Orderly and Humane?: World War II as the 'Good War'
... The 1939-45
conflict is still wreathed in delusions, delusions often employed to try to justify modern wars which are
alleged to have comparably 'good' aims. The belief in its goodness
is in fact ludicrous. Our main ally (rejected at the beginning
with lofty scorn, embraced later with desperate, insincere enthusiasm) was one of the most murderous
tyrants in human history ...
immediately after the war, as I have discussed here, we employed methods which would have disgusted our
forebears and which ought to disgust us, but which were so frightful
still lie to ourselves about
them, or hide them from our consciousness.
The Soviet Union Conspired to Foment World War II and Infiltrate
the U.S. Government
Click on this text to examine THE TRUTH ABOUT GERMANY AND THE WORLD WARS THAT THE JEWS DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW:
TELLS THE TRUTH
The Lies About World War II
Paul Craig Roberts
aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has no one to speak for it.
Historians on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that demonized
the enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors.
People want to enjoy and feel
good about their victory,
not learn that their side was responsible for the war or that the war
could have been avoided except for the hidden agendas of their own leaders. Historians are
also constrained by the unavailability of information. To hide mistakes, corruption, and crimes,
governments lock up documents for decades. Memoirs
of participants are not yet written.
lost or withheld from fear of retribution. It is expensive and time consuming to
locate witnesses, especially those on the losing side, and to convince them to answer questions.
Any account that challenges the “happy account” requires
a great deal of confirmation from
official documents, interviews,
letters, diaries, and memoirs, and even that won’t be enough.
For the history of World War II in Europe, these documents can be spread from New Zealand
and Australia across Canada and the US through Great Britain and Europe and into Russia.
A historian on the track of the truth faces long years
of strenuous investigation and development
of the acumen
to judge and assimilate the evidence he uncovers into a truthful picture of what
transpired. The truth is always immensely different from the victor’s war propaganda.
As I reported recently, Harry Elmer Barnes was the first American
historian to provide a
history of the first world
war that was based on primary sources. His truthful account differed
so substantially from the war propaganda that he was called every name in the book.
Truth is seldom
welcomed. David Irving, without any doubt the best historian of the European
part of World War II, learned at his great expense that challenging myths does not go unpunished.
Nevertheless, Irving persevered. If you want to escape from the lies
about World War II that
still direct our disastrous course,
you only need to study two books by David Irving: Hitler’s War
and the first volume of his Churchill biography, Churchill’s War: The Struggle for Power .
Irving is the historian who spent decades tracking down diaries, survivors, and demanding
release of official documents. He is the historian who found the Rommel diary and Goebbles’
diaries, the historian who gained entry into the Soviet archives, and so
on. He is familiar with
more actual facts about the
second world war than the rest of the historians combined. The
famous British military historian, Sir John Keegan, wrote in the Times Literary Supplement:
“Two books stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War:
The Struggle for Europe,
published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War.
Despite many such accolades, today Irving is demonized and has to publish his own books.
I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the
You simply cannot say anything that alters
their propagandistic picture of history.
In what follows,
I am going to present what is my impression from reading these two magisterial
works. Irving himself is very scant on opinions. He only provides the facts from official documents,
recorded intercepts, diaries, letters and interviews.
World War II was Churchill’s War, not
Hitler’s war. Irving provides documented facts from
which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion. Churchill got his war, for which he longed,
because of the Versailles Treaty that stripped Germany of German territory and unjustly
and irresponsibly imposed humiliation on Germany.
Hitler and Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German
Workers’ Party) are the most demonized entities in
history. Any person who finds any
good in Hitler or Germany
is instantly demonized. The person becomes an outcast
of the facts. Irving is very much aware of this. Every time his factual account
of Hitler starts to display a person too much different from the demonized image, Irving
throws in some negative language about Hitler.
Similarly for Winston Churchill. Every time Irving’s factual account displays a person
quite different from the worshiped icon, Irving throws in some appreciative
This is what a historian has to do to survive telling the truth.
To be clear, in what follows, I am merely reporting what seems to me to be the conclusion
from the documented facts presented in these two works of scholarship.
I am merely
reporting what I understand Irving’s
research to have established. You read the books
arrive at your own conclusion.
World War II was initiated
by the British and French declaration of war on Germany,
by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. The utter rout and collapse of the British
and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was
unprepared to fight and of the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who
quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany’s mercy.
Germany’s mercy was substantial. Hitler
left a large part of France and the French colonies
unoccupied and secure from war under a semi-independent government under Petain.
For his service in protecting a semblance of French independence, Petain was sentenced
to death by Charles de Gaulle after the war for collaboration with Germany,
an unjust charge.
In Britain, Churchill
was out of power. He figured a war would put him back in power.
No Britisher could match Churchill’s rhetoric and orations. Or determination. Churchill
desired power, and he wanted to reproduce the amazing military feats of his
ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, whose
biography Churchill was writing and who
years of military struggle France’s powerful Sun King, Louis XIV, the ruler of Europe.
In contrast to the British aristocrat, Hitler was a man of the people. He acted
for the German
people. The Versailles Treaty had dismembered
Germany. Parts of Germany were confiscated
and given to
France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. As Germany had not
actually lost the war, being the occupiers of foreign territory when Germany agreed to a
deceptive armistice, the loss of approximately 7 million German people to Poland and
Czechoslovakia, where Germans were abused, was not considered a fair outcome.
Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together again.
He succeeded without war until
it came to Poland. Hitler’s
demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the
Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure on British prime minister Chamberlain
that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British guarantee
to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German
territory and populations.
had no way of making good on the guarantee, but the Polish military dictatorship
lacked the intelligence to realize that. Consequently, the Polish Dictatorship refused Germany’s request.
From this mistake of Chamberlain and the stupid Polish dictatorship,
came the Ribbentrop/Molotov
agreement that Germany and
the Soviet Union would split Poland between themselves.
Hitler attacked Poland, Britain and the hapless French declared war on Germany
because of the unenforceable British guarantee. But the British and French were careful
not to declare war on the Soviet Union for occupying the eastern half of Poland.
Thus Britain was responsible for World War II, first by stupidly interfering
negotiations, and second by declaring
war on Germany.
was focused on war with Germany, which he intended for years preceding the war.
But Hitler didn’t want any war with Britain or with France, and never intended to invade
The invasion threat was a chimera conjured up by
Churchill to unite England behind him.
his view that the British Empire was essential for order in the world, and
that in its absence Europeans would lose their world supremacy. After Germany’s rout
of the French and British armies, Hitler offered an extraordinarily generous
peace to Britain.
He said he wanted nothing from Britain
but the return of Germany’s colonies.
the German military to the defense of the British Empire, and said he would
reconstitute both Polish and Czech states and leave them to their own discretion. He told
his associates that defeat of the British Empire would do nothing for Germany
and everything for
Bolshevik Russia and Japan.
Winston Churchill kept Hitler’s peace offers as secret as he
could and succeeded in his
efforts to block any peace.
Churchill wanted war, largely it appears, for his own glory.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt slyly encouraged Churchill in his war but without
commitment in Britain’s behalf. Roosevelt
knew that the war would achieve his own aim
Britain and destroying the British Empire, and that the US dollar would
inherit the powerful position from the British pound of being the world’s reserve currency.
Once Churchill had trapped Britain in a war she could not win on her own,
doling out bits of aid in exchange for extremely
high prices—for example, 60 outdated
useless US destroyers for British naval bases in the Atlantic. FDR delayed
Lend-Lease until desperate Britain had turned over $22,000 million of British gold plus
$42 million in gold Britain had in South Africa. Then began the forced sell-off of British
overseas investments. For example, the British-owned
Viscose Company, which was
worth $125 million in 1940 dollars,
had no debts and held $40 million in government bonds,
was sold to the House of Morgan for $37 million. It was such an act of thievery that the
British eventually got about two-thirds of the company’s value to hand over to Washington
in payment for war munitions. American aid was also “conditional on
the system of Imperial preference anchored
in the Ottawa agreement of 1932.” For
Hull, American aid was “a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire.” Churchill
saw it coming, but he was too far in to do anything but plead with FDR: It would be wrong,
Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, if “Great Britain
were to be divested of all saleable assets
so that after
the victory was won with our blood, civilization saved, and the time gained
for the United States to be fully armed against all eventualities, we should stand stripped
to the bone.”
long essay could be written about how Roosevelt stripped Britain of her assets and
world power. Irving writes that in an era of gangster statesmen, Churchill was not in
Roosevelt’s league. The survival of the British Empire was not a priority for FDR. He
regarded Churchill as a pushover—unreliable and drunk
most of the time. Irving reports
that FDR’s policy
was to pay out just enough to give Churchill “the kind of support a
rope gives a hanging man.” Roosevelt pursued “his subversion of the Empire throughout
the war.” Eventually Churchill realized that Washington was
at war with Britain more
fiercely than was Hitler.
The great irony was that Hitler had offered Churchill peace and
the survival of the Empire. When it was too late, Churchill came to Hitler’s conclusion that
the conflict with Germany was a “most unnecessary” war. Pat
Buchanan sees it that way also.
Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas
of British cities. It was Churchill who initiated
this war crime, later emulated by the Americans. Churchill kept the British bombing of
German civilians secret from the British people and worked to prevent Red Cross monitoring
of air raids so no one would learn he was bombing civilian residential areas,
not war production.
The purpose of Churchill’s bombing—first
incendiary bombs to set everything afire and then
explosives to prevent firefighters from controlling the blazes—was to provoke a German
attack on London, which Churchill reckoned would bind the British people to him and create
sympathy in the US for Britain that would help Churchill pull America into
the war. One
British raid murdered 50,000 people
in Hamburg, and a subsequent attack on Hamburg
civilian deaths. Churchill also ordered that poison gas be added to the
firebombing of German civilian residential areas and that Rome be bombed into ashes.
The British Air Force refused both orders. At the very end of the war the British and
Americans destroyed the beautiful baroque city of Dresden, burning and suffocating
100,000 people in the attack. After months of firebombing
attacks on Germany, including
Berlin, Hitler gave in to
his generals and replied in kind. Churchill succeeded.
story became “the London Blitz,” not the British blitz of Germany.
Like Hitler in Germany, Churchill took over the direction of the war. He functioned more
as a dictator who ignored the armed services than as a prime minister advised
country’s military leaders. Both leaders
might have been correct in their assessment
of their commanding
officers, but Hitler was a much better war strategist than Churchill,
for whom nothing ever worked. To Churchill’s WW I Gallipoli misadventure was now
added the introduction of British troops into Norway, Greece, Crete, Syria—all ridiculous
decisions and failures—and the Dakar fiasco. Churchill also
turned on the French,
destroying the French fleet and lives
of 1,600 French sailors because of his personal
that Hitler would violate his treaty with the French and seize the fleet.
Any one of these Churchillian mishaps could have resulted in a no confidence vote, but
with Chamberlain and Halifax out of the way there was no alternative leadership. Indeed,
the lack of leadership is the reason neither the cabinet nor the military
could stand up to
Churchill, a person of iron determination.
Hitler also was a person of iron determination, and he wore out both
himself and Germany
with his determination. He never wanted
war with England and France. This was Churchill’s
doing, not Hitler’s. Like Churchill, who had the British people behind him, Hitler had the
German people behind him, because he stood for Germany and had reconstructed
from the rape and ruin of the Versailles Treaty.
But Hitler, not an aristocrat like Churchill,
but of low
and ordinary origins, never had the loyalty of many of the aristocratic Prussian
military officers, those with “von” before their name. He was afflicted with traitors in the
Abwehr, his military intelligence, including its director, Adm. Canaris.
On the Russian front
in the final year, Hitler was betrayed
by generals who opened avenues for the Russians into
Hitler’s worst mistakes were
his alliance with Italy and his decision to invade Russia. He
was also mistaken to let the British go at Dunkirk. He let them go because he did not want
to ruin the chance for ending the war by humiliating the British by the loss of their entire
But with Churchill there was no chance for
peace. By not destroying the British army, Hitler
Churchill who turned the evacuation into British heroics that sustained the willingness
to fight on.
It is unclear why Hitler invaded Russia. One possible reason is poor or intentionally
deceptive information from the Abwehr on Russian military capability. Hitler later said
to his associates that he never would have invaded if he had known of the
size of the Russian army and the extraordinary
capability of the Soviets to produce
tanks and aircraft.
Some historians have concluded that the reason Hitler invaded
was that he concluded that the British would not agree to end the war because
they expected Russia to enter the war on Britain’s side. Therefore, Hitler decided to
foreclose that possibility by conquering Russia. A Russian has written
attacked because Stalin was preparing to attack
Germany. Stalin did have considerable
forces far forward,
but It would make more sense for Stalin to wait until the West
itself in mutual bloodletting, step in afterwards and scoop it all up if he wanted.
Or perhaps Stalin was positioning to occupy part of Eastern Europe in order to put more
buffer between the Soviet Union and Germany.
Whatever the reason for the invasion, what defeated Hitler was the earliest Russian
winter in 30 years. It stopped everything in its tracks before the well planned and
succeeding encirclement could be completed. The harsh winter that immobilized
Germans gave Stalin time to recover.
Because of Hitler’s alliance with Mussolini, who lacked an effective
resources needed on the Russian front were
twice drained off in order to rescue Italy.
of Mussolini’s misadventures, Hitler had to drain troops, tanks, and air planes
from the Russian invasion to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa and to occupy
Crete. Hitler made this mistake out of loyalty to Mussolini. Later
in the war when
Russian counterattacks were pushing the
Germans out of Russia, Hitler had to divert
resources to rescue Mussolini from arrest and to occupy Italy to prevent
her surrender. Germany simply lacked the manpower and military resources to fight
on a 1,000 mile front in Russia, and also in Greece and North Africa, occupy part of
France, and man defenses against a US/British invasion of Normandy and Italy.
The German Army was a magnificent fighting force, but it was overwhelmed
by too many
fronts, too little equipment, and careless
communications. The Germans never caught
much evidence that the British could read their encryption. Thus, efforts to
supply Rommel in North Africa were prevented by the British navy.
Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the
massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence
the holocaust of Jewish people was different from
the official Zionist story.
No German plans,
or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever
been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews. This is
extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have
required massive organization, budgets and resources. What documents do
is Hitler’s plan to relocate European Jews to
Madagascar after the war’s end.
With the early
success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending
the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that
Hitler was going to leave to Stalin. There are documented orders given by Hitler
preventing massacres of Jews. Hitler said over and over that “the
would be settled after the
It seems that most of the massacres of Jews
were committed by German political
administrators of occupied
territories in the east to whom Jews from Germany and
were sent for relocation. Instead of dealing with the inconvenience, some of
the administrators lined them up and shot them into open trenches. Other Jews fell
victim to the anger of Russian villagers who had long suffered under Jewish Bolshevik
The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a
Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory.
Germany was desperate for a work force. A significant percentage of
war production labor had been released to the Army
to fill the holes in German
lines on the Russian front.
War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a
refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported
after war’s end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany
desperately needed whatever work force it could get.
Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations
but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases.
Refugees were from all over, and they brought diseases and germs with them.
The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead bodies
that are said to be evidence
of organized extermination
of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and
starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of
medicines and food for labor camps. The great noble Western victors themselves
bombed the labor camps and contributed to the deaths of inmates.
The two books on which I have reported total 1,663 pages, and there are two more
volumes of the Churchill biography. This massive, documented historical
seemed likely to pass into the Memory Hole as
it is inconsistent with both the
the West and the human capital of court historians. The facts
are too costly to be known. But historians have started adding to their own accounts
the information uncovered by Irving. It takes a brave historian to praise him, but they can
cite him and plagiarize him.
It is amazing how much power Zionists have gotten from the Holocaust. Norman
Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry. There is ample
evidence that Jews along
with many others suffered, but
Zionists insist that it was an unique experience limited to Jews.
In his Introduction to Hitler’s War Irving reports that despite the widespread sales
his book, the initial praise from accomplished historians
and the fact that the book
was required reading at military
academies from Sandhurst to West Point, “I have
my home smashed into by thugs, my family terrorized, my name smeared, my
printers [publishers] firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by tiny, democratic
Austria—an illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were
punished; at the behest of disaffected academics and influential
in subsequent years, I was deported
from Canada (in 1992), and refused entry to
New Zealand, Italy, South Africa and other civilized countries around he
world. Internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this
book to be taken off their shelves.”
So much for free thought and truth in the Western world. Nothing is so little regarded
in the West as free thought, free expression, and truth. In the West
controlled in order to advance the agendas
of the ruling interest groups. As David Irving
woe to anyone who gets in the way.
The Eastern Front: The Soviet-German War
... In the United States, Britain, and other Western countries, there has been much self-congratulation
about how "we" won the Second World War. Yet, it was on the Eastern Front that the outcome of the war was decided.
Had the best of Hitler's forces not been fighting the Soviets, it is unlikely that there would have been any Allied victory
in 1945, or anytime foreseeable thereafter ... The Soviet Union proved to be a far more resilient opponent than predicted
... Even through the last weeks of the war, German regular troops and officers were, on average, superior to their opponents
in the East and the West. The Wehrmacht was simply overwhelmed by the forces of the Soviet Union and her Western Allies.
The Eastern Front: Memoirs of a Waffen SS Volunteer
A gripping first-person memoir of soldierly sacrifice, heroism and fierce combat against
Soviet forces during World War II, by a charismatic Belgian writer and
politician turned front-line infantryman.
New, revised IHR edition, with index and photos.
Here is the epic story of the Walloon Legion, a volunteer Belgian unit
of the World War II
pan-European SS force, as told - in absorbing prose -- by the legendary Degrelle. Captures
the grit, terror and
glory of Europe's crusade against Communism.
(Also available from the IHR in both hardcover and paperback editions.)
Time to Face the Truth About World War II
... Stalin knew that Germany's invasion of Poland would cause Britain and France
to declare war on Germany. Stalin
to pick up the pieces after Germany, Britain and France had exhausted themselves and were ripe for invasion
and Communist revolution ... Soviet propaganda later tried to
cover up Stalin's plan to attack Europe, claiming his forces
were outmoded and unprepared, and generals incompetent ... But, contends Suvorov, had Hitler not
attacked first in 1941,
man army, backed by mammoth industrial production, would have overwhelmed all of Europe in a 1941
surprise blitz. Suvorov's unstated conclusion: Hitler saved Western
Europe from Stalin ... Hitler, in his own warped thinking,
believed he was actually doing good for mankind. Stalin had no such illusions. His only interest
was raw power.
Exposing Stalin's Plan to Conquer Europe
... Thus, when German forces struck [the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941], the bulk of Red ground and air forces
concentrated along the Soviet western
borders facing contiguous European countries, especially the German Reich
and Romania, in final readiness for an assault on Europe. In his second book on the
origins of the war, "M Day"
"Mobilization Day"), Suvorov details how, between late 1939 and the summer of 1941, Stalin methodically and
systematically built up the best armed,
most powerful military force in the world -- actually the world's first superpower --
for his planned conquest of Europe. Suvorov explains how Stalin's drastic conversion
of the country's economy for war actually made war inevitable.
War II German 'Eastern Campaign' Song
Finland to the Black Sea" is a stirring wartime song that was commissioned for the military campaign by Germany
and allied nations against the Soviet Union. Also known as the
"Russia Song" and "Forwards to the East," it was first
broadcast in June 1941 a few days after the beginning of "Operation Barbarossa," the
greatest military strike in history.
Composed by Norbert Schultze, it was commissioned by Reich Minister Goebbels.
Color footage of combat accompanies the music. Runtime: 4:12 mins.
A Straight Look at the Second World War
By Willis A. Carto.
WHAT FOLLOWS IS AN ATTEMPT to set the historical record
straight, without influence from
the powers that be. By this phrase, I
do not exclude the influence and power of organized Jewry,
which is heavily involved
in the sad history of the Aryan West. Further, I believe that liberals who
do not recognize this influence are a part, knowing it or not, of the cosmopolitan array dedicated to
exterminating our race forever.(1)
It is now 67 years after the holocaust
known as World War II. Perhaps it is time to look
at it truthfully. America
is in big trouble. The unpayable national debt is only a small
part of it.
Fact is, the white world is in big trouble. Not only America, but Europe—the
homeland of the white race—is facing mortal danger. It’s life or death for the white
race—the race that for all its faults created Western civilization.(2)
The so-called victors of World War II
won that costly struggle for the survival of Stalinist
Russia and killed the
very movement in Europe that was specifically dedicated
to—and was accomplishing—the
destruction of Communist Russia—the National Socialist
movement created and
led by Adolf Hitler.
Worse, the Allies—Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin then proceeded
to perpetrate crimes
upon the survivors unparalleled in Europe since Genghis
Khan. Probably 3 million innocent
Europeans perished from torture, murder,
exposure and starvation after the hostilities ended.(3)
These atrocities were directed by the Allied supreme commander,
a protégé of financier Bernard Baruch,(4)
known at the time as “king of the Jews.” It
was Baruch who influenced
Roosevelt to promote Eisenhower, a desk bureaucrat
who had never seen combat,
over the heads of 1,109 officers superior to him in
and seniority to take supreme command of the hostilities.
Ike’s superior was
in fact not FDR but the “king of the Jews.”
At least 55 million people were killed in Europe in this
war, not counting at least
60 million who were killed by the Communists for
political or racial reasons in the
Soviet Union before and during WWII.
This number includes the gifted and handsome
Russian aristocracy. Of these martyrs,
almost all were non-Jewish Aryan.(5)
The Allied supreme commander, Eisenhower, illegally crowded a million captured
German soldiers into open fields surrounded by barbwire in subfreezing weather.
Without shelter, without food, without even toilet facilities, they died in misery.
Civilians who tried to feed them were shot, on direct orders from Ike.
Of course, Wehrmacht soldiers who surrendered to the Russians fared as badly—
most died in Siberia or were tortured. The Soviet Union never signed the Geneva
Conventions. See Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago.
James Bacque, in his Other Losses, documents this horror with the appalling facts.
prejudiced against Germans—cannot deny what happened
in his After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation. Dr. Austin App has written more than
one short booklet about
American atrocities visited upon helpless German civilians.
(See bibliography at
end of article.)
Edward L. van Roden served in World War II as chief of
the Military Justice Division
for the European theater. Van Roden was
appointed in 1948 to an extraordinary commission
charged with investigating
the claims of abuse during U.S. trials in Germany. Here is an
what van Roden wrote:
American investigators at the U.S. court in Dachau, Germany used the following
methods to obtain confessions: Beatings and brutal kickings. Knocking out teeth
and breaking jaws. Mock trials. Solitary confinement. Posturing as priests. Very
limited rations. Spiritual deprivation. Promises of acquittal…. We won the war,
but some of us want to go on killing. That seems to me wicked…. The American
prohibition of hearsay evidence had been suspended. Second-and third-hand testimony
Lt. Perl of the prosecution pleaded that it was difficult to obtain complete evidence.
Perl told the court. “We had a tough case to crack, and we had to use persuasive
methods.” He admitted to the court that the persuasive methods included various
“expedients including some violence and mock trials.” He further told the court that
the cases rested on statements obtained by such methods.
The statements which were admitted as
evidence were obtained from men who had
first been kept in solitary confinement
for three, four and five months. They were
confined between four walls, with
no windows and no opportunity of exercise. Two
meals a day were shoved
in to them through a slot in the door. They were not allowed
to talk to anyone. They
had no communication with their families or any minister or priest
Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused’s head and then punch him
in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses. Many
of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken.
but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in
the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with American
investigators. Perl admitted use of mock trials and persuasive methods including
violence and said the court was free to decide the weight to be attached to evidence
thus received. But it all went in.
One 18-year-old defendant, after a series of beatings, was writing a statement being
dictated to him. When they reached the 16th page, the boy was locked up for the night.
In the early morning, Germans in nearby cells heard him muttering: “I will not utter
another lie.” When the jailer came in later to get him to finish his false statement,
he found the German hanging from a cell bar, dead. However, the statement that
the German had hanged himself to escape signing was offered and received in
in the trial of the others.
One of the most remarkable persons in European history
was born in the small town
of Linz, Austria, on April 20, 1889. From boyhood
his friends knew that he was
special. His closest friend was August
Kubizek, whose book The Young Hitler I Knew is a
fount of information concerning this person, and it is
highly recommended for
Kubizek relates incidents where Hitler
would—as if seeing visions—tell his friend
how he intended to rebuild
Linz and his architectural plans for the entire area.
Art was Hitler’s chosen calling and he supported himself before World War I in
Vienna by selling his. A Texan, Billy Price, has published a book containing about
a thousand of these interesting pencil sketches and watercolors.
Many of Hitler’s attributes are
acknowledged, such as his incredible memory, his
physical courage, his
speaking ability, his ability to charm persons on a
one-on-one basis and his
What writers who are unfriendly do not wish to recognize, however, are his profound and
detailed knowledge of history and historical personalities, his strong sense of fairness,
his pronounced interest in art and architecture, his talent as a first-class military strategist,
his idealism and his justified determination to redress the punitive Versailles
had crippled Germany after World War I.
In 1919, with the outbreak
of war, Hitler enlisted in the German army and by so doing
made the political statement
that he detested the Austrian royal leadership and considered
military record is outstanding. This was before tactical commanders could use
telephone or radio to issue orders or otherwise communicate to coordinate the army’s
units. To get messages from commanders to commander required a soldier of
dependability and courage. Hitler volunteered for this job and went
every major battle during that harrowing period, repeatedly going through
the worst of the fighting. He was gassed in 1914 and wounded in the leg in 1916.
These battles includeYpres (Oct. 14-17, 1914), Neure Chapelle (March 10-13, 1915),
Arras (April 9 June 16, 1917), Passchendalle (July-Nov., 1917) and Somme (Oct. 1916).
In contrast, neither Roosevelt nor Churchill
ever served a day in combat. Churchill
was a newspaper reporter and was captured
in South Africa in 1899 by Boers, but all
he did was to hold up his arms and
After the war, the British blockaded Germany in order to starve to death as many
Germans as possible. Realizing that only leadership could meet this mortal crisis,
Hitler looked around for a political movement, a movement with capable leadership
that he could support .After considerable effort, he found a fledgling party, the
National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche
NSDAP). He joined as member No. 7. Meanwhile, at least 763,000
purposefully starved to death.
Soon, he discovered that he had a talent for public speaking and political leadership.
The subsequent story of the growth of the NSDAP is fantastic. Before long, meetings
at which Hitler spoke were attended by thousands. Communists—who were well
organized—tried to break up the meetings and the outdoor rallies using brutal
violence but the NS membership was always ready for these tactics and, in
defending their right to exist, developed their own street army, the Sturmabteilung (SA).
Many German workingmen who had been beguiled
by the well-financed Communists
gravitated to the NSDAP with its strong
message of nationalism and patriotism.
Britain’s traditional policy regarding the continent was “balance of power,” meaning
that it would support the weaker nation or coalition on the mainland and play off
the power combines against each other, thus freeing Britain to further aggrandize
itself on the 17/20ths of the globe it then controlled.
In spite of these facts, Hitler had no
animus against Britain, and he made it clear
in his Mein Kampf as well as in many speeches and in his
foreign policy that he
wanted peace with this nation, whose Anglo-Saxon and
Keltic peoples were so
closely related to Germans. Let the British rule their
empire on which the Sun
never set and give him a free hand on the continent
so that he could turn his
attention to the vital job of keeping the Soviet
Union at bay. Hitler knew that
Stalin’s strategy was to conquer
Europe (including the British Isles) and add it
to the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics (USSR). Hitler was far too smart to
entertain any idea of
“conquering the world.” His motives, in other words, were good.
Hitler wanted peace, but his sin was that
he recognized the corrosive, destructive
influence of the Rothschild-Zionist-Jewish
presence in Europe and tried to do
something about it. In their eyes, this
was intolerable, and the British declaration
of war against Germany on Sept. 3,
1939 was the answer to the perceived problem.
Today there are few if any historians who do not agree that the Versailles
imposed on Germany after World War I was extremely one-sided and practically
guaranteed another war.
Following its traditional policy, on Sept.
3, 1939, England allied itself with Communist
Russia and declared war on a Germany
that did everything possible to avoid
hostilities. Rothschild-Jewish pressure
on England was irresistible. And while
Roosevelt was promising America over and
over again in his fireside chats,
“I say to you again and again and
again that your boys will not be sent to a foreign war,”
he was scheming
with Churchill to do precisely that.
Before the war, Jewish organizations—supported by the international press—screamed
that Hitler was exterminating Jews by the millions. This is exactly what the Jews
claimed during World War I, and they used the same number then: 6 million.
[See The First Holocaust by
Of course, this was a blatant lie. True, Hitler imprisoned some minorities who were
opposed to his policies, including Communists and religious zealots, to avoid
sabotage of the German war effort, exactly as FDR imprisoned the Japanese in
across the United States.
The Big Lie of the so-called “Holocaust” has netted Jews not only billions of
dollars in U.S. and German coin but additional billions in German goods, such
as highly advanced submarines and weapons, not to mention a very valuable
of real estate in Palestine plus the tearful sympathy of American and European
media and politicians.
GERMAN WAR AIMS
Hitler’s war aims were to defend Germany from England’s (and later, America’s)
invasion and to exterminate Soviet Communism. He and the German foreign minister,
von Ribbentrop, made every conceivable diplomatic effort to placate England, Hitler
finally resorting to sending his deputy Rudolf Hess as a last-ditch effort for peace
in the West. When Hess arrived in Britain in May 1941, Churchill refused to see
him. Hess was locked up for the rest of the war and the rest of his life. Failing
to die naturally, he was murdered by a British assassin in his cell in 1987 at
Spandau Prison at the age of 92.
FDR WANTED WAR
Why would America enter the European war when no interests of the country
remotely threatened? The simple answer is that the Roosevelt administration
was heavily laden with Jews, as has been documented by Elizabeth Dilling in
books and newsletters of 1934 and later. And Roosevelt was guaranteed a third
and fourth term.
Mrs. Dilling, a concert-level harpist, mother and socialite
in Chicago, traveled to
Russia in 1931 to see the great Communist experiment
for herself. Deeply shocked
by what she saw, and the conditions the
people had to endure, she dedicated her
life to exposing Communism, especially
its influence in America. In 1936 she
wrote The Roosevelt Red Record and Its Background, and in it listed
over 100 extreme
liberals/Communists in the Roosevelt administration,
most of them Jewish.
Numerous times Hitler warned Britain that entering the hostilities would bankrupt
England and cost it its empire. Hitler regarded the British Empire, like the
Catholic Church, as an element of world stability. His words were lost in the
cacophony for war. The Britons Oswald Moseley, John Amery, Arnold
others made similar arguments directly to the British people.
Hitler’s far-seeing strategy was anathema to the
lords of England as well as to
the powerful Rothschild-Jewish entity
that ruled the Bank of England and its
separate enclave, the City of London, which
most definitely is not that big
metropolis on the Thames River but another
entity entirely—the financial hub
of the Rothschild world empire.
Meanwhile, for the most
part, the American media was conditioning the public for
war, to the extent of
telling gullible taxpayers to draw their window shades at
night so as to not permit
light from the lights inside their houses to be seen and
so guide Nazi bombers
to them. Yes, we had blackouts in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Fort Wayne was 4,000 miles from Germany, making a round
trip of 8,000
miles—a feat impossible for any airplane of the
day. But what citizen would
bother to dispute the facts reported in
their daily paper? Would the “free press”
lie so blatantly?
A NATION OF SUCKERS
Unfortunately, white Americans have a
messianic complex and publicists can
easily manipulate them into spending billions
for crusades for everlasting peace
if they support an internationalist foreign
policy, so profitable for the war makers.
Who wants to be called an isolationist?
Thus, today we have troops in 135
countries around the globe interfering
in the domestic affairs of people
who wish to be left alone. This is worse
than useless; it sows seeds of mistrust
and hatred and manufactures terrorists
and more war. But it also feeds the
profits of corporations that manufacture
tanks, guns, planes, ships and other
war materiel. Bankers love war and debt
financing, and war pays the salaries
of thousands of bureaucrats who work
in the Pentagon and offices around the globe.
There are at least 8,000 bureaucrats employed in the Pentagon. Many drive
200 miles each day to and from work. While the rest of America wallows in
unemployment and recession, the Washington, D.C. area is prosperous.
War and debt mean prosperity for millions, no matter that our bipartisan foreign
policy is programmed for defeat and national bankruptcy.
ROOSEVELT’S MASTER PLAN
FDR wanted a third and
then a fourth term, and he knew the only way this could
be accomplished would
be to get America into war. As stated, with Churchill, he
plotted exactly that.
Tyler Kent, an American
citizen, was a code clerk stationed in London. He
between Churchill and Roosevelt and was very
alarmed, seeing that the two were
plotting war. He kept copies, planning to
give them to senators, such as Burton
K. Wheeler, who were leaders in the
effort to keep America out of war. His
plan was discovered, and he was
arrested by Churchill’s orders and
illegally kept in a British jail without trial
for the duration of the
war. Nothing could be permitted to stand in the way of war.
Knowing that Hitler had no intention of attacking the U.S.
or even England,
Roosevelt adopted a devilish scheme: He would take “the
back door to war”
(the title of Dr. Charles Callan Tansill’s
magnum opus) and get the Japanese to attack the U.S.
Japan needed oil, and the closest was in the South Pacific.
FDR knew that
was the pressure point to bend Japan to his will—to
leave no other option to
Japan but to attack the United States.
which Churchill was totally familiar—worked. Roosevelt
knew that the Japanese
would do almost anything to avoid war with the U.S.
because American code
breakers were monitoring all of Japan’s secret
Tokyo and their diplomats. Through its Ambassador
Kichisaburo Nomura, Prince
Konoye and Minister of Foreign Affairs Yosuke
Matsuoka, Japan made every effort
to ensure friendly relations with the U.S.
FDR knew well in advance that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor,
and he cheerfully sacrificed the lives of 3,000 men, four battleships and much
more, including the reputations of Adm. Husband Kimmel and Gen. Walter Short,
he criminally blamed for the attack, permitting his treason to go unknown
and unpunished. As Roosevelt said, Dec. 7, 1941 is indeed “a day which will live
infamy”—Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s infamous treason.
Roosevelt knew that the American people
were overwhelmingly opposed
to war. His plan was not merely a contemptuous
repudiation of the electorate,
but done with full knowledge that the
war would cost millions of American,
German and other lives. But his unnatural
lust for a third term seized him.
His partner in this crime was Winston Churchill, prime minister of Great Britain.
In his sober moments, which were very few, Churchill was a master of words.
Churchill loved war and killing for the sport of it.
By 1938, when he was 64 years old, Churchill had so lived
beyond his means
that his creditors prepared to foreclose on him. He was
faced with the prospect
of the forced sale of his luxurious country estate,
At this hour of crisis a dark and mysterious figure entered Churchill’s life. He
was Henry Strakosch, a multimillionaire Jew who had acquired a fortune
in South African mining ventures after his family had migrated
to that country
from eastern Austria. Strakosch stepped forward and advanced
Churchill a loan of 150,000
pounds sterling just in time to save his estate from
the auctioneer. In the
years that followed, Strakosch served as Churchill’s
adviser and confidant
but miraculously managed to avoid the spotlight of
publicity, which thenceforth
illuminated Churchill’s again-rising political career.
It must be said that hard thought was never Churchill’s
forte because he was
always either drunk or nearly so. Alcoholism was not
the only eccentric
characteristic of this strange man, who would often greet
visitors stark naked.
But Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin were the warlords
of World War II,
and to them must go the primary responsibility for the
disaster in the history of Europe and the white
Every time he was told that German bombers were en route, and even though
he initiated the policy of bombing civilians, a policy Hitler abhorred, Churchill fled
London. The two leaders were both manifestly unfit for power.
FDR was sick in body and mind, and Churchill was a sot.
British and American bombers carpeted German cities with
millions of explosives
and incendiary bombs. They made little effort
to target railheads, factories, docks
or military installations. They deliberately
killed millions of civilians. The flames of
a burning Hamburg were a mile high.
According to David Irving, Dresden—an
undefended art city—was totally
destroyed along with at least 18,375 inhabitants,
mostly children, women,
and cripples, 16,130 were injured and 350,000 people
made homeless; 35,000
were missing. No one knows how many of these were killed.
Such mass murder (genocide) is supposedly outlawed by the
but that meant nothing to Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.
In one leaflet headlined Kill,
Soviet propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg incited Soviet soldiers to treat Germans as subhuman.
The final paragraph concludes:
The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word
German means to us
the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes
us to the quick. We
shall not speak anymore. We shall not get excited. We
shall kill. If you have not
killed at least one German a day, you
have wasted that day…
If you cannot kill your German with a bullet kill him with your bayonet. If there is
on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German
in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian
rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another there is nothing
more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not
kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you.
Kill the German—that is your grandmother’s
request. Kill the German—that is
your child’s prayer. Kill the German—that
is your motherland’s loud request. Do not miss. Kill.
SUICIDE OF THE WEST
The war that followed—as was World War I—must
be seen as a civil war in the
West; 8.5 million American, British and
continental European troops were killed
in WWI and 43 million in WWII. The civilian
count in WWI is about 13 million
and 38 million in WWII. The dysgenic effect
of these needless wars is incalculable.
Before birth control became feasible and
popular, losses like this would be made
up naturally by the high birth rate. But
Many millions of white children of the dead have never been born. Their absence
has to a large extent been made up by non-white immigrants into America and Europe,
both legal and illegal, and the influx of nonwhites grows daily. No more is America a
white, Aryan nation; in fact, today the dialog regarding immigration forbids the factor
of race from even being mentioned in our Jewish-controlled media. The Marxist rule of
political correctness is the norm.
Lenin, Stalin and the other (mostly Jewish) leaders in Communist Russia murdered
some 60 million Russians, particularly the pro-Western Aryan aristocracy,
by the Christian royal family of Czar Nicholas. Regardless
of persons like Tom Brokaw
(who refers to WWII as “the good war,”
it was unnecessary, and all belligerents—
Great Britain, America
and Russia included lost. American Francis Yockey pointed
out that to win a war,
a power must gain resources, strength and prosperity.
Since 1939, all three
major powers who started and fought it have declined
into a pit of escalating
inflation, unpayable debt, national bankruptcy, loss of
national character, the
immigration of millions of aliens and a highly questionable future.
The mass killing of Germans and other
Europeans has paved the way for the legal
and illegal immigration of not only
Muslims but black Africans, even to countries
as far removed from Africa as Finland.
This has vastly increased the welfare budget
and crime. European cities that
once were clean and orderly today are ridden
with trash and derelicts. A former
resident of London reports that the streets resemble
those in Nairobi, Kenya.
Manfred Roeder reports that the EU plans to bring to
Europe some 60 million
more black Africans. Any plan to halt this torrent to Europe
of this plague is attacked
by the media as “Hitlerism.”
To most Americans, war is an exciting game. They watch the suffering and the action
safely on television, radio, newspapers and magazines with the “Tom Brokaws” exulting.
But what do they profit?
Death, debt and the ever-tightening yoke of Jewish political
and economic supremacy.
Any sensible white person,
if aware at all of what is happening, has to acknowledge
the truth. His race,
which is responsible for Western civilization, is on the defensive
before an army of racial and cultural aliens.
The racial crisis cannot be ignored further. Whites must brave the Bronx
profanity from liberals and Jews and face the problem
squarely or civilization is lost.
The future for the U.S. seems clear: The McCarran-Walter immigration law has been
repealed and no more are immigrants let into America mainly from Europe. Today,
America is taking in millions of non-whites from everywhere, legal and illegal. These
invaders have no cultural or racial compatibility with the Aryan whites who founded,
civilized and developed this continent. Without racial and cultural homogeneity, there
can be no rational government in any country, only efforts to arbitrate among groups
until the inevitable anarchy.
Is the future therefore hopeless? Is the white race doomed? Of course not, just
the opposite. Today, whites are confronted with major difficulties, and that is good,
not bad. The problems we have are a trumpet call to awaken. At last we have a
It is literally life or death for our kind. Political liberalism is a thing of
past. Jewish influence is intolerable and must be quashed by whatever
We mean to survive and that means only this: Unconditional defeat for
enemies and unconditional victory for the next phase of white aggrandizement.
APP, DR. AUSTIN: History’s Most Terrifying Peace, 1946.
The Six Million Swindle 1973, Boniface
A Straight Look at the Third Reich, 1975, Boniface Press.
BACQUE, JAMES: Other Losses, 1999, Little Brown & Co.
BARNES, HARRY ELMER: In Quest of Truth and Justice, 1972, Ralph Myles.
Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, 1953, Caxton Printers.
Pearl Harbor: After a Quarter Century, 1968, Inst. for Historical
BAUR, HANS: Hitler at My Side, 1968, Eichler Publ. Co. chief
pilot and friend to Adolf Hitler,
was a WWI ace, pioneer mail pilot,
Lufthansa flight captain, companion to the Fuehrer
in the Soviets after
WWII. What a life. His autobiography is an adventure story.
BEARSE, RAY & READ, ANTHONY: Conspirator, 1992, Papermac.
HENRY: America’s Second Crusade, 1950, Henry
COLBY, BENJAMIN: Twas a Famous Victory, 1974, Arlington House.
COLE, WAYNE S.: Charles Lindbergh and the Battle Against American
Intervention in World War II, 1974,
CROCKER, GEORGE N.: Roosevelt’s Road to Russia, 1959,
DOENECKE, JUSTUS D.: Not to the Swift, 1979, Associated
DUKE, DAVID: Jewish Supremacism, 2003, Free Speech
EGGLESTON, GEORGE T.: Roosevelt, Churchill and the World War II Opposition, 1979 Devin-Adair.
EPSTEIN, JULIUS: Operation Keelhaul, 1973, Devin-Adair.
GANNON, MICHAEL: Pearl Harbor Betrayed, 2001, Henry Holt.
GREAVES, PERCY L.: Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy, 2010, Ludwig Mises Institute.
GRENFELL, CAPT. RUSSELL, R.N.: Unconditional Hatred, 1958, Devin-Adair.
HEDDESHEIMER, DON: The First Holocaust, TBR, 2011.
IRVING, DAVID: Destruction
of Dresden, 1963, Holt, Rinehart. The War Path, 1978 the Viking Press.
Churchill’s War 1987,
Hitler’s War, 1977, Macmillian.
The War Between the Generals, 1981, Penguin Books.
Hess, the Missing Years, 1987, Macmillian.
Apocalypse 1945, Parforce.
KEMP, ARTHUR: March of the Titans, 2000, Ostara Press.
KUBIZEK, AUGUST: The Young Hitler
I Knew, Greenhill Books, 2006.
LEESE, ARNOLD S.: The Jewish War
of Survival, 1945, Historical Review Press.
LINGE, HEINZ: With Hitler to the
End, 2009, Skyhorse.
MACDONOGH, GILES: After the Reich, 2007,
MARTIN JAMES J.: Revisionist Viewpoints, 1971, Ralph
MATTOGNO, CARLO and RUDOLF, GERMAR: Auschwitz Lies.
NEILSON, FRANCIS: The Makers of
War, 1950, C.C. Nelson.
How Diplomats Make War, 1952, Henry Regnery.
SNOW, JOHN H.: The Case of Tyler Kent, 1982, Long House.
STURDZA, PRINCE MICHEL: The Suicide of Europe, 1968, Western Islands.
TANSILL, CHARLES CALLAN: Back Door to War, 1952, Henry Holt.
THOMAS, W. HUGH: The Murder of
Rudolf Hess, 1979, by author.
WEDEMEYER REPORTS: Gen. Albert Wedemeyer, 1958, Henry Holt.
- In whatever civilization they have
lived for some 3,000 years, the Jews have always considered themselves separate and
- distinct from their host people.
Their Talmud, as well as the Old Testament, is authority enough for this. Thus, historians and
cannot logically consider them as an integral part of the community.
- Arthur Kemp’s classic March of the Titans: A History of the White Race is strongly recommended.
and see Dr. Austin App’s writings.
- According to respected historian Eustace Mullins, Bernard Baruch was the force
behind the creation of the atomic bomb.
- He lived in Manhattan. Hence the name “Manhattan Project.”
the Sept./Oct. 2008 issue of THE BARNES REVIEW for “Russia & the Jews” by Udo Walendy, “Nobel Prize
- Writings Still Banned” which describes the prejudice against Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a Russian. Solzhenitsyn
- imprisoned for a total of 11 years by Stalin for his anti-Communist writings including his factual histories
of the support
- that Jews gave to the system. His writings in the U.S. are difficult if not impossible to be found.
Click on this text to listen to and watch Ernst Zundel on the Predictions of a German Dictator...
A great war leaves the country with
three armies - an army of cripples,
an army of mourners,
and an army of thieves.
Click on this text to hear Tom Goodrich (author of HELLSTORM) and Ryan Dawson discuss WWII...
According to our mainstream history books, “the Good Guys”
banded together to stop the worst scourge in global history.
There is just one problem with this official version of the history-changing
event known as World War II. It’s a lie!
So, how much do we really know about that crucial event and the
decades of complex European history preceding it?
Why, and for whom, were the 20th century’s worldwide wars actually
to Start World War II in Europe
We Elected Their Nemesis ... But He Was Ours
historians claim that U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt never wanted war and made every reasonable
effort to prevent war. This article will show that contrary to what
establishment historians claim, Franklin
Roosevelt and his
administration wanted war and made every effort to instigate World War II in Europe.
THE SECRET POLISH DOCUMENTS
The Germans seized a mass of documents from the Polish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs when they invaded Warsaw in late
September 1939. The documents
were seized when a German SS brigade led by Freiherr von Kuensberg captured the
center of Warsaw ahead of the regular German army. Von Kuensberg’s men took control of the Polish Foreign
as Ministry officials were in the process of burning
incriminating documents. These documents clearly establish Roosevelt’s
crucial role in planning and instigating World War II. They also reveal the forces behind President Roosevelt
that pushed for war.
Some of the secret Polish
documents were first published in the United States as The German White Paper. Probably
the most-revealing document in the collection is a secret report dated January 12, 1939 by Jerzy Potocki,
ambassador to the United States. This report discusses the
domestic situation in the
United States. I quote (a translation of) Ambassador
Potocki’s report in full:
There is a feeling now prevalent in the United States marked by growing hatred of Fascism, and
above all of Chancellor
Hitler and everything connected with National Socialism. Propaganda
is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control
almost 100% [of the] radio, film,
daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents
as black as possible--above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited--this propaganda
is nevertheless extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of
the situation in Europe.
At the present moment most Americans regard
Chancellor Hitler and National Socialism as the greatest evil and
greatest peril threatening
the world. The situation here provides an excellent platform for public speakers of all
for emigrants from Germany and Czechoslovakia who with a great many words and with most various
calumnies incite the public. They praise American liberty which they contrast with the totalitarian states.
It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above
all against National
Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely eliminated. Soviet
Russia, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in a friendly
manner and things are presented
in such a way that it would seem that the Soviet Union were cooperating with
the bloc of democratic
states. Thanks to the clever propaganda the sympathies of the American public are
on the side of Red Spain.
This propaganda, this war psychosis is being
artificially created. The American people are told that peace in
Europe is hanging
only by a thread and that war is inevitable. At the same time the American people are unequivocally
told that in case of a world war, America also must take an active part in order to defend the slogans
of liberty and
democracy in the world. President Roosevelt was the first one to express
hatred against Fascism. In doing so he
was serving a double purpose; first he wanted
to divert the attention of the American people from difficult and
intricate domestic problems,
especially from the problem of the struggle between capital and labor. Second, by
a war psychosis and by spreading rumors concerning dangers threatening Europe, he wanted to induce
the American people to accept an enormous armament program which far exceeds United States defense requirements.
Regarding the first point, it must be said that the internal situation on the labor market
is growing worse constantly.
The unemployed today already number 12 million. Federal
and state expenditures are increasing daily. Only the huge
sums, running into billions, which
the treasury expends for emergency labor projects, are keeping a certain amount
peace in the country. Thus far only the usual strikes and local unrest have taken place. But how long this government
aid can be kept up it is difficult to predict today. The excitement and indignation of public opinion,
and the serious
conflict between private enterprises and enormous trusts on the one
hand, and with labor on the other,
have made many enemies for Roosevelt and are causing him
many sleepless nights.
As to point two, I can only say that President
Roosevelt, as a clever player of politics and a connoisseur of American
speedily steered public attention away from the domestic situation in order to fasten it on foreign policy.
The way to achieve this was simple. One needed, on the one hand, to enhance the war menace overhanging
world on account of Chancellor Hitler, and, on the other hand, to create a specter by
talking about the attack of
the totalitarian states on the United States. The Munich
pact came to President Roosevelt as a godsend. He
described it as the capitulation
of France and England to bellicose German militarism. As was said here: Hitler
Chamberlain at pistol-point. Hence, France and England had no choice and had to conclude a shameful peace.
The prevalent hatred against everything which is in any way connected with German National Socialism
kindled by the brutal attitude against the Jews in Germany and by the émigré
problem. In this action Jewish intellectuals
participated; for instance, Bernard Baruch;
the Governor of New York State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge
of the Supreme Court,
Felix Frankfurter; Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau, and others who are personal friends
of Roosevelt. They want the President to become the champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech,
and the man who in the future will punish trouble-mongers. These groups, people who want to pose as representatives
of “Americanism” and “defenders of democracy” in the last analysis,
are connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its race, to put the President of the
United States at this “ideal” post of champion of human rights, was a clever move.
In this manner they created a
dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in this hemisphere
and divided the world into two hostile camps. The
entire issue is worked out in a mysterious
manner. Roosevelt has been forcing the foundation for vitalizing American
policy, and simultaneously has been procuring enormous stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are
striving consciously. With regard to domestic policy, it is extremely convenient to divert public attention
anti-Semitism which is ever growing in the United States, by talking about the
of defending faith and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.
On January 16, 1939,
Potocki reported to the Warsaw Foreign Ministry a conversation he had with American
Ambassador to France William Bullitt. Bullitt was in Washington on a leave of absence from
Paris. Potocki reported that Bullitt stated the main objectives of the Roosevelt
1. The vitalizing foreign policy, under the leadership of President
severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian countries.
The United States preparation for war on sea, land and air which will be carried
at an accelerated speed and will consume the colossal sum of $1,250 million.
3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain must put [an] end to any
sort of compromise
with the totalitarian countries. They must not let themselves in for any
discussions aiming at any kind of territorial changes.
have the moral assurance that the United States will leave the policy of isolation and be prepared to
intervene actively on the side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to
place its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.”
Juliusz (Jules) Łukasiewicz,
the Polish ambassador to France, sent a top-secret report from Paris to the Polish Foreign
Ministry at the beginning of February 1939. This report outlined the
U.S. policy toward Europe as explained to him by William Bullitt:
A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, W.
Bullitt, returned to Paris after having spent three months
holiday in America. Meanwhile,
I had two conversations with him which enable me to inform Monsieur
Minister on his
views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of Washington’s policy….
The international situation is regarded by official quarters as extremely serious and being
in danger of armed
conflict. Competent quarters are of the opinion that if war should break
out between Britain and France on the
one hand and Germany and Italy on the other,
and Britain and France should be defeated, the Germans would
become dangerous to the
realistic interests of the United States on the American continent. For this reason,
one can foresee right from the beginning the participation of the United States in the war on the side of France
and Britain, naturally after some time had elapsed after the beginning of the war. Ambassador Bullitt
this as follows: “Should war break out we shall certainly not take
part in it at the beginning, but we shall end it.”
On March 7, 1939,
Ambassador Potocki sent another remarkably perceptive report on
foreign policy to the Polish government. I quote Potocki’s report in full:
The foreign policy of the United States right
now concerns not only the government, but the entire American
public as well. The
most important elements are the public statements of President Roosevelt. In almost every
public speech he refers more or less explicitly to the necessity of activating foreign policy against the chaos
of views and ideologies in Europe. These statements are picked up by the press and then cleverly filtered
the minds of average Americans in such a way as to strengthen their already formed
opinions. The same
theme is constantly repeated, namely, the danger of war in Europe
and saving the democracies from inundation
by enemy fascism. In all of these public statements
there is normally only a single
theme, that is, the danger from Nazism and Nazi Germany
to world peace.
As a result of these speeches, the public is called upon
to support rearmament and the spending of enormous
sums for the navy and the air
force. The unmistakable idea behind this is that in case of an armed conflict the United
cannot stay out but must take an active part in the maneuvers. As a result of the effective speeches of
President Roosevelt, which are supported by the press, the American public is today being conscientiously
manipulated to hate everything that smacks of totalitarianism and fascism. But it is
interesting that the USSR is not
included in all of this. The American public considers
Russia more in the camp of the democratic states. This was
also the case during the
Spanish civil war when the so-called Loyalists were regarded as defenders of the democratic idea.
The State Department operates without attracting a great deal of attention, although it is
known that Secretary
of State [Cordell] Hull and President Roosevelt swear allegiance
to the same ideas. However, Hull shows more
reserve than Roosevelt, and he loves to make a
distinction between Nazism and Chancellor Hitler on the one hand,
and the German
people on the other. He considers this form of dictatorial government a temporary “necessary evil.”
In contrast, the State Department is unbelievably interested in the USSR and its internal situation
and openly worries
itself over its weaknesses and decline. The main reason for the United
States interest in the Russians is the
situation in the Far East. The current government
would be glad to see the Red Army emerge as the victor in a
conflict with Japan. That’s
why the sympathies of the government are clearly on the side of
China, which recently
received considerable financial aid amounting to 25 million dollars.
is given to all information from the diplomatic posts as well as to the special emissaries of the
President who serve as ambassadors of the United States. The President frequently calls his representatives
from abroad to Washington for personal exchanges of views and to give them special information and instructions.
The arrival of the envoys and ambassadors is always shrouded in secrecy and very
little surfaces in the press about
the results of their visits. The State Department
also takes care to avoid giving out any kind of information about the
course of these interviews.
The practical way in which the President makes foreign policy is most effective. He gives
personal instructions to his representatives abroad, most of whom are his personal friends. In this way
States is led down a dangerous path in world politics with the explicit
intention of abandoning the comfortable policy
of isolation. The President regards the foreign
policy of his country as a means of satisfying his own personal ambition.
carefully and happily to his echo in the other capitals of the world. In domestic as well as foreign policy, the
Congress of the United States is the only object that stands in the way of the President
and his government in carrying
out his decisions quickly and ambitiously. One hundred and fifty
years ago, the Constitution of the United States
gave the highest prerogatives to
the American parliament which may criticize or reject the law of the White House.
The foreign policy of President Roosevelt has recently been the subject of intense discussion
in the lower house
and in the Senate, and this has caused excitement. The so-called
Isolationists, of whom there are many in both
houses, have come out strongly against the President.
The representatives and the senators were especially upset
over the remarks of the
President, which were published in the press, in which he said that the borders of the United
States lie on the Rhine. But President Roosevelt is a superb political player and understands completely
power of the American parliament. He has his own people there, and he knows
how to withdraw from an uncomfortable situation at the right moment.
Very intelligently and cleverly he ties together the question of foreign policy with the issues of American
He particularly stresses the necessity of spending enormous sums in order
to maintain a defensive peace. He says
specifically that the United States is not arming in
order to intervene or to go to the aid of England or France in case
of war, but because
of the need to show strength and military preparedness in case of an armed conflict
in Europe. In his view this conflict is becoming ever more acute and is completely unavoidable.
Since the issue is presented this way, the houses of Congress have no cause to object. To the
houses accepted an armament program of more than 1 billion dollars. (The normal
budget is 550 million, the
emergency 552 million dollars). However, under the cloak
of a rearmament policy, President Roosevelt continues
to push forward his foreign
policy, which unofficially shows the world that in case of war the United
come out on the side of the democratic states with all military and financial power.
In conclusion it can be said that the technical and moral preparation of the American people for participation
war--if one should break out in Europe--is proceeding rapidly. It appears that
the United States will come to the aid
of France and Great Britain with all its resources
right from the beginning. However, I know the American public
and the representatives
and senators who all have the final word, and I am of the opinion that the possibility that
will enter the war as in 1917 is not great. That’s because the majority of the states in the mid-West and
West, where the rural element predominates, want to avoid involvement in European disputes
at all costs. They
remember the declaration of the Versailles Treaty and the well-known
phrase that the war was to save the world
for democracy. Neither the Versailles Treaty nor
that slogan have reconciled the United States to that war. For
millions there remains
only a bitter aftertaste because of unpaid billions which the European states still owe America.
These secret Polish
reports were written by top-level Polish ambassadors who were not necessarily friendly to Germany.
However, they understood the realities of European politics far better than people
who made foreign policy in the United
States. The Polish ambassadors
realized that behind all of their rhetoric about democracy and human rights, the Jewish
leaders in the United States who agitated for war against Germany were deceptively advancing their own
There is no question
that the secret documents taken from the Polish Foreign Ministry in Warsaw are authentic.
Charles C. Tansill considered the documents genuine and stated, “Some months ago I had a long conversation
M. Lipsky, the Polish ambassador in Berlin in the prewar years, and he
me that the documents in the German White Paper are
William H. Chamberlain wrote,
“I have been privately informed by an extremely reliable source that Potocki, now
residing in South America, confirmed the accuracy of the documents, so far as he was concerned.” Historian
Harry Elmer Barnes also stated, “Both Professor Tansill and
myself have independently established the
thorough authenticity of these
Edward Raczyński, the
Polish ambassador to London from 1934 to 1945, confirmed in his diary the authenticity of the Polish
documents. He wrote in his entry on June 20, 1940: “The Germans published in
April a White Book containing documents
from the archives of our Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, consisting of reports from Potocki from Washington, Łukasiewicz in
Paris and myself. I do not know where they found them, since we were told that the archives had been
documents are certainly genuine, and the facsimiles show
that for the most
part the Germans got hold of the originals and not merely
The official papers and memoirs
of Juliusz Łukasiewicz published in 1970 in the book Diplomat in Paris 1936-1939
reconfirmed the authenticity of the Polish documents. Łukasiewicz was the Polish ambassador to Paris,
several of the secret Polish documents. The collection
was edited by Wacław Jędrzejewicz, a former Polish diplomat
member. Jędrzejewicz considered the documents made public
Germans absolutely genuine, and quoted from several of them.
Tyler G. Kent, who worked at the U.S. Embassy in London in 1939 and 1940, has also
confirmed the authenticity of
the secret Polish documents. Kent says that he
saw copies of U.S. diplomatic
messages in the files which corresponded
to the Polish documents. 
The German Foreign Office
published the Polish documents on March 29, 1940. The Reich Ministry of Propaganda
released the documents to strengthen the case of the American isolationists and to prove the degree
responsibility for the outbreak of war. In Berlin,
journalists from around the world were permitted to examine the original
themselves, along with a large number of other documents from the Polish Foreign Ministry. The release
of the documents caused an international media sensation. American newspapers published
lengthy excerpts from the documents and gave the story large front-page headline coverage.
However, the impact of the
released documents was far less than the German government had hoped for. Leading
U.S. government officials emphatically denounced the documents as not being authentic. William
Bullitt, who was
especially incriminated by the documents, stated,
“I have never made to anyone the statements attributed to me.”
of State Cordell Hull denounced the documents: “I may say most emphatically that neither I nor any of my
associates in the Department of State have ever heard of any such conversations
as those alleged, nor do we give
them the slightest credence. The statements
alleged have not represented in any way at any time the thought or the
policy of the American government.” American newspapers stressed
these high-level denials in reporting the release
of the Polish documents.
categorical denials by high-level U.S. government officials almost completely eliminated the effect of the secret
Polish documents. The vast majority of the American people in 1940 trusted
their elected political leaders to tell the truth.
If the Polish documents
were in fact authentic and genuine, this would mean that President Roosevelt and his representatives
had lied to the American public, while the German government told the truth.
In 1940, this was far more than the trusting American public could accept.
MORE EVIDENCE ROOSEVELT INSTIGATED WORLD WAR II
While the secret Polish documents alone indicate that Roosevelt was
preparing the American public for war against
Germany, a large amount
of complementary evidence confirms the conspiracy reported by the Polish ambassadors.
The diary of James V. Forrestal, the first U.S. secretary of defense, also reveals that Roosevelt
and his administration helped start World War II. Forrestal’s entry on December 27,
golf today with Joe Kennedy [Roosevelt’s Ambassador to Great Britain in the years immediately before
the war]. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He
Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which
to fight and that she could not risk going
to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That
Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England
if it had not
been for Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down
about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not
the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that
the Germans wouldn’t fight;
Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun
Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the
world Jews had forced England
into the war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939
the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside. Kennedy’s response always was that
putting iron up his backside did no good unless the British had some iron with which to fight, and they
What Kennedy told me in this conversation jibes substantially
with the remarks Clarence Dillon had made to
me already, to the general effect that
Roosevelt had asked him in some manner to communicate privately with
the British to
the end that Chamberlain should have greater firmness in his dealings with Germany. Dillon told
me that at Roosevelt’s request he had talked with Lord Lothian in the same general sense as Kennedy reported
Roosevelt having urged him to do with Chamberlain. Lothian presumably
was to communicate to Chamberlain the gist of his conversation with Dillon.
Looking backward there is undoubtedly foundation for Kennedy’s
belief that Hitler’s
attack could have been deflected to Russia….”
Joseph Kennedy is known
to have had a good memory, and it is highly likely that Kennedy’s statements to James
Forrestal are accurate. Forrestal died on May 22, 1949 under suspicious circumstances when he fell from
his hospital window.
Lindsay, the British ambassador to Washington, confirmed Roosevelt’s secret policy to instigate war
against Germany with the release of a confidential diplomatic report after the war. The report
described a secret
meeting on September 18, 1938 between Roosevelt
and Ambassador Lindsay. Roosevelt said that if Britain and
forced into a war against Germany, the United States would ultimately join the war. Roosevelt’s
idea to start a war was for Britain and France to impose a blockade against Germany without actually
war. The important point was to call it a defensive war based
on lofty humanitarian grounds and on the desire to
wage hostilities with a
minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of life and property. The blockade would
provoke some kind of German military response, but would free Britain and France from having to declare
Roosevelt believed he could then convince the American public
to support war against Germany, including shipments
of weapons to Britain and
France, by insisting that the United States was still neutral in a non-declared conflict.
President Roosevelt told
Ambassador Lindsay that if news of their conversation was ever made public, it could
mean Roosevelt’s impeachment. What Roosevelt proposed to Lindsay was in effect a scheme to violate
Constitution by illegally starting a war. For this and other
reasons, Ambassador Lindsay stated
that during his three years of service
in Washington he developed little regard for America’s leaders.
Ambassador Lindsay in a series
of final reports also indicated that Roosevelt was delighted at the prospect of a new
world war. Roosevelt promised Lindsay that he would delay German ships under false pretenses in a feigned
for arms. This would allow the German ships to be easily seized
by the British under circumstances arranged with
exactitude between the American
and British authorities. Lindsay reported that Roosevelt “spoke in a tone of almost
impish glee and though I may be wrong the whole business gave me the impression of resembling a school-boy
was personally perturbed that the president of the United States could be gay and joyful
about a pending tragedy which seemed so destructive of the hopes of all mankind. It was unfortunate at this
juncture that the United States had a president whose emotions
were regarded by a friendly British ambassador as being childish.
to support France and England in a war against Germany is discussed in a letter
from Verne Marshall, former editor of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, to Charles C. Tansill. The letter
Roosevelt wrote a note to William Bullitt [in the summer of 1939], then Ambassador to France, directing
him to advise the French Government that if, in the event of a Nazi attack upon Poland, France and England
not go to Poland’s aid, those countries could expect no help from America if a general
war developed. On the
other hand, if France and England immediately declared war on
Germany, they could expect “all aid” from the United States.
instructions to Bullitt were to send this word along to “Joe” and “Tony,” meaning Ambassadors
in London, and Biddle, in Warsaw, respectively. F.D.R. wanted Daladier, Chamberlain
and Josef Beck to know
of these instructions to Bullitt. Bullitt merely sent his note
from F.D.R. to Kennedy in the diplomatic pouch from
Paris. Kennedy followed Bullitt’s
idea and forwarded it to Biddle. When the Nazis grabbed Warsaw and Beck
they must have come into possession of the F.D.R. note. The
man who wrote the report
I sent you saw it in Berlin in October, 1939.
William Phillips, the
American ambassador to Italy, also stated in his postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration
in late 1938 was committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France. Phillips
wrote: “On this and many other
occasions, I would have liked
to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister] frankly that in the event of
a European war, the United States would undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view
official position, I could not properly make such a statement
instructions from Washington, and these I never received.”
When Anthony Eden returned
to England in December 1938, he carried with him an assurance from President Roosevelt
that the United States would enter as soon as practicable a European war against Hitler if the occasion
information was obtained by Senator William Borah of Idaho,
who was contemplating how and when to give out this
information, when he dropped
dead in his bathroom. The story was confirmed to historian
Barnes by some of Senator Borah’s closest colleagues at the time.
ambassador to Poland, Anthony Drexel Biddle, was an ideological colleague of President Roosevelt
and a good friend of William Bullitt. Roosevelt used Biddle to influence the Polish
government to refuse to enter into
negotiations with Germany. Carl J. Burckhardt,
the League of Nations High Commissioner to Danzig, reported in his
postwar memoirs on a memorable conversation he had with Biddle. On December 2, 1938, Biddle told Burckhardt with
remarkable satisfaction that the Poles were ready to wage war over Danzig. Biddle
predicted that in April a new crisis
would develop, and that moderate British
and French leaders would be influenced by public
opinion to support
war. Biddle predicted a holy war against Germany would break out.
Bernard Baruch, who was Roosevelt’s
chief advisor, scoffed at a statement made on March 10, 1939 by Neville Chamberlain
that “the outlook in international affairs is tranquil.” Baruch agreed passionately with
Winston Churchill, who
had told him: “War is coming very soon.
We will be in it and you [the United States] will be in it.”
Bonnet, the French foreign minister in 1939, also confirmed the role of William Bullitt as Roosevelt’s agent
pushing France into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated March
26, 1971, Bonnet wrote, “One
thing is certain is that Bullitt
in 1939 did everything he could to make France enter the war.”
Dr. Edvard Beneš,
the former president of Czechoslovakia, wrote in his memoirs that he had a lengthy secret conversation
at Hyde Park with President Roosevelt on May 28, 1939. Roosevelt assured Beneš
that the United States would
actively intervene on the side of Great
Britain and France against Germany in the anticipated European war.
American newspaper columnist
Karl von Wiegand, who was the chief European newspaper columnist of the International
News Service, met with Ambassador William Bullitt at the U.S. embassy in Paris on April 25, 1939. More
months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt told Wiegand: “War
in Europe has been decided upon. Poland has the
assurance of the support of
Britain and France, and will yield to no demands from Germany. America will be in the
war soon after Britain and France enter it.” When Wiegand said that in the end Germany would be driven into the
Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, Ambassador Bullitt replied: “What of it. There will
not be enough Germans left when the war is over to be worth Bolshevizing.”
On March 14, 1939, Slovakia dissolved the state of Czechoslovakia by declaring itself an independent republic.
Czechoslovakian President Emil Hácha signed a formal agreement
the next day with Hitler establishing a German
protectorate over Bohemia
and Moravia, which constituted the Czech portion of the previous entity. The British government
initially accepted the new situation, reasoning that Britain’s guarantee of Czechoslovakia given
after Munich was
rendered void by the internal collapse of that state.
It soon became evident after the proclamation of the Protectorate
that the new regime enjoyed considerable popularity among the people living
in it. Also, the danger of a war between the Czechs and the Slovaks had been averted.
response to the creation of the German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia was highly
unfavorable. Bullitt telephoned Roosevelt and, in an “almost hysterical” voice, Bullitt urged
make a dramatic denunciation of Germany and to immediately
ask Congress to repeal the Neutrality Act.
Washington journalists Drew
Pearson and Robert S. Allen reported in their nationally syndicated column that on
March 16, 1939, President Roosevelt “sent a virtual ultimatum to Chamberlain” demanding that
the British government
strongly oppose Germany. Pearson and Allen reported
that “the President warned that Britain could
expect no more support,
moral or material through the sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued.”
Responding to Roosevelt’s
pressure, the next day Chamberlain ended Britain’s policy of cooperation with Germany
when he made a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing Hitler. Chamberlain also announced the end of
“appeasement” policy, stating that from now on
Britain would oppose any further territorial moves by Hitler.
Two weeks later
the British government formally committed itself to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.
Roosevelt also attempted to arm Poland so that Poland would be more willing
to go to war against Germany. Ambassador
Bullitt reported from Paris
in a confidential telegram to Washington on April 9, 1939, his conversation with Polish
Ambassador Łukasiewicz. Bullitt told Łukasiewicz that although U.S. law prohibited direct financial
aid to Poland,
the Roosevelt administration might be able to supply
warplanes to Poland indirectly through Britain. Bullitt stated:
Polish ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain financial help and airplanes from
the United States. I replied that I believed the Johnson Act would forbid any
loans from the United States to Poland,
but added that it might be possible
for England to purchase planes
for cash in the United States and turn them over
Bullitt also attempted to
bypass the Neutrality Act and supply France with airplanes. A secret conference of
Ambassador Bullitt with French Premier Daladier and the French minister of aviation, Guy La Chambre,
the procurement of airplanes from America for France. Bullitt,
who was in frequent telephonic conversation with
Roosevelt, suggested a means
by which the Neutrality Act could be circumvented in the event of war. Bullitt’s
suggestion was to set up assembly plants in Canada, apparently on the assumption that Canada would not
formal belligerent in the war. Bullitt also arranged for a secret French
mission to come to the United States and purchase
airplanes in the
winter of 1938-1939. The secret purchase of American airplanes
French leaked out when a French aviator crashed on the West Coast.
On August 23, 1939, Sir Horace
Wilson, Chamberlain’s closest advisor, went to American Ambassador Joseph
Kennedy with an urgent appeal from Chamberlain to President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally
obligated itself to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now turned to
Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. Kennedy
telephoned the State Department
and stated: “The British want one thing from us and one thing only, namely that
we put pressure on the Poles. They felt that they could not, given their obligations, do anything of
this sort but that we could.”
Presented with a possibility to save the peace in Europe, President Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain’s
plea out of hand. With Roosevelt’s rejection, Kennedy reported,
British Prime Minister Chamberlain lost all hope.
“The futility of it all is the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the
Poles. We can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of all Europe.”
U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and his advisers played
a crucial role in planning and instigating World War II.
is proven by the secret Polish documents as well as numerous statements from highly positioned,
well-known and authoritative Allied leaders who corroborate the contents of the Polish
 Count Jerzy Potocki to Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, The German White Paper: Full Text of the Polish
Documents Issued by the Berlin Foreign Office; with a foreword by C. Hartley Grattan, New York:
Howell, Soskin & Company, 1940, pp. 29-31.
 Juliusz Lukasiewicz to Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, The German White Paper: Full Text of the Polish
Documents Issued by the Berlin Foreign Office; with a foreword by C. Hartley Grattan, New York:
Howell, Soskin & Company, 1940, pp. 43-44.
 Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik
des Praesidenten der Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943. Translated into English
by Weber, Mark,
“President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe:
The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical Review,
Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 150-152.
 Tansill, Charles C., “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.),
Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993,
p. 184 (footnote 292).
 Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, p. 60 (footnote 14).
 Barnes, Harry Elmer, The Court Historians versus Revisionism, N.p.: privately printed, 1952, p. 10.
 Raczynski, Edward, In Allied London, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963, p. 51.
 Weber, Mark, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,”
The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 142.
 New York Times, March 30, 1940, p. 1.
 Forrestal, James V., The Forrestal Diaries, edited by Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield, New York: Vanguard Press,
1951, pp. 121-122.
 Dispatch No. 349 of Sept. 30, 1938, by Sir Ronald Lindsay, Documents on British Foreign Policy, (ed.).
Ernest L. Woodard, Third Series, Vol. VII, London, 1954, pp. 627-629. See also Lash, Joseph P., Roosevelt
Churchill 1939-1941, New York: Norton, 1976, pp. 25-27.
 Dallek, Robert, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy 1932-1945, New York: Oxford University Press,
1979, pp. 31, 164-165.
 Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review,
1989, pp. 518-519.
 Tansill, Charles C., “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.),
Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993,
 Phillips, William, Ventures in Diplomacy, North Beverly, Mass.: privately published, 1952, pp. 220-221.
 Barnes, Harry Elmer, Barnes against the Blackout, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1991, p. 208.
 Burckhardt, Carl, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939, Munich: Callwey, 1960, p. 225.
 Sherwood, Robert E., Roosevelt and Hopkins, an Intimate History, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948, p. 113.
 Fish, Hamilton, FDR The Other Side of the Coin: How We Were Tricked into World War II, New York: Vantage Press,
1976, p. 62.
 Beneš, Edvard, Memoirs of Dr. Edvard Beneš, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954, pp. 79-80.
 “Von Wiegand Says-,” Chicago-Herald American, Oct. 8, 1944, p. 2.
 Chicago-Herald American, April 23, 1944, p. 18.
 Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review,
1989, p. 250.
 Moffat, Jay P., The Moffat Papers 1919-1943, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956, p. 232.
 Pearson, Drew and Allen, Robert S., “Washington Daily Merry-Go-Round,” Washington Times-Herald, April
14, 1939, p. 16.
 U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I, Washington:
1956, p. 122.
 Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, pp. 101-102.
 Koskoff, David E., Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974, p. 207; see
also Taylor, A.J.P.,
The Origins of the Second World War, New York: Simon
& Schuster, 2005, p. 272.
Behind the Powers
83% of Americans were against involvement in the European war prior to
the trickery at Pearl Harbor. And then...
Kasserine Pass: America's Most Humiliating
Defeat of World War II
... The GIs should have remembered what the British had learned the hard way: never
underestimate the Germans.
Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, admiringly dubbed the "Desert Fox" by the British, would teach the rookie Americans
a lesson on the art of war at a dusty defile called Kasserine
Pass ... Kasserine left a bitter residue that poisoned the
Allied cause for the rest of the war. It confirmed the British in their belief that the Americans
were baby soldiers,
soft and spoiled
amateurs who needed gentle but firm guidance from their wiser, more experienced English cousins.
German Soldiers of World War II:
Why They Were the Best, and Why They Still Lost
soldiers of World War II have often been portrayed, both during the war and in the decades since,
as simple-minded, unimaginative and brutish ... As specialists
of military history who have looked into the matter
agree, the men of Germany's armed forces -- the Wehrmacht -- performed with unmatched ability and resourcefulness
throughout the nearly six years of conflict ... High-ranking
British military figures were similarly impressed with the skill,
tenacity and daring of their adversaries. "Unfortunately we are fighting the best soldiers in
the world - what men!,"
Lt. Gen. Sir Harold Alexander, commander of the 15th Army Group in Italy, in a March 1944 report to London ...
It was the superiority of numbers that was ultimately decisive.
Second World War in Europe was a victory of quantity over quality.
Web of Deceit: The Jewish Puppet Masters
Behind World War II
Edited by Lasha Darkmoon
CHURCHILL, ROOSEVELT, STALIN
It was these three powerful individuals, the winners of WWII, who decided
to carve up
the world between them by manufacturing pretexts
for a catastrophic world war that
would claim 60-80 million
lives, roughly 3 per cent of the world’s population, and
Germany to a wasteland of rubble. Behind them, lurking in the shadows,
their Jewish Puppet Masters, egging them on and telling them exactly what they had to do.
Here are the highly toxic and politically incorrect views of four
key diplomats who were close
to the events leading up to World War II. Ponder
them carefully and ask yourselves: Could they all have been mistaken?
Joseph P. Kennedy, US Ambassador to Britain during the years immediately
preceding World War II,
was the father of the famous American Kennedy dynasty.
James Forrestal, the first
US Secretary of Defense (1947-1949), quotes him as
saying “Chamberlain [the British Prime Minister]
stated that America
and the world Jews had forced England into the war.” (The Forrestal Diaries, Cassell 1952, p.129).
Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in
Washington, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office
in January 1939, is quoted
approvingly by the highly respected British military historian
JFC Fuller. Concerning public opinion in America, Count Potocki says:
Above all, propaganda here
is entirely in Jewish hands. Their propaganda is so
that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe.
It is interesting to observe that in this carefully thought-out
campaign no reference
at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that
country is mentioned, it is referred to in a
and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the
democratic group of countries.
was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the
dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world
into two warlike camps. President Roosevelt has been given the power to create
huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.”
— JFC Fuller, The Decisive Battles of the Western World, vol 3, pp
Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out,
found anti-Semitism in Germany “understandable.” This was because before the advent of the
Nazis “the stage, the press, medicine and law were crowded with Jews. Among the few
with money to splurge, a high proportion were Jews. The leaders of the Bolshevist
in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One
could feel the
spreading resentment and hatred.”
— Hugh Wilson, American diplomat, quoted in Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh, Hodder, 1976.
Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Berlin
“said further that the hostile attitude
[toward Germany] in Great Britain
was the work of Jews, which was what Hitler
thought himself.” (AJP Taylor, The
Origins of the Second World War, Penguin 1987, p. 324).
“One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred.” — Hugh Wilson, American ambassador
in Berlin, c.1938
Is this negative attitude toward international Jewry attributable to a groundless antisemitism—to
a hatred of Jews for no valid or justifiable reason? A knowledge of the economic background
to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding of this complex question.
At the end of the
First World War, Germany was essentially tricked into paying massive
to France and other economic competitors and former belligerent countries
the terms of the iniquitous Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the meddling of liberal
President Woodrow Wilson, himself acting under Jewish advice. [See Paul Johnson,
A History of the Modern World (1983), p.24; and H. Nicholson, Peacemaking, 1919
(1933), pp. 13-16]
Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the Great War of 1914-1918 in spite
of the fact that “Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine
efforts, though too belated, to avert one.” (Professor Sydney B. Fay, The Origins of the World War (Vol.
2, p. 552).
As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations made by the Versailles Treaty,
by 1923 the situation in Germany became desperate. Inflation on an astronomical scale
became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were engaged to print
money around the clock. (See this picture). In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks
to the dollar; by 1924, it
had become roughly 5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually
the German middle classes, reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero.
Arthur Koestler, The God that Failed, p. 28).
According to distinguished British historian Sir Arthur Bryant:
It was the Jews with their international affiliations
and their hereditary flair for finance
who were best able to seize such opportunities. They
did so with such effect that,
even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation
they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something
A THIRD OF THE PROPERTY IN THE REICH. Most of it came into their hands
during the hyperinflation.
To those who had lost their all, this bewildering transfer
seemed a monstrous injustice.
After prolonged sufferings THEY HAD NOW BEEN
DEPRIVED OF THEIR LAST
POSSESSIONS. THEY SAW THEM PASS INTO THE HANDS OF STRANGERS,
many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and
LITTLE OR NOTHING FOR THEIR NATIONAL
STANDARDS AND TRADITIONS.
The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned
in spite of constituting LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF THE POPULATION.
banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically
controlled by them.
So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a
large part of the press—all
the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in
a civilized country is formed. The largest
newspaper combine in the
country, with a daily circulation of four millions, was a Jewish monopoly.
EVERY YEAR IT BECAME HARDER AND HARDER FOR A GENTILE
GAIN OR KEEP A FOOTHOLD IN ANY PRIVILEGED OCCUPATION.
At this time it was
not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a
operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against
a majority. There was no
persecution, only elimination. It was the contrast between
the wealth enjoyed—and
lavishly displayed—by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the
poverty and misery of native
Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly
a force in the new Europe.
Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.
— Sir Arthur Bryant, Unfinished Victory, 1940 pp. 136-144, emphasis added.
The caption to a famous anti-Semitic German cartoon headed sarcastically
“The Land of Freedom”,
referring to Germany under the Jewish heel,
has a caption in German that translates as:
“When one is ruled by the Jews,
freedom is only an empty dream.” (See the 1939 cartoon here).
— § —
Strangely enough, a book unexpectedly published
by Princeton University Press in 1984,
Sarah Gordon’s Hitler, Germans
and the “Jewish Question”, essentially confirms what
Bryant says above. Sarah Gordon, incidentally, is Jewish, so this is a rare
of a Jew actually admitting that anti-Semitism could have a rational basis:
“Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population;
no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.
Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private
service. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in
1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish
banks. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal
businesses. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin,
in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange.
1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions,
the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of
At least a quarter of full professors and instructors at German
had Jewish origins. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25%
of the law and
medical students. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre
directors in Germany were
Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.
In 1929 it was estimated that the
per capita income of
Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents.”
Arthur Koestler, also Jewish, confirms
the Jewish over-involvement in German publishing:
“Ullstein’s was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind in Europe, and
probably in the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these
venerable Vossische Zeitung, founded in the eighteenth century, and the BZ am
an evening paper. Apart from these, Ullstein’s published more than a dozen
monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own travel agency,
and were one of the
leading book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers
Ullstein: they were five, like the
original Rothschild brothers, and like them also, they were Jews.”
God that Failed (1950), ed. R.H.S. Crossman, p. 31.
Edgar Mowrer, Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, wrote an anti-German
tract called “Germany Puts the Clock Back”, published as a Penguin
reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938. He notes
all-important administration of Prussia, any number
of strategic positions came
into the hands of Hebrews.
A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
BETWEEN THREE JEWS IN MINISTERIAL OFFICES
COULD RESULT IN THE
SUSPENSION OF ANY PERIODICAL OR NEWSPAPER IN THE STATE.
The Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration that same considerable
part that they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the
Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual and cultural life of the country. And
thereby the impression was strengthened that Germany, a country with a mission
of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners.
No one who lived through the period from 1919 to 1926 is likely
to forget the
sexual promiscuity that prevailed. Throughout
a town like Berlin, hotels and
pensions made vast fortunes by
letting rooms by the hour or day to baggageless,
guests. Hundreds of cabarets, pleasure resorts and the like served
purposes of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper mood.”
Puts The Clock Back”, pp. 153-4, emphasis added)
Sir Arthur Bryant, already quote above, describes throngs of child
prostitutes outside the doors
of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. He
adds “Most of them—the night clubs and
vice resorts—were owned
and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews among
the promoters of this trade who
were remembered in after years.” (pp. 144-5).
† “Most of the night clubs and vice resorts were owned and
managed by Jews.” — St Arthur Bryant, British historian.
“It’s disgusting how the Jews are taking everything by storm. Even the
Rome of Seutonius has never known such orgies as the
pervert balls of Berlin.” — Jewish German writer Stefan Zweig.
† “The decay
of moral values in all areas of life—the period of deepest German
degradation—coincided exactly with the height of Jewish power in Germany.”
— Dr Friedrich Karl Wiehe, German historian, in Germany and the Jewish Question.
added by LD)
— § —
Reed, Chief Central European correspondent before WWII for the London Times,
was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported:
“I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on
the window panes the word “Jew” in dripping red letters. The Kurfürstendamm was to
me a revelation. I knew that Jews were prominent in business life, but
I did not know that they
almost monopolized important branches of it.
Germany had one Jew to one
hundred gentiles, said the statistics; but the
according to the dripping red l
egends, had about one gentile shop to ninety-nine
— Douglas Reed, Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3,
book Disgrace Abounding (1939), he notes:
“In the Berlin (of the pre-Hitler years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or
most of the leading film and stage actors were Jews, the plays
performed were often by German,
Austrian or Hungarian Jews and were staged by
Jewish film producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic
critics in Jewish newspapers…
The Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles,
if by clever you mean good at their jobs.
They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling of Jews,
first to get a foothold in a particular
trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out
of it. It is not true that Jews are better
journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts
on those Berlin
papers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish.”
(Douglas Reed, Disgrace Abounding, 1939, pp. 238-9).
Jewish writer Edwin Black gives a similar picture. “In Berlin
alone,” he states, “about 75
percent of the attorneys and nearly
as many of the doctors were Jewish.” (The Transfer Agreement (1984), p. 58)
“I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing
on the window panes the word JEW in dripping red letters.” — Douglas
Note that 99 out of 100 shops in the
High Street were owned by Jews,
and yet Jews made up
less than one percent of the population.
To cap it all, Jews were perceived as dangerous enemies of Germany after Samuel
the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation, declared war
on Germany on
August 6, 1933. (See Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement:
the Untold Story of the
Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Palestine (1984),
pp. 272-277). According to Black,
“The one man who most embodied the potential
death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermeyer” (p. 369).
This was the culmination of a worldwide boycott of German goods led
by international Jewish organizations.
The London Daily Express on March 24, 1933 carried the headline “Judea
Declares War on Germany”.
The boycott was particularly motivated
by the German imposition of the Nuremberg Laws,
which ironically were similar
in intent and content to the Jewish cultural exclusivism practiced
in present-day Israel. At a single stroke, this headline disproves the lie that Germany
initiated World War II. International Jewry is here clearly seen declaring war on Germany as
early as 1933. It would take the Jews another six years to cajole their Anglo-American
stooges to go to war on their behalf.
Next time you hear anyone claim falsely that “Germany started World War Two”,
send them a copy of this headline picture from The Daily Express, dated March 24, 1933:
Hitler saw the tremendous danger posed to Germany by Communism. He
desperate need to eliminate this threat, a fact that earned
him the immense hatred and
animosity of the Jewish organisations and the media
and politicians of the west which they
could influence. After all, according
to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant, although Jews
formed less than five percent
of Russia’s population, they formed more than fifty percent
of its revolutionaries.
According to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant in his book The Jews (1977, chapter 8):
“It must be added that most of the leading
revolutionaries who convulsed Europe
in the final decades of the last century
and the first decades of this one,
stemmed from prosperous Jewish families..
They were perhaps typified by
the father of revolution, Karl Marx. Thus when,
after the chaos of World War I,
revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews
were everywhere at the helm:
Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia;
Bela Kun in Hungary;
Kurt Eisner in Bavaria; and, most improbable of all, Rosa
Luxemburg in Berlin.
To many outside observers, the Russian revolution
looked like a Jewish conspiracy,
especially when it was followed by Jewish-led
in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik
Party had a
preponderance of Jews. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the
cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev
(Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews.”
Other authors agree with this assessment , including
Jewish historian Sarah Gordon, already cited once above:
There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore
the significant role of Jewish
intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously
neglect one of the
genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after
World War 1….
The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early
Weimar Republic is indisputable,
and this was a very serious contributing cause
for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years.
It is clear then
that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists led
many Germans to
distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation.”
— Sarah Gordon, Hitler, Germans and the ‘Jewish Question’, Princeton University Press
(1984), p 23. (Emphasis added)
Bernal in Back Athena (vol 1), pp.367-387 reinforces the above:
“The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism came
after the critical role of Jews in
International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during
crises of the 1920s and 30s. Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and
North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian
Such feelings were not restricted to Germany, or to vulgar extremists
like the Nazis. All over
Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism
became the norm in ‘nice society’,
and ‘nice society’ included the universities.”
Is it any wonder that Hitler, along with millions of others all over Europe,
should join the growing ranks of the anti-Semites?
It is clear that the Jews were almost universally hated, not because
they Jews, but
because of their obnoxiously pushy behavior and the fact that
they were in the forefront
of dangerous revolutionaries dedicated to the downfall
of their host countries. You cannot
move into someone else’s house and
take it over and expect to be loved by your victims.
— § —
Hitler came to power in Germany with two main aims, the rectification
of the unjust
provisions of the Versailles Treaty and the destruction of the
Soviet/ Communist threat
to Germany. Strangely enough, contrary to the mythology
created by those who had an
opposing ethnic agenda, he had no plans or desire
for a larger war of conquest. Professor
AJP Taylor proved this in his book The
Origins of the Second World War, much to
the annoyance of the professional
court historians. Taylor says: “The state of German
armament in 1939 gives
the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general
war, and probably
not intending war at all” (p.267). And again: “Even in 1939 the German
army was not equipped for a prolonged war; in 1940 the German land forces
inferior to the French in everything except leadership” (p. 104-5).
British historian Basil Liddell Hart confirms this assessment. He
writes: “Britain and France
declared war on Germany, not the other way
around. Hitler wanted peace with Britain, as
the German generals admitted. (Basil
Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill, 1948, Pan Books 1983).
David Irving wraps it all up in the foreword
to his book The Warpath (1978) where he refers
discovery that at no time did this man (Hitler) pose or intend a real threat to Britain or the Empire.”
I think all this
proves, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the chief aggressors in World War II
the Anglo-Americans—as indeed they were arguably the chief aggressors in
War I and most of the wars that have plagued the world during the 20th century
and up to the present time. As for the moneyed international Jews, these were demonstrably
the Puppet Masters jerking the strings of the three great leaders of the Western World—Churchhill,
Roosevelt and Stalin—who went to war at their behest and on their behalf.
It is not without
significance that each of the legendary figures mentioned above has been
at some time or other of enjoying exceptionally strong Jewish connections.
Of one thing we can be reasonably sure: whenever there is a major
new war or revolution
being planned which requires heavy financial backing—the
Russian Revolution is a perfect
example—the hidden hand of international
Jewry is almost certain to be behind it.
Partout où il y a de
l’argent, il y a des Juifs, said Montesquieu.
there is money, there you will find the Jew.”
And wherever there is war, the most profitable money spinning
activity known to man, there
also you are likely to find the Eternal Jew—Der Ewige Jude—counting his gold coins over a mound of corpses.
THE WORST DISASTER VISITED UPON CIVILISATION
SHARE NEWS CENSORED BY
MEDIA Donation dependent please share our stories and
purchase from our bookstore. Русский: В правой
колонке главной страницы
выбора языка. Deutsche Es gibt eine Sprachauswahloption
auf der rechten Seite der Homepage.
MASSIVE bombing raids by Allied forces during World War II sent shockwaves
to the edge
of space, according to new research. Scientists
at the University of Reading in the UK have
that shockwaves from huge bombs travelled through the Earth’s atmosphere.
The bombing even weakened the Earth’s electrified upper
atmosphere, the ionosphere, 1000 kilometres away.
DEATH OF A CITY by historian Michael Walsh discloses dreadful accounts of what it was
like to live and perish in an RAF firestorm. This information has been hidden from the public
since Britain’s unelected war lord Winston Churchill
rejected numerous German peace offers.
Walsh says, victors’ spin claims the bombing campaign was initiated by the German side.
However, J. M. Spaight, Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry disagrees: “Hitler
the bombing of British civilian targets
reluctantly three months after the
RAF had commenced
bombing German civilian targets.”
Another myth used to justify total destruction of great German cities was retaliation for their
bombing of Coventry. By the morning of August 3, 1943, over 6,000 square acres of Hamburg
had been gutted compared to just 100 acres in Coventry over the entire
course of the war, a city essential to Churchill’s
During just 10 days 100,000 citizens
of Hamburg were put to the flame. For every one of
380 persons who died in Coventry, again during the entire course of the war, no less
than 300 Hamburg citizens died during that satanic week of senseless Allied carpet bombing.
Many are the accounts of the
RAF bombing campaigns from the Allied perpetrators
by time and distance. But, what was it like to be in Hamburg during the RAF raids?
An official German
“For weeks afterwards eyewitnesses
to report without succumbing to their nerves
and weeping hysterically. They would try
to speak, then
would break down and cry: ‘I can’t stand seeing it again; I can’t stand it.”
later, a woman who did survive was interviewed. She had still not recovered
from the experience: “I saw people killed by falling bricks and heard the screams of others
dying in the fire. I dragged my best friend from a burning building
and she died in my arms.
I saw others who went stark
mad. The shock to the nerves and the soul, one can never erase.”
The Police President of Hamburg reported: “Its
horror is revealed in the howling and raging
firestorms, the hellish noise of exploding bombs and the death cries of martyred human
beings as well as the big silence after the raids. Speech is impotent to portray the measure
of the horror, which shook the people for ten days and
nights and the traces of
which were written indelibly
on the face of the city and its inhabitants.
“No flight of imagination will ever succeed in measuring
and describing the gruesome scenes
of horror in the
many buried air raid shelters. Posterity can only bow its head in honour of
the fate of these innocents, sacrificed by the murderous lust of a sadistic enemy.”
is one of the world’s leading authorities on military science subjects. The
high-ranking U.S. Government official was an expert on bombing effects. He described
the bombing of Hamburg as: “Standing out as the worst of the
visited upon civilisation during the insanity
of the Second World War.”
The air above Hamburg was the pure flame. Six square miles of Hamburg
was engulfed in
the world’s greatest fire. Merely
looking at the blinding heat and light could
and destroy the mind. There were no longer individual blazes.
The winds relentlessly fed the flames and were
sucked in at higher and higher speeds. Even
out in the
suburbs, it was like no ordinary wind. Such winds as we all experience each day of
our lives swirl in eddies and gusts. They blow this way at one corner and another way at the
next corner. But these winds showed no variation in direction or
speed. The winds flowed into
the city at a constant
speed. During the early stages, these
winds had reached
forty and then fifty miles per hour.
minutes after the first bombs were dropped trees on the outskirts of the city were
beginning to lose their leaves. It was as though some giant supernatural vacuum cleaner
was plucking them. Small branches were snapped and street debris
was vacuumed up as
though by some unseen hand. The rubbish
swirled away and bounced
off the shells of buildings
but always sucked in one direction.
Outside the city’s perimeter, tens of thousands of people gathered
to witness that which no
man had witnessed before them.
A whole city had become a throbbing inferno of intense heat.
Stunned onlookers gazed with their eyes transfixed as a column
of flame a mile wide reached the inner limits of space.
The winds reached supernatural
speeds and they were to soon exceed tornado or
velocities. The shrieking gales flattened flames. The tornadoes turned the city
into one gigantic flame thrower or blow torch. Flames, many hundreds of feet long,
were caught in the blast of wind. It seared through streets where thousands of people
still huddled in the open as they hid behind partly
cowering in alleys. These unfortunates
The martyr’s shrieks of terror and pain mingled and were lost in the screaming winds
crackling firestorm. It will never be known how
many such people simply disappeared as
though they had
never walked the earth. Not even a few charred bones marked their presence
on earth. It is estimated that winds feeding the blazing city reached speeds as high as 150
miles per hour and perhaps more. Twice that of hurricane force winds and at such speeds,
some trees three feet in diameter, were sucked out of
the ground and hurled into the flames.
During the RAF’s firestorm
of Hamburg, temperatures reached 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit.
At such temperatures, lead becomes a bubbling fluid as liquid as water. Balks of wood simply
explode without necessarily coming in contact with flame; metal, rubber, and glass melts.
Flames were hurled three miles into the sky and its gases reached as high again and more.
It was a sight so spectacular and horrifying that the well-known effect of an atom-bomb
explosion becomes relatively lesser. As the fire’s
superheated gases boiled upwards,
they passed through
a stratum of cold air high above the city. The debris in the soaring flames
and smoke attracted moisture and caused a meteorological reaction. The natural elements
combined to reject the debris which was transformed and fell to the earth once
more in big greasy black rain blobs.
This again raises the question,
were the Allied atrocities committed during World War II
horrifyingly unique in world history that the myth of the Holocaust
was invented for the Allies to hide their crimes behind.
The Sinking of the 'Wilhelm Gustloff':
A Little-Known World War II Tragedy
... Many, however, have never heard of the sinking of MV (Motor Vessel) Wilhelm Gustloff,
torpedoed in the Baltic Sea
in 1945. Thousands more lives were lost than the Titanic -- including thousands
of women and children ... The S-13 fired three torpedoes, all of which struck the
Gustloff. Panic ensued
as the ship started
to list. Lifeboats were covered with ice and only a few were able to be launched.
Many passengers were trapped below or already dead from the explosions. Those who
get in the few lifeboats and
rafts took their chances in the sea, where most died of exposure.
The Wilhelm Gustloff slid beneath the surface less than 40 minutes after being struck.
History's Little Known Naval Disasters
Many of those who view "Titanic,"
the blockbuster motion picture, may leave the movie theater believing that the April 15, 1912, sinking of the great British
liner, with the loss of 1,523 men, women and children, was history's greatest maritime disaster ... But these disasters
are dwarfed by the sinkings of the Wilhelm Gustloff, the General Steuben and the Goya, three
German ships crowded with evacuated refugees and wounded soldiers that were struck by Soviet submarines during the final
months of the Second World War.
History's Greatest Naval Disasters: The Wilhelm
Gustloff, the General Steuben and the Goya
For many people, the image of
a great maritime disaster calls to mind the well-known sinking of the Titanic, which went down in April 1912 after
striking an iceberg, taking the lives of 1,503 men, women and children ... Dwarfed by the little-known sinkings of the
Wilhelm Gustloff, the General Steuben and the Goya - converted German liners crowded with refugees
and wounded soldiers that were sunk by Soviet submarines during the final months of the Second World War. In each case,
more lives were lost than in the sinkings of either the Sultana, the Lusitania or the Titanic.
The Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff: Deadliest Sea Disaster
The sinking of the 'Wilhelm
Gustloff' is not well known, but this was one of the worst naval disasters in history. This 44-minute documentary tells
the story of how this German vessel, packed with women and children refugees, was sunk by a Soviet submarine on Jan. 30,
1945. Estimates of the number of drowning victims run as high as 9,000 -- that is, more than the number of those who died
in the Titantic and Lusitania sinkings combined.
Allied Attacks Killed Thousands of Camp Inmates:
The 1945 'Cap Arcona' and 'Thielbek' Sinkings
All prisoners of German wartime
concentration camps who perished while in German custody are routinely regarded as "victims of Nazism" -- even
if they lost their lives as direct or indirect result of Allied policy ... Among the German concentration camp prisoners
who perished at Allied hands were some 7,000 inmates who were killed during the war's final week as they were being evacuated
in three large German ships that were attacked by British war planes. This little-known tragedy is one of history's greatest
The Hypocrisy of the Semitic WW2 Historical Narrative:
“Good War . . . Better Peace"
To help create an awakening upon the upcoming 70th Anniversary of the end of
the “Good War” and
the beginning of the “Good
Peace,” Tom Goodrich personally offered the following from his book,
Hellstorm—The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947, and details from his next book, he hopes it will
make you inspired
to stand against the historical lies made against our Germanic folk.
And so, with the once mighty German Army now disarmed and enslaved in May, 1945, and with
their leaders either dead or awaiting trial for so-called “war crimes,”
the old men, with the others
remaining in Eisenhowers death camps.
Women and children who remained in the dismembered
themselves utterly at the mercy of the victors, motivated by the Jewish racist
broadcasts of Ilya Ehrenburg. Unfortunately for these survivors, never in the history of the world was
mercy and humanity in shorter supply and Semitic malice in over-supply.
Soon after the Allied victory in Europe,
the purge of Nazi Party members from government, business,
science, education, and all other walks of German life commenced (which also included all
ordinary folk, who were replaced with the types of proto-multiculturalists who now form todays
European governments). While a surprising number of Nazis were allowed—even
man their posts temporarily to enable a smooth
transition, all party members, high and low, the actual
German folk, were sooner or later excised from German daily life. In theory, “de-Nazification”
was a simple transplanting of Nazi officials with those of democratic, socialist
or communist underpinnings.
In practice, the purge became little
more than a cloak for a vile, illegal enforcement of rape, torture and
death, executed almost exclusively by Jewish Commissars in the East and their relatives in the complicit
Western allied forces.
(Re-enforcing Semitic defilement)
their knowledge of the language and culture was superb, most of the intelligence officers
accompanying US and British forces into the Reich were Jewish refugees who had fled Germany in
the late 1930s, after failing to have corrupted Germany in the 1930s, they now
had their chance now
that the allies had done the fratricidal
fighting on their behalf, Jews such as relatives of Ed Milibands family.
Although their American and English “aides” were hardly better, the fact that many of
became interrogators, examiners and the
rscreeners, with old scores to settle, insured that Nazis—
any German, for that matter—would be put within the malicious, genocidal reach of these fanatical
racist Jews. One man opposed to the vengeance-minded program was George Patton: “Evidently
virus started by Morgenthau and [Bernard] Baruch of a Semitic
revenge against all Germans is still
working ... ,” wrote
the general in private. “I am frankly opposed to this war-criminal stuff. It is not cricket
and it is Semitic....I can’t see how Americans can sink so low.”
Soon after occupation, all adult Germans were compelled to register at the
nearest Allied headquarters
and complete a lengthy questionnaire
on their past activities. While many nervous citizens were detained
then and there, most returned home, convinced that at long last the terrible ordeal was over. For millions,
however, the trial had but begun.
“Then it started,” remembered Anna Fest, a woman who had registered with the Americans
six weeks earlier.
Such a feeling of
helplessness, when three or four heavily armed military police stand in front of you.
You just panic. I cried terribly. My mother was completely beside herself and said, “You can’t
She registered just as she was supposed to.” Then
she said, “If only you’d gone somewhere else and
hidden.” But I consider that senseless, because I did not feel guilty. . . . That was the way it went with
everyone, with no reason given.
Few German adults, Nazi or not, escaped the dreaded knock on the door. Far from being dangerous
fascists, Freddy and Lali Horstmann were actually well-known anti-Nazis.
Records Lali from the Russian Zone:
am sorry to bother you,” he began, “but I am simply carrying out my orders. Until when did you work
for the Foreign Office?” “Till 1933,” my husband
answered. “Then you need fear nothing,” Androff said....
“We accuse you of nothing, but we want you to accompany us to the headquarters of the NKVD, the
secret police, so that we can take down what you said in a protocol, and ask
you a few questions
about the working of the Foreign Office...
.” We were stunned for a moment; then I started forward,
asking if I could come along with them. “Impossible,” the interpreter smiled. My heart raced. Would
Freddy answer satisfactorily? Could he stand the excitement? What sort of accommodation
give him? “Don’t worry, your husband
has nothing to fear,” Androff continued. “He will have a heated room.
Give him a blanket for the night, but quickly, we must leave. .. .” There was a feeling of sharp tension,
putting the soldier on his guard, as though he were expecting an attack from
one of us. I took first the
soldier, then the interpreter, by
their hands and begged them to be kind to Freddy, repeating myself in
the bustle and scraping of feet that drowned my words. There was a banging of doors. A cold wind blew in.
I felt Freddy kiss me. I never saw him again.
“[W]e were wakened by the sound of tires screeching, engines stopping
abruptly, orders yelled,
general din, and a hammering on the window
shutters. Then the intruders broke through the door,
and we saw
Americans with rifles who stood in front of our bed and shone lights at us. None of them
spoke German, but their gestures said: ‘Get dressed, come with us immediately.’ This
was my fourth arrest.”
Leni Riefenstahl, a talented young woman who was perhaps the world’s greatest film-maker.
Because her epic documentaries— Triumph of the Will and Olympia—seemed paeans to not
Germany, but National Socialism, and because of her close
relationship with an admiring Adolf Hitler,
Leni was of more than
passing interest to the Allies. Though false, rumors also hinted that the attractive,
sometimes-actress was also a “mistress of the devil”—that she and Hitler were lovers.
“Neither my husband nor my mother nor any
of my three assistants had ever joined the Nazi Party,
any of us been politically active,” said the confused young woman. “No charges had ever been
filed against us, yet we were at the mercy of the [Allies] and had no legal protection of any kind.”
Soon after Leni’s fourth arrest, came a fifth.
The jeep raced along the autobahns until, a few hours later ...I was brought to the Salzburg Prison;
there an elderly prison matron rudely pushed me into the cell, kicking me so
hard that I fell to the
ground; then the door was locked. There
were two other women in the dark, barren room, and one
on her knees, slid about the floor, jabbering confusedly; then she began to scream, her limbs
writhing hysterically. She seemed to have lost her mind. The other woman crouched on her bunk,
weeping to herself.
As Leni and others quickly discovered, the “softening up” process began soon after arrival
Allied prison. When Ernst von Salomon, his Jewish girl friend
and fellow prisoners reached an
American holding pen near Munich,
the men were promptly led into a room and brutally beaten
police. With his teeth knocked out and blood spurting from his mouth, von Salomon
moaned to a gum-chewing officer, “You are no gentlemen.” The remark brought only a roar of
laughter from the attackers. “No, no, no!” the GIs grinned. “We
are Mississippi boys!” In another
room, military policemen
raped the women at will while leering soldiers watched from windows.
After such savage treatment, the feelings of despair only intensified once the captives were
crammed into cells.
“The people had been standing there for three days, waiting to be interrogated,” remembered a German
physician ordered to treat prisoners in the Soviet Zone. “At the sight
of us a pandemonium broke out
which left me helpless.... As far
as I could gather, the usual senseless questions were being reiterated:
Why were they there, and for how long? They had no water and hardly anything to eat. They wanted
to be let out more often than once a day.... A great many of them have dysentery so badly that they
can no longer get up.” “Young Poles made fun of us,”
said a woman from her cell in the same zone.
bricks through the windows, paperbags with sand, and skins of hares filled with excrement.
We did not dare to move or offer resistance, but huddled together in the farthest corner, in order
to be hit, which could not always be avoided. . . . [W]e were
never free from torments.” “For hours
I rolled about on my bed, trying to forget my surroundings,” recalled Leni Riefenstahl, “but it was impossible.”
The mentally disturbed woman kept screaming—all
through the night; but even worse were the yells
and shrieks of
men from the courtyard, men who were being beaten, screaming like animals.
I subsequently found out that a company of SS men was being interrogated.
They came for me the next morning, and I was taken to a padded cell where I
had to strip naked, and a
woman examined every square inch of
my body. Then I had to get dressed and go down to the courtyard,
where many men were standing, apparently prisoners, and I was the only woman. We had to line up
before an American guard who spoke German. The prisoners stood to attention, so I tried to do the
and then an American came who spoke fluent German. He pushed
a few people together, then halted at
the first in our line.
“Were you in the Party?” The
prisoner hesitated for a moment, then said: Yes.” He was slugged in the
face and spat blood. The American went on to the next in line. “Were you in the Party?”
hesitated. “Yes or no?”
“Yes.” And he too got punched so hard in the face that the blood ran out of
his mouth. However, like the first man, he didn’t dare resist. They didn’t
even instinctively raise their
hands to protect themselves. They
did nothing. They put up with the blows like dogs. The next
man was asked: “Were you in the Party?” Silence. “Well?” “No,”
he yelled, so no punch. From then
on nobody admitted that he had
been in the Party and I was not even asked.
As the above case illustrated, there often was no rhyme or reason to the examinations; all seemed
designed to force from the victim what the inquisitor wanted to hear, whether true or false. Additionally,
most such “interrogations” were structured to inflict
as much pain and suffering as possible. Explained one prisoner:
The purpose of these interrogations is not to worm out of the people what they knew—which
uninteresting anyway—but to extort from them special
statements. The methods resorted to are extremely
are beaten up until they confess to having been members of the Nazi Party....
The authorities simply assume that, basically, everybody has belonged to the Party. Many people
die during and after these interrogations, while others, who admit at once their party membership,
are treated more leniently.
young commissar, who was a great hater of the Germans, cross-examined me... ,” said Gertrude Schulz.
“When he put the question: ‘Frauenwerk [Women’s Labor Service]?’
I answered in the negative.
Thereupon he became so enraged, that
he beat me with a stick, until I was black and blue. I received
15 blows ... on my left upper arm, on my back and on my thigh. I collapsed and, as in the case
of the first cross-examination, I had to sign the questionnaire.”
“Both officers who took our
testimony were former German Jews,” reminisced a member of the
women’s SS, Anna Fest. While vicious dogs snarled nearby, one of the officers screamed questions
and accusations at Anna. If the answers were not those desired, “he kicked
me in the back and the other hit me.”
They kept saying we must have been armed, have had pistols or so. But we had no weapons, none
of us....I had no pistol. I couldn’t say, just so they’d leave me in peace, yes, we had
pistols. The same
thing would happen to the next person to testify....
[T]he terrible thing was, the German men had to
watch. That was
a horrible, horrible experience.... That must have been terrible for them. When I
went outside, several of them stood there with tears running down their cheeks. What could they have
done? They could do nothing.
Not surprisingly, with beatings, rape, torture, and death facing them, few victims failed to “confess”
and most gladly inked their name to any scrap of paper shown them.
Some, like Anna, tried to resist.
Such recalcitrance was almost
always of short duration, however. Generally, after enduring blackened
eyes, broken bones, electric shock to breasts—or, in the case of men, smashed testicles—only those
who died during torture failed to sign confessions. Alone, surrounded
by sadistic hate, utterly bereft of
law, many victims understandably
escaped by taking their own lives. Like tiny islands in a vast sea
of evil, however, miracles did occur. As he limped painfully back to his prison cell, one Wehrmacht
officer reflected on the insults, beatings, and tortures he had endured and contemplated suicide.
I could not see properly in the semi-darkness and
missed my open cell door. A kick in the back and
I was sprawling
on the floor. As I raised myself I said to myself I could not, should not accept this
humiliation. I sat on my bunk. I had hidden a razor blade that would serve to open my veins. Yes.
You can mangle this poor body—I
looked down at the running sores on my legs—but myself, my
honor, ...that is within me, you cannot touch. This body is only a shell, not my real self... New strength
seemed to rise in me.
I was pondering over what seemed to me a miracle when the heavy lock turned in the cell door.
A very young American soldier came in, put his finger to his lips to warn me
not to speak. “I saw it,”
he said. “Here are
baked potatoes.” He pulled the potatoes out of his pocket and gave them to me,
and then went out, locking the door behind him.
as de-Nazification was in the British, French and, especially the American Zone, it was nothing
compared to what took place in Poland, behind Soviet lines, much like the violation of Germans that
occured in 1939 at the hands of communist Polish Jews, which motivated
Hitler to make the
humanitarian intervention into Poland which
was then used as the excuse for war against Germany.
of concentration camps sponsored by an apparatus called the “Office of State Security,”
thousands of Germans—male and female, old and young, high and low, Nazi official and non–Nazi
official, SS, Wehrmacht, Volkssturm, Hitler Youth, all—were
rounded up and imprisoned. Staffed
and run by Jews, with help
from Poles, Czechs, Russians, and other concentration camp survivors
(where radicals, degenerates and enemies of the German people were held to prevent them from
attacking German people, society at large and the war effort), the prisons were little better than
torture chambers where dying was a thing to be prolonged, not hastened. While
those with blond hair,
blue eyes and handsome features were first
to go, anyone who spoke German would do, these
dysgenics of the most Semitic form. Moments after arrival, prisoners were
made horrifyingly aware of their fate. John Sack, himself a Jew, reports on one camp run by
twenty-six-year-old Shlomo Morel:
“I was at Auschwitz,” Shlomo proclaimed, lying to the Germans but, even more, to himself,
himself like a fighter the night of the championship,
filling himself with hate for the Germans around
was at Auschwitz for six long years, and I swore that if I got out, I’d pay all you Nazis back.”
His eyes sent spears, but the “Nazis” sent him a look of simple
bewilderment. . . . “Now sing the
Horst Wessel Song!”
No one did, and Shlomo, who carried a hard rubber club, hit it against a bed
like some judge’s gavel. “Sing it, I say!” “The flags held high . . . ,” some
Germans began. “Everyone!”
“The ranks closed tight. . . .” “I said everyone!” “Blond!”
Shlomo cried to the blondest,
bluest-eyed person there.
“I said sing!” He swung his rubber club at the man’s golden head and hit it.
The man staggered back. “Our comrades, killed by the Reds and Reactionaries... .”
Shlomo cried, enraged that
the man was defying him by not singing but staggering back. He hit him
again, saying, “Sing!” “Are marching in spirit with us...” “Louder!”
“Clear the street for the Brown
“Still louder!” cried Shlomo, hitting another shouting man.... “Millions of hopeful people...
“Nazi pigs!” “Are
looking to the swastika... .” “Schweine!” Shlomo cried. He threw down his rubber club,
grabbed a wooden stool, and, a leg in his fist, started beating a German’s
head. Without thinking,
the man raised his arms, and Shlomo, enraged
that the man would try to evade his just punishment,
and slammed the stool against the man’s chest. The man dropped his arms,
and Shlomo started hitting his now undefended head when snap! the leg of the stool split off, and,
cursing the German birchwood, he grabbed another stool and hit the German with that. No one was
singing now, but Shlomo, shouting, didn’t notice. The other
guards called out, “Blond!” “Black!” “Short!”
“Tall!” and as each of these terrified people came up, they wielded their clubs upon him. The brawl
went on till eleven o’clock, when the sweat-drenched invaders cried,
“Pigs! We will fix you up!” and
left the Germans alone.
Some were quite fixed.... Shlomo and his subordinates had killed them.
(These are the true war crimes, all committed by Jews)
The next night it was more of the same . . . and the next night and the next
and the next. Those who
survived the “welcoming committees”
at this and other camps were flung back into their pens.
“I was put with 30 women into a cell, which was intended to accommodate one person,” Gerlinde
Winkler recalled. “The narrow space, into which we were rammed, was unbearable
and our legs were
all entangled together. . . . The women, ill
with dysentery, were only allowed to go out once a day, in
to relieve themselves. A bucket without a cover was pushed into the cell with the remark: ‘Here
you have one, you German sows.’ The stink was insupportable, and we were not allowed to open
the little window.”
“The air in the cells became dense, the smell of the excrement filled it, the heat was like
and the flies made the ceiling black,” wrote
John Sack. “I’m choking, the Germans thought, and one
took the community razor blade and, in despair, cut his throat open with it.”
When the wretched inmates were at last pried from their hellish tombs, it was
only for interrogation.
As many as eight interrogators, almost all Jews, stood around any one German
saying, “Were you
in the Nazi Party?” Sometimes a German
said, “Yes,” and the boys shouted, “Du schwein! You pig!”
and beat him and broke his arm, perhaps, before sending him to his cell. . . . But usually a German
said, “No,” and the boys ... told him, “You’re lying.
You were a Nazi.” “No, I never was.” “You’re lying!
We know about you!” “No, I really wasn’t—” “Du
lugst! You’re lying!” they cried, hitting the obstinate
“You better admit it! Or you’ll get a longer sentence! Now! Were you in the Nazi Party?” “No!”
the German often said, and the boys had to beat him and beat him
until he was really crying, “I
was a Nazi! Yes!”
But sometimes a German wouldn’t confess. One such hard case was a fifty-year-old....
“Were you in the Party?” “No, I wasn’t in it.”
“How many people work for you?” “In the high season,
thirty-five.” “You must have been in the Party,” the boy deduced.
He asked for the German’s wallet,
where he found a fishing
license with the stamp of the German Anglers Association. Studying it, he
told the German, “It’s stamped by the Party.” “It’s not,” said the German.
He’d lost his left arm in World War I and
was using his right arm to gesture with, and, to the boy,
have seemed to be Heiling Hitler. The boy became violent. He grabbed the man’s collar, hit
the man’s head against the wall, hit it against it ten times more, threw the man’s body
the floor, and, in his boots, jumped on the man’s cringing
chest as though jumping rope. A half
dozen other interrogators,
almost all Jews, pushed the man onto a couch, pulled off his trousers,
and hit him with hard rubber clubs and hard rubber hoses full of stones. The sweat started running
down the Jews’ arms, and the blood down the man’s naked legs.
“Warst du in der Partei?” “Nein!”
“Warst du in der Partei?” “Nein!” the German screamed—screamed, till
the boys had to go to
Shlomo’s kitchen for a wooden spoon
and to use it to cram some rags in the German’s mouth.
they resumed beating him. . . . The more the man contradicted them, the more they hated him for it.
Shlomo Morel: one of thousands of Jewish psychopaths
involved, many of whose descendants
form the core of modern leftwing political parties in Europe, such as relatives of the Milibands
and Barbara Spectre's.
After undergoing similar sessions on a regular basis, the victim was brought
back for the eighth time.
By now, the
man was half unconscious due to his many concussions, and he wasn’t thinking clearly.
The boys worked on him with rubber and oak-wood clubs and said, “Do you still say you weren’t
Party?” “No! I didn’t say I wasn’t
in the Party!” “You didn’t?” “No!” said the punch drunk man. “I
never said it!” “You were in the Party?”
“Yes!” The boys stopped beating him. They practically sighed,
as if their ordeal were over now. They lit up cigarettes.... “Scram,” one
said to the German. The man
stood up, and he had his hand on the
doorknob when one of the boys impulsively hit the back of
head, and he fell to the floor, unconscious. “Aufstehen, du Deutsches schwein. Stand up, you
German pig,” the boys said, kicking him till he stood up and collapsed
again. Two boys carried him
to his cell and dropped him in a corner....
Of course, the boys would beat up the Germans for
as well as “No”s. In Glatz, the Jewish commandant asked a German policeman, “Were
you in the Party?” “Of course! I was obliged to be!” “Lie
down,” the commandant said, and six
weeks later the boys
were still whipping the German’s feet.
Some torture sessions lacked even the pretense of an examination. Remembered Eva Reimann:
My cell door opened. The guard, who, because of the foul smell, held a handkerchief
to his nose, cried,
“Reimann Eva! Come!” I was led
to a first-floor room. He shouted at me, “Take off your shoes!” I took t
hem off. “Lie down!” I lay down. He took a thick bamboo stick, and he beat the soles
of my feet. I
screamed, since the pain was very great. . . . The
stick whistled down on me. A blow on my mouth
tore my lower lip,
and my teeth started bleeding violently. He beat my feet again. The pain was
unbearable.... The door opened suddenly, and, smiling obligingly, a cigarette in his mouth, in came
the chief of the Office, named Sternnagel. In faultless German he asked me,
“What’s wrong here?
Why do you let yourself be beaten?
You just have to sign this document. Or should we jam your
in the door, until the bones are broad. . . ?
A man picked me up by the ankles, raised me eight inches above the floor, and let me fall. My
hands were tied, and my head hit hard. . . . I lay in a bloody puddle. Someone cried, “Stand
I tried to, and, with unspeakable pain, I succeeded.
A man with a pistol came, held it to my
left temple, and said,
“Will you now confess?” I told him, “Please shoot me.” Yes, I hoped to be
freed from all his tortures. I begged him, “Please pull the trigger.”
After barely surviving his “interrogation,” one fourteen-year-old
was taken to the camp infirmary.
“My body was green, but
my legs were fire red,” the boy said. “My wounds were bound with toilet
paper, and I had to change the toilet paper every day. I was in the perfect place to watch what
went on.... All the patients were beaten people, and they died everywhere: at their beds, in
the washroom, on the toilet. At night, I had to step over the dead as if that
were normal to do.”
When the supply of victims ran
low, it was a simple matter to find more.
John Sack: One day, a German in pitch-black pants, the SS’s color,
showed up in Lola’s prison.
He’d been spotted near
the city square by a Pole who’d said, “Fascist! You’re wearing black!” At
that, the German had bolted off, but the Pole chased him a mile to the Church of Saints Peter
and Paul, tackled him by a gold mosaic, hit him, kicked him, and took him to
Some guards, all girls, then seized the incriminating
evidence: the man’s black pants, pulling
them off so aggressively
that one of the tendons tore. The man screamed, but the girls said,
“Shut up!” and they didn’t recognize that the pants were part of a boy scout uniform. The
“man” was fourteen years old. The girls decided to torture
him [with]. . . . fire. They held down
the German boy, put out
their cigarettes on him, and, using gasoline, set his curly black hair afire.
At the larger prison camps, Germans died by the hundreds daily. “You pigs!”
the commandant then
cried, and he beat the Germans with their
stools, often killing them. At dawn many days, a Jewish
cried, “Eins! Zwei! Drei! Vier!” and marched the Germans into the woods outside their camp.
“Halt! Get your shovels! Dig!” the guard cried, and, when the Germans had dug a big
put a picture of Hitler in. “Now cry!” the
guard said. “And sing All the Dogs Are Barking!” and all
the Germans moaned, All the dogs are barking, All the dogs are barking, Just
the little hot-dogs,
Aren’t barking at all.
The guard then cried, “Get undressed!” and, when the Germans were naked,
he beat them, poured liquid manure on them, or, catching a toad, shoved the fat thing down a
German’s throat, the German soon dying.
Utterly unhinged by years of persecution, by the loss of homes and loved ones,
for the camp operators,
no torture, no sadism, no bestiality,
seemed too monstrous to inflict on those now in their power. Some
were forced to crawl on all fours and eat their own excrement as well as that of others.
Many were drowned in open latrines. Hundreds were herded into buildings and burned to death or
sealed in caskets and buried alive. Near Lamsdorf, German women were
forced to disinter bodies
from a Polish burial site. According
to John Sack:
The women did,
and they started to suffer nausea as the bodies, black as the stuff in a gutter, appeared.
The faces were rotten, the flesh was glue, but the guards—who had often seemed psychopathic,
making a German woman drink urine, drink blood, and eat a man’s
excrement, inserting an oily
five-mark bill in a woman’s
vagina, putting a match to it—shouted at the women . . . “Lie down with
them!” The women did, and the guards shouted, “Hug them!” “Kiss them!” “Make love
and, with their rifles, pushed on the backs
of the women’s heads until their eyes, noses and mouths
deep in the Polish faces’ slime. The women who clamped their lips couldn’t scream, and the
women who screamed had to taste something vile. Spitting, retching, the women at last stood up,
the wet tendrils still on their chins, fingers, clothes, the wet seeping into
the fibers, the stink like a
mist around them as they marched back
to Lamsdorf. There were no showers there, and the corpses
all had typhus, apparently, and sixty-four women . . . died.
Not surprisingly, the mortality rate at the concentration camps was staggering and relatively few
survived. At one prison of eight thousand, a mere 1,500 lived
to reach home. And of those “lucky”
did leave with their lives, few could any longer be called human.
When a smattering of accounts began to leak from Poland of the unspeakable crimes being committed,
many in the West were stunned. “One would expect that after the horrors
in Nazi concentration
camps, nothing like that could ever happen
again,” muttered one US senator, who then reported on
torture and “brains splashed on the ceiling.”
“Is this what our soldiers died for?” echoed a Briton in the House of Commons. Added Winston
Churchill: “Enormous numbers [of Germans] are utterly unaccounted
for. It is not impossible that
tragedy on a prodigious scale is
unfolding itself behind the Iron Curtain.”
While Churchill and others in the West were expressing shock and surprise over the sadistic
slaughter taking place in the Soviet Zone, precious little was said about the “tragedy on
scale” that was transpiring in their own backyard.
Among the millions imprisoned by the Allies were thousands of Germans accused
of having a direct
or indirect hand in war crimes. Because the
victorious powers demanded swift and severe punishment,
prosecutors were urged to get the most damning indictments in as little time as possible.
Unfortunately for the accused, their captors seemed determined to inflict as much pain as possible
in the process.
“[W]e were thrown
into small cells stark naked,” Hans Schmidt later wrote. “The cells in which three
or four persons were incarcerated were six and a half by ten feet in size and had no windows or
went to the lavatory we had to run through a lane of Americans who struck us with straps,
brooms, cudgels, buckets, belts, and pistol holders to make us fall down. Our head, eyes, body, belly,
and genitals were violently injured. A man stood inside the lavatory
to beat us and spit on us. We
returned to our cells through the
same ordeal. The temperature in the cells was 140 Fahrenheit or
During the first three days we were given only one cup of water and a small slice of bread.
During the first days we perspired all the time, then perspiration stopped. We were kept standing
chained back to back for hours. We suffered terribly from thirst,
blood stagnation and mortification
of the hands. From time to
time water was poured on the almost red-hot radiators, filling the cells
with steam, so that we could hardly breathe. During all this time the cells were in darkness, except
when the American soldiers entered and switched on electric bulbs ... which
forced us to close our eyes.
became more and more cruel, so that our lips cracked, our tongues were stiff, and we
eventually became apathetic, or raved, or collapsed. After enduring this torture for several days, we
were given a small blanket to cover our nakedness, and driven to the courtyard
outside. The uneven
soil was covered with pebbles and slag and
we were again beaten and finally driven back on our
bleeding feet. While out of breath, burning cigarettes were pushed into our mouths,
and each of us was forced to eat three or four of them. Meanwhile the American soldiers continued
to hit us on eyes, head, and ears. Back in our cells we were pushed against burning radiators, so
our skin was blistered.
For thirteen days and nights we received the same treatment, tortured by heat
and thirst. When we
begged for water, our guards mocked us. When
we fainted we were revived by being drenched with
There was dirt everywhere and we were never allowed to wash, our inflamed eyes gave
us terrible pain, we fainted continuously.
Every twenty minutes or so our cell doors were opened and the soldiers insulted and hit us. Whenever
the doors were opened we had to stand still with our backs to the door. Two
plates of food, spiced with
salt, pepper, and mustard to make
us thirstier, were given us daily. We ate in the dark on the floor.
The thirst was the most terrible of all our tortures and we could not sleep. In this condition I was brought
During the Nazi war crimes
trials and hearings, almost any method that would obtain a “confession”
was employed. Eager to implicate high-ranking German officers in the Malmedy Massacre, American
investigator Harry Thon ordered Wehrmacht sergeant Willi Schafer to write out an incriminating affidavit:
Next morning Mr. Thon appeared
in my cell, read my report, tore it up, swore at me and hit me. After
threatening to have me killed unless I wrote what he wanted, he left. A few minutes later the door of
my cell opened, a black hood encrusted with blood, was put over my head and
face and I was led to
another room. In view of Mr. Thon’s
threat the black cap had a crushing effect on my spirits....
men of my company ... accused me, although later they admitted to having borne false testimony.
Nevertheless I still refused to incriminate myself. Thereupon Mr. Thon said that if I continued
refuse this would be taken as proof of my Nazi opinions, and
. . . my death was certain. He said I
would have no chance against
four witnesses, and advised me for my own good to make a statement
after which I would be set free. . . . I still refused. I told Mr. Thon that although my memory was good,
I was unable to recall any of the occurrences he wished me to write about and which to the best of
my knowledge had never occurred. Mr. Thon left but returned in a little
while with Lieutenant [William]
Perl who abused me, and told Mr.
Thon that, should I not write what was required within half an hour,
I should be left to my fate. Lieutenant Perl made it clear to me that I had the alternative of writing and
going free or not writing and dying. I decided for life.
Another Landser unable to resist the pressure was Joachim Hoffman:
[W]hen taken for a hearing a black hood was placed
over my head. The guards who took me to my
hearing often struck
or kicked me. I was twice thrown down the stairs and was hurt so much that blood
ran out of my mouth and nose. At the hearing, when I told the officers about the ill treatment I had
suffered, they only laughed. I was beaten and the black cap pulled over my face
whenever I could
not answer the questions put to me, or gave answers
not pleasing to the officers....I was beaten and
kicked in the genitals.
after several such sessions, even the strongest submitted and signed papers
incriminating themselves and others. “If you confess you will go free,” nineteen-year-old Siegfried
Jaenckel was told. “[Y]ou need only to say you had an order
from your superiors. But if you won’t
speak you will be
Despite the mental and
physical abuse, young Jaenckel held out as long as he could: “I was beaten
and I heard the cries of the men being tortured in adjoining cells, and whenever I was taken for a
hearing I trembled with fear.... Subjected to such duress I eventually gave in, and signed the long
statement dictated to me.”
Far from being isolated or extreme cases, such methods
of extorting confessions were the rule rather
than the exception.
Wrote author Freda Utley, who learned of the horror after speaking with American
jurist Edward van Roden:
and brutal kickings; knocking-out of teeth and breaking of jaws; mock trials; solitary confinement;
torture with burning splinters; the use of investigators pretending to be priests; starvation; and
of acquittal. . . . Judge van Roden said: “All
but two of the Germans in the 139 cases we investigated
kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American
investigators.” He told of one German who had had lighted matchsticks forced under his fingernails
the American investigators to extort a confession, and had
appeared at his trial with his fingers still bandaged
In addition to testimony
given under torture, those who might have spoken in defense of the accused
were prevented. Moreover, hired “witnesses” were paid by the Americans to parrot the prosecution’s
When criticism such as Utley’s
and van Roden’s surfaced, and even as victims were being hung by the
hundreds, those responsible defended their methods.
“We couldn’t have made those birds talk otherwise... ,” laughed one Jewish “interrogator,”
Colonel A. H. Rosenfeld. “It was a trick, and it worked
like a charm.”
This is the true history of the war crimes of the “Good war” and the “Good peace” as Tom Goodrich
describes in order to draw emphasis to the sadistic hypocrisy
of the Jewish controlled historical narrative.
We must look at
these crimes and then as Germanic folk declare that we shall avenge them. We shall
never again let our Germanic folk be subject to such vile, Semitic malice, in accordance with this
declaration we must prevent the worse ongoing Jewish Supremacist engineered defilement of our
nations through mass immigration, where our people are being made victims of
African and Asian
immigrant criminality and demographic invasion,
worse than even what these Germans faced at the
hands of the likes
of the Jewish Shlomo Morel or the USSRs Genrich Yagoda. Statistically the victims
of the likes of Ed Milibands “open the floodgates” Hellstorm of an immigration policy would be far more
damaging long-term. This is our calling to defiance, in remembrance of the
crimes against our people
in the past, from the Semitic controlled
Rome through to the Semitic controlled Charlemagne and
leaders since, culminating and worsening post 1945, we must retake control of every level of
our civilization to prevent this from continuing, dedicated defiance, politically, socially and logistically.
We must remember the real
histories of our people and use their memories, in their suffering of the
hellstorms inflicted upon them, to inspire us to prevent the descendants of these same Jewish
Supremacists from taking or retaining electoral and wider socio-political power today, in each and
every area in this era we must defend our folk, we must reclaim
the media, the schools, the universities,
councils, police forces,
military forces, national services, judicial commissions and all our borders and
each and every currently occupied street and town, in order to safeguard our Germanic folk from the
ongoing Semitic and non-European destruction, degradation and demographic defilement against our
sacred Germanic folk.
---Rise up in defiance---
Click on this text to watch an interview with a former Waffen SS soldier (1985)
Why Did America Bomb France in World War II?
... Rouen was not the only French victim of Allied bombs,
nor was it even the worst. Some 1,570 French cities and towns
were bombed or hit by artillery fire by Anglo-American forces between June 1940 and May 1945. As an example of
devastation, it is estimated that
95 percent of Saint-Lô was destroyed; Carentan and Caen, too, were virtually flattened.
Some figures show that 432,000 homes and apartments across France were destroyed and another 890,000 homes were
damaged. The number of French civilians
killed and injured before, during, and after their liberation has long been a matter
of heated debate in France. One French historian estimates that more than 50,000 men, women, and children died
The total number of dead could
be as high as 70,000; more than 100,000 were wounded.
Parisians Jeer, Harass Allied Prisoners, 1944
footage of Parisians venting anger against Allied prisoners of war. Shortly after the Allied D-Day invasion
of Normandy in June 1944, British and American soldiers who
had been captured by German forces are marched through
Paris, under German guard, apparently for transfer to a railroad station. Large crowds gather to watch. While
on silently, some women and
men jeer, harass, assault and even spit at the prisoners. German soldiers and
French police keep Parisians from even more violent abuse of the PoWs. Silent footage.
Runtime: 2:18 mins.
How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America
... American involvement in war with Germany was preceded by a long series of steps
[by FDR, including] ... the orders to American warships to shoot
at sight at German submarines,
announced on September 11 . The beginning of actual hostilities
may be dated
from this time rather than
from the German declaration of war, which followed Pearl Harbor ...
The promises to "keep America out of foreign wars" were a deliberate hoax on the American
people, perpetrated for the purpose of
insuring Roosevelt's re-election and thereby enabling
him to proceed with his plan of gradually edging the United States into war.
Life Magazine Prepares Americans for War
Ten months before the outbreak of war in Europe, the most influential US illustrated
magazine was psychologically
preparing Americans for war with alarmist claims that Germany
threatened the United States. This major article in the October 31, 1938, issue of Life magazine,
headlined "America Gets Ready to
Fight Germany, Italy, Japan," told readers that Germany
and Italy "covet ... the rich resources of South America," and warned that "fascist
legions may swarm across the
Atlantic." In fact, at the time Hitler and all other high-level German
officials fervently sought to avoid any conflict with the US, Britain or France.
Franklin Roosevelt was
secretly pushing for war. In September 1939 Britain and France --
encouraged by the US -- declared war against Germany.
Wartime Bombings of Neutral Switzerland
By Joachim Hoffmann
For some time now it has become common to beat up on prototypically democratic Switzerland
in a sometimes unfriendly and occasionally almost hateful way.
this is being done for political motives.
To this end, certain
regrettable events during the Second World War are strongly emphasized,
without in all fairness
mentioning the difficult circumstances under which the Swiss Confederation
had to maintain
its neutrality and sovereignty toward not only the Axis powers,
and especially Germany, but
also toward the western Allies.
Above all the United States,
which is in the forefront of the accusatory critics, should permit
itself to be reminded of
the great extent to which, for years, it violated Swiss neutrality. From
1943 onwards American
war planes flew at will over the neutral country, sometimes
in flight formations, in attacks
on targets in the German Reich.
Time and again they also
carried out offensive operations against Swiss territory. Thus,
on April 1, 1944, Schaffhausen
was the victim of an intense American air attack, with
considerable human losses and heavy
destruction of property. Passenger and freight rail
cars, viaducts and train stations were also
repeatedly bombed or fired upon, such as in
Chiasso and Basel, resulting in numerous fatalities
and extensive material damage. On
February 22, 1945, alone 18 Swiss lost their lives, and 50
were wounded, some severely,
in American bombing attacks and air raids on the northern part
of the country.
In the aftermath of the American air attacks
on Basel and Zürich on March 5, 1945, which
once again caused considerable human losses
and material damage, the government in
Washington was notified in a strongly worded protest
of the routine flouting of Swiss neutrality,
and of the steadily increasing number of border
violations, and that such bombings were
intolerable. The situation had become so tense that
Washington directed the supreme commander
of the United States Army Air Force in Europe, General
Spaatz, and his chief of staff,
to go to Bern [the Swiss capital] in person to apologize and
Among the various US airplanes that came down
on Swiss territory were no fewer than 160
large four-motor B-17 "flying fortress"
bombers and B-24 "Liberators," either because the
crews wanted to avoid being taken
prisoner in Germany, or were deserters who simply
wanted to get out of military service, or
because they were forced
to land or were shot down by Swiss flyers or air defense forces.
War planes of other countries also repeatedly carried out offensive operations against
Switzerland, including, on a large scale, by the British Royal Air Force, and also, not so
seriously but still considerable, by the German Luftwaffe, and even on occasion by French planes.
However, none of the nations at war so massively and continuously challenged Swiss neutrality,
and caused such great loss of life and destruction of property, as the
fighter planes of the United States air force.
From The Journal of Historical
Review, Nov.-Dec. 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 6), page 15.
item originally appeared as a reader's letter in the September 1997 issue of the Swiss magazine Schweizer Soldat.
About the Author
Joachim Hoffmann (1930- 2002), was an eminent German historian. He studied modern
eastern European history and comparative ethnology at the University of Hamburg
and at the Free
University in Berlin He received his doctorate (Dr. phil.) in history in
1959. Between 1960
and 1995, he was a historian with the Militärgeschichtliche Forschungsamt
History Research Center), a federal German government agency. For a time he served
as the Center’s
scholarly director. Hoffmann was the author of several books and numerous
especially with 19th century political, diplomatic and
military history, and the history of
the German-Soviet War.
Adolf Hitler: My Political Testament
(Berlin, 29 April 1945)
Since 1914, when as a volunteer,
I made my modest contribution in the World War
was forced upon the Reich, over thirty years have passed.
In these three decades, only love for my people and loyalty
to my people have guided me
in all my thoughts, actions, and life. They gave
me the strength to make the most difficult
decisions, such as no mortal
has yet had to face. I have exhausted
my time, my working energy, and
my health in these three decades.
It is untrue that I or anybody else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was desired
instigated exclusively by those international statesmen who were either
origin or working for Jewish interests. I have made so many
offers for the reduction and
elimination of armaments, which posterity cannot
explain away for all eternity, that the
responsibility for the outbreak
of this war cannot rest on me. Furthermore, I never desired
that after the first
terrible World War a second war should arise against England or even
against America. Centuries may pass, but out of the ruins of our cities and monuments of
art there will arise anew the hatred for the people who alone are
ultimately responsible: International Jewry and its helpers!
As late as three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish War,
I proposed to the
British Ambassador in Berlin a solution for the
German-Polish problem -- similar to the
problem of the Saar area, under international
control. This offer cannot be explained
away, either. It was only rejected
because the responsible circles in English politics wanted
partly in the expectation of business advantages,
partly driven by propaganda
promoted by international Jewry.
But I left no doubt about the
fact that if the peoples of Europe were again only regarded
as so many
packages of stock shares by these international money and finance conspirators,
that race, too, which is the truly guilty party in this murderous struggle would also
have to be held to account: the Jews! I further left no doubt that this time we would not
permit millions of European children of Aryan descent to die of hunger, nor millions
grown-up men to suffer death, nor hundreds of thousands of women and children
burned and bombed to death in their cities, without the truly
having to atone for its guilt, even if through more humane means.
After six years
of struggle, which in spite of all reverses will go down in history as the most
glorious and most courageous manifestation of a people's will to live. I cannot separate
myself from the city which is the capital of this Reich. Because our forces are too
permit any further resistance against the enemy's assaults, and because
is rendered valueless by blinded and characterless
scoundrels, I desire to share the fate
that millions of others have taken upon
themselves, in that I shall remain in this city.
Furthermore, I do not
want to fall into the hands of enemies who for the delectation
hate-riddled masses require a new spectacle promoted by the Jews.
I have therefore resolved to remain in Berlin and there to choose
death of my own will at
the very moment when, as I believe, the seat
of the Fuehrer and Chancellor can no longer
be defended. I die with
a joyful heart in the awareness the immeasurable deeds and achievements
our soldiers at the front, of our women at home, the achievements of our peasants and
workers, and the contribution, unique in history, of our youth, which bears my name.
It goes without saying that I thank them all
from the bottom of my heart and that it is also
my desire that in spite
of everything they should not give up the struggle, but continue fighting
wherever they may be, faithful to the great Clausewitz, against the enemies of the Fatherland.
From the sacrifices of our soldiers and from my own comradeship with them, there will come
in one way or another into German history the seed of a brilliant renaissance of the
National Socialist movement and thus the realization of a true national community.
brave men and women have resolved to link their lives to mine to the very end.
I have requested them, and finally ordered them, not to do so, but instead to take part in
the continuing struggle of the nation. I ask the commanders of the army, navy, and air force
to strengthen by all possible means the spirit of resistance of our soldiers in
the spirit of
National Socialism, emphasizing especially that I too, as founder
and creator of
this movement, have preferred death to cowardly flight
or even capitulation.
May it be one day a part of the code of honor; as it is already in the navy, that the surrender
of an area or of a town is impossible, and above all in this respect the leaders
should give a shining example of faithful devotion to duty unto death.
men have joined me by their own free will and do not wish to leave the capital
of the Reich under any circumstances, but on the contrary are willing to perish with me here.
Yet I must ask them to obey my request, and in this instance
place the interests of the nation above their own feelings.
Through their work and loyalty they will remain just as
close to me as companions after
my death, just as I hope that my spirit will
remain amongst them and will always accompany
them. Let them be hard,
but never unjust; above all, let them never allow fear to counsel their
actions, but may they place the honor of the nation above everything on this earth. Finally,
may they be conscious of the fact that our task of building a National Socialist state represents
the labor of the coming centuries, and this places every single person under an obligation
to serve the common interest and to subordinate his own interests.
I demand of all Germans,
all National Socialists, men and women and
all soldiers of the Armed Forces, that they remain
faithful and obedient
to the new government and to their President unto death.
Above all, I charge the leadership of the nation and their followers
with the strict observance
of the racial laws and with merciless resistance
universal poisoners of all peoples, international Jewry.
Given at Berlin,
29 April 1945, 4 AM.
Dr. JOSEPH GOEBBELS
WWII - EUROPA - The Last Battle
https://youtu.be/WqREtbt__O8 part 1
As featured on
National Radio and suddenly
banned by Amazon... (after receiving more than 300 5-star reviews!)
We all know the story about World War II.
The one about how "The Good Guys"
banded together to stop Adolf Hitler and the big bad Germans (and Japanese) from
taking over the world.
is just one problem with this official version of the history-changing event known as World
It's a LIE!
Can you handle the truth about what really happened?
Click on this text to watch a five minute trailer about "THE BAD WAR" on Youtube...
Click on this text to read "THE BAD WAR:THE TRUTH NEVER TAUGHT ABOUT WORLD WAR II" IN PDF FORMAT...
SUMMER MONTHS OF 1939
TO PEACEFULLY RESOLVE
DISPUTE OVER DANZIG & THE ‘POLISH
(Stolen from Germany after World War I)
"BERLIN THINKS DOOR IS
LEFT OPEN TO PEACEFUL SOLUTION"
The August 28th headline of the Hitler-hating New
York Times confirmed that Hitler sought to avoid war with Britain & France.
The “free city” of Danzig is 95% German. Along
with its surrounding German area of
East Prussia, Danzig was isolated from the German mainland by the harsh
War I treaties. Formerly German territory now belongs to Poland, cutting
the Prussian/Pomeranian region of Germany. As had been the case
stranded in Czechoslovakia, the Germans in Poland (those not expelled in 1919) are
Hitler tries to
solve the problem of the "Polish Corridor” peacefully. He proposes that the people living in Danzig, and the “corridor”
be permitted to vote in a referendum to decide their status. If the region returns
to German sovereignty, Poland will be given a 1 mile wide path, running through
Germany to the Baltic Sea so that it would not be landlocked.
The Poles consider Hitler’s solution,
but behind the scenes, Poland is urged by FDR to not make any deals with
Germany. When it becomes apparent to Hitler that Poland will not allow
a referendum, he then proposes another solution – international control of the formerly German
regions. This sensible offer is also ignored.
The Globalists intend to use foolish Poland as the match which ignites World War II.
Germans stranded in the
stolen 'corridor' and the "free city" of Danzig were abused and denied the right to self-determination.
AUGUST 25, 1939
POLAND AGREE TO A MILITARY ALLIANCE
The Polish-British Common Defense Pact contains promises of British military assistance in the event that Poland is attacked
by another European country. This builds upon a previous agreement (March 1939) between the two countries,
and also France, by specifically committing to military action in the event of an attack.
this agreement, powerful Zionist-Globalist forces in the UK have now trapped the reluctant Prime
Minister Neville Chamberlain, as well as France and Poland. All that is left to do now is for Polish-Jewish
border thugs to deliberately provoke Germany into action and get the ball rolling.
The British-Polish Common
Defense past was forced upon Neville Chamberlain.
AUGUST 31, 1939
GLEIWITZ (and other) BORDER ATTACKS / JEWISH-POLISH GUERILLAS ATTACK GERMAN RADIO STATION
Overestimating their strength, underestimating German strength,
and knowing that France and the UK would now be forced to back them, Polish-Jewish terrorists
cross the border and attack a German radio station in Silesia, Germany. It is actually the
latest in a string of deliberate border instigations against Germany.
then broadcast a message (in Polish) urging others to take up arms and start attacking Germans.
German police quickly arrive and retake the station, killing one of the Red terrorists. Jewish Red
terrorists, their Polish government protectors, and their Globalist-Zionist masters have picked
a fight with Germany!
Modern historians claim that the Gleiwitz incident was staged by Germans dressed as
Polish terrorists. But as is the case with the Reichstag Fire conspiracy theory, they offer no evidence,
(beyond a forced “confession” obtained after the war) to support this theory – a theory
that ignores the outrageous and repeated pattern of provocations directed at Hitler's Germany ever
since 1933, the numerous border incidents, and also Hitler’s sincere attempts to negotiate
a fair resolution to the Corridor and Danzig controversies.
Soon after broadcasting a
call to kill Germans, Polish-Jewish partisans, with the blessing of the Polish government, kicked off
the war between Poland and Germany.
FORBIDDEN HISTORY - QUOTE
"I lived in Germany during the 1980's when many people who
lived during the war were still alive. I sought out anyone who lived near Poland in 1939 and was lucky
enough to meet several people. One was a customs official who said it was so bad on the border they
were armed and also had grenades in their office ready for attacks. Another told me his farm animals were often stolen
by Polish (Jewish?) terrorists. Another told of his niece being raped by a Pole (Jew?) who crossed
the border. He told me in 1940 they caught the man and showed me a copy of the death order signed by
Heydrich, in which he ordered the man put to death.
This is just one of many stories told to me by German
civilians who witnessed these border incursions just like had happened in 1919-1928. One thing many people fail to see is that Poland openly attacked Germany right after World
War I, which led to many border battles. Once Germany started pressing Poland to work out a solution to the corridor,
the attacks started again. .And one thing that is
clear to me is that Germany did not make up these attacks."
- G.H. Ohio, USA
SEPTEMBER 17, 1939
UNION INVADES POLAND FROM THE EAST / ALLIES SAY NOTHING!
With the Polish army being routed by the advancing Germans in the west, Stalin cleverly decides
to break the Soviet-Polish Non Aggression Pact of 1932. Poland is stabbed in the back as Soviet forces pour in from the east. The advancing Reds carry
out massacres, the most infamous being the Katyn Forest Massacre in which 10,000 Polish Army officers are shot in the head.
Other than the pre-Versailles
German areas which Germany will reclaim, the Soviets will take.all of Poland. In a shocking double-standard, the
anti-German Globo-Zio press, FDR, France & the UK remain oddly silent about this brutal Soviet
Poland appeals to Britain for help, citing the Poland-British
Defense Pact just signed a few weeks ago! The Polish ambassador in London
contacts the British Foreign Office pointing out that clause 1(b) of the agreement, which concerned
an "aggression by a European power" on Poland, should apply to the Soviet invasion. The UK
Foreign Secretary responds with hostility, stating that it was Britain's decision whether to declare war on the Soviet
The truth is, the Allies don't give a rat's ass about
Poland. They only used its foolish ultra-nationalist leaders to instigate Hitler so that they
could have their war. The horror that Poland will suffer under Soviet occupation is Poland's
problem, not Britain's!
The Soviets executed 10,000 Polish
Army officers at Katyn Forest. They would later try to blame it on the Germans.
SEPTEMBER 17, 1939
HAS DEFEATED POLAND / DANZIG AND WESTERN PRUSSIA REUNITED WITH GERMANY
Within a few weeks, the German-Polish War is already over.
Hitler receives a hero’s welcome upon his arrival in liberated Danzig. Hitler addresses the Danzig crowd:
“No power on earth would have borne this condition as long as Germany. I do not know
what England would have said about a similar peace solution (Versailles) at its expense or how America
or France would have accepted it.
I attempted to find a tolerable solution - even for this problem. I submitted
this attempt to the Polish rulers in the form of verbal proposals.
.You know these proposals. They were more than moderate.
I do not know what mental condition the Polish Government was in when it refused these proposals. …….As
an answer, Poland gave the order for the first mobilization. Thereupon wild terror was initiated,
and my request to the Polish Foreign Minister to visit me in Berlin once more to discuss these questions
was refused. Instead of going to Berlin, he went to London.”
Hitler receives a hero's
welsome in Danzig
OCTOBER 1939 - MAY 1940
PLEADS FOR PEACE WITH BRITAIN & FRANCE
The German-Polish War has ended quickly. There is nothing that the Allies can do help their Polish
puppet. The French actually invade Germany on September 7th, advancing 8 km before stopping.
The quiet period between the end of the Polish war until May 1940, is dubbed by a US Senator
as "The Phony War."
During this time, Hitler pleads for the Allies
to withdraw their war declarations. Towards France he declares:
."I have always expressed to France my desire to bury forever our
ancient enmity and bring together these two nations, both of which have such glorious pasts."
To the British,
Hitler says: “I have devoted no less effort to the achievement of Anglo-German
friendship. At no time and in no place have I ever acted contrary to British interests….Why should
this war in the West be fought?”
Hitler’s pleas for peace are ignored
as the allies amass 600,000 troops in Northern France! Plans are openly discussed to advance eastward upon Germany, via Belgium and Holland, as well
as establishing operations in neutral Norway and Denmark, with or without their consent.
As Hitler continues to plead for
peace, the British government deploys its army and frightens its people.
Stalin's War Against His Own Troops
The Tragic Fate of Soviet Prisoners of War in German Captivity
By Yuri Teplyakov
At dawn on June 22, 1941, began the mightiest military
offensive in history: the
German-led Axis attack against the Soviet Union. During the first
18 months of the
campaign, about three million Soviet soldiers were taken prisoner. By the end
conflict four years later, more than five million Soviet troops are estimated to have
fallen into German hands. Most of these unfortunate men died in German captivity.
A major reason for this was the unusual nature of the war on the eastern front, particularly
during the first year -- June 1941-June 1942 -- when vastly greater numbers of prisoners
into German hands than could possibly be accommodated adequately. However,
and as Russian journalist
Teplyakov explains in the following article, much of the
blame for the terrible fate of the
Soviet soldiers in German captivity
was due to the inflexibly cruel policy of Soviet dictator
During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries
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
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  Warsaw Rising), the
answer seems to be yes. (Stalin's
own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army
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
matter: 'There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death.
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.
As Teplyakov also explains here, Red
Army "liberation" of the surviving Soviet prisoners
in German camps brought no end
to the suffering of these hapless men. It wasn't until
recently, when long-suppressed Soviet
wartime records began to come to light and
long-silenced voices could at last speak out, that
the full story of Stalin's treatment of
Soviet prisoners became known. It wasn't until 1989,
for example, that Stalin's
grim Order No. 270 of August 16, 1941
-- cited below -- was first published.
-- Mark Weber
"What is the most horrible thing about war?"
Marshal Ivan Bagramyan,
three-time Hero of the Soviet Union Alexander Pokryshkin,
and Private Nikolai
Romanov, who has no battle orders or titles, all replied with just one word: "Captivity."
"Is it more horrible than death?" I
was asking soldier Nikolai Romanov a quarter of a
century ago when, on the sacred
day of May 9 [anniversary of the end of the war against
Germany in 1945], we
were drinking bitter vodka together to commemorate the souls of the
muzhiks who would never return to that orphaned village on the bank of the Volga.
"It's more horrible," he replied. "Death
is your own lot.
But if it's captivity, it spells trouble for many ..."
At that time, in
1965, I could not even vaguely imagine the extent of the tragedy which had
millions upon millions, nor did I know that that tragedy had been triggered by just a
few lines from the Interior Service Regulations of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army: a
Soviet soldier must not be taken prisoner against his will. And if he has been, he
is a traitor to the Motherland.
How many of them were there -- those "traitors"?
"During the war years," I was told
by Colonel Ivan Yaroshenko, Deputy Chief of the Central
Archives of the USSR
Ministry of Defense, in Podolsk near Moscow, "as many as 32 million
were soldiers, and 5,734,528 of them were taken prisoner by the enemy."
Later I learned where this happened and when.
Thus, the Red Army suffered the most tragic
losses in terms of prisoners of war
in the following battles: Belostok-Minsk, August 1941,
323,000; Uman, August
1941, 103,000; Smolensk-Roslavl, August 1941, 348,000; Gomel,
August 1941, 30,000;
Demyansk, September 1941, 35,000; Kiev, September 1941,
September 1941, 20,000; Melitopol, October 1941, 100,000;
Vyazma, October 1941,
662,000; Kerch, November 1941, 100,000; Izyum-Kharkov,
May 1942, 207,000. People
were taken prisoner even in February 1945 (Hungary), 100,000.
The same archives in Podolsk hold another 2.5 million cards "missing
in action" -- two and
a half million who never returned home. Experts believe:
two million of them are still lying in
Russia's forests and marshes. And about
200,000 must be added to the list of POWs. Proof?
From time to time the Podolsk
archives receive a letter from somewhere in Australia or the
United States: "I
was taken prisoner. Request confirmation that I took part in battles against fascism."
This person was lucky -- he survived. The majority,
however, had a different lot. German
statistics put it on record: 280,000 person
died at deportation camps and 1,030,157
were executed when trying to escape
or died at factories or mines in Germany.
Many of our officers and men were killed by famine before they reached the camps.
Nearly 400,000 men died in November-December 1941 alone. During the entire war there
were 235,473 British and American prisoners of war in Germany -- 8,348 of them died.
Were our men weaker? Hardly. The reasons were different. In the West it is believed that
the millions of our POWs who died in captivity fell victim not only to fascism but also to
the Stalinist system itself. At least half of those who died from hunger could
saved had Stalin not called them traitors and refused to send
food parcels to them via the International Red Cross.
It can be argued how many would have survived,
but it's a fact that we left our POWs to the
mercy of fate. The Soviet Union
did not sign the Geneva Convention concerning the legal
status of prisoners of
war. Refusing to sign it was consistent
with the Jesuitical nature of the "leader
of the peoples."
From Stalin's point of view, several provisions of the Convention were incompatible with
the moral and economic institutions which were inherent in the world's "freest country."
The Convention, it turns out, did not guarantee the right to POWs as working people: low
wages, no days off, no fixed working hours. Exception was also taken to the privileges
fixed for some groups of POWs. In other words it should be more humane. But greater
hypocrisy can hardly be imagined. What privileges were enjoyed at that very same time
by millions in [Soviet] GULAG prison camps? What guarantees
existed there and how many days off did they have?
In August 1941 Hitler permitted a Red Cross delegation to visit the
camp for Soviet
POWs in Hammerstadt. It is these contacts that resulted in an
appeal to the Soviet government,
requesting that it should send food parcels
for our officers and men. We are prepared to fulfill
and comply with the norms
of the Geneva convention, Moscow said in its reply, but sending
food in the given
situation and under fascist control is the same as making presents to the enemy.
The reply came as a surprise. The Red Cross representatives
had not read Stalin's Order
of the Day -- Order No. 270, signed on August 16,
1941. Otherwise they would have understood
how naive their requests and offers
were, and how great was Stalin's hatred
for those who had found themselves behind
It made no difference: who, where, how and why? Even the dead were considered to be
criminals. Lt.-Gen. Vladimir Kachalov, we read in the order, "being in encirclement together
with the headquarters of a body of troops, displayed cowardice and surrendered to the
German fascists. The headquarters of Kachalov's groups broke out of the encirclement,
the units of Kachalov's group battled their way out of the encirclement,
but Lt.-Gen. Kachalov preferred to desert to the enemy."
General Vladimir Kachalov had been lying for 12 days in a burned out
tank at the Starinka
village near Smolensk, and never managed to break out to
reach friendly forces. Yet this
was of no concern for anyone. They were busy
with something else -- looking for scapegoats
whom they could dump all of their
anger on, looking for enemies of the people whose
treachery and cowardice had
the will of the great military leader.
We had to be "convinced" again and
again: the top echelons of authority, the leaders,
have no relation whatsoever
to any tragedy, to any failure -- be it the collapse of the
first Five-Year Plan
or the death of hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the Dnieper.
these misfortunes cannot have objective reasons either, being due solely to
intrigues of saboteurs and the enemies of the progressive system. For decades, ever
since the 1930s, we have been permanently looking for scapegoats in the wrong place,
finding them nevertheless. At that time, in the first summer of the war, plenty of them
were found. And the more the better. On June 4, 1940, the rank of general was re-established
in the Red Army. They were awarded to 966 persons. More than 50 were taken prisoner in
the very first year of the war. Very many of them would envy their colleagues -- those 150
generals who would later die on the battlefields. The torments of captivity proved to be
darker than the grave. At any rate the destinies of Generals Pavel Ponedelin and
Nikolai Kirillov, mentioned in the same Order No. 270, prove that this is so. They staunchly
withstood their years in the German camps. In April 1945 the [western] Allies set them
free and turned them over to the Soviet side. It seemed that everything had been left behind,
but they were not forgiven for August 1941. They were arrested after a "state check-up":
five years in the Lefortovo jail for political prisoners and
execution by a firing squad on August 25, 1950.
"Stalin's last tragic acts in his purging of the military were
the accusations of betrayal and
treachery he advanced in the summer of 1941
against the Western Front commanders,
Pavlov and Klimovskikh, and several other
generals among whom, as it became clear
later, there were also people who behaved
in an uncompromising way to the end when in
captivity." This assessment
is by the famous chronicler of the war, Konstantin Simonov.
It appeared in the
1960s, but during the wartime ordeals there was indomitable faith:
of war (both generals and soldiers) were guilty. No other yardstick existed.
International law states that military captivity
is not a crime, "a prisoner of war must be
as inviolable as the sovereignty
of a people, and as sacred as a misfortune." This
is for others, whereas
for us there was a different law -- Stalin's Order No. 270.
If ... "instead of organizing resistance to the enemy, some Red Army
men prefer to
surrender, they shall be destroyed by all possible means, both ground-based and
from the air, whereas the families of the Red Army men who have been taken
prisoner shall be deprived of the state allowance [that is, rations] and relief."
The commanders and political officers ... "who surrender to the enemy shall be considered
malicious deserters, whose families are liable to be arrested [just] as the families
of deserters who have violated the oath and betrayed their Motherland."
Just a few lines, but they stand for the hundreds of thousands of children
and old folks who
died from hunger only because their father or son happened
to be taken prisoner.
Just a few lines, but they amount to a verdict on those who never even
thought of a crime, who were only waiting for a letter from the front.
Having read these lines, I came to understand the amount of grief
they carried for absolutely
innocent people, just as I understood the secret
sorrow of the words Private Nikolai Romanov
told me a quarter of a century ago:
"Your own captivity spells trouble for many."
I understood why the most horrible thing for our soldiers was not to be killed,
but to be
reported "missing in action," and why before each battle,
especially before the assault
crossing of rivers, they asked one another: "Buddy,
if I get drowned, say that you saw me die."
Setting their feet on a shaky pontoon and admitting, as it were, that they
could be taken
prisoner solely through their own fault, they mentally glanced
back not out of fear for their
own lives -- they were tormented and worried over
lives of those who had stayed back at home.
But what was the fault of the hundreds of thousands
of soldiers encircled near Vyazma when
Hitler launched Operation Taifun
-- his advance on Moscow? "The most important
thing is not to surrender
your positions," the General Headquarters of the Supreme
ordered them. And the army was feverishly digging trenches
facing the west, when
panzer wedges were already enveloping them from the east.
General Franz Halder, Chief of Staff of the Wehrmacht's ground forces,
made the following
entry in his diary on this occasion: "October 4 -- 105
days of the war. The enemy has
continued everywhere holding the unattacked sectors
of the front, with the
result that deep envelopment of these enemy groups looms
in the long term."
Who was supposed to see these wedges? A soldier from his tiny foxhole or Stalin
from the GHQ? And what was the result? Who was taken prisoner? Who betrayed the Motherland? The soldier did.
In May 1942, as
many as 207,047 officers and men (the latest figure) found themselves
at Kharkov. When Khrushchev held power, it was Stalin that was considered to
guilty of this. When Brezhnev took over, the blame was again put on Khrushchev who,
incidentally, had been merely warned by Stalin for that defeat which opened the road
the Germans to the Volga. But who then betrayed the Motherland, who was taken prisoner?
May 19, 1942, is the date of our army's catastrophe in the Crimea. "The Kerch Operation
may be considered finished: 150,000 POWs and a large quantity of captured equipment."
This is a document from the German side. And here is a document from the Soviet side
cited by Konstantin Simonov: "I happened to be on the Kerch Peninsula in 1942. The reason
for the humiliating defeat is clear to me. Complete mistrust of the army and front commanders,
Mekhlis' stupid willfulness and arbitrary actions. He ordered that no
be dug, so as not to sap the soldiers' offensive spirit."
Stalin's closest aide and then Chief of the Main Political Administration
(GPU), Lev Mekhlis,
the first Commissar of the Army and Navy, returned to Moscow
after that defeat.
And what did the soldier do? The soldier stayed in captivity.
is no denying that no war can do without treachery and traitors. They could also be
found among POWs. But if compared with the millions of their brothers in captivity, they
amounted to no more than a drop in the ocean. Yet this drop existed.
is no escaping this. Some were convinced by leaflets like this one:
The Murderous Balance of Bolshevism:
Killed during the years of the Revolution and Civil War -- 2,200,000 persons.
Died from famine and epidemics in 1918 -1921 and in 1932-1933 -- 14,500,000 persons.
Perished in forced labor camps -- 10,000,000 persons.
Some even put it this way: I am not going into action against my people, I am going into
action against Stalin. But the majority joined fascist armed formations with only one hope:
as soon as the first fighting starts, I'll cross the line to join friendly troops. Not everyone
managed to do this, although the following fact is also well known. On September
when the results of the Kursk Battle were summed up, Hitler explained
the defeat by
the "treachery of auxiliary units": indeed, at that time
1,300 men -- practically a whole
regiment -- deserted to the Red Army's side
on the southern sector. "But now I am fed
up with this," Hitler said.
"I order these units to be disarmed
immediately and this whole gang to be
sent to the mines in France."
It has to be admitted that it was Hitler who rejected longer than all others the proposals
to form military units from among Soviet POWs, although as early as September 1941
Colonel von Tresckow had drawn up a plan for building up a 200,000-strong Russian
anti-Soviet army. It was only on the eve of the Stalingrad Battle, when prisoners
of war already numbered millions, that the Führer gave his consent at last.
All in all, it
became possible to form more than 180 units. Among them the number of
formations was 75; those formed from among Kuban, Don and Terek Cossacks
Turkistan and Tatar (from Tataria and the Crimean Tatars) -- 42; Georgian
11; peoples of the Northern Caucasus -- 12; Azerbaijani -- 13; Armenian -- 8.
The numerical strength of these battalions by
their national affiliation (data as of January
24, 1945) was the following: Latvians
-- 104,000; Tatars (Tataria) -- 12,500, Crimean Tatars
-- 10,000; Estonians
-- 10,000; Armenians -- 7,000; Kalmyks -- 5,000. And the Russians?
to the official figures of Admiral Karl Dünitz's "government," as of May 20, 1945,
there were the 599th Russian Brigade -- 13,000, the 600th -- 12,000, and the 650th -- 18,000 men.
If all of this
is put together (as we are doing now), it would seem that there were many who
served on the other side. But if we remember that only 20 percent of these forces took part
in hostilities, that they were recruited from among millions of POWs, that thousands upon
thousands crossedthe front line to return to friendly
troops, the brilliance
of the figures will clearly fade.
One detail -- the Reich's special services displayed special concern over forming non-Russian
battalions as if they knew that they would be required, especially after the war when
whole peoples, from babies to senile old men, came to be accused of treachery. And
it made no difference -- whether you were kept in a prison
camp or served in the army -- all the same you were an enemy.
But the POWs themselves were not yet aware of this -- everything
still lay ahead. The
hangover after liberation would set in a little later. Both
for those who themselves escaped
from the camps (500,000 in 1944, according to
the estimate of Germany's Armaments
Minister Speer) and for those who after liberation
by Red Army
units (more than a million officers and men) again fought in its
too long a time we used to judge the spring of 1945 solely by the humane instructions
issued by our formidable marshals -- allot milk for Berlin's children, feed women and old
men. It was strange reading those documents, and at the same time chewing steamed
rye instead of bread, and eating soup made of dog meat (only shortly before her death
did my grandmother confess she had slaughtered dogs to save us from hunger). Reading
those orders, I was prepared to cry from tender emotions: how noble it
to think that way and to show such concern for the German people.
And who of us knew that at the same time the marshals received
different orders from the Kremlin with respect to their own people?
[To the] Commanders of the troops of the First and Second
[Army Groups], and the First, Second, Third and Fourth Ukrainian Fronts
The Military Councils of the Fronts shall form camps in [rear-zone] service
the accommodation and maintenance of former prisoners of war and repatriated
Soviet citizens -- each camp for 10,000 persons. All in all, there shall be formed: at
Second Byelorussian Front -- 15 [camps]; at the First Byelorussian Front -- 30;
at the First
Ukrainian Front -- 30; at the Fourth Ukrainian Front -- 5; at the
Second Ukrainian Front --
10; at the Third Ukrainian Front -- 10 camps ...
The check-up [of the former prisoners
of war and repatriated citizens] shall be entrusted
as follows: former Red Army servicemen --
to the bodies of SMERSH
counter-intelligence; civilians -- to the commissions of the NKVD,
NKGB, SMERSH ...
I phoned Col.-Gen. Dmitri Volkogonov, Chief of the Institute of Military History
USSR Ministry of Defense [and author of Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy]:
"Where did you
find that order? Both at the State Security Committee and
at the USSR
Ministry of Internal Affairs they told me that they had nothing of
"This one is from Stalin's personal archives. The camps existed, which means that there
are also papers from which it is possible to learn everything: who, where, what they
were fed, what they thought about. Most likely, the documents are in the system of
the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The convoy troops were subordinate to this government
department. It included the Administration for the
Affairs of Former
Prisoners of War. Make a search."
And search I did. Maj.-Gen. Pyotr Mishchenkov, First Deputy Chief of the present-day
Main Administration for Corrective Affairs (GUID) at the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs,
was sincerely surprised: "This is the first I heard about this. I would
be glad to help, but
there is nothing I can do about it. I know that there was
a colony in the Chunsky district
of the Irkutsk Region. People got there after
being checked up at the filtering camps
mentioned in Stalin's order. They were
all convicted under Article 58 -- high treason."
One colony ... Where are the others, what happened to their inmates? After
all, as many
as 100 camps were at work. The only thing I managed to find out
-- by October 1, 1945,
they had "filtered" 5,200,000 Soviet citizens;
2,034,000 were turned over by the Allies --
98 percent of those who stayed in
Germany's western occupation zones, mostly POWs.
How many of them returned home?
And how many went, in accordance with Order No. 270,
into Soviet concentration
camps? I don't yet have any authentic documents in my
possession. Again only
Western estimates and some eyewitness accounts.
I spoke to one such eyewitness on the Kolyma. A former "traitor to the
but then the accountant general of the Srednekan gold field,
Viktor Masol, told me how
in June 1942 in the Don steppes after the Kharkov catastrophe
they -- unarmed, hungry,
ragged Red Army men -- were herded like sheep by German
tanks into crowds of many
thousands. Freight cars took them to Germany, where
he mixed concrete for the Reich,
and three years later they were sent in freight
cars from Germany across the whole
Soviet Union -- as far as the Pacific Ocean.
In the port of Vanino they were loaded into
the holds of the Felix Dzerzhinsky
steamship [named after the founder of the Soviet
secret police], which had previously
borne the name of Nikolai Yezhov, [a former] People's
Commissar of Internal
Affairs [that is, the NKVD or secret police], bound for Magadan.
During the week
they were on their way, they were given food only once -- barrels with
covered with boiling water, were lowered through the hatch. And they, burning
their hands and crushing one another, snatched this mess and stuffed it, choking, into
their mouths: most often people go crazy with hunger. Those who died on the way were
thrown overboard in the Nagayev Bay, the survivors marched into the taiga,
again behind the barbed wire of -- now -- their native prison camps.
Just a few survived and returned. But even they were like lepers.
How many times they heard: "Better a bullet through your head
Many former POWs thought about a bullet in the 1940s-1950s. Both when they were
reminded from the militia office -- "you are two days overdue" (all the POWs were kept on a special
register with mandatory reports on strictly definite days), and when people told them: "Keep
You whiled awayyour time in captivity on fascist grub ..."
And they did keep
1956, after Khrushchev's report, it became possible to speak about Stalin. Former
were no longer automatically enemies of the people, but not quite yet defenders
of the Motherland. Something in between. On paper it was one way, but in life everything was different.
Two years ago, on the eve of V-Day, I interviewed
Col.-Gen. Alexei Zheltov, Chairman of
the Soviet War Veterans' Committee. As
befits the occasion, he was telling me with tears
in his eyes about the holiday,
about a Soviet soldier, an accordion in his hands, in the
streets of spring-time
Vienna. And I don't know what made me ask
him, well, and former prisoners of
war, are they war veterans?
"No, they are not veterans. Don't you have anything else to write about?
Look how many real soldiers we have ..."
If Alexei Zheltov, the tried and tested veteran commissar, were the only one
that way, that wouldn't be so bad. The trouble is that this philosophy
is preached by the
majority of the top brass. Both those who have long retired
on pensions and who still
hold command positions. For nearly 40 years we have
been "orphaned," have lived
without "the father of the peoples,"
but we sacredly revere
his behests, sometimes not even noticing this ourselves.
blood is not water. But is has also proved to be a perfect conserving agent for
morality. It has become even thicker. It has not disappeared even after several
generations. It lives on. And not infrequently it triumphs. Try and raise the problem of
prisoners of war (even before me this theme was taken up on more than one occasion,
so I'm no discoverer here) -- the reaction is always the same: better talk about something
else. And if you fail to heed a "piece of good advice," they may even start to threaten:
"Don't you dare!"
To whom should one address his requests? To the government or the
What beautiful walls of the Kremlin should one knock on to demand
dignity be returned to former POWs, that their good name be restored?
your knocking has been heard. They will ask: what are you complaining about?
resolution do you take exception to? Oh, not a resolution.
You are only worried
over the past? How strange ...
But it's even more strange that we still have real soldiers, real heroes and real people,
meaning that there are also those who are not real. To this day our life is still like a battle
front: by force of habit, we continue putting people in slots -- these on this side, others
over there. There seems to be neither law nor Order No. 270 any longer, like
there is no
one and nothing to fight against, but all the same whatever was once
called black may at best become only gray. But by no means white.
... May 9: the
whole country cries and rejoices. Veterans don their medals and pour out wine,
their buddies. But even in this circle a former POW is
the last to hold out his
glass and the last to take the floor.
What then is to be done? What should we do to squeeze the Stalinoid slave out of ourselves?
About the Author
Yuri Teplyakov, born in 1937, studied journalism
at Moscow State University. He worked as
a journalist for the Moscow daily newspapers
Izvestia and Komsomolskaya Pravda, and for
the APN information
agency. From 1980 to 1993 he worked for the weekly Moscow News.
this article, he expresses thanks to Mikhail Semiryaga, D.Sc. (History), "who
me with considerable material, which he found in German archives. As for the
of Soviet filtering camps, I shall go on with my searches." This article originally
appeared in Moscow News, No. 19, 1990, and was reprinted by special arrangement in
The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1994 (Vol. 14, No. 4), pages 4-10.
‘Second Crusade’ in Retrospect
Looking Back at the U.S. Role in World War Two
By William Henry Chamberlin
America's Second Crusade belongs to history. Was it a success? Over two hundred thousand
Americans perished in combat and almost six hundred thousand were wounded. There was
the usual crop of postwar crimes attributable to shock and maladjustment after combat experience.
There was an enormous depletion of American natural resources in timber, oil, iron ore, and
other metals. The nation emerged from the war with a staggering and probably
debt in the neighborhood of one quarter of a trillion dollars.
Nothing comparable to this burden
has ever been known in American history.
Were these human and material losses justified
or unavoidable? From the military standpoint,
of course, the crusade was a victory.
The three Axis nations were completely crushed. American
power on land and at
sea, in the air and in the factory assembly line,
was an indispensable contribution
to this defeat.
But war is not
a sporting competition, in which victory is an end in itself. It can only be justified
as a means to achieve desirable positive ends or to ward off an intolerable and unmistakable
threat to national security. When one asks for the fruits of victory five years
after the end of the war, the answers sound hollow and unconvincing.
Consider first the results of the war in terms of America's professed war
aims: the Atlantic
Charter and the Four Freedoms. Here surely the failure has
been complete and indisputable.
Wilson failed to make his Fourteen Points prevail
in the peace settlements after World War I.
But his failure might be considered
a brilliant success when one surveys the abyss that yawns
between the principles
of the Atlantic Charter and the Four
Freedoms and the realities of the postwar
After World War I there
were some reasonably honest plebiscites, along with some arbitrary
territorial arrangements. But the customary method of changing frontiers after
War II was to throw the entire population out bag and baggage – and with very little baggage.
No war in history has killed so many people and left such a legacy of miserable,
destitute, dispossessed human beings. Some fourteen million Germans
and people of German
stock were driven from the part of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse
line, from the
Sudeten area of Czechoslovakia, and from smaller German
settlements in Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Rumania.
Millions of Poles were expelled from the territory east of the so-called
Curzon Line and
resettled in other parts of Poland, including the provinces stolen
from Germany. Several
hundred thousand Finns fled from parts of Finland seized
by the Soviet Union in its two
wars of aggression. At least a million East Europeans
of various nationalities Poles, Russians,
Ukrainians, Yugoslavs, Letts, Lithuanians,
Estonians – became refugees
from Soviet territorial seizures and Soviet
Not one of the drastic
surgical operations on Europe's boundaries was carried out in free
with the people affected. There can be no reasonable doubt that every one of
these changes would have been rejected by an overwhelming majority in an honestly conducted plebiscite.
The majority of the people in eastern Poland and the Baltic states did
not wish to become
Soviet citizens. Probably not one person in a hundred in East
Prussia, Silesia, and other
ethnically German territories favored the substitution
of Polish or Soviet for German rule.
What a mockery, then, has been made of the
first three clauses of the Atlantic Charter:
"no territorial aggrandizement,"
"no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely
of the peoples concerned," "the right of all peoples t
o choose the
form of government under which they will live."
The other clauses have fared no better. The restrictions imposed on German and Japanese
industry, trade, and shipping cannot be reconciled with the promise "to further the enjoyment
by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on
equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world."
President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill sing "Onward Christian Soldiers" during
their August 10, 1941, meeting on board a British battleship anchored off of Newfoundland.
the great conflict then raging between Germany and the other Axis nations, on one side, and the British Empire and Soviet
Russia, on the other, the United States was officially still neutral. Nevertheless, and violating both international law
and repeated pledges to the American people, Roosevelt had already plunged the United States into the war. At this meeting
he publicly committed the US to "the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny." Just weeks earlier, and on his order,
US forces had occupied Iceland.
At this meeting Roosevelt and Churchill announced the "Atlantic
Charter," which proclaimed "the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live."
The Allied leaders were never sincere about such pledges. Britain was already violating it in the case of India and other
imperial dominions, and later Roosevelt and Churchill would betray it in the case of Poland, Hungary and other European
The terrific war
destruction and the vindictive peace have certainly not helped to
all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security."
In the year 1950, five years after the end of the Second Crusade, "all
men in all lands"
are not living "out their lives in freedom from fear
and want." Nor
are "all men traversing the high seas and oceans without
and last clause of the Atlantic Charter holds out the prospect of lightening
peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments." But this burden has
more crushing than it was before the crusade took place. The "peace-loving peoples"
have been devoting ever larger shares of their national incomes to preparations for war.
All in all, the promises of the Charter seem to have evaporated in a wraith
of Atlantic mist.
Nor have the
Four Freedoms played any appreciable part in shaping the postwar world.
it may be recalled, were freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion,
and freedom from fear and want. But one of the main consequences of the war was a
expansion of Communist power in eastern Europe and in East Asia. It can hardly be
argued that this has contributed to greater freedom of speech, expression,
religion, or, for that matter, to freedom from want and fear.
The fate of Cardinal Mindzenty, of Archbishop Stepinac, of the Protestant leaders in Hungary,
of the many priests who have been arrested and murdered in Soviet satellite states,
independent political leaders and dissident Communists in
these states, offers eloquent testimony to the contrary.
In short, there is not the slightest visible relation between the Atlantic Charter
Four Freedoms and the kind of world that has emerged after the war. Woodrow
put up a struggle for his Fourteen Points. There is no evidence that Franklin
offered any serious objection to the many violations of his professed
It may, of course,
be argued that the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms were unessential
dressing, that the war was not a crusade at all, but a matter of self-defense and
national survival. However, there is no proof that Germany and Japan had worked
even on paper, any scheme for the invasion of the American continent.
In his alarmist broadcast of May 27, 1941, Roosevelt declared: “Your Government
what terms Hitler, if victorious, would impose. I am not speculating about
all this... They plan
to treat the Latin American countries as they are now treating
the Balkans. They plan
then to strangle the United States of America and the
Dominion of Canada.”
this startling accusation was never backed up by concrete proof. No confirmation was
even when the Nazi archives were at the disposal of the victorious powers. There
has been gross exaggeration of the supposed close co-operation of the Axis powers.
George C. Marshall points this out in his Report on the Winning of the War in Europe
and the Pacific [Simon & Schuster, pp. 1-3], published after the end of the war. This report,
based on American intelligence reports and on interrogation of captured
German commanders, contains the following statements:
No evidence has yet been found that the German
Command had any over-all strategic plan...
When Italy entered the war, Mussolini's
strategic aims contemplated the expansion of
his empire under the cloak of German military success.
Field Marshal Keitel reveals
that Italy's declaration of war was contrary to her agreement
Germany. Both Keitel and Jodl agree that it was undesired...
Nor is there evidence of close strategic coordination between Germany and Japan.
German General Staff recognized that Japan was bound by the neutrality pact
with Russia but
hoped that the Japanese would tie down strong
British and American land, sea and air forces
in the Far East.
In the absence of any evidence so far to the contrary, it is believed
also acted unilaterally and not in accordance with a unified strategic plan.
Not only were the European partners of the Axis unable to coordinate their plans
resources and agree within their own nations how best to proceed, but the
eastern partner, Japan,
was working in even greater discord.
The Axis as a matter of fact existed on paper only.
in the judgment of General Marshall, the Axis did not represent a close-knit league,
a clear-cut plan for achieving world domination, including the subjugation of the
continent. It was a loose association of powers
with expansionist aims in Europe
and the Far East.
the United States had no alternative except to fight after Pearl Harbor and the
German and Italian declarations of war. But the Pearl Harbor attack, in all probability,
would never have occurred if the United States had been less inflexible in upholding
the cause of China. Whether this inflexibility was justified, in the light of
subsequent developments in China, is highly questionable, to say the least.
The diplomatic prelude to Pearl Harbor also includes such fateful American
as the imposition of a virtual commercial blockade on Japan in July
1941, the cold-shouldering
of Prince Konoye's overtures, and the failure, at
the critical moment, to make any more
constructive contribution to avoidance
of war than Hull's bleak note of November 26.
The war with Germany was also very largely the result of the initiative of the Roosevelt
Administration. The destroyer deal, the lend-lease bill, the freezing of Axis assets, the
injection of the American Navy, with much secrecy and double-talk, into the Battle of the
Atlantic: these and many similar actions were obvious departures from neutrality, even
though a Neutrality Act, which the President had sworn to uphold, was still on the statute books.
It is sometimes contended that the gradual edging of the United States
war was justified because German and Japanese victory would have
security and well-being of the United States, even if no invasion
of this hemisphere was
contemplated. This argument would be easier to sustain
if the war had been fought, not
as a crusade of "a free world against a
slave world," but as a cold-blooded attempt
to restore and maintain a reasonable
balance of power in Europe and in Asia.
Had America's prewar and war diplomacy kept this objective in mind, some of the graver
blunders of the Second Crusade would have been avoided. Had it been observed as a
cardinal principle of policy that Soviet totalitarianism was just as objectionable morally
and more dangerous politically and psychologically than the German and Japanese
brands, the course of American policy would surely have been different. There would
have been more favorable consideration for the viewpoint artlessly expressed by Senator
Truman when he suggested that we should support Russia when
was winning and Germany when Russia was winning.
It was the great dilemma of the war that we could not count on winning the war without
Russia and certainly could not hope to win the peace with Russia. But there was at least
a partial solution for this dilemma. One of the ablest men associated with the American
diplomatic service suggested this to me in a private conversation: "We should have made
peace with Germany and Japan when they were too weak to be a threat to us and
still strong enough to be useful partners in a coalition against the Soviet Union."
But such realism was at a hopeless discount in a crusading atmosphere.
The effect of
America's policy was to create a huge power vacuum in Europe and
in Asia, and to leave
the Soviet Union the one strong military power in both
these continents. Then the United
States belatedly began to offer resistance
when the Soviet leaders acted precisely as
anyone might have expected them to
act in view of their political record and philosophy.
An old friend whom I met in Paris in 1946, a shrewd and witty British journalist, offered
the following estimate of the situation which followed the Second Crusade:
know, Hitler really won this war – in the person of Stalin."
President Roosevelt declared in his speech of May 27, 1941: "We will accept
only a world
consecrated to freedom from want and freedom from terrorism."
The war into which he
was steadily and purposefully steering his country was
apparently supposed to assure such a world.
The argument that "we cannot live in a totalitarian world" carried weight with many
Americans who were not impressed by lurid pictures of the Germans (who were
never able to cross the narrow English Channel) suddenly frog-leaping the Atlantic
overrunning the United States. Both in the hectic days of 1940-41 and in the
retrospect of 1950 it seems clear that a Nazi Germany, dominant in Europe,
a militarist Japan, extending its hegemony in Asia, would be unpleasant
and would impose disagreeable changes in the American way of life.
It could plausibly be argued that in such a world we should have to assume a heavy
permanent burden of armament, that we should have to keep a constant alert for
subversive agents, that our trade would be forced into distorted patterns. We
be exposed to moral corruption and to the erosion of our ideals of liberty
because the spectacle of armed might trampling on right would be contagious.
These dangers of totalitarianism were real
enough. But it was a disastrous fallacy to
imagine that these dangers could be
exorcised by waging war and making peace in such
fashion that the power of another
totalitarian state, the Soviet Union, would be greatly enhanced.
Failure to foresee the aggressive and disintegrating role which a victorious Soviet Union
might be expected to play in a smashed and ruined Europe and Asia was the principal
blunder of America's crusading interventionists. Those who secretly or openly sympathized
with communism were at least acting logically. But the majority erred out of sheer
ignorance and wishful thinking about Soviet motives and intentions. They were guilty of
a colossal error in judgment and perspective, and almost unpardonable
error in view of the importance of the issues at stake.
After Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war, the United States, of course, had a
stake in the success of the Red Army. This, however, does not justify the
policy of one-sided appeasement which was followed at Teheran and Yalta.
If one looks farther back, before America's hands were tied diplomatically
in the conflict, there was certainly no moral or political obligation
for the United States
and other western powers to defend the Soviet Union against
possible attacks from
Germany and Japan. The most hopeful means of dealing with
the totalitarian threat would
have been for the western powers to have maintained
a hands-off policy in eastern Europe.
In this case the two totalitarian regimes might have been expected to shoot it out to their
hearts' content. But advocates of such an elementary common-sense policy were vilified
as appeasers, fascist sympathizers, and what not. The repeated indications that Hitler's
ambitions were Continental, not overseas, that he desired and intended
to move toward the east, not toward the west, were overlooked.
Even after what General Deane called "the strange alliance" had been concluded,
there was room for maneuvering. We could have been as aloof toward Stalin as
Stalin was toward us. There is adequate evidence available that the chance of
negotiating a reasonable peace with a non-Nazi German government would have
justified an attempt, but the "unconditional surrender" formula made anything of this
sort impossible. With a blind optimism that now seems amazing and fantastic, the men
responsible for the conduct of American foreign policy staked everything on the improbable
assumption that the Soviet Government would be
a cooperative do-gooder
in an ideal postwar world.
publicist Randolph Bourne, a caustic and penetrating critic of American participation
in its First Crusade, observed that war is like a wild elephant. It
rider where it wishes to go, not where he may wish to go.
Now the crusade has ended. We have the perspective of five years of uneasy peace.
And the slogan, "We are fighting so that we will not have to live in a totalitarian world,"
stands exposed in all its tragic futility. For what kind of world are we living
in today? It is
not very much like the world we could have faced if the crusade
had never taken place,
if Hitler had been allowed to go eastward, if Germany
had dominated eastern Europe
and Japan eastern Asia? Is there not a "This
is where we came in" atmosphere, very
reminiscent of the time when there
was constant uneasy speculation as to where the next
expansionist move would
take place. The difference is that Moscow has replaced
Berlin and Tokyo. There
is one center of dynamic aggression instead of two, with the
power in that one center surpassing by far that of the German-Japanese
And for two reasons their difference is for the worse, not for the better.
First, one could probably have counted on rifts and conflicts of interest between
and Japan which are less likely to arise in Stalin's centralized empire.
expansion is aided by propaganda resources which were never matched
by the Nazis and the Japanese.
does it stand with those ideals which were often invoked by advocates of the Second
Crusade? What about "orderly processes in international relations," to borrow a phrase
from Cordell Hull, or international peace and security in general? Does the present size
of our armaments appropriation suggest confidence in an era of peace and good will?
Is it not pretty much the kind of appropriation we would have found necessary if there
had been no effort to destroy Nazi and Japanese power?
Secret agents of foreign powers? We need not worry about Nazis or Japanese. But
the exposure of a dangerously effective Soviet spy ring in Canada, the proof that Soviet
agents had the run of confidential State Department papers, the piecemeal revelations
of Soviet espionage in this country during the war – all these
things show that the same danger exists from another source.
Moral corruption? We have acquiesced in and sometimes promoted some of the most
outrageous injustices in history: the mutilation of Poland, the uprooting of millions of
human beings from their homes, the use of slave labor after the war. If we would have
been tainted by the mere existence of the evil features of the Nazi system, are we not
now tainted by the widespread prevalence of a very cruel form of slavery in the Soviet Union?
Regimentation of trade? But how much free
trade is there in the postwar world?
This conception has been ousted by an orgy
of exchange controls, bilateral commercial
agreements, and other devices for
diverting the free stream of international commerce.
Justice for oppressed peoples? Almost every
day there are news dispatches
from eastern Europe indicating how conspicuously
this ideal was not realized.
totalitarian regimes against which America fought have indeed been destroyed. But
new and more dangerous threat emerged in the very process of winning the victory.
idea that we would eliminate the totalitarian menace to peace and freedom while
extending the dominion of the Hammer and Sickle has
been proved a humbug, a hoax,
and a pitiful delusion.
back over the diplomatic history of the war, one can identify ten major blunders
contributed very much to the unfavorable position in which the
find themselves today. These may be listed as follows:
(1) The guarantee of "all support in their power" which the British Government gave to
Poland "in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence." This
promise, hastily given on March 31, 1939, proved impossible to keep. It was of no benefit
to the Poles in their unequal struggle against the German invasion. It was not regarded as
applicable against Russia when the Soviet Union invaded and occupied
Poland, with the full understanding and complicity of Hitler.
All this ill-advised guarantee accomplished was to put Great Britain and France into war
against Germany, to the great satisfaction of Stalin, for an objective which the western
powers could not win. Poland was not freed even after the United States entered the war
and Hitler was crushed. It was only subjected to a
tyranny, organized and directed from Moscow.
There is no proof and little probability that Hitler would have attacked the west if he had
not been challenged on the Polish issue. The guarantee, more than any other single action,
spoiled the best political opportunity the western powers possessed in 1939. This
was to canalize German expansion eastward and to keep war out of the West.
(2) The failure of the American Government to accept Konoye's overtures
for a negotiated
settlement of differences in the Far East. The futility of the
crusade for China to
which the American Government committed itself becomes constantly
(3) The "unconditional
surrender" slogan which Roosevelt tossed off at Casablanca in
This was a godsend to Goebbels and a tremendous blow to the morale
of the underground groups which were working against Hitler. It weakened
American and British position in relation to Russia, since Stalin did not associate
himself with the demand. It stiffened and prolonged German resistance.
Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin at the February 1945 Yalta Conference. At this meeting, the Allied coalition leaders
decided the fate of millions of people around the world.
(4) The policy of "getting along" with Stalin on a basis of all-out appeasement.
The Soviet dictator was given everything he wanted in the way of munitions and
supplies and was asked for nothing in return, not even an honest fulfillment of
the Atlantic Charter, of which he was a cosignatory. The disastrous bankruptcy
of this policy is evident from one look at the geographical, political, and
map of the world today.
Failure to invade the Balkans, as Churchill repeatedly urged. This mistake was the
partly of the policy of appeasing Stalin and partly of the narrowly military conception
of the war which dominated the thinking of the War Department. There was a tendency
to regard the war as a kind of bigger football game, in which victory was all that mattered.
(6) The public endorsement by Roosevelt and Churchill in September 1944
preposterous Morgenthau Plan for the economic destruction of Germany.
To be sure,
the full extravagance of this scheme was never put into practice,
but enough of its
vindictive destructionist spirit got into the Potsdam Declaration
and the regulations for
Military Government to work very great harm to American
national interests and European recovery.
(7) The bribing of Stalin, at China's expense, to enter the Far Eastern war and the
failure to make clear, until the last moment, that unconditional sur render, for Japan,
did not mean the elimination of the Emperor. These were grave mistakes, fraught with
fateful consequences for American political interests in the Orient. Had the danger from
Russia, the undependability of China, and the desirability of enlisting Japan as a satellite
ally been intelligently appreciated, a balance of power far more
to the United States would now exist in East Asia.
(8) The failure, for political reasons, to exploit the military opportunities which opened up
in the last weeks of the struggle in Europe, notably the failure to press on and seize Berlin
and Prague. Closely linked with this error was the failure to insist on direct land
access to Berlin in the negotiations about the postwar occupation of Germany.
(9) The persistent tendency to disregard the advice of experts and specialists,
American foreign policy on "hunches" inspired by amateurs
and dilettantes. Conspicuous
examples of unfitness in high places were Harry
Hopkins as adviser on Russia,
Edward R. Stettinius as Secretary of State, Henry
Morgenthau, Jr., as policy framer on
Germany, and Edwin W. Pauley as Reparations
Commissioner. A parallel mistake was the
laxness which permitted American and
foreign Communist sympathizers
to infiltrate the OWI, OSS, and other important
(10) The hasty launching, amid much exaggerated ballyhoo, of the United Nations.
The new organization was not given either a definite peace settlement to sustain or
the power which would have made it an effective mediator and arbiter in disputes
between great powers. It was as if an architect should create an elaborate second
story of a building, complete with balconies, while neglecting to lay a firm foundation.
These were unmistakable blunders which no future historical revelations
can justify or
explain away. In these blunders one finds the answer to the question
why complete military
victory, in the Second Crusade as in the First, was followed
by such complete political
frustration. Perhaps the supreme irony of the war's
aftermath is that the United States
becomes increasingly dependent on the good
will and co-operation of the peoples against
whom it waged a war of political
and economic near extermination, the Germans and the
Japanese, in order to maintain
any semblance of balance of power in Europe and in Asia.
Primary responsibility for the involvement of the United States in World War II and for the
policies which characterized our wartime diplomacy rests with Franklin D. Roosevelt.
His motives were mixed and were probably not always clear, even to himself. Frances
Perkins, Secretary of labor in his Cabinet and a personal friend,
the President as "the most complicated human being I ever knew."
Certainly Roosevelt was far from being a simple and straightforward character. In
age when Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini played the role of the popular tyrant,
of the dictator
whose grip on his people is maintained by a mixture of mass enthusiasm
and mass terrorism,
Roosevelt showed what could be done in achieving very great
personal power within
the framework of free institutions. His career after his
election to the presidency stamps
him as a man of vast ambition, capable, according
to Frances Perkins, of "almost childish vanity."
There were probably three principal motives that impelled Roosevelt to
set in motion
the machinery that led America into its Second Crusade. First was
this quality of ambition.
What role could be more tempting than that of leader
of a wartime global coalition,
of ultimate world arbiter? Second was the necessity
of finding some means of extricating
the American economy from a difficult position.
Third was a conviction that action
against the Axis was necessary. This conviction
was greatly strengthened by the first two motives.
Roosevelt's first Administration, which began at the low point of a very
was a brilliant political success. He was re-elected in 1936
by an enormous majority of
popular and electoral votes. But dark clouds hung
over the last years of his second term
of office. For all the varied and sometimes
contradictory devices of the New Deal failed
to banish the specter of large-scale
unemployment. There were at
least ten million people out of work in the United
States in 1939.
of the war in Europe accomplished what all the experimentation of the
had failed to achieve. It created the swollen demand for American munitions,
supplies of all kinds, foodstuffs which started the
national economy on the road
to full production and full employment.
There was the same economic phenomenon at the time of the First World War. The vast
needs of the Allies meant high profits, not only for munitions makers (later stigmatized
as "merchants of death"), but for all branches of business activity. It brought a high
level of farm prices and industrial wages. As the Allies ran out of ready cash, loans were
floated on the American market. The United States, or at least some
financial interests, acquired a direct stake in an Allied victory.
Now, the purely economic interpretation of our involvement in World War I can be
too far. There is neither evidence nor probability that Wilson was directly
bankers or munitions makers. He had given the German Government
a public and
grave warning of the consequences of resorting to unlimited submarine
the German Government announced the resumption of such
warfare, Wilson, with the assent of Congress, made good his warning.
Yet the lure of war profits (not restricted, it should be noted, to any
single class of
people) did exert a subtle but important influence on the evolution
of American policy
in the years 1914-17. It worked against the success of the
mediation efforts launched
by House as Wilson's confidential emissary. The British
and French governments
counted with confidence on the absence of any strong action
to back up periodic protests
against the unprecedented severity of the blockade
enforced against Germany.
The American economy had become very dependent on
the flow of Allied war orders.
the end of the war, after depression and repudiation of the greater part of the war
debts, the majority of the American people reached the conclusion that a war boom was
not worth the ultimate price. This feeling found expression in the Neutrality
Act. Roosevelt himself in 1936 described war profits as "fools' gold."
Yet the course of American economic development in World War II followed
pattern set in World War I. First the Neutrality Act was amended
to permit the sale of
munitions. Then, as British assets were exhausted, the
lend-lease arrangement was
substituted for the war loans of the earlier period.
As an economic
student of the period [Broadus Mitchell in Depression Decade]
did not emerge from the decade of the depression until pulled out by
war orders from abroad
and the defense program at home. The rescue was timely
and sweet and deserved to be made as
sure as possible. Whether the involvement
of the United States in the war through progressive
departure from neutrality was
prompted partly by the reflection that other means of extrication
trouble had disappeared, nobody can say. No proponent did say so. Instead,
advocates of "all-out aid to Britain," convoying of allied shipping
took high ground of patriotism and protection of civilization.
There can be no reasonable doubt that the opposition of business and labor groups
involvement in the war was softened by the tremendous flood of government
It is an American proverb that the customer is always right. Under
lend-lease and the
immense program of domestic arms expansion the government
became the biggest customer.
certainly encouraged Roosevelt to assume an interventionist attitude. He
enjoyed his role as one of the "Big Three," as a leading figure at international
conferences, as a mediator between Stalin and Churchill. There is a
marked contrast between Roosevelt's
psychology as a war leader and Lincoln's.
The Civil War President was often bowed down
by sorrow over the tragic aspects of
the historic drama in which he was called
to play a leading part. His grief for the men
who were dying on both sides of
the fighting lines was deep and hearty and unaffected.
One finds little trace
of this mood in Roosevelt's war utterances. There is no
Gettysburg Address in
Roosevelt's state papers. The President's
familiar mood is one of jaunty, cocksure,
sometimes flippant, self-confidence.
Another trait in Roosevelt's personality which may help to explain the casual, light-hearted
scrapping of the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms is a strong histrionic streak.
If he originated or borrowed a brilliant phrase, he felt that his work was done.
He felt no strong obligation to see that the phrase, once uttered, must be realized in action.
When did Roosevelt decide that America must enter the war? There was a
bellicose action in his quarantine speech of October 5, 1937. Harold
Ickes claims credit
for suggesting the quarantine phrase, which did not appear
in earlier drafts of the speech
which had been prepared in the State Department.
It was like Roosevelt to pick up and
insert an image which appealed to him. However,
the quarantine speech
met such an unfavorable reception that it led to no immediate
Various dates are suggested
by other observers. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter,
who enjoyed substantial
influence and many contacts in Administration circles,
asserted in a Roosevelt
memorial address at Harvard University in April 1945:
“There came a moment
when President Roosevelt was convinced that the utter defeat
of Nazism was essential
to the survival of our institutions. That time certainly could not
later than when Mr. Sumner Welles reported on his mission to Europe [March 1940].”
That Roosevelt may have been mentally committed to intervention even before
war broke out is indicated by the following dispatch from Maurice
Hindus in the New York Herald Tribune of January 4, 1948:
Prague – President Eduard Benes of Czechoslovakia
told the late President
Franklin D. Roosevelt on May 29, 1939, that war would break out any
July 15 of that year, with Poland as the first victim, and Mr. Roosevelt, in reply
a question as to what the United States would do, said it would have
to participate because Europe alone could not defeat Adolf Hitler.
A suggestion by Assistant Secretary of State A. A. Berle that Roosevelt
become the leader of the free world against Hitler is believed to
the President's psychology. [Davis and Lindley, How War Came,
Admiral James O. Richardson,
at that time Commander in Chief of the Pacific fleet,
talked at length with Roosevelt
in the White House on October 8, 1940. He testified
before the Congressional
committee investigating Pearl Harbor [Report of the Congressional
Committee, Part I, p. 266] that he had asked the President
whether we would
enter the war and received the following answer:
He [Roosevelt] replied that if the Japanese attacked Thailand, or the Kra peninsula,
the Netherlands East Indies, we would not enter the war, that if they even attacked
he doubted whether we would enter the war, but that they could not
always avoid making mistakes
and that as the war continued and the area of operation
expanded sooner or later they would
make a mistake and we would enter the war.
It is clear from these varied pieces of evidence that the thought of war was never far from
Roosevelt's mind, even while he was assuring so many audiences during the election
campaign that "your government is not going to war." During the year 1941, as has been
shown in an earlier chapter [of America's Second Crusade], he put the country into an
undeclared naval war in the Atlantic by methods of stealth and secrecy. This point
was made very clear by Admiral Stark, then Chief of Naval Operations, in
reply to Representative Gearhart during the Pearl Harbor investigation:
Technically or from an international standpoint we were not at war,
inasmuch as we
did not have the right of belligerents, because war had not been declared. But
so far as the forces operating under Admiral King in certain areas were concerned,
it was against any German craft that came inside that area.
were attacking us and we were attacking them.
Stark also testified that, by direction of the President, he ordered American warships
in the Atlantic to fire on German submarines and surface ships. This order
issued on October 8, 1941, two months before Hitler's declaration of war.
It is scarcely possible, in the light of this and many other known facts, to avoid
that the Roosevelt Administration sought the war which began at
Pearl Harbor. The steps
which made armed conflict inevitable were taken months
before the conflict broke out.
of Roosevelt's apologists contend that, if he deceived the American people, it
for their own good. But the argument that the end justified the means rests on the
that the end had been achieved. Whether America's end in its Second Crusade
assurance of national security or the establishment of a world of peace and order
the realization of the Four Freedoms "everywhere in
the world," this
end was most certainly not achieved.
America's Second Crusade was a product of illusions which are already bankrupt. It was an
illusion that the United States was at any time in danger of invasion by Nazi Germany.
It was an illusion that Hitler was bent on the destruction of the British Empire. It was an
illusion that China was capable of becoming a strong, friendly, western-oriented power
in the Far East. It was an illusion that a powerful Soviet Union in a weakened and
impoverished Eurasia would be a force for peace, conciliation, stability, and international
co-operation. It was an illusion that the evils and dangers associated with totalitarianism
could be eliminated by giving unconditional support to one form of totalitarianism against
another. It was an illusion that a combination of appeasement and personal charm could
melt away designs of conquest and domination which were
in Russian history and Communist philosophy.
The fruit harvested from seeds of illusion is always bitter.
THE GREAT DEBATE: CHURCHILL vs HITLER
(The "debate" is based
upon actual quotes arranged mostly in chronological order)
Compiled by Mike King
* A skeptical
reader might suspect that the quotes below were cherry-picked out of context and arranged for propaganda
purposes. This is an understandable, though mistaken suspicion. We therefore invite you, after 'the
debate', to also read 'The British Mad Dog' and 'The Bad War' . Both works will provide a full and truthful explanation of Hitler, Churchill and
World War II.
Minister Churchill. We begin with you...
We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon
the world another war in which civilization will irretrievably succumb... It is on this mystery of
the future that history will pronounce Hitler either a monster
or a hero.
I appeal to reason in international affairs. I want to show that the idea of eternal
enmity is wrong. We are not hereditary enemies.
There can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi
Power. Which cheers its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which vaunts the spirit of aggression
and conquest, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have
seen, with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force.
At no time and in no place have I ever acted contrary to British interests … I believe even today that there can only be real peace in Europe and
throughout the world if Germany and England come to an understanding.
say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have nothing to offer
but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We
have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering.
this hour I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense, in
Great Britain as much as elsewhere. ... I can see no reason why this war must go on.
We shall go on to the end. We shall fight on the seas, we shall
fight in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on
the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the
streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender...
and time again I have offered friendship, and if necessary closest cooperation, to England. But love cannot be
offered from one side only. It must be met with reciprocation by the other side.
Germany is not pursuing any interests in the West.
ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs. Victory in spite of all
terrors. Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no
All of my peace overtures
have been rejected and war was declared on us.... The German people has no hatred, no inimical feeling
toward the English or French people.
There is one thing
that will bring Hitler down, and that is an absolutely devastating exterminating attack
by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland.
Again and again I uttered these warnings against this specific
type of aerial warfare, and I did so for over three and a half months. That these warnings failed to impress Mr.
Churchill does not surprise me in the least. For what does this man care for the lives of others? What
does he care for culture or for architecture?
And even if this Island
or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded
by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World (United
States), with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
(Roosevelt) is resolved to take over,
as safely and securely as possible, the British Empire in the moment of its downfall. Since England
is no longer in the position to pay cash for all the American deliveries.
I have it in me to be a successful soldier. I can visualize
great movements and combinations.
Churchill is the most bloodthirsty of amateur strategists that history has ever known.
We never thought of peace, not even in that year when we were completely
isolated and could have made peace without serious detriment to the British Empire. Why should we think
of it now, when victory approaches for the three of us?
untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. ...
I have made too many offers for the limitation and control of armaments, which posterity will not
be cowardly enough always to disregard, for responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be placed
on me. Nor have I ever wished that, after the appalling First World War, there would ever
be a second against either England or America.
I want proposals for "basting the Germans on their
retreat from Breslau."
January, 1945 (3 weeks before the
genocidal firebombing of the civilians of Dresden)
will go by, but from the ruins of our towns and monuments the hatred of those ultimately responsible
will always grow anew against the people whom we have to thank for all this: international Jewry and
its henchmen (Churchill, FDR).
In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.
The gift Mr. Churchill possesses is the gift to lie with
a pious expression on his face and to distort the truth until finally glorious victories are made out
of the most terrible defeats.
I consider that it will be found much better by all Parties to leave the past
to history, especially as I propose to write that history.
...despite all setbacks, (this war) will one day go down
in history as the most glorious and heroic manifestation of the struggle for existence of a nation.
British Torture at Bad Nenndorf
By Johannes Heyne
is a bathing resort in the fringe of the uplands of the River Weser's watershed
where people with joint ailments are treated with mud baths and soaks in sulfurous
On the grounds of the spa suffused
with sulfur fumes stands a stately mud-bath house from
19th Century. At the entrance, cure-seekers are greeted by the goddess Hygeia. Late
in the 1920s, the bathhouse was extended into a massive complex with innumerable
After the end of the
war, Bad Nenndorf wound up in the British Zone of occupation. In
violation of the Hague
Convention for Land Warfare, the occupiers subjugated the civil
order and persecuted
civilians, in particular political leaders, of the conquered land.
In the Potsdam
Protocol of August 2, 1945, the following is proclaimed:
War criminals and those who have participated in planning or carrying out Nazi enterprises
involving or resulting in atrocities or war crimes shall be arrested
and brought to judgment.
Nazi leaders, influential Nazi supporters and high officials
of Nazi organizations and
institutions and any other persons dangerous to the occupation
or its objectives shall
be arrested and interned.
In accordance therewith, the area surrounding the mud-bath house was designated
Civil Internment Camp in early August 1945. 1200 residents of the area
had to vacate
their houses. The area was fenced off with barbed wire. The mud-bath house
a new function: registration center and prison for Germans who were to
be charged as
war criminals. In the bathing huts, the fixtures were removed and
the tubs in the
floors cemented over. From this resulted functional prison cells with
NSDAP functionaries, members of the SS, officers from every branch of the Wehrmacht,
diplomats and industrialists were confined in the cells in order to be "prepared" for the coming
war-criminal trials. But here also were kept defecting Soviet officers and mere illegal
who were suspected of being spies for the Soviet Union-that same
Soviet Union that was still an ally of Great Britain in 1945 and 1946.
The guard staff consisted of members of a British punishment company,
who hoped by
faithful performance in this assignment to recover the ranks that they had
been stripped of.
Report of Victim Oswald Pohl
There are only two reports of conditions in the mud-bath house
at Bad Nenndorf. One report comes from the head of the Wirtschafts- und
Verwaltungshauptamt of the SS (Economic and Administrative Main Office), SS General Oswald Pohl,
who was confined for a time at
Camp Bad Nenndorf at
the end of May 1945. In the last communication before his execution, he wrote:
|The mud-bath house at Bad Nenndorf|
fourth warder smeared my face with something that burned like acid while he slapped my face back and forth. After
he had thoroughly
'lathered' me, he scraped my face with a dull razor so roughly that my
blood dripped onto my jacket. During this procedure, his helpers
continually spewed violent
threats and imprecations in my face.
Finally, as though on command,
everyone in the cell—there must have been eight or ten of them—set upon me, yanked me up, and
me blindly, bound and defenseless as I was. Blows of fists rained down on my head and kicks hit me in every part
body. Tottering on my legs, I careened from corner to corner until I collapsed unconscious
from a massive blow or kick to the area of the stomach.
When I came to, all
was quiet in my cell. I lay on a plank bed and I noticed that two doctors were attending me, one of whom took my
My handcuffs were off. I passed out again.
only able to guess how long all this had taken after night had fallen. Since it was almost dark when I woke up, it must
around eight o’clock; the beating must have begun around five. Someone handed
me a cup of strong coffee and then I was brought to
my last interview, this time without
having to run a gauntlet. This interrogation lasted until long past midnight. The interrogating officer,
noting my condition, inquired as to how it had come about. I gave him a brief account of the above.
He stood up outraged and apologized
in the name of the British Army. Then he left the room for a
long while to—as he assured me—
arrange with the commandant for punishment of
The affray had caused me the loss of an incisor and a molar.
The next morning at 7 o’clock I was transported, bound, in a truck to Nuremberg.”
The second report comes
from the hand of the Nenndorfer Heinrich Steinmeyer and his wife Marie. The report was published in 1952 in in the
magazine Quick and further circulates in Bad Nenndorf in various reproductions. Heinrich Steinmeyer was an inmate of the prison and died
in 1948 from the effects of his imprisonment.
Camp Bad Nenndorf 1945 – 1947
[…] the bathhouse
[was] hermetically sealed away from the rest of the world. Except for the British officers, who automatically had
and those British warders to whom clearance had been issued, no one knew of the
existence of any such prison as this one. The Germans, of course, least of all, since whoever was consigned to
this inferno was immediately rendered mute, invisible, obliterated.
reports ever came out to next of kin from Bad Nenndorf. The British authorities, who were situated in Herford,
gave information neither
to next of kin, to the Red Cross which had been tipped off, nor
even to the Quakers, who wished mercifully to provide aid. They even denied, when specific identification of a
prisoner was submitted, that the man was even in Nenndorf…
walls of the cells] became […] a great source of fun for the British watchstanders, and a source of misery for
because the soldiers systematically smeared the walls with feces and the prisoners
then had to clean the walls spotlessly with their
fingers or a toothbrush. The individual
cells were never heated and in the bitter cold winter of 1946-47, the water faucet in the
froze up. The floors and walls were icy cold. One plank bed. No sack of straw. Two sheets. And all night long,
electric light was on, and every hour the guard noisily opened the door and two times every night
came officer’s rounds. The
prisoners had to get up, stand still and give their number.
For twenty minutes, one had to hear the slamming of the doors, the
tramping of the guards,
the bellowing of the accompanying soldiers.
This Is How They Passed Their
The guard staff were a hand-picked motley crew of thugs who probably
possessed but little feeling, and certainly never any sympathy
whatsoever. They were all members
of a penal company who had to atone for a criminal offense, and here worked out their obligated
tours of duty. And they made their remaining time as entertaining and pleasant for themselves as they possibly
could. Now and then
they had wild disputes among themselves and the prisoners then heard some
of the grievances the boys nursed, and they realized in
whose hands they lay. Sodomy, thievery,
fraud, burglary, attempted murder, desertion. The threat to the prisoners lay in the fact that
every one of these brigands, a shining reward lay in the offing. A fierce struggle for survival drove them back
Each had earlier held a military rank. And each had
a chance to win their honor back. But to the detriment of the inmates, this opportunity
lay in subjecting the inmates to the roughest and most-brutal treatment possible. For this reason, the boys worked
up the most-sadistic,
private methods each of them could by which to torture the prisoners.
Every prisoner at Nenndorf reported that, after having fallen asleep
with great effort, he was then awakened in great disturbance.
In between were days, one like
Rising time was 4:30. If the sergeant was in a bad
mood, he came around at 3:30 or 4:00. The prisoners stumbled out of bed—that is,
plank beds. Five minutes later, both sheets were to be drawn drum-tight across the bed. During the day, none was
to sit, nor to lie.
If any poor sod happened to sit or lie for a second or two—denial
The day consisted of pacing back and forth in their cells from 4 in
the morning to 9:30 at night, or standing against the wall.
They stood against the wall
until they felt they would go crazy.
Every prisoner knew within minutes
of his arrival at Nenndorf that he was lost here, since 5 minutes after his arrival he stood in the intake room,
where a sergeant tore the clothes from his body. It may be said of the Nenndorf garb that
every arrival looked like a clown—jacket too small,
pants too wide or too narrow, and
everything stiff with dirt. Laundry was never done. In the issuance of shoes, the sergeant in charge was
not satisfied unless the size of shoes issued was at least four sizes too large. That sounds harmless enough,
but it gave rise to unimaginable
torture. There were no shoelaces, our shoes just hung on
our feet, and since every step we took outside our cells had to be on the double,
stumbled and fell, the while driven onward with screams and pokes with rifle butts. After 3-4 hours: weak tea and
a little porridge. After this, standing or pacing in the cell until one again thought
oneself driven to madness.
The Man with the Uppercut
Before the evening officer’s rounds, we had to take off our jackets, pants, and shoes
and lay them in front of our cells,
standing behind them in shirt and underpants. The commandant
of Nenndorf, whose name no one will ever forget,
Colonel Stevens, took pleasure in conducting
the evening harangue. Rotund with broad shoulders and a face that was
always dark red and
many campaign ribbons on his chest, he looked askance at the pitiable, half-frozen forms in their
underclothes with his small, cold eyes. Now and then he would randomly shout at one or another. This inarticulate
contained a question, which the prisoner invariably could not understand. Colonel Stevens
would never wait for an answer,
but rather immediately strike the man under the chin with his
Then began a vicious ceremony under the gaze of the watchstanders.
As soon as this tour was over, two or three prisoners
were fetched from their cells. They
had to sluice water, that had been placed specifically for this fiendish routine, down the
corridor and just so that the insensate bodies of the prisoners were soaked in the filthy froth. So their clothes,
could be called clothes, lay until dawn in the swill until they awoke and had to
clutch the totally besmirched and frozen r
ags against their bodies.
course there were interviews and interrogations. A huge number of witnesses have testified that British officers
and kicked German army officers, officers of the Waffen SS and party functionaries
mercilessly until they received the testimony
they desired. Every prisoner in his cell either
held his ears shut or trembled in every fiber of his body or ran uncontrollably back
forth in his narrow space whenever the deafening yelling, screaming, howling, crying and babbling of the tortured
s inescapably echoed down the corridor from the interrogation rooms, punctuated by the
ferocious curses of the British interrogation officers.
Experiences in Hell
SS Obersturmbannführer Dr. Oebsger-Roeder was beaten unconscious
by several British officers on Good Friday 1946,
such that he had to be carried back to his cell.
It took months for his grave injuries to heal.
Dr. Hahnke, chief of legations in the cultural-political section of the foreign ministry was so
beaten up that for the rest of his life he had a game leg.
The last head of
the film department of the propaganda ministry, Parbel, not only was flogged upon his arrival, but was consigned
British major, a former German, to the feared and notorious Cell 12. In this place,
buckets of water were continually poured so that the
prisoner, barefoot in only a shirt and pants,
had to either stand or pace back and forth all night in the wet. The poor soul spent fully eight
days and nights in this hell and his condition even moved the minimal pity of one of the warders, who secretly
took him out, gave him shoes
and let him rest for an hour on the seat of the privy.
Captain Langham presided over most of the beating incidents. His name is unforgettable
to Nenndorfers. He made sure that the unconscious
were taken to the shower, there to be revived
so that the beatings could resume.
Most of the torturers were
sergeants. It speaks for the gallows humor of the prisoners that in the midst of this misery, they made up
nicknames for one and another of these hangmen. One of these was called Henry VIII because he
was bursting at the seams and
continually roaring with a purple face. Another was called Red-eye for
reasons that require no explanation. Another was called
Smiley, and he was the worst of the
beasts since he would appear in their cells in the middle of the night wearing an ice-cold smile,
sweep them out of their bunks and make them do strenuous exercises until they were half-broken.
Escape attempts were hopeless, but nonetheless two prisoners who lived in the day room tried
it: one of them got away; the other was
caught near the camp in the search that ensued the detection
of their absence, in which the entire guard staff took part. The unfortunate
at length and was so beaten that he finally gave away who had supplied him with civilian clothes. This was a miner
who worked during the day in Barsinghausen, and on whose door the fugitive knocked one night. As
the miner hesitated, his wife said
to him, 'Help him, for Christ’s sake.' The miner
was detained a few weeks and what this man, an old Social Democrat, had to undergo
in that period
was cruel in the extreme. He had to throw up at every meal; by the time of his release he also was a complete
escapee himself was beaten thoroughly and then his handcuffs were chained to the
shackles on his legs so that to get around, he had
to walk or stagger completely bent over.
Many saw him in this condition.
No Nenndorfer will ever forget the
British 'military doctor' assigned to look after them, Captain Smith. A haggard, grizzled, emaciated
figure that personified resignation. He would glance into each cell, listen absent-mindedly when anyone complained
about this or that,
and then growl, ‘No personal remark.’ (Nothing to report.)
Anyone who had a toothache was entirely neglected, and many had toothaches from being struck
repeatedly in the mouth. There
was no dentist. The dentures of Dr. H. C. Winkler, that venerable
Mayor Winkler, who had directed the film industry and financed
other major enterprises of
the Third Reich, broke when he was thrown into jail at the age of 72. He could no longer chew.
Smith listened to the old man, who finally said he would starve to death. Smith responded drily, ‘Then you’ll
starve to death.’
Oh, You Holy Christmastime
Anyone who spent Christmastime 1945 in Bad Nenndorf will never forget it their whole life.
The prisoners employed in the kitchen had scrimped and expended the most strenuous
efforts to produce a little cheer on that evening.
They had managed to produce ginger bread
from their meager resources. And on that Christmas Eve, a faint glimmer of light in the
fog of mutual hostility appeared. One of the guards, of Polish descent, visited each cell and to its occupant wished
a 'Merry Christmas'
in his heavily accented English.
own people had received gross mistreatment in the war, perhaps he himself, maybe even by some of
that night confined in this prison, but this night, he spoke from his heart.
He had no inkling what a wave of Hell was about to break over the heads of the prisoners in a few
hours. The entire British staff, falling-down drunk,
wandered from cell to cell and beat,
punched, and kicked anything that came between their fists and their boots, the whole night through. A night of
A Certain Type Must Be Eliminated
Verbatim quotation from an interrogation: ‘We know very well that you and your friends
weren’t Nazis. But you’re out of luck.
You’re of a type that we want to
eliminate even more than we do the Nazis.’
It was the mill of collective
But there were also God’s mills, which grind slowly but surely
what is cried to Heaven to spread it by rumor throughout the rest of the world.
who were released, spoke. And it became clear that in Nenndorf, things happened at the hands of the English that
were as bad as,
even worse than, since they were committed in the name of liberation and
democracy, things for which Germans at Nuremberg were hanged
or sentenced to prison. Many
of the prisoners had been sworn to silence. But many were not silent.
ball started rolling. The Catholic camp chaplain of Civil Internment Camp III in Fallingbostel, Vicar Magar, heard
the rumors and
sought particulars of another Nenndorfer, Mr. Parbel, which he immediately
passed on to the bishop of Hildesheim. And within a few
weeks, this venerated dignitary came
to Nenndorf and held mass in full regalia and delivered himself of the most scathing condemnation
the torture huts operated by the Britons as described by several prisoners. He swore to relay the information in full
force to Cardinal Griffy in England.
On the first Pentecost of
1947, the deputized member of Parliament Stokes stood at the door of Bad Nenndorf and demanded admittance.
The British officers, feigning all innocence, had to let him in. The deputy went from cell to cell
and made report of all. What he saw was
enough: pitiful, beaten, half-starved, sick, intimidated,
broken shells of persons.
On the same evening, the British guard staff, who had for
more than a year plagued and tortured the defenseless, came on the run with
distracted faces from cell to cell and shared out their own rations of cigarettes, chocolate and bon-bons. But
the ball was still rolling…
Senior officers of the London
constabulary Scotland Yard appeared and gathered evidence as to the conditions theretofore. They made
no secret of the fact that they were preparing for a trial of the commandant and guard staff of the English interrogation
Acquittal for the Torturers: 'I Didn’t
Know,' and 'I Followed Orders'
The trial in London went on and
on. The defendants included the commandant of Camp Bad Nenndorf, Colonel Stevens, one of
the most-brutal interrogation officers, First Lieutenant Langham, the camp doctor Captain Smith and some other offenders.
embarrassing for Lieutenant Langham in that he was shown to be a former citizen of
Germany. But much more was amiss. The
commandant of the camp Colonel Stevens was let off
on the grounds that he didn’t know about the brutality […] Even the sergeants
Red-Eye, Henry VIII and Smiley were acquitted, and on no less than the excuse that they were just carrying out
The only sentence arising from the trials was that passed on Captain Smith. His sentence
consisted of his being discharged
from the British Army. It was no punishment, since Captain
Smith was an old man, long ready for departure, long since not an
active military doctor,
and he fastened upon this basis for mitigation […]”
The Volkssturm: Last-Ditch Militia of the Third Reich
On October 18, 1944 - the 131st anniversary of the Battle of the Nations' victory over Napoleon in 1813 - Reichsführer
SS Heinrich Himmler stepped
up to a microphone to make a national radio address announcing the formation of the
Nazi Party-controlled Volkssturm [VS], or People's Militia ... The average age of
those who served (the national oath-taking
was conducted on November 12, 1944) was between 45 and 52 ... Of those men who were called up, most were
white-collar workers ... VS casualty rates were sometimes as
high as 70 to 80 percent, while other units panicked and fled.
In the East, some 650,000 VS men saw action ... In the West, some 150,000 VS men served
and had helped to man the West Wall fortifications, as well as
hold the Upper Rhine ...
Defiant Resistance: Germany's WW2 Home Guard
During the final months of
World War II in Europe, beleaguered Germany adopted ever more desperate measures to resist the Soviet-American takeover
of their nation and Europe. As this colorized footage shows, that included the formation of a national militia or home
guard - the "Volkssturm" - which called up all still-available able-bodied men to defend the homeland. Civilians,
including women and Hitler Youth teenagers, were also trained and armed. Many fought with the anti-tank "Panzerfaust,"
an early RPG. Many Volkssturm men played an important role in defending the German capital against the Soviets. Runtime:
4:52 mins. No narration.
German Home Guard Called Up to Defend the Homeland
report on the German militia or home guard ("Volkssturm"), which deployed all remaining able-bodied
men to defend the homeland during the final months of World World
War II in Europe.
with German subtitles. Runtime: 2:47 mins.
Germany, Japan and the Harvest of Hate
by Thomas Goodrich.
“We Americans have the dangerous tendency in
our international thinking to take a
holier-than-thou attitude toward other
nations. We consider ourselves to be more noble and
decent than other peoples,
and consequently in a better position to decide what is right
and wrong in
the world. What kind of war do civilians suppose we fought, anyway? We
prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy
civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in
the Pacific boiled the flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts,
or carved their bones into letter openers…. [W]e mutilated the bodies of enemy dead,
off their ears and kicking out their gold teeth for souvenirs, and
buried them with their testicles
in their mouths…. We topped off our
saturation bombing and burning of enemy civilians
by dropping atomic bombs
on two nearly defenseless cities, thereby setting an all-time
instantaneous mass slaughter. As victors we are privileged to try our defeated
opponents for their crimes against humanity; but we should be realistic enough to appreciate
that if we were on trial for breaking international laws, we should be found guilty on a dozen counts.
We fought a dishonorable war, because morality had a low priority in battle.
The tougher the fighting, the less room for decency, and in Pacific contests we saw
mankind reach the blackest depths of bestiality.” —- Edgar Jones, WWII Veteran
The Morgenthau Plan and the Problem
of Policy Perversion
The Morgenthau Diaries consist of 900 volumes located at Roosevelt Library
in Hyde Park, New York. As a consultant to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, I was assigned to examine all documents
dealing with Germany, particularly ones related to the Morgenthau Plan for the destruction of Germany following the Second
World War. The Subcommittee was interested in the role of Dr. Harry Dexter White, the main architect of the Plan ... The
objective of the Morgenthau Plan was to de-industrialize Germany and diminish its people to a pastoral existence once
the war was won ... Anyone who studies the Morgenthau Diaries can hardly fail to be deeply impressed by the tremendous
power which accumulated in the grasping hands of Dr. Harry Dexter White, who in 1953 was identified by Edgar Hoover as
a Soviet agent.
Why is Revisionism Important? / The Vengeful 'Morgenthau Plan'
historian and director of the IHR, speaks about the importance of historical revisionism, and Prof. Anthony Kubek speaks
about the `Morgenthau Plan' for a brutal and vindictive Allied occupation of Germany after the end of World War II. From
the Ninth IHR Conference (1989).
a Century of Chaos, Totalitarianism, and War, Versailles Treaty Still Haunts the World
A century ago, in July 1919, Germany began its journey to the lowest reaches of Hades
... The treaty signed on June 28 in the famous Hall of Mirrors at the Versailles palace, however, proved to be but a brief
interlude of peace ... Variously the Big Three or Four (U.S., United Kingdom, France, and sometimes Italy) sought to remake
the world. They battled each other over their respective shares of the plunder, such as dividing Germany's colonies and
one-time Ottoman possessions, and concocting a system to hinder Berlin's recovery ... Most wars are stupid, unnecessary,
and harmful to all sides. Some are the result of hubris ... The centennial of the Versailles Treaty should remind us of
the necessity of ending any conflict with a good peace - and, more importantly, of not starting a bad war.
The Treaty of Versailles: Eleven Facts About the 20th
Century's Most Controversial Peace Agreement
It was June
28, 1919. Envoys, statesmen and diplomats from the world's leading powers had gathered in Versailles Palaces' famous Hall
of Mirrors to ink the treaty that would formally end the First World War ... Millions were dead, ancient dynasties were
in ruins and political upheaval was sweeping the continent. The treaty, which was the result of six months of peace talks
in Paris, was intended to do more than just formally resolve hostilities between the Allies and Germany, it would lay
the foundation for a more peaceful and just world ... The settlement ultimately failed to live up to its more noble ambitions
and helped set the stage for a second even deadlier conflict 20 years later. To mark the 100th anniversary of the Treaty
of Versailles, here are 11 key facts about the agreement and its impact on history.
World War II: A Reading List
Compiled by David Gordon - Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute,
and editor of The Mises Review.
The dominant view of World War II is that it was the “good war.”
Hitler bears exclusive responsibility for the onset of war, because he aimed to conquer Europe, if not the entire world.
The United States tried to avoid entering the war but was forced into the fight by the surprise Japanese attack on the American
fleet at Pearl Harbor.
authors on this list dissent. For them, Responsibility for the war was mixed, and Roosevelt provoked Japan’s attack.
Allied conduct of the war, furthermore, was characterized by grave ethical misconduct.
Alperovitz, Gar. The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb Comprehensive study that shows dropping the atomic bombs was not needed to bring about Japanese surrender.
Baker, Nicholson Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization Stresses the violations of the norms of civilized war in World War II, with full attention to the role of Winston Churchill.
Barnes, Harry Elmer, ed. Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace A collection of essays by leading revisionist historians, concentrating on Franklin Roosevelt’s policies.
Beard, Charles A. President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941 Beard, one of the foremost twentieth-century American historians, argues that Roosevelt provoked the Japanese attack on
Buchanan, Patrick J.Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. Argues that the British guarantee to Poland in March 1939 was a mistake, because there was no feasible means of fulfilling
Chamberlin, William H., America’s Second Crusade A highly critical account of American policy during World War I. America failed to learn the lesson of intervention in
World War I.
Crocker, George, Roosevelt’s Road to Russia Emphasizes the extent to which American involvement in the war led to a pro-Soviet policy.
Cowling, Maurice, The Impact of Hitler A detailed study of British cabinet politics in the 1930s, countering the view that Chamberlain sought peace at any price
Doenecke, Justus Storm on the Horizon: The Challenge to American Intervention, 1939-1941. A detailed study of the American anti-war movement, showing the diversity of arguments used to oppose Roosevelt’s
Fussell, Paul. Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War Vivid portrayal of the deleterious effects of the war on human psychology and behavior. Refutes the romanticized picture
of the “good war.”
Garrett, Garet. [ed. Bruce Ramsey] Defend America First: The Antiwar Editorials of the Saturday Evening Post, 1939-1942. Garrett, a leading figure of the Old Right, argued that coming to the aid of the Allies would weaken America. We should
concentrate on home defense.
Glaser, Kurt, Czecho-Slovakia, A Critical History. A good account of the minorities problem in Czechoslovakia. Emphasizes the unrealistic policies of the Beneš
Greaves, Bettina, Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy. A detailed account of Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor, based on the research of Percy Greaves.
Hoover, Herbert. Freedom Betrayed. A very detailed account of Roosevelt’s foreign policy by his predecessor in the White House. Based on careful
Jaksch, Wenzel, Europe’s Road to Potsdam. An account of the Sudeten situation in the 1930s, critical of Czech policies under Beneš. The author was head
of the Sudeten Social Democrats.
Kirschbaum, Joseph M. Slovakia: Nation at the Crossroads of Central Europe. An informed account of Slovak policies in the 1930s. Good on the breakup of the Czech state after the Munich Conference.
Klein, Burton H. Germany’s Economic Preparations for War. Argues that Germany in the 1930s did not plan for a long war. The author is a leading Chicago School economist.
Kubek, Anthony, How the Far East Was Lost. The first chapter, based on pioneering work by Stephen H. Johnsson, shows the influence of pro-Communist officials in
pushing for US provocation of Japan before Pearl Harbor.
Mahl, Thomas E. Desperate Deception : British Cover Operations in the United States. 1939-1944 An account of British propaganda and intelligence activities aimed at involving America on the side of Britain in the
Morgenstern, George. Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War One of the first revisionist studies of Pearl Harbor and still one of the best. Highly detailed and very well written.
Neilson, Francis, The Churchill Legend. Includes a devastating analysis of Churchill’s multi-volume history of the war.
Newman, Simon March 1939: The British Guarantee to Poland British policy under Chamberlain was not based on weakness but on a long term strategy of confronting Hitler.
Raico, Ralph, Great Wars and Great Leaders. Written by a great classical liberal historian, the book includes a mordant account of Winston Churchill.
Russett, Bruce, No Clear and Present Danger. Argues that the prospect of an Axis dominated Europe failed to pose a sufficient threat to the United States to justify
Sanborn, Frederic, Design for War. Contains material on the US efforts to provoke a Japanese attack not readily available elsewhere. The author was
a distinguished international lawyer.
Sargent, Porter, Getting US Into War. Stresses the role of British propaganda in pushing America toward war.
Paul, Axis Alliance and Japanese-American Realtions 1941. Contends that America foreign policy toward Japan was unduly rigid.
Gerd. 1939–The War That Had Many Fathers. Detailed account of German foreign policy in the 1930’s, arguing that responsibility for the war does not rest
exclusively on Hitler. The author is a retired German general.
Sledge, E.B. With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa A searing personal memoir of the horrors of war.
Stinnett, Robert B. Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt deliberately sought war with Japan and denied information to the Army and Navy commanders at Pearl Harbor.
Suvorov, Viktor The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II. Contends that Stalin was preparing to launch an invasion of Germany, but Hitler beat him to the punch.
Tansill, Charles C. Back Door to War. A comprehensive survey by one of the leading twentieth-century American diplomatic historians. Shows how Roosevelt
succeeded in involving the US in war in Europe by provoking war with Japan. Contains valuable material on the
European diplomatic situation in the 1930s.
Taylor, A.J. P. The Origins of the Second World War. Argues that World War II came about through accident and miscalculation rather than by design.
Topitsch, Ernst, Stalin’s War. Topitisch, a philosopher sympathetic to the Vienna Circle logical positivists, contends that Stalin sought a European
war and that Hitler’s invasion of Russia in 1941 preempted a Soviet attack.
Marc The Craft of International History: A Guide to Method. The book contains a careful analysis supporting the “back door to war“ theory, i.e., that Roosevelt sought
war with Japan in order to secure American entry into the war in Europe.
F. J. P. Advance to Barbarism. Discusses the Allied responsibility for mass saturation bombing.
HOW FIELD-MARSHAL ERWIN ROMMEL REALLY DIED
The Ethnic European
REAL HISTORY survives on book royalties donated by author
Michael Walsh and supporters of real history. OUR AIMS: To replace victor’s
real history, to enlighten,
inspire and to educate, with your help
share our features as widely as possible.
Field-Marshall Erwin Rommel (1891
~ 1944) was a German general and military theorist.
Popularly known as the Desert Fox, the career serviceman served as field marshal in the
Wehrmacht (Defense Force) of the Third Reich during World
War II, as well as earlier
in the Reichswehr of the Weimar Republic,
and the army of Imperial Germany (1871 ~ 1918).
Rommel was a highly
decorated officer in World War I and was awarded the Pour le Mérite
for his actions on the Italian Front. In 1937 he published his classic
book on military
tactics, Infantry Attacks,
drawing on his experiences from World War I.
In World War II, he distinguished himself
as the commander of the 7th Panzer Division
during the 1940 invasion of France. His leadership of German and Italian forces in
the North African campaign established his reputation
as one of the ablest tank
commanders of the war and
earned him the nickname der Wüstenfuchs, the Desert Fox.
Among his British adversaries, he earned a strong reputation for chivalry,
North African campaign has often been
called a “War Without Hate”. He later commanded
the German forces opposing the Allied cross-channel invasion of Normandy in June 1944.
The propaganda of the victors falsely claims that in 1944, Rommel was implicated in
the 20 July plot to assassinate Germany’s
twice-elected President-Chancellor Adolf Hitler.
story goes that due to Rommel’s status as a national hero, Hitler desired to eliminate
him quietly instead of immediately executing him, as many other
Rommel was given a choice between committing suicide, in return for assurances
reputation would remain intact and that
his family would not be persecuted following his death,
or facing a trial that would result in his disgrace and execution; he chose the former and
committed suicide using a cyanide pill. Rommel
was given a state funeral, and it was announced that
“he had succumbed to his injuries from the strafing of his staff car in Normandy.”
This last hyphenated account is the only correct account.
The victors’ story of
German General Erwin Rommel’s death was a fabricated one
constructed by the Allies at the end of the war. Rommel was arguably Germany’s best
general of World War II, as well as a famously humane and kind man,
and a devout Christian,
thus the need
to fabricate the circumstances of what happened to him. In fact, the Field-Marshal
died as a result of major injuries from a lowly Allied assassination attempt,
not due to his being made to commit suicide by Adolf
The bogus official story that’s gone down as history was the result
of the interrogation and torture
(torture was a standard
operating procedure with the Allies) of his captured 16-year-old son,
Manfred, by the French in one of their camps in April 1945. Strangely,
the resulting type-written
so-called personal account
was in English, which was also a language
did not even speak.
General Rommel passed away on
the 14th October 1944 from a heart attack brought
on by three skull fractures suffered when a Canadian Spitfire strafed his car off the road
three months earlier. He made no apologies for his service to the
Reich: “I served my Fatherland
to the best of my ability and would do so again.” Credit The Hidden World.
'National Narcissism': Britons,
Americans and Russians All Think Their Country was Responsible for Winning WWII
People in Britain, America and Russia all greatly overestimate their country's contribution
to defeating Adolf Hitler,
to new research. A survey found people from each country think it was responsible for contributing more
than half to the victory - the UK (51%), the US (54%) and Russia
(75%). Experts say that this is vastly more than
the proportion of credit afforded to them by the rest of the world in a phenomenon dubbed 'national narcissism.' For
the UK, the average plunges to 19 per cent in the eyes of those
from seven other Allied countries - and Germany,
Italy and Japan, who fought against them. For Russia it crashes to 20 per cent while America
enjoys a 27 per cent share of the credit US - still way below
the country's own self-belief in victory.
It Was Stalin's Soviet Union That
Defeated the Axis
and Canadians like to believe they won the war in Europe and give insufficient recognition to the decisive
Soviet role. Most Europeans would rather not think about
the matter ... Were it not for the USSR's victory, Nazi
Germany might be alive and well today. Let's do the numbers. The Soviet armed forces destroyed 507
divisions and 100 allied Axis
divisions (according to Soviet figures) ... The Red Army accounted for 75-80 percent
of Axis casualties in World War II ... No one likes to admit it
was Stalin who defeated Nazi Germany. Stalin killed far
more people than Adolf Hitler ... At that time, both Roosevelt and Churchill lavished praise
and thanks on the Soviet Union,
its "gigantic effort" in defeating Hitler's Germany. Today, however,
we have chosen to forget who really won the war in Europe.
GERMANY LOST WORLD WAR II NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE WRONG
BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE RIGHT...!