In all European States at the moment, a struggle, in part quiet and violent, albeit often under wraps, is being waged for political power.

Outside Russia, this struggle has first been decided in France. There the Jew, favoured by a number of circumstances, has entered into a community of interests with French national chauvinism. Since then Jewish stock exchanges and French bayonets have been allies. -- Hitler's Secret Book, page 123

It was the feudal domination and the government of the princes which first created a general situation which allowed him (the Jew) to attach himself to the struggle of an oppressed social class, indeed to make this struggle his own in a short time. He received civil equality with the French Revolution. With that the bridge was constructed over which he could stride to the conquest of political power within nations. -- Hitler's Secret Book, page 122

Not every KZ was a "Vernichtungslager" some-one of them have a music-Band and a brothel.

This struggle is undecided in England. There the Jewish invasion still meets with an old British tradition. The instincts of Anglosaxondom are still so sharp and alive that one cannot speak of a complete victory of Jewry, but rather, in part, the latter is still forced to adjust its interests to those of the English.

If the Jew were to triumph in England, English interests would recede into the background, just as in Germany today German interests no longer are decisive, but rather Jewish interests. On the other hand, if the Briton triumphs, then a shift of England's attitude vis-à-vis Germany can still take place. -- Hitler's Secret Book, page 123

The struggle of Jewry for its hegemony is also decided in Italy. With the victory of Fascism in Italy, the Italian Folk has triumphed. Even if the Jew is compelled to try to adjust himself to Fascism in Italy today, his attitude toward Fascism outside Italy nevertheless reveals his inner view of it. Only her own national interest is decisive and determining for Italy's fate, since the memorable day when the Fascist legions marched on Rome.

For this reason also no State is better suited than Italy as an ally for Germany. It is consonant only with the bottomless stupidity and dissembling baseness of our so called Folkish representatives that they reject the only State that today is ruled along national lines, and as authentic German Folkish elements they prefer to enter a world coalition with Jews. It is fortunate that the time of these fools is played out in Germany. Thus the German Folkish concept is released from the embrace of these creatures, as petty as they are pitiful. It will infinitely gain thereby. -- Hitler's Secret Book, page 123

"Politics is history in the making."

Such were the words of Adolf Hitler in his untitled,unpublished, and long suppressed second work written only a few years after the publication of Mein Kampf.

Only two copies of the 200 page manuscript were originally made, and only one of these has ever been made public. Kept strictly secret under Hitler's orders, the document was placed in an air raid shelter in 1935 where it remained until it's discovery by an American officer in 1945.

Written in 1928, the authenticity of the book has been verified by Josef Berg (former employee of the Nazi publishing house Eher Verlag), and Telford Taylor (former Brigadier General U.S.A.R., and Chief Counsel at the Nuremburg war-crimes trials)... -- Hitler's Secret Book, page 1

“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death.”
– Adolph Hitler

The alleged quote is cobbled together from two sentences in Hermann Rauschning’s The Voice of Destruction, a collection of alleged conversations with Hitler that never really occurred. Rauschning's fiction is quoted very often in anti-Hitler propaganda, and often brazenly misquoted. -- source

Yes, Germany also went on to occupy Holland, Denmark, Norway, and France in what all parties recognize as tactical expediencies. The occupation of Holland, for instance, came only in response to intelligence intercepts confirming that the Allies were moving to invade Holland first to capture the Dutch airfields – strategic necessities for Germany if the Reich was to hamper the saturation bombing of non-combatant German women and children, and to retain retaliatory strike capability against Britain. Therefore the Germans’ action on the Dutch was defensive and wholly forced by the Allies. This was merely a deferral to the principle of force majeure against a coalition which proved, time and again, to lack any moral restraint expected of Christian men. But Germany – the least culpable entity involved – was alone attributed the blame. -- source

Contrary to Allied propaganda, it was Germany who maintained the international law when other states would not. Germany stood up to the warring aggressor which had sanctioned and conducted the systematized murder of some 58,000 ethnic Germans in the Danzig corridor alone, whereas the Allies colluded with and protected the criminals. -- source

Unfortunately, the Red Cross not only did not help the suffering Jews, but it played into Nazi hands as well. The Red Cross did inspect a camp, the so-called model camp, Theresienstadt. Satisfied with a superficial look at the orchestra, the children's facilities and spruced-up barracks, Red Cross inspectors gave their blessing to an artifice. This helped perpetuate the German charade by discrediting the accurate reports trickling in about concentration camp horrors. -- source

The Red Cross has long acknowledged its awareness of the treatment of Jews during World War II, maintaining that if it had disclosed what it knew, it would have lost its ability to inspect prisoner of war camps on both sides of the front. -- source

During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:

"When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other 'Slav submen' POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin's own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot]."

Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:

"Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners' postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: 'There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans'."

Given this situation, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh. Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity. Of the 91,000 German troops captured in the Battle of Stalingrad, fewer than 6,000 ever returned to Germany. -- source

... whether this was a genuine attempt on the Fuehrer's life, or just another "stunt" to increase his popularity, we may never know.

However, this tu quoque argument was raised by the defense redundantly at trial:

Jackson: “Well, those preparations were preparations for armed occupation of the Rhineland, were they not?”

Goering: “No, that is altogether wrong. If Germany had become involved in a war, no matter from which side, let us assume from the east, then mobilization measures would have had to be carried out for security reasons throughout the Reich in this event, even in the demilitarized Rhineland; but not for the purpose of occupation, of liberating the Rhineland.”

Jackson: “You mean the preparations were not military preparations?”

Goering: “Those were general preparations for mobilization, such as any country makes, and not for the purpose of the occupation of the Rhineland.”

Jackson: “But were of a character which had to be kept entirely secret from foreign powers?”

Goering: “I do not think I can recall reading beforehand the publication of the mobilization preparations of the United States.”

This exchange stirred a chorus of laughter throughout the court, flustering Jackson visibly. Knowing that the Reichsmarschall had laid bare the farce of the trial with one casual retort, the chief prosecutor continued on, stammering in frustrated embarrassment:

“Well, I respectfully submit to the tribunal that this witness is not being responsive, and has not been in his examination!”

As the low laughter in the court continued, Jackson’s embarrassment gave way to rage:

“. . . this witness, it seems to me, is adopting, and has adopted, in the witness box and in the dock, an arrogant and contemptuous attitude toward the tribunal which is giving him the trial which he never gave a living soul, or dead ones either!”

Popular retrospectives such as the docudrama, Nuremberg: Nazis on Trial, actually attempt to portray this parley and the resultant outburst by Jackson as somehow vindicating the Allies. But consider what actually transpired in that exchange: because Goering dared make obvious the one-sided unlawfulness of the trial and its premises, the prosecution let slip the pretenses of lawful procedure and simply denied that the defendant had any right to a trial at all. As far as Jackson was concerned, Goering’s daring to defend himself upon bulwarks of Christian procedure was all the reason the tribunal needed to lay aside consideration of that defense. Reminding the court of the overt injustice that the prosecution would accuse German officials of crimes not applicable in principle to the Allied powers evoked not the expected dismissal of charges, but just the opposite – rage and categorical condemnation. Imagine being in the defendant’s shoes just then: after having proven the hypocrisy and irrationality of the accusation, utterly confounding the narrative of his accusers, and reducing the prosecution to stammering tantrums, he was only condemned the more. Any facade of legality was completely shattered. Goering was staring into nothing but blind hatred and murderous vengeance absent any semblance of genuine justice. -- source