Scrapbookpages Blog

December 29, 2016

Henriette Von Schirach on AHC

Filed under: Uncategorized — furtherglory @ 2:34 pm
Image result for henriette von schirach

Henriette von Schirach

In episode 5 of their new series about Hitler on the American Heroes Channel, titled “Hitler:The Monster”, around six minutes into the episode, an incident at the Berghof, involving the beautiful Henriette von Schirach, is discussed.  In the show, it was claimed that Henriette was banished from the Berghof for bringing up the “brutalization of Jewish women in Amsterdam”.  In the words often repeated in the show: “but it was all a lie.”  She was back at the Berghof the next evening, where events caused her to leave with her husband in a huff, never to return again, for a completely different reason.

A different account of the incident, which took place in late June 23rd and 24th, 1943, is recorded in the 2002 version of David Irving’s book “Hitler’s War” on page 595.

Begin Quote:

The ‘Jewish Problem’ was taboo at the Berghof… Bauder von Schirach and his pretty wife Henrietta were in Hitler’s house party.  They joined the fireside circle, slumped into the deep armchairs in the semi-darkness.  While Hitler sipped his special tea and the others their wine or cognac, Henriette exclaimed that she had just witnessed at Amsterdam the loading of Jews into open trucks for deportation.

‘Do you know about it?’ she asked.  ‘Do you permit it?”

Hitler retorted, ‘They are being driven 0ff to work, so you needn’t pity them.  Meantime our soldiers are fighting and dying on the battlefields!’  Later he added, ‘Let me tell you something.  This is a set of scales’ -and he put up a hand on each side like pans. -‘Germany has lost half a million of her finest manhood on the battle field.  Am I to preserve and minister to these others?  I want something of our race to survive a thousand years from now’  He reproached her: ‘You must learn how to hate!’

The Schirachs were still there the next evening, June 24, when Goebbels wickedly brought the fireside conversation around to Vienna.  Until after four A.M. Hitler drew savage comparisons between Schirach’s Viennese and Goebbels’s Berliners until tears welled up in Henriette’s eyes: the Berliners, he said, were hard-working, intelligent, and politically shrewd.  Goebbels wrote, ‘Frau von Schirach in particular acted like a silly cow…and later summed up her unhappiness by saying that she wanted to go back to Munich with her husband and would the Fuhrer send [Gaulieter] Giesler to Vienna instead.’  ‘Tell me,’ Hitler challenged her, ‘is your husbnd our Reich representative in Vienna-or is he Vienna’s man in the Reich?’  The Schirachs departed in a huff the same night, and never saw Hitler again.

End Quote

In the notes section on page 912 in his book, Irving cites five different sources for his account including both Schirachs.  While I agree that it is brutal to load Jewish women into trucks to take them to work, [the film footage of women being abused does not show them being loaded into a truck.] clearly Henrietta and her husband did not leave the Berghof immediately after her question about the final solution.

On the show Guy Walters claimed that on the 23rd “He [Hitler] just orders her out, and she left in tears never to be seen at the Berghof again.”  Clearly, if we can believe Goebbels’ account, she was still there the next night, on June 24th, acting like a silly cow.

24 Comments »

  1. hola a todos, bueno, no soy muy buena haciendo comentarios, pero la señora von schirach es muy famosa por ese incidente de reprochar a Hitler el maltrato a los judíos, pero yo veo algunas mentirillas allí: su libro el precio de la gloria refiere aquel incidente casi igual a lo que han comentado los compañeros, pero en el libro Los siete hombres de Spandau de Jack Fishman, el autor refiere la carta llena de reproches que henriette envió a su marido detenido en spandau. en ella le recuerda ese incidente pero dice: tú estabas en la habitación, eso significa que baldur von schirach no presenció el incidente, confió sólo en el relato de su esposa, ppor otra parte, -richard von schirach, el hijo menor de la pareja, dice que su madre por lo menos tuvo el valor de reprochar a hitler su maltrato a los judíos, cosa que su padre no hizo, eso pone a su madre henriette como la heroína del cuento y a baldur von schirach como el villano cobarde, entonces, quisiera saber cómo fue realmente ese incidente, y que el señor richard von schirach lo sepa así no está tan decepcionado de su padre, no les parece? quiero decir a todos que, en mi humilde opinión, el holocausto sí existió y no pueden negarlo, no sé si el padre de anna frank era un delincuente o no, pero anna era inocente, y no hay derecho a matar a nadie, el holocausto existió y los mismos nazis lo aceptaron en los juicios de nuremberg, lean la declaración de baldur von schirach, el líder juvenil más grande de la historia. saludo y bendiciones a todos!

    Comment by eugenia — January 11, 2017 @ 3:14 pm

    • I have translated your comment from Spanish into English:

      Hello to all. Well, I’m not very good at commenting, but Mrs. von Schirach is very famous for that incident of reproaching Hitler for mistreating the Jews. But I see some lies there: her book “The Price of Glory” refers to that incident almost equal to what the comrades have commented on, but in Jack Fishman’s book “The Seven Men of Spandau”, the author refers to the letter full of reproaches that Henriette sent to her husband detained in Spandau. She reminds him of that incident but says: “You were in the room, that means that Baldur von Schirach did not witness the incident; he relied only on the story of his wife. On the other hand, Richard von Schirach,the couple’s youngest son, says that his mother, at least had the courage to reproach Hitler for his mistreatment of the Jews, which his father did not do. That puts his mother Henriette as the heroine of the story and Baldur von Schirach as the cowardly villain. I would like to know what the incident was really like, and whether Mr. Richard von Schirach knows this; he is not so disappointed with his father, don’t you think? I want to tell everyone that, in my humble opinion, the Holocaust did happen and cannot be denied. I do not know, if the father of Anne frank was a criminal or not, but Anne was innocent. There is no right to kill anyone. Holocaust — it existed and the Nazis themselves admitted it in the Nuremberg trials. Read the statement by Baldur von Schirach, the greatest youth leader in history.

      Greetings and blessings to all!

      Comment by furtherglory — January 11, 2017 @ 3:51 pm

      • I translated the Spanish comment also and have to say…I respectfully disagree with you….
        The Holocaust didn’t happen (Official Jewish Version) and what we have and what people are being presented is the Horror Disneyland version which goes against all scientific-engineering principles, mathematical principles, physics and chemistry principles and of the last common sense.
        But who am I, only someone who has a brain and can think for myself.

        JR

        Comment by Jim Rizoli — January 11, 2017 @ 4:49 pm

        • How do you know?
          You don’t have a clue about the history involved.

          Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — January 11, 2017 @ 5:10 pm

        • How do you know? You don’t have a clue about the history involved.

          Hi, Jim.
          It’s Jeff. You miss me?
          😂

          Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — January 11, 2017 @ 5:11 pm

          • Jeff…..of course we miss you here….you have a new comrade here who is Klingon….
            So you guys can hold hands and go off into the sunset singing the Communist Internationale

            JR

            Comment by Jim Rizoli — January 11, 2017 @ 5:19 pm

    • I have translated your comment into English. Check the new comments.

      Comment by furtherglory — January 11, 2017 @ 4:00 pm

  2. With due respect to David Irving, I don’t believe Hitler reproached Henriette Von Schirach with the words “You must learn how to hate”. That’s a ridiculous thing for anyone to say, especially to invited guests at a convivial evening tea party.

    The only people who use the word “hate” are today’s Zionists, Jewish Supremacists, and holocaust peddlers, who want to project their own terminology and vocabulary back through history and into the mouth of the German leader himself.

    Comment by Talbot — December 30, 2016 @ 8:45 am

    • According to Wikipedia, Henriette Von Schirach carried out an interview with the BBC long after the war was over. And the entry says;-

      ” Years later, for a BBC interview, Henriette explained what had happened:

      “So I told him what I had seen. Hitler’s reply was, “You are sentimental.” He stood up, I stood up, [and] I said, “Herr Hitler, you ought not to be doing that.” I thought I could allow myself to say so because I had known him [for] so long. I had hurt him deeply, what’s more in front of other men who were there. Then Hitler said, “Every day 10,000 of my best soldiers die on the battlefield, while the others carry on living in the camps. That means the biological balance in Europe is not right anymore”.

      It is clear, therefore, that Hitler did not use the word “hate” in his reply to H. Von Schirach. Although he was obviously agitated by her remarks, it was really because she was uttering them in front of others at the tea party. In his estimation this should have been said privately and not in front of his guests.

      Even though he was angry, Hitler kept his cool and just used the word “sentimental” in his reproach to her.

      Is David Irving now joining the holo-peddlers by using their vocabulary in his historical work. All these people seem to have got “hate” on the brain.

      Comment by Talbot — January 1, 2017 @ 6:28 am

      • Talbot wrote “It is clear, therefore, that Hitler did not use the word “hate” in his reply to H. Von Schirach.”

        You could very well be right Talbot. I strongly suspect that you are correct. Thank you for your outstanding comment. Henriette gave several different accounts at different times. She has made the claim he said it in only some of her accounts apparently. I notice in the account you cite, Hitler introduces the concept of balance into the discussion just like in Irving’s account.

        Here is another account of hers which you can read here. It does use the word hate.

        http://ww2gravestone.com/people/schirach-hoffmann-henriette-henny-von/

        Begin quote

        Henriette presumed on her long friendship with Hitler to describe what she had witnessed in Amsterdam: “I took a deep breath and answered: Yes, that is why I am here. I wanted to speak to you about some terrible things I saw; I cannot believe that you know about them. Helpless women were being rounded up and driven together to be sent off to a concentration camp and I think that they will never return.”

        “He looked at me aghast and at the same time surprised and said: We are at war. He very cautiously stood up. At that moment he screamed at me: You are sentimental, Frau von Schirach! You have to learn to hate! What have Jewish women in Holland got to do with you?”

        “I walked out of the room and once in the vestibule I began to run. One of Hitler’s adjutants came running after me. The Führer was furious. I was asked to leave the Obersalzberg immediately.”

        End quote.

        Most significant about these different accounts is that in the one given by Irving, she did not leave right away but was back the very next day. That account is based on Goebbels diary.

        Comment by furtherglory — January 1, 2017 @ 12:15 pm

      • You wrote:
        “It is clear, therefore, that Hitler did not use the word “hate” in his reply to H. Von Schirach. Although he was obviously agitated by her remarks, it was really because she was uttering them in front of others at the tea party. In his estimation this should have been said privately and not in front of his guests.”

        Back then, Amsterdam was noted for being a town where criminals went to hide. Anne Frank’s father was arrested for cheating people in his bank. He escaped and went to Amsterdam where he could hide out. The first thing that he did in Amsterdam was to set up a new business where he carried on, cheating people as usual.

        When Henrietta von Schirach saw women standing against a wall with their hands up, she assumed that these were Jewish women who were being mistreated. They could have been women who had been arrested for prostitution. They could have been thieves who had been arrested for shop lifting. They could have been bank criminals, just like Anne Frank’s father. There was no indication that they were Jewish.

        Comment by furtherglory — January 2, 2017 @ 12:02 pm

      • Hitler did not use the word “hate” in his reply to H. Von Schirach. Although he was obviously agitated by her remarks, it was really because she was uttering them in front of others at the tea party. In his estimation this should have been said privately and not in front of his guests.

        You wrote: “Even though he was angry, Hitler kept his cool and just used the word “sentimental” in his reproach to her.”

        I lived in Germany for 20 months when my husband was in the Army in the 1950ies. I noted that the German people had great manners. Especially the men, who had great manners when talking with women. I observed that the German people did not get upset over trivial things that happened, especially the men, who did not get upset at all when women were present.

        Comment by furtherglory — January 2, 2017 @ 12:23 pm

        • I agree with you, FG – back then, adults had impeccable manners. In Germany, Austria and the other northern European countries the formalities, politeness, and correct mode of conduct and speech would be the norm – especially in the kind of “high society” that existed at the Berghof.

          I was quite astonished that German men – including Hitler himself – would always address an unmarried woman, regardless of her age, as “child”, whereupon as soon as she was married he immediately formally called them “Frau so and so.”

          This happened to one of Hitler’s female typists – Trudl Junge while she was in his employment. He always referred to her as “child” until she married a German officer, who soon afterwards was killed on the Eastern Front. But Hitler was always very correct in addressing her by her married name.

          Comment by Talbot — January 2, 2017 @ 3:37 pm

          • Here is the 1977 version from Hitler’s war. Irving interviewed Frau Von Schirach in person.

            http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/1977/html_chapter/30.html

            The link is to a whole chapter but you can search the chapter for Schirach.

            Even in the earlier version it has the learn how to hate line, but with a few more details.

            Begin quote

            The “Jewish problem” was taboo at the Berghof. Only once was it mentioned, during an uncomfortable scene in June a few days after Himmler’s visit. Baldur von Schirach and his pretty wife—court photographer Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter Henriette—were in Hitler’s house party. They joined the fireside circle, slumped in the deep armchairs in the semi-darkness ; the drawing room was lit only by the single floor lamp in one corner and the candles on the mantelpiece. While Hitler drank his special tea and the others their wine or cognac, Henriette exclaimed that she had just witnessed at Amsterdam the loading of Jews into trucks for deportation. “It is horrifying to see these poor people being packed into open trucks. Do you know about it ? Do you permit it ?” Her outburst was greeted by an icy silence. Hitler retorted, “They are being driven off to work, so you needn’t pity them. Meantime our soldiers are fighting and dying on the battlefields !” Later he added, “Let me tell you something. This is a set of scales”—and he put up a hand on each side like the pans—“Germany has lost half a million of her finest manhood on the battlefield. Am I to preserve and minister to these others ? I want something of our race to survive a thousand years from now.” He reproached her : “You must learn how to hate !” Henriette countered with a line from Goethe’s Iphigenie : “Man is made to love, not hate.” This was probably the occasion on which Hitler irritably asked Schirach to tell his wife not to come with her “warpaint” on again : her eyelids were silvered, and her lashes heavy with mascara. It irked Hitler that Schirach had used his wife to plead his case for him.

            The next evening, June 24, Goebbels wickedly brought the fireside conversation around to Vienna. Until after 4 A.M. Hitler drew savage comparisons between Schirach’s Viennese and Goebbels’s Berliners until tears welled up in Henriette’s eyes : the Berliners were hard-working, intelligent, and politically shrewd ; Vienna’s musicians were either not themselves Viennese or had to die first before they were recognized. Hitler’s abruptness with Henriette unsettled even Goebbels. “The behavior of Schirach and his wife charged the evening with a certain tension,” Goebbels wrote. “Frau von Schirach in particular acted like a silly cow … and later summed up her unhappiness by saying that she wanted to go back to Munich with her husband and would the F¸hrer send [Gauleiter] Giesler to Vienna instead.” “Tell me,” Hitler challenged her, “is your husband our Reich representative in Vienna—or is he Vienna’s man in the Reich ?” By the time the last air raid reports came in, it was long after dawn. Hitler kissed Eva Braun’s hand and withdrew to his quarters—his shoulders hunched, his head sunk, his gait firm. The Schirachs departed for Vienna in a huff the same night, without seeing him again.

            End Quote.

            Comment by furtherglory — January 3, 2017 @ 7:32 pm

  3. Grrr… From what little I’ve seen of those new Hitler episodes, 8 out of 10 of the narrating “historians” are Jews! The same exaggerating, truth distorting Jews that appear in every previous EVIL HITLER documentary that came before. Hitler wasn’t an angel, but why must they constantly lie?!?! 😬

    Comment by brsrkr76 — December 29, 2016 @ 10:10 pm

    • brsrkr wrote: “From what little I’ve seen of those new Hitler episodes, 8 out of 10 of the narrating “historians” are Jews!”

      Ironically, most Holohoaxsters and brainwashed sheeple claim that Holocaust revisionists’ conclusions are irrelevant because of an alleged and often imaginary anti-Jewish bias on their part. But an obvious pro-Jewish & pro-Zionist bias is visibly no problem for them…

      Comment by hermie — January 2, 2017 @ 4:07 am

  4. FYI….from those fighting in the trenches against the Jew run media

    Hello Family…

    2017 promises to be THE year, the lies are imploding fast and we need all competent hands on deck now.

    The rate of the awakening is progressing even FASTER than the exponential curve predictions in my Pavlov’s Dog video. That is the video where Alistair had the courage to ask me a question about forbidden questions. Thank you Alistair.

    Detoxification from the lies can be traumatizing, and it is happening now at an explosive rate world wide. Canada is slower than most countries, partly due to excessively high Fluoride levels in the drinking water over the past 50 years.

    The parasite is panicking now and going into full lock-down censorship mode. In Germany ever more video’s are being purged and the list of forbidden thoughts is growing fast. However, information is being disseminated at a much faster rate than censorship could possibly contain in any meaningful way. Their efforts are like trying to plug a leaking dam with toilet paper. The authorities are refraining from further prosecutions of thought crimes as they themselves begin to emerge from the induced mental illness. We are working in concert. Two opposing forces are exerting their influence. Good and Evil.

    Nothing you ever did in your life will have had any real purpose or meaning, if we fail.

    The memory of you will be as deleted as the memory of the hundreds of thousands of German men, women and children who got burned to death in the Holocaust of Dresden, or the tens of millions of our best people who lost their lives in the tragedy of the most violent conflicts in human history, “WWI and WWII”. Now it is ALL of the European peoples, who are in the crosshairs. And after them, it will be whoever takes their place. (Invaders)

    Of the nine of you in the “To:” list of this email, one of you will be the second, and one of you will be the last to understand. First is already taken by Monika. Who will be the last?

    We have a real opportunity during these times of FEAR and LIES. For those of us who are not, or no longer contaminated by the toxins of the lies, and therefore immune to the Weaponized Control Trigger (WCT) words, our efforts should be focused on decontaminating those of our fellow human beings who show the most promise. This is a chain reaction and the sooner we get more people thinking for themselves again, the better our chances for survival.

    Here is a list of some of the “WCT words” that activate this induced mental illness.

    “anti-Semite”, “holocaust denier”, “racist”, “nazi” or “neo-nazi”, “extremist”, “9/11 twoofer”, “politically correct”, “facist”, etc etc etc.

    The programs that these “WCT words” activate, have been engineered into the victims minds over a very long period of time. Once activated, they trigger emotions that reduce the victim to a submissive programmed zombie. No facts, logic, or reason have any effect on the victim. Attempts to heal a victim of this induced mental illness often results in hysterical outbursts of emotions, as the victim tries to deflect all evidence, logic or reason. The patient often denounces the person presenting the evidence with multiple “WCT words”. For example, if a victime of this induced mental illness is presented with the evidence of how World Trade Center 7 was brought down, an expected response can include “neo-nazi holocuast denying 9/11 twoofer”. All meaningless jibber.

    The victim/patient/zombie expects others to have the same submissive incoherent response to these words, as he/she does. Those who do not respond as expected are “heretics” and if the parasite has its way, these heretics will be executed/genocided as was done in the Soviet Union to countless millions of our fellow human beings under the “communist” system not very long ago. (memory of them has also been deleted) The population was reduced to one of traumatised submissive couch potatoes no longer capable of resistance. Average IQ went down in the “Soviet Union” after this genocide of entire strata of their population. Easier to “manage” what was left.

    Those whom you help to recover from this condition will love you forever for it, if they don’t kill you before being healed. For some of them the trauma is too much, so be careful, and remember, it takes time. The trauma comes from understanding that the life of “fun and games and tra la la” needs to become a life of “purpose and responsibility”, if we are to survive.

    Shame for having believed the lies also contributes to the trauma. As more time goes by, the trauma that the latecomers can be expected to suffer will be even more severe. There is no escape from this reality. It eventually slaps them in the face.

    As a child many years ago, before the age of “political correctness”, we had a simple cure for any mobbing attacks from the school yard bully. It was a simple little song that can be used today, against the “school yard bully” of planet earth. It can be used whenever one of those meaningless “WCT words” are used.

    It goes like this:

    “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

    With that, stay sane, and

    Happy New Year!!

    Alfred Schaefer

    Comment by jrizoli — December 29, 2016 @ 5:10 pm

    • Haha, what a giant load of horse shit!!!!

      Oh, Jim. You never disappoint.

      Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — December 29, 2016 @ 5:59 pm

      • Jeff….I’m sure this new year will be a banner year for you HoloHuxsters and your fight against the truth.
        You should be proud….

        JR

        Comment by jrizoli — December 29, 2016 @ 6:46 pm

        • Then maybe you should give this up and take up a more productive hobby, like basket weaving.

          Or, maybe you should spend your time more productively, like reading a real history book for a change.

          Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — December 30, 2016 @ 5:48 am

  5. Irving wasn’t proven a liar they just say he was…big difference….
    Like a court Judge and an idiot like Lipstadt would know more about German WW2 history than Irving?
    Don’t think so.

    JR

    Comment by jrizoli — December 29, 2016 @ 3:32 pm

    • You wrote: “Like a court Judge and an idiot like Lipstadt would know more about German WW2 history than Irving?”

      I have heard David Irving speak on 3 different occasions. He is a walking encyclopedia. He knows history forward and backwards.

      Comment by furtherglory — December 29, 2016 @ 4:59 pm

  6. Deborah Lipstadt has proven that Irving is a liar. Whom should we trust? Irving or … whomever?

    I wouldn’t trust Lipstadt any further than I could throw her.

    Comment by Jett Rucker — December 29, 2016 @ 3:23 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: