being made in 1945, and how enormously the story has changed -- except in regard to the alleged number of murdered Jews, which has remained strangely constant.

Of course, a reasonable person could suspect that the story as it stands now might still not be correct.

20 February 2019

Was the Civil Rights Movement opposed to Identity Politics? Balderdash!

 

The self-proclaimed conservatives of the Republican Party have a sickening tendency to try to minimize controversy by not challenging the sacred cows that the anti-White left sets up for us all. Thus we hear, for example, Rush Limbaugh speaking in reverential tones of "Dr. King" and "what Dr. King had in mind."

Has everyone forgotten that the Republican presidential candidate of 1964 opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that the Republican president elected in 1968 had campaigned on opposition to forced busing -- meaning continuation of de facto segregation? 

Amnesia is the great enemy of conservatism. If we fail to remember where we were, if we fail to keep in mind what we were trying to preserve and what we were trying to prevent, we end up gradually adopting all the positions of our persistent enemies.

This has been the story of so-called conservatism since the Second World War and it is a tendency evident even in Tucker Carlson.

Last night I heard something very stupid on Tucker Carlson's show. Tucker and his guest lamented the growth of "identity politics" and together declared that identity politics was never what the Civil Rights Movement was about.

Well, let me give you this red pill.

The NAACP -- the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People -- is more than 100 years old. It has identity-politics in its name.

The term "Black Power" was coined in the 1960s.

In the 20th century, the so-called Civil Rights Movement was ALWAYS accompanied by identity-politics. It was about achieving gains for specific groups. 

First the Blacks were mobilized against Southern Whites within the infamous Black-Jewish alliance, then Northern Whites were targeted too. Jewish Cultural Marxists would mobilize any group with a conceivable grievance against straight White males, and even create such groups by proselytizing deviance.

When I hear Tucker Carlson agree with Tammy Bruce that the Civil Rights Movement was opposed to identity-politics, it makes me think either that he is weak, or that he has no memory. 

All of this genuflecting toward the Revrun Docta Martin Loofa King -- the figurehead of the Civil Rights Movement -- should be coming to an end now, with all the information that has been published about him. 

We used to have identity-politics for White people in the USA, and we were not ashamed of it. We wanted to maintain a White majority and the Immigration Act of 1924 reflected that.  A real conservatism would try to defend that status quo. It is the reason why Donald Trump was elected. The fact that we cannot even openly declare this purpose, and our acceptance of the premise that there is something shameful about it, makes this preservation of our country and our people very much harder to accomplish.

The real threat to the future of the United States is not from identity-politics but from the failure of the White population to practice identity-politics with sufficient vigor as to retain control.

17 February 2019

Bill O'Reilly's Terrible Book about the SS -- Part One


Killing the SS by Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard, although number one on the New York Times' hardcover nonfiction list for many weeks, is very possibly the worst book on the subject ever written.

Despite O'Reilly's image as an arch-conservative, this book's perspective is more leftist than conservative, more Jewish than Christian, more Soviet than American. That is no exaggeration!

It is a consequence of the fact that O'Reilly's "conservatism" is based in the new normal that was established during the Carter Administration and then allowed to stand by subsequent Republican administrations under Neoconservative influence. The older conservatives like William F. Buckley, Patrick J. Buchanan, and Senator Robert Taft were skeptical about the Soviet-style justice meted out by postwar tribunals, did not believe that the Soviet Union was better than Hitler's Germany, and saw that so-called Nazi-hunting did not serve American interests.

The book is loaded with flaws, ranging from careless mistakes to what appear to be tendentious misrepresentations. Here is an example. You decide whether this was a mere blunder or a deliberate misrepresentation.

In Chapter Three O'Reilly and Dugard present what they claim is an exchange between Otto Ohlendorf and prosecutor James Heath at the Einsatzgruppen Trial (October 1947 to April 1948). They call it “a classic courtroom Q and A” where “James Heath destroys the SS killer.” 

In fact, the exchange is not from the Einsatzgruppen Trial at all, but from the International Military Tribunal about two years earlier, where Ohlendorf was being questioned, not by American prosecutor James Heath but by a Soviet judge, General Iona Nikitchenko. 

The misidentification of the source is not the only problem. The exchange includes these statements:


THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): And in what category did you consider the children? For what reason were the children massacred? 
OHLENDORF: The order was that the Jewish population should be totally exterminated. 
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Including the children?
OHLENDORF: Yes. (IMT transcript, 3 January 1946

At the Einsatzgruppen Trial two years later Ohlendorf consistently repudiates the proposition that there was any order to kill all Jews: 

Q. Did you know about plans or directives which had as their goal the extermination on racial and religious grounds? 
A. I expressly assure you that I neither knew of such plans nor was I called on to cooperate in any such plans. (Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals, Vol. IV, p. 245)

Why did Ohlendorf make admissions in 1946 that he rejected two years later? Perhaps because he had been tortured.

This misrepresentation of Ohlendorf's exchange with a Soviet judge during the IMT as an exchange with an American prosecutor during the Einsatzgruppen Trial is highly consequential. It allows O'Reilly and Dugard to pretend that the accusations against the SS are incontrovertible when in fact there is plenty of reason for doubt.

Is this a blunder or a deliberate misrepresentation? I posted something about it on Bill O'Reilly's Twitter page several months ago but he has never responded.

Read more of my criticisms of this book from CODOH.

30 January 2019

National-Socialism vs. Libertarian Darwinism: a response to Jean-François Gariépy

In Hitler's Germany if you were an unemployed man, you could join the Reichsarbeitsdienst.

This was originally a response to some comments hostile to National-Socialism, from a video by Jean-François Gariépy. I had not yet decided to repost it here when YouTube made the decision for me by shadow-censoring it after the first thumbs-up. I am not categorically shadow-banned on YouTube; they only made this particular comment invisible. Why? Maybe some of YouTube's moderators are bigoted libertarians.

Gariépy has many interesting things to say about many things, but when questions arise about economy and how a society should be ordered, he falls into the convenient ruts of simplistic libertarian omniscience.

For one thing, he suffers from the half-baked libertarian belief that the free market is eugenic, which in turn is based on the blatantly false belief that a market is "nature." The market is not nature.



Regarding the comment at 1:20:09 -- 

It is not true that National-Socialism in Germany did not reward success. We are talking about a militaristic society surrounded with enemies. In that respect, National-Socialism was a continuation of the ancient German militaristic tradition. This is a tradition that rewards good performance of duties through promotion. You might notice that the job-creation programs in National-Socialist Germany had a quasi-military character, with the participants wearing uniforms. They did not pay people to sit around and do nothing. An army has its own evolutionary pressures, and Fascism and National-Socialism extended those pressures beyond the armed forces.

Add to this the sterilization of 400,000 genetic defectives and there is nothing to criticize about National-Socialist Germany from an evolutionary standpoint.

The libertarian faith in the eugenic effect of the free market is only somewhat valid. Economic competition weeds out the least intelligent, but it does not select for good character. The free market rewards those who aggressively seek their own advantage even at the expense of the society. Sociopaths prevail. Ultimately the nation loses its viability due to the parasites at the top. Brooks Adams' The Law of Civilization and Decay is about this. 

At the intersection of Libertarianism and Darwinism, Jewish hedge-fund managers appear as "the fittest."

"Nature has its own mechanism," says J-F at 1:39:10 -- but we do not live in a state of nature! The selective pressures of a market are not natural pressures. The selective pressures of a militaristic society struggling to survive against hostile neighboring states are more natural -- insofar as the genepool is the unit of survival -- than the pressures of a market, which reward sociopathy.

A militaristic society that systematically promotes the competently dutiful is much more eugenic, in terms of national survival, than a society that honors hucksters and speculators.

23 January 2019

The generals should have listened to Hitler!


 

It has long been a facile judgment of semi-informed people that Hitler lost the war in the east because he was a megalomaniac who would not heed the advice of his experienced Prussian generals. "Hitler should have listened to his generals!" However, as the moral obligation to find fault with Hitler fades into the past, eroded by easily available historical truth in the Age of Internet, one begins to hear more and more that wisdom was on the side of Hitler in that disagreement, that Hitler's strategic plan in Operation Barbarossa was quite sensible, and that it was the generals -- specifically Halder and Bock -- who fouled up a good plan. 

Even with flawless execution of Hitler's plan, a victory over the Soviet Union would have been remarkable, due to the enormous imbalance of quantities favoring the Soviet side, but it was some generals who made this difficult situation even worse. 

Why invade the Soviet Union at all? Contrary to what the old propaganda says, Hitler's fundamental motive in 1941 was not to gain  the Lebensraum about which he had written in 1925. To the extent that people are willing to believe that Hitler undertook an unnecessary invasion of the USSR with the war against Britain still ongoing, they have assumed that Hitler was very foolish. Hitler was not so foolish, and the invasion of the USSR in 1941 was not optional. It was necessary. It had to be done because the Red Army was deployed for attack in 1941, and the best hope for saving the situation was a war of prevention.  (See Hitler's Policy toward the USSR Justified.)