'Bandits in Uniform' The Dark Side of GIs in Liberated France
US soldiers who fought in World War II have commonly been depicted as honorable citizen warriors from the
"Greatest Generation." But a new book uncovers the dark side of some GIs in liberated France, where robbing, raping
and whoring were rife.
May 29, 2013
The liberators made a lot of noise and drank too much. They raced around in their jeeps, fought in the streets and
stole. But the worst thing was their obsession with French women. They wanted sex -- some for free, some for money and some
After four years of German occupation, the French greeted the US
soldiers landing in Normandy on June 6, 1944 as liberators. The entire country was delirious with joy. But after only a
few months, a shadow was cast over the new masters' image among the French.
the late summer of 1944, large numbers of women in Normandy were complaining about rapes by US soldiers. Fear spread among
the population, as did a bitter joke: "Our men had to disguise themselves under the Germans. But when the Americans
came, we had to hide the women."
With the landing on Omaha Beach, "a
veritable tsunami of male lust" washed over France, writes Mary Louise Roberts, a history professor at the University
of Wisconsin, in her new book "What Soldiers Do: Sex and the American GI in World War II France." In it, Roberts
scrapes away at the idealized picture of war heroes. Although soldiers have had a reputation for committing rape in many
wars, American GIs have been largely excluded from this stereotype. Historical research has paid very little attention to
this dark side of the liberation of Europe, which was long treated as a taboo subject in both the United States and France.
American propaganda did not sell the war to soldiers as a struggle for freedom, writes Roberts, but
as a "sexual adventure." France was "a tremendous brothel," the magazine Life fantasized at
the time, "inhabited by 40,000,000 hedonists who spend all their time eating, drinking (and) making love." The Stars
and Stripes, the official newspaper of the US armed forces, taught soldiers German phrases like: "Waffen niederlegen!"
("Throw down your arms!"). But the French phrases it recommended to soldiers were different: "You have charming
eyes," "I am not married" and "Are your parents at home?"
their victory, the soldiers felt it was time for a reward. And when they enjoyed themselves with French women, they were
not only validating their own masculinity, but also, in a metaphorical sense, the new status of the United States as a superpower,
writes Roberts. The liberation of France was sold to the American public as a love affair between US soldiers and grateful
On the other hand, following their defeat by the Germans, many French
perceived the Americans' uninhibited activities in their own country as yet another humiliation. Although the French were
officially among the victorious powers, the Americans were now in charge.
Contrary to Decency'
The subject of sex played a central role in the
relationship between the French and their liberators. Prostitution was the source of constant strife between US military
officials and local authorities.
Some of the most dramatic reports came from the
port city of Le Havre, which was overrun by soldiers headed home in the summer of 1945. In a letter to a Colonel Weed, the
US regional commander, then Mayor Pierre Voisin complained that his citizens couldn't even go for a walk in the park or
visit the cemetery without encountering GIs having sex in public with prostitutes.
contrary to decency" were unfolding in his city day and night, Voisin wrote. It was "not only scandalous but intolerable"
that "youthful eyes are exposed to such public spectacles." The mayor suggested that the Americans set up a brothel
outside the city so that the sexual activity would be discrete and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases could be
combated by medical personnel.
But the Americans could not operate brothels because
they feared that stories about the soldiers' promiscuity would then make their way back to their wives at home. Besides,
writes Roberts, many American military officials did not take the complaints seriously owing to their belief that it was
normal for the French to have sex in public.
But the citizens of Le Havre wrote
letters of protest to their mayor, and not just regarding prostitution. We are "attacked, robbed, run over both on
the street and in our houses," wrote one citizen in October 1945. "This is a regime of terror, imposed by bandits
'The Swagger of Conquerors'
There were similar accounts from all over the country, with police reports listing holdups, theft and
rapes. In Brittany, drunk soldiers destroyed bars when they ran out of cognac. Sexual assaults were commonplace in Marseilles.
In Rouen, a soldier forced his way into a house, held up his weapon and demanded sex.
The military authorities generally took the complaints about rape seriously. However, the soldiers who were convicted
were almost exclusively African-American, some of them apparently on the basis of false accusations, because racism was
also deeply entrenched in French society.
A café owner from Le Havre expressed
the deep French disillusionment over the Americans' behavior when he said: "We expected friends who would not make
us ashamed of our defeat. Instead, there came incomprehension, arrogance, incredibly bad manners and the swagger of conquerors."
Translated from the German
by Christopher Sultan
8 Pics: WW2 Photos Faked to pretend Germans were committing atrocities!
are some interesting photos I found on a blog that was dealing with Stalin’s Torch-men Order. In those days they did
not have digital editing of photos like we have. I don’t know the exact techniques they used. But they were able to
use parts of photos. Perhaps they cut parts out of photos and could then develop them together to make them appear as one
photo? That seems to be the method employed.
Some of these photos are very obvious nonsense like the attempt to show someone being hung from the gun of a tank.
Look at these examples below.
is no different to the lies told about us whites in Africa by the Jews/Blacks/Communists/Liberals;
except in the case of WW2 Germany, they went a LOT FURTHER! Jan]
If the Jewish Bolsheviks were purposely sacrificing people in these ways, to create anti-German
propaganda, there is no doubt they would have photographed these horrors, to drive the message home.
No doubt, from
this time originate the “famous” atrocity Photos of mass-executions which are the favourites in the press.
Furthermore, this does not align with the Official ‘Holocaust’ narrative,
of the Germans going to great extent to conceal their crimes by burning records and millions of bodies, which is one of the
excuses as to why the Allies could not find any evidence to the purported mass gassings of internees. The ‘Official’
narrative would have us believe that the Germans (in the middle of war) hunted through millions of documents to dispose
of records by burning them, but leave hundreds of incriminating photographs accessible for the world to see?
Additionally, the single shot to the back
of the neck/head, was the method and training of the Cheka and NKVD, for singular executions.
The fear and hate hysteria
created from imagery, was not just limited to performing in front of the camera… simply manipulating the imagery
by superimposing over innocent photo’s for the desired effect, was also utilised… here is just a small example
They Did It
To Eastern Europe And Germany And They Will Do It To You Next.
What “we” did to Germany, during and after World War Two, was of such
bestiality and horror, that it beggars belief, that seventy years on, the only feature of that war, a war which Germany
was forced to fight, which is still discussed, is the unproven claims of crimes against Jews, the very people whom
called for the total annihilation of the German people.
This continuing propaganda is used to distract us from the savagery of their own behaviour against
civilians all across the region. All of the barbarity of which they accuse the Germans should be laid, where it belongs,
at their door.
Eisenhower, the beast who would soon be the President of the United States, at the opening of the Ruhr drive declared. “Our
primary purpose is the destruction of as many Germans as possible. I expect to destroy every German west of the Rhine and
within that area in which we are attacking.” Eisenhower, the Swedish Jew, having raped, robbed and destroyed his way
across France and Germany, then went on to starve one and a half million German Prisoners of War to death in his Rhine Meadows
trio of Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, did then at Yalta, condemn millions of the people, of Eastern Europe to a life under
the control of the mass murdering Jew, Joseph Stalin, under whose orders untold millions of Christians were brutally tortured
the declared aim of International Jewry, was the mass murder of the German people, every man, woman and child, for daring
to break free from the stranglehold of the Jew controlled, international banking system.
In order to disguise this truth, a tsunami of propaganda
had to be unleashed, which was directed against the German victims of those Jews, which turned reality on its head, condemning
the German people to be accused and found guilty, of things, which even had they been true, were as nothing compared with
what the Jews did to the Germans.
It is now common knowledge, that Jew Bankers funded a coup d’etat in Russia, followed by the incredibly brutal
slaughter of sixty-five million Christians, which included the starvation of millions in Ukraine, the Holodomor.
Two decades later these same Jews were initiating
a war against Germany, having already laid out their intention to wipe Germany off the face of the earth, by whatever means
necessary. In the middle of this slaughter of the Germans, when they had managed to murder a mere twenty-million poor souls,
the Jew Morgenthau’s Plan, to murder them all, had to be called off, due to International repulsion at what was going
on. As was the City of London Jew’s attempt to starve the Irish to death, when shiploads of supplies arrived from
The Jews then
claimed to have themselves suffered during this cold-blooded war against the Germans. No shit? Suffering which in the main
was due to ‘starvation’ – which is of course the Jews own favourite weapon,- as a result of the murderous
bombing of food convoys, which were bringing supplies to the Camps, attacks which were carried out by the Jews own allies
and disease, mainly Typhus. Most children now believe that the war was declared to stop Hitler from killing Jews, such is
the power of propaganda and the lies of those Jews.
“All German cities above 50,000 population and many smaller ones were from 50
to 80 per cent destroyed. Dresden, as large as Pittsburgh, was wiped out and nearly all of its 620,000 inhabitants buried
under the ruins.”
The British, whom to this day congratulate themselves for having fought the “Good War,” when in view
of what they did to the German people, they should be down on their knees, begging forgiveness for having been duped into
an illegal war for the Jews, they instead, to this day, vilify their victims the ‘Krauts’ mainly of course in
their Jew controlled media newspapers, hiding the hate speech under the excuse of a football match.
“Hamburg, with its 1,150,000 people,
was blasted by huge attacks, in one of which the flames rolled a mile into the sky and roasted alive hundreds of thousands
of civilians in street temperatures of a thousand degrees.”
The British still celebrate their glorious victory, without
regard for the bloodshed involved, while still praising the way they coped with the minuscule bombardment of London, which
they call the ‘Blitz,’ and the attack on Coventry, when Churchill left the people to die, under the bombs, when
he had known the raid was coming.
“So, on April 4, 1945, Kassel (a town which was bombed on dozens of occasions)surrendered, not
more than 15,000 of its 250,000 still in the city and living. Thousands lay buried under the countless tons of brick and
mortar and twisted steel that had been dwellings and stores and factories.
“That was a year ago and it’s no exaggeration to say that they are
still dazed. Only a few have snapped out of their stupor to become real leaders. It is not uncommon to see a person burst
into helpless tears, if the conversation turns to recounting the war”(unnamed journalist)
The British and their allies, are now using the same
scorched earth policy, across the Middle East, where they are now employing the same terror tactics, this time crouching
behind the same Commissars, now calling themselves ISIS, using the same terror tactics which served during the invasion
of Germany, rape, crucifixion, torture and beheadings, which, had they been given the chance, would have massacred the German
people out of existence. The aim now is in order to reduce the population of the Middle East, to satisfy the dark desires
thing was done to the ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe, which created the greatest mass expulsion of people in history. This
was when ‘hostilities ended’ for the rest of us maybe, but not for the Jews in Soviet Russia, whom carried on
their ‘Bitter Harvest’ against White Christians, in all of the States which they had grabbed as ‘booty’
readers, what is going on in the Middle East today, can be traced all the way back to the shenanigans after the Great War,
the Russian coup d’etat, the downfall of the Ottoman Empire, the dismantling of the Austro Hungarian Empire, and the
handing over of an already populated Palestine into the hands of the Jews. The next step in this grisly history is the installation
of Greater Israel and then The New World Order, which will insist on a mass genocide i.e. according to their own scribblings,
they would prefer there to be no more than five-hundred-millions of us.This genocide
will include the ‘good Jews’ and there are many of them, along with the rest of us. We are all in it together.
Let's begin here, In case you did not know:
The Starving of Germany in 1919
I first read about the starvation of
Germans at the end of WWI in a book written by British historian Clive Ponting, he reported that close to 900.000
Germans died of starvation in 1918 and 1919.
policy” had begun in 1914. Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty and one of the framers of
the scheme, admitted that it was aimed at “starving the whole population — men, women, and children,
old and young, wounded and sound — into submission.”
policy was in contravention of international law on two major points.
First, in regard to the character of the blockade, it violated
the Declaration of Paris of 1856, which Britain itself had signed, and which, among other things, permitted “close”
but not “distant” blockades. A belligerent was allowed to station ships near the three-mile limit
to stop traffic with an enemy’s ports; it was not allowed simply to declare areas of the high seas comprising
the approaches to the enemy’s coast to be off-limits.
point is related to contraband. Briefly, following the lead of the Hague Conference of 1907, the Declaration
of London of 1909 considered food to be “conditional contraband,” that is, subject to interception
and capture only when intended for the use of the enemy’s military forces.
In December 1918, the National Health Office in Berlin calculated that 763,000 persons had already died as a result
of the blockade by that time. In some respects, the armistice saw the intensification of the suffering, since
the German Baltic coast was now effectively blockaded and German fishing rights in the Baltic annulled.
The reason for
the food blockade to be kept in place after the end of the hostilities was aimed at forcing Germany to sign the
Versailles Treaty without any change on the strict conditions they were imposing. Today no one remembers it because
it was kept secret and there were no leaks to the western press while 900,000 German men, women and children died
because of the British naval blockade. Even today only a few non-Germans know the truth and American and British
historians, seems to have brushed off this most appalling crime as a footnote in history.
Even the founder of the Boy Scouts, Robert Baden-Powell,
naively expressed his satisfaction that the German race is being ruined; though the birth rate.
Although the war had ended in November 1918,
Germany was still under Allied blockade, which was ruthlessly enforced. The first state of Germany to benefit
from a lifting of the blockade would be communist-controlled Bavaria.
One must search diligently for historical references to the continued, devastating blockade. Diether Raff confirms
the peace-time blockade in his “A History of Germany – From the Medieval Empire to the Present”:
peace terms turned out to be extremely severe, far exceeding the worst fears of the German government… The
peace treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest were declared invalid and the food blockade around Germany was to continue…
Thus Germany’s capitulation was accomplished and an end set to four years of enormous bloodshed.
the blockade that finally drove the Central Powers to accept defeat,” says Richard Hoveth in his study of
the struggle on the high seas during World War I: “At first mild in its application, the blockade’s
noose gradually tightened until, with the American entry, all restraint was cast aside. Increasingly deprived of
the means to wage war, or even to feed her population, the violent response was insurrection; apathy and demoralization
the mute consequence of dashed hopes and thin potato soup.”
Liddell Hart is quoted by Hoveth to the effect that, revolution and internal unrest notwithstanding, the blockade
was “clearly the decisive agency in the struggle.”
After confiscating the German merchant navy,
the Allies proceeded to confiscate German private property all over the world, contrary to all precedent from
previous wars when private property had been held in escrow until the ratification of peace treaties, when it would
revert to its legitimate owners.
The Allied powers reserved the right
to keep or dispose of assets belonging to German citizens, including companies they control [Article 167 B]. This
wholesale expropriation would take place without any compensation to the owners [Articles 121 and 279 B].
But Germany remained
responsible for the liabilities and loans on the assets that were taken from them. Profits, however, remained in
the hands of the Allies. Thus, private German property and assets were confiscated in China (Articles 129 and
132), Thailand (Articles 135-137), Egypt (Article 148), Liberia (Articles 135-140) and in many other countries.
Germany was also precluded from investing capital in any neighboring country and had to forfeit all rights “to
whatever title it may possess in these countries.
The Allies were given
free access to the German marketplace without the slightest tariff while products made in Germany faced high foreign
tariff barriers. Articles 264 to 267 established that Germany “undertakes to give the Allies and their associates
the status of most favored nations for five years.
Germany was already
experiencing near famine conditions but it was at this moment that the Allies decided to confiscate a substantial
part of what was left of Germany’s livestock. The American representative at Versailles, Thomas Lamont, recorded
the event with some indignation:
“The Germans were made to deliver cattle, horses, sheep, goats, etc.,…
A strong protest came from Germany when dairy cows were taken to France and Belgium, thus depriving German children of
Herbert Hoover, a mining engineer and future president of the United States – in 1900 defended
Tianjin from the assaults of the Boxer – was sent on a mission to help the starving population but he could
do very little because of the fury of the French and the British. Shipments had been delivered to Allies
and to neutrals, but British officials had refused to break their blockade to let cargoes go into Germany. Moreover,
Germany had failed to act on an agreement to turn over merchant ships before receiving food [eventually forced
on the Weimar government and showed no desire to pay for shipments in gold – a possibility that French financiers
were thought to be opposing so that their nation might get what gold there was as indemnity.
There is evidence that Wilson actually thought
the European powers would accept his 14 Points” and feed starving Germans now that the war was over but,
of course, that was not the case as discovered by Wilson’s humanitarian point man, Hoover. England’s
Prime Minister, Lloyd George, meanwhile, thought that the starvation was being ameliorated. He favored –
although quietly – feeding his ex-enemy.
In early March 1919, General Herbert Plumer, commander of the British Army of Occupation,
informed Prime Minister Lloyd George that his men were begging to be sent home; they could no longer stand the
sight of “hordes of skinny and bloated children pawing over the offal from the British camps”.
Finally, the Americans
and British overpowered French objections and at the end of March, the first food shipments began arriving in Hamburg.
But it was only in July, after the formal German signature to the Treaty of Versailles, that the Germans were
permitted to import raw materials and export manufactured goods.
On May 7 of that year, Count von Brockdorf-Rantzau had indignantly
referred to this fact in addressing the Versailles assembly:”The hundreds of thousands of noncombatants,”
the German chief delegate had stated, “who have perished since November 11, 1918, as a result of the blockade,
were killed with cold deliberation, after our enemies had been assured of their complete victory.”
The food blockade ended on July 12, 1919.
Besides the direct effects of the British blockade,
there are the possible indirect and much more sinister effects to consider. A German child who was ten years
old in 1918, and who survived, was twenty-two in 1930. Vincent raises the question of whether the miseries and
suffering from hunger in the early, formative years help account to some degree for the enthusiasm of German youth
for Nazism later on.
Incredibly, the last cheque covering reparations for WW1 was issued
by Angela Merkel in 2010.
Who Financed Hitler and Why ?
Economist Henry C K Liu writes of Germany's remarkable transformation:
The Nazis came to power in 1933 when the German economy was in total collapse, with
ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Through an independent
monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn
a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.” (Henry C. K. Liu, "Nazism
and the German Economic Miracle," Asia Times (May 24, 2005).
In Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry commented: “Germany
issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for Germany’s startling rise from the
depression to a world power in five years. The German government
financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took the entire Capitalist
and Communist world to destroy the German revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers.”
These facts do not appear in any textbooks today, since Jews own most publishing
companies. What does appear is the disastrous runaway inflation suffered in 1923 by the Weimar Republic, which
governed Germany from 1919 to 1933. Today’s textbooks use this inflation to twist truth into its opposite.
They cite the radical devaluation of the German mark as an example of what goes wrong when governments print their
own money, rather than borrow it from private cartels. In reality, the Weimar financial crisis began with the
impossible reparations payments imposed at the Treaty of Versailles.
Hjalmar Schacht ~ the Rothschild agent who was currency commissioner for the Republic before
being dismissed when Hitler realized what he was up to~ opposed letting the German government print its own money.
Schacht echoed the textbook lie that Weimar inflation was caused when the German government printed its own money.
However, in his 1967 book The Magic of Money, Schacht let the cat out of the bag by revealing that it was the PRIVATELY-OWNED
Reichsbank, not the German government, that was pumping new currency into the economy. Thus, the PRIVATE BANK
caused the Weimar hyper-inflation. Naturally this terrifies the bankers, since it eliminates their powers. It
also terrifies Jews, since their control of banking allows them to buy the media, the government, and everything
Therefore, to those who delight in saying “Jews financed Hitler,” I ask that they please
look at all the facts. Prescott Bush and others including Henry Ford made donations to help finance Hitler. Some
did it because they simply had political sympathies for Hitler. Others had a different agenda, namely they saw
in Hitler a strongman who would rebuild a strong Germany which was needed for the well planned second world war.
All that was needed after Hitler got into power and nationalized the German economic system and built a prosperous
nation, was to get Hitler to take the bait. Jewish NKVD squads organized a massive ethnic cleansing in the former
German states ceded to Poland 20 years earlier, killing tens of thousands of Germans in the preceding weeks, deliberately
provoking the 1st September 1939 German attack to stop the massacre of Germans in the former German states in
Poland. Have you ever wondered why France and England declared war on Germany for the well deserved German attack
on Poland, but not on the Soviet Union when it also attacked and occupied most of Poland ?
Hitler’s 1932 Election Campaign 'Stump Speech'
How the National Socialists Won Broad Support in Hard-Fought Contests for Votes
Foreword by Mark Weber
For Germans 1932 was a year of mass unemployment,
economic paralysis, and a broken, unresponsive political system. The world economic downturn, known in the US as the Great
Depression, had shattered production and business life. This was also a year of intense campaigning in four fiercely fought
nationwide elections – two for the Reichstag or parliament, and a two-part presidential contest.
The most pressing
issue in these campaigns was, of course, the economic calamity that had brought widespread misery and put millions out of
work. Because the “establishment” political parties were utterly unable to get a grip on the nation’s economic
ills, growing numbers of citizens turned with hope to the radical Communists or National Socialists.
During this final year of Germany’s liberal
democratic “Weimar Republic” system, one inept administration after another tried to tackle the nation’s
daunting problems. Lacking popular support or backing from a majority in the Reichstag, each President-appointed Chancellor
governed only by authority of the constitution’s “emergency decree” clause.
In the 1932 presidential election campaign, Germany’s
“establishment” parties, including the leftist Social Democrats and several “centrist” parties,
supported Paul von Hindenburg – the 84-year-old incumbent who had served as Reichspräsident since 1925.
His most formidable challenger was Adolf Hitler, the 43-year-old leader of the National Socialists. No candidate in the
March 13 election received an outright majority, although 30 percent voted for Hitler, and 13 percent for the Communist
Party leader. This set off a new round of feverish campaigning for the April 10 run-off election, in which von Hindenburg
garnered 53 percent of the votes, thereby remaining President. Hitler increased his share of votes, gaining 37 percent of
Adding to the year’s fatiguing round of electioneering were contests for provincial legislatures. In the April
24 elections in several German regions or states, the National Socialists emerged as the most popular party. The victory
of Hitler’s movement was most significant in Prussia – by far the largest German Land or state, with
three–fifths of the nation’s population.
In the fiercely contested Reichstag election of July 31, in which 84 percent
of eligible voters cast ballots, the National Socialists emerged as the largest party, by far, with 37 percent of the total.
In second place came the Social Democrats, with 22 percent, followed by the Communist Party with 15 percent. In the hard-fought
November 6 Reichstag election, the National Socialists once again came out as Germany’s most popular party, with 33
percent of the total. The Social Democrats trailed in second place with 20 percent, followed by the Communists with 17 percent.
The most dedicated
activists in these decisive election contests were unquestionably the supporters of Hitler’s National Socialist Party
(NSDAP). In countless well organized meetings, through production and distribution of millions of posters, flyers and brochures,
and in a wide range of daily, weekly and monthly Party newspapers and magazines, the movement’s legions of speakers,
artists, writers and other volunteers reached out to voters in cities, towns and villages across the country. “Thanks
to the extraordinary talents of its leader, the wide appeal of its propaganda, and the success of its tactics in dealing
with the Mittelstand [middle class] organizations,” wrote American historian Gordon Craig, “the National
Socialist party exuded strength and confidence ...”
A crucial factor in the party’s appeal was its emphatic call
for national unity and unselfish devotion to the common good. This was unusual at the time. “In contrast to almost
all of the other parties in the Weimar period,” noted Prof. Craig, “the National Socialist party did not direct
its propaganda towards a single social or economic class or grouping of interests.” By conscientiously reaching out
to all Germans – regardless of class, region or religious outlook – the Hitler movement became the country’s
first “modern” political party.
Hitler also worked harder than any other political leader. He crisscrossed the country by airplane
(the first politician anywhere to do so) to address large meetings, sometimes several in a single day. During 1932 he gave
a total of 209 public speeches. On one day, July 27, Hitler addressed a rally of 60,000 people in Brandenburg, and then to
nearly as many in Potsdam, and in the evening he spoke to 120,000 gathered in a large stadium in Berlin, while an additional
100,000 heard his voice outside on loudspeakers. On July 20 poor weather delayed his arrival by airplane and auto to address
a mass rally in Stralsund, which was to begin at 9:00 in the evening. At midnight the outdoor gathering of some 20,000 people
was told that Hitler would arrive at 1:30 a.m. Still they waited. It wasn’t until 2:15 in the morning that he was
finally able to address the large crowd.
Hitler’s rare ability to present his views clearly and convincingly to both individuals
and large audiences, and to win the confidence and loyalty of exceptionally talented men as devoted colleagues, were crucial
to his success in building and maintaining a vast, professionally run national organization. “Among all of the prominent
figures in the Weimar period,” wrote Prof. Craig of Stanford University, “he [Hitler] is the only one of whom
it can be said unequivocally that he possessed political genius.”
Hitler has often been portrayed as a ranting demagogue who won support
with simplistic slogans, empty promises and crude appeals to feelings of resentment, fear and envy. That image is not accurate.
If it had corresponded to reality, the National Socialists would not have won the support of so many German voters –
who were among the best informed, best educated and most discerning in the world.
In fact, the message of Hitler’s movement
was more substantive and self-consistent than that of any other German political formation. Of the many parties that competed
for votes in the 1932 elections, only the National Socialists presented a comprehensive program to tackle the economic crisis
that laid out specific measures (which were later implemented after taking power).
The National Socialists stressed that only a
new outlook that rejected narrow, sectarian self-interest and put the needs of the entire nation first would enable the
German people to build a healthy new order of social stability, economic security, prosperity, and enduring well-being for
weeks before the July 1932 Reichstag elections, the National Socialist Party issued a phonograph record with a recorded address
by its leader. Some 50,000 discs with this Hitler “stump speech,” titled “Appeal to the Nation,”
were made and widely distributed. This effort was all the more needed because Germany’s government-controlled broadcasting
system took care to ban Hitler’s voice from the radio.
This talk, which is a little more than eight minutes in length, is
the only recorded address made by Hitler for the 1932 election campaign. In it he speaks emphatically but clearly, re-emphasizing
points he made in many other speeches that year. He sharply criticizes the other political parties for their failure to
deal with the nation’s economic woes, as well as for their narrow focus and divisive goals. Only the National Socialists,
he emphasizes, are committed body and soul to the well-being of all Germans.
Here is my translation of the full text of Hitler’s
1932 election campaign “Appeal to the Nation”:
* * *
More than 13 years have been allotted by fate to test and evaluate those who
are in power today. But they themselves have handed down the most severe verdict possible by acknowledging in their own propaganda
the failure of their efforts. At one time they wanted to govern Germany better in the future than in the past. Today, however,
the only real result of their style of governing is for them merely to observe that Germany and the German people still
live. During the days of November 1918 [when a liberal democratic republic replaced the monarchy], they solemnly pledged
to lead our people, and especially the German worker, into a better economic future. Today – after they have had nearly
14 years to fulfill their promises – they are not able to cite the well-being of a single German occupational class
as witness to the quality of their efforts.
The German farmer is impoverished. The middle class is ruined. The social hopes of many millions
have been destroyed. One third of all German men and women of working age is unemployed, and thus without income. The national
government, the municipalities, and the states are heavily in debt, finances across the board are in disorder, and all the
treasuries are empty.
What more could they possibly have destroyed? The worse thing, though, is the destruction of faith in our nation,
the elimination of all hope and all confidence. In 13 years they have had no success at all in mobilizing the strengths
that slumber in our people. To the contrary! Because they fear an awakened nation, they have played off one group of people
against another: the city against the countryside, the salaried workers against the government employees, those who work
with their hands against those who work with their heads, the Bavarians against the Prussians, the Catholics against the
Protestants, and so forth and vice versa.
The activism of our people has been used up only domestically. With regard to the outside world,
all that’s left are fantasies: fantastic hopes in a conscience of cultured humanity, international law, a world conscience,
ambassadorial conferences, the League of Nations, the Second International, the Third International, proletarian solidarity,
and so forth – and the world has treated us accordingly.
Thus Germany has slowly declined, and only a lunatic can hope that
the forces that brought about this decline in the first place could now bring about a resurrection. If the established political
parties seriously want to save Germany, why have they not done so already? If they really wanted to save Germany, why has
that not happened? If the leaders of those parties had honest intentions, then their programs must have been deficient.
If, however, their programs were correct, then either their intentions were not sincere, or they were too ignorant or too
after 13 years, during which period they have destroyed everything in Germany, the time has finally arrived for their own
elimination. Whether or not today’s parliamentary political parties survive is not important. What is essential, though,
is to make sure that the German nation is not completely destroyed.
To remove these parties is therefore a duty – for in order to
secure their own existence, they must again and again tear the nation apart. For years they have tried to persuade the German
worker that he alone could save himself. For years the farmer was told that only his organization would help him. The middle
class was to be snatched from the jaws of ruin by the middle class parties, and the economy by the parties of business.
The Catholic was to seek his refuge with the Center party, and the Protestant in the Christian Socialist People’s Service.
In the end even the house owners had their own political representation, just as did the tenants, the salaried workers,
and the civil servants. These efforts to split up the nation into classes, walks of life, occupational groups, and religious
beliefs, leading in that way, bit by bit, to a future of economic happiness have now, however, failed completely.
Even on the day
our National Socialist movement was founded, we were already governed by the conviction that the destiny of the German individual
is inseparably bound up with the destiny of the entire nation. When Germany declines, the worker will not flourish in social
well-being, and neither will the entrepreneur. Nor will the farmers or the middle class be able to save themselves.
No, the ruin of
the Reich, the decline of the nation, means the ruin and the decline of all! And no religious faction and no single
German ethnic group will be able to escape sharing the same general fate.
Even on the day our National Socialist movement was founded, it had
already long been clear to us that the proletariat would not be the victor over the bourgeoisie, and the bourgeoisie would
not be the victor over the proletariat, but rather that [in such a clash] international high finance would then ultimately
be the sole victor over both. And that is what has come to pass!
Recognizing this decline, 13 years ago a handful of people and I
organized a new movement which, in its very name [National Socialist] proclaims the new national community. There is no such
thing as a socialism that does not have the power of the spirit at its disposal; and no such thing as social well-being
that is not protected by, and even finds its prerequisite in, the power of a nation. And there is no such thing as a nation
– and thus no such thing as nationalism – unless the army of millions who work with their brains are joined by
the army of millions who work with their fists, along with the army of millions of farmers.
As long as nationalism and socialism march as
separate ideas, they will be defeated by their united opponents. On the day when both ideas are fused together into one,
they will be invincible!
And who will deny that, during a time when everything in Germany is breaking apart and going bad, when everything
in the business world and political life is coming to a standstill or even to an end, a single organization has experienced
a tremendous and wonderful upturn? With seven men I began this task of German unification 13 years ago, and today more than
13 million are standing in our ranks. However, it is not the number that counts, but their inner worth!
Thirteen million people of all professions and
occupational groups – 13 million workers, farmers, and intellectuals; 13 million Catholics and Protestants; members
of all German regions and ethnic groups – have formed an unbreakable alliance. And 13 million have recognized that
the future of all lies only in the shared struggle and in the shared successes of all.
Millions of farmers have now realized that the
important thing is not that they recognize the necessity of their own existence, but rather that it is necessary to enlighten
people in other walks of life and occupational groups about the German farmer, and to win them over for him.
And today millions
of workers likewise realize that, in spite of all the theories, their future lies not in some [Marxist] Internationale,
but rather in the realization on the part of their compatriots that, without German farmers and German workers, there simply
is no German strength. And millions of bourgeois intellectuals have likewise come to realize the insignificance of their
own views if the masses of millions comprising the rest of the nation do not finally comprehend the importance of the German
Thirteen years ago we National Socialists were mocked and derided. Today our opponents are no longer laughing. A
faithful community of people has arisen that will gradually overcome the prejudices of class madness and the snobbery of
social standing. A faithful community of people that is resolved to take up the fight for the preservation of our people,
not because it is made up of Bavarians or Prussians, or people from Württemberg or Saxony, or because they are Catholics
or Protestants, workers or civil servants, middle class or salaried workers, and so forth, but because they are all Germans.
Together with this
feeling of unbreakable solidarity, mutual respect has grown, and from this respect has come understanding, and from that
understanding the tremendous power that moves us all. We National Socialists therefore march into every election campaign
with the single commitment that we will, the following day, once again take up our work for the inner reorganization of
our national community. For we are not fighting for elective posts or ministerial positions, but rather for the German man
and woman, whom we want to, and will, join together once again into an indivisible community of destiny.
The Almighty, Who so far has allowed us to rise
from seven men to 13 million in 13 years, will further allow these 13 million to once again become a German folk. It is
in this people that we believe, for this people we fight; and it is to this people that we are willing, as thousands of
comrades before us, if necessary, to commit ourselves body and soul.
If the nation does its duty, then the day must inevitably come that
restores to us a Reich in honor and freedom, work and bread!
Winston Churchill and Dwight Eisenhower tried to suppress captured
Nazi documents that showed Britain’s former King Edward VIII discussing his desire for peace with Adolf Hitler, according
to files newly released in London.
The National Archives
published more papers from the U.K. government’s secret basement storeroom in the Cabinet Office where papers deemed
“too difficult, too sensitive” for the regular filing system were hidden away. They include a 1953 memo from
Churchill, marked “top secret,” explaining the existence of a series of German telegrams carrying reports of
comments by the Duke of Windsor, as Edward VIII was known after he abdicated in 1936.
“He is convinced that had he remained on
throne war would have been avoided and describes himself as firm supporter of a peaceful compromise with Germany,”
reported a telegram from Lisbon in neutral Portugal, where the duke was staying in July 1940. “Duke believes with certainty
that continued heavy bombing will make England ready for peace.”
Edward abdicated so he could marry
an American divorcee, Wallis Simpson. The couple set up home in France, but when World War II broke out they moved to Spain.
The government in Madrid, formally neutral but sympathetic to Germany, asked for guidance from Berlin as to what should
be done with them. German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop replied, asking if they could be kept there. Then he ordered
a watch on their house.
Ribbentrop’s interest was piqued when he was told, a few days later, that in private “Windsor spoke
strongly against Churchill and against this war.” While he considered what to do, the duke and duchess made their
way to Portugal, where they made similar comments. The Nazis decided to act.
‘Persuaded or Forced’
“The duke should return to Spain under
all circumstances,” Ribbentrop wrote, adding that they should then be “persuaded or forced” to stay there.
His plan was then to offer the duke “the granting of any wish,” including “the ascension of the English
Churchill, meanwhile, was alive to the danger of having an alternative monarch so close to being in Nazi hands.
He appointed the duke as governor of the Bahamas. When the Windsors were reluctant to leave Europe, Churchill threatened
Edward, who held honorary military rank, with court-martial. Ribbentrop, anxious not to let his prize escape, launched Operation
Willi to persuade the Windsors to return to Spain, kidnapping them if necessary. But despite sabotage attempts and bomb
threats, the Germans failed.
The plan was “to persuade the duke to leave Lisbon in a car as if he were going on a fairly long pleasure
jaunt, and then to cross the border at a specified place, where Spanish secret police will ensure a safe crossing,”
according to a note sent to Ribbentrop.
The telegrams describing their operation were found in 1945 as Hitler’s regime collapsed.
When they were passed to the British government, Clement Attlee, who had replaced Churchill as prime minister, wrote to
his predecessor, saying that their publication “might do the greatest possible harm.” Churchill replied, agreeing
and expressing the hope that it might be possible to “destroy all traces” of the files.
But after Churchill
returned to power in 1951, he was horrified to learn Attlee had subsequently changed his mind, apparently at the urging
of Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin. Historians in Washington now proposed to publish the Nazi telegrams.
In 1953, Churchill wrote to President Eisenhower,
expressing his concern that “they might leave the impression that the duke was in close touch with German agents and
was listening to suggestions that were disloyal.” Eisenhower, who had been the allies’ supreme commander, had
seen the telegrams in 1945, but believed he had successfully suppressed them, arguing they were “obviously concocted
with some idea of promoting German propaganda.” He was unaware a microfilm of them had been passed to the State Department.
By the 1950s, too
many people had seen the messages for them to be destroyed, and the British historian in charge of preparing the documents
for publication threatened to resign if they were suppressed. They were eventually published in 1957, with the duke describing
them as “complete fabrications.”
Click on this text to view "Ethnic Germans: A Forgotten Genocide"... Germans migrated down the Danube in three major waves
beginning more than 700 years ago, and settled in mountainous areas of Bohemia and Moravia. These Ethnic Germans became very
prosperous and those in Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia were known as Danube Swabians. 1939 the Czech President expelled German
minority to be executed with utmost brutality resulting 1 million sudeten Germans losing their lives. Many Ethnic Germans
settled in St. Louis, USA
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, formally 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.
Magazine Prepares Americans for War
Ten months before the outbreak of war in Europe, the most influential US illustrated
weekly 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 fleets and 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. But President
Franklin Roosevelt was secretly pushing for war. In September 1939 Britain and France -- encouraged by the US -- declared
war against Germany.
Historian Looks At 'Ethnic Cleansing’ of Germans
Expellees: Victims in War and Peace, by Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993. 200 pages.
24 Photographs. Map. Notes. Bibliography. Index.
by Robert Clive
The grim fate of the 15
million German civilians who found themselves trapped in the path of the Red Army in the closing months of World
War II, or on the wrong side of the re-drawn postwar borders, is not a topic that has tended to excite the interest
of historians. And the general public, which is subjected to constant reminders about wartime Nazi brutality,
is certainly not aware that at least two million Germans lost their lives in the course of flight and mass expulsion
from their ancestral homes in Eastern Europe.
de Zayas, a graduate of Harvard Law School who earned a doctorate in history at the University of Gottingen in
Germany, has devoted much of his professional career to setting the record straight. His earlier books, Nemesis
at Potsdam (which detailed Allied responsibility for the brutal mass expulsion of Germans at the end of the
war), and The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, met with critical acclaim on both sides of the Atlantic.
First published in German in 1986, The German Expellees is based on
extensive research in European and American archives. This American edition is updated with new material not included
in the German version.
Chapter One sketches the history
of the Germans living throughout East Central Europe. Even students of history are generally unaware of the fact
that, starting in the twelfth century, German artisans, farmers, soldiers, and churchmen were invited by reigning
princes, kings, and emperors to settle in their domains. The essentially peaceful character of the so-called “Drang
nach Osten,” which witnessed the establishment of a German presence in East Prussia, Pomerania, East Brandenburg,
Silesia, Bohemia, Moravia, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Transylvania and Russia, has long been misrepresented as
some sort of "march of conquest."
then turns to the Paris Peace conference, where President Wilson's lofty pledge to secure "self-determination"
did not, it turned out, apply to Germans, Austrians, and Hungarians. The Treaty of Versailles also denied the
right of self determination to German citizens who resided in areas to be separated from pre-war Germany, including
those living in Danzig, Posen, and West Prussia. De Zayas recounts that the interwar Czech and Polish governments
discriminated against their German minorities. Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche)
were, unfortunately, not a fiction of Goebbels' propaganda office, but were all too true. Soviet atrocities against
the German civilian populations of East Prussia, Pomerania, and Silesia have been recounted before, even if they
are still not widely known.
De Zayas reviews these
grim events, drawing specific attention to the fate of Nemmersdorf, East Prussia, which fell to the Red Army in
October 1944 and was then recaptured a short time later by the Wehrmacht. Women and children were gang raped and
then murdered in the most brutal fashion.
In the words
of American historian and diplomat George Kennan: “The disaster that befell this area with the entry of the
Soviet forces has no parallel in modern European experience. There were considerable sections of it where, to
judge by all existing evidence, scarcely a man, woman or child of the indigenous population was left alive after the
initial passage of Soviet forces … The Russians … swept the native population clean in a manner that
has no parallel since the days of the Asiatic hordes.”
Allied decisions for "resettlement" are considered in Chapter Four. Although the 1941 "Atlantic
Charter" proclaimed by Roosevelt and Churchill expressly rejected territorial changes that did not meet the
desires of the affected people, this did not discourage the British and American leaders from victims of this
relatively unknown holocaust have later supporting the forcible mass expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern and
Central Europe. As early as August 1942, the Allied leaders accepted the principle of forcible expulsion, which
they reaffirmed at the Teheran Conference in 1943. At the February 1945 Yalta Conference, Churchill and Roosevelt
further agreed to permit Stalin to use Germans as slave labor after the war, a practice that the diplomats dubbed
"reparations in kind." An estimated 874.000 German civilians were abducted to Soviet ~ Russia, of whom
45 percent perished in captivity.
and deportation of millions of ethnic German civilians from Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia
is detailed by the author, who remarks that "hitherto it would seem that the blackout on this period of history
had been complete." While the Allied leaders at the Potsdam Conference called for the "orderly"
and "humane" resettlement of the hapless Germans, in practice it was anything but.
As de Zayas further points out, mass deportations were designated as "war crimes"
and "crimes against humanity" by the Nuremberg Tribunal. But even as the Allied court was sentencing
Germany's wartime political and military leaders to death for such acts, millions of Germans were being brutally
driven from their homes.
The German Expellees is a well-written,
concise introduction to a chapter of what James J. Martin has characterized as "inconvenient history."
These horrific events were not haphazard or spontaneous. Rather, this mass "ethnic cleansing" of German
civilians was official Allie policy. For too long, the victims of this relatively unknown holocaust have remained
largely forgotten and unmourned.
About the Author
Robert Clive is the pen name of an American specialist of the political, diplomatic
and military history of modern Europe. He holds a doctorate in history.
From The Journal of Historical Review, March/April 1994 (Vol. 14, No. 2), page 39. ______________________________________________________________________________________________
The "Hooten Plan" to Genocide the Germans:
In 1943, prominent American anthropologist Ernest Hooton wrote an an article headlined “Breed War Strain Out of Germans”
for New York Daily newspaper. The concept was an “outbreeding” plan to “destroy German nationalism and
ideology while retaining and perpetuating desirable German biological and sociological capacities.” ...(Earnest Albert Hooton (November 20, 1887 – May 3, 1954) was a Jewish-American
physical anthropologist known for his work on racial classification and his popular writings such as the book Up From The Ape. Hooton sat
on the Committee on the Negro, a group that "focused on the anatomy of blacks and reflected the racism of the time).
The Harvard University professor’s proposal called for genetically
transforming the German nation by encouraging mating of German women with non-German men, who would be brought into the
country in large numbers; and of German men, forcibly held outside of Germany, with non-German women. Ten to 12 million
German men would be assigned to forced labor under Allied supervision in countries outside of Germany to rebuild their economies.
“The objects of this measure,” wrote Dr. Hooton, “include
reduction of the birthrate of ‘pure’ Germans, neutralization of German ‘aggressiveness’ by outbreeding
and denationalization of indoctrinated individuals.”
This scheme, Hooton estimated, would require at least 20 years to be implemented. “During this
period, it would encourage the immigration and settlement in Germany of non-German nationals, especially males,” he
Although aspects of the 1943
plan were delayed, in the decades since the end of World War II something of the spirit of the genocidal Hooton plan is
being unleashed on Germany’s population. In actuality, it was jump started given that an estimated five million or
more German POWs (see Rhine-Meadows death camps) and civilians were exterminated and murdered in the Hellstorm period of
1944-1946. This is hidden history.
Now that Germany’s birth rate is below the replacement level, millions of racially and culturally alien migrants are
welcomed as settlers in Germany. The number of children of mixed ethnicity has sharply increased, and the ethnic-cultural
character of much of the country has been drastically altered, especially in the larger cities.
Now come official figures from Germany’s Federal Statistics Office (FSO):
One in three German residents under age 18 have foreign roots.
In Berlin, people with a migration background comprise 30% of residents. Ethnic Germans are already
minority in the district center and many of the surrounding central districts.
Germany's enemies maintain today (1940) that Adolf Hitler is
the greatest disturber of peace known to history, that he threatens every nation with sudden attack and oppression.
That he has created
a terrible war machine in order to cause trouble and devastation all around him. At the same time they intentionally conceal
an all-important fact: they themselves drove the Leader of the German people finally to draw the sword.
compelled him to seek to obtain at last by the use of force that which he had been striving to gain by persuasion from the
beginning: the security of his country.
They did this not only by declaring war on him on September 3, 1939, but also by blocking step
for step for seven years the path to any peaceful discussion.
The attempts repeatedly made by Adolf Hitler
to induce the governments of other states to collaborate with him in a reconstruction of Europe resemble an ever-recurring
pattern in his conduct since the commencement of his labors for the German Reich. But these attempts were wrecked every
time by reason of the fact that nowhere was there any willingness to give them due consideration, because the evil spirit
of the Great War still prevailed everywhere, because in London and Paris and in the capitals of the Western Powers' vassal
states there was only one fixed intention: to perpetuate the power of Versailles.
A rapid glance at the most important
events will furnish incontrovertible proof for this statement.
When Adolf Hitler came to the fore, Germany was
as gagged and as helpless as the victors of 1918 wanted her to be. Completely disarmed, with an army of only 100,000 men
intended solely for police duties within the country, she found herself within a tightly closed ring of neighbors all armed
to the teeth and leagued together. To the old enemies in the West, Britain, Belgium and France, new ones were artificially
created and added in the East and the South: above all Poland and Czechoslovakia. A quarter of the population of Germany
were forcibly torn away from their mother country and handed over to foreign powers. The Reich, mutilated on all sides and
robbed of every means of defense, at any moment could become the helpless victim of some rapacious neighbor.
it was that Adolf Hitler for the first time made his appeal to the common sense of the other powers. On May 17, 1933, a
few months after his appointment to the office of Reichskanzler, he delivered a speech in the German Reichstag, from which
we extract the following passages:
"Germany will be perfectly ready to disband her entire
military establishment and destroy the small amount of arms remaining to her, if the neighboring countries will do the same
thing with equal thoroughness.
... Germany is entirely ready to renounce aggressive weapons
of every sort if the armed nations, on their part, will destroy their aggressive weapons within a specified period, and
if their use is forbidden by an international convention.
... Germany is at all times prepared
to renounce offensive weapons if the rest of the world does the same. Germany is prepared to agree to any solemn pact of
non-aggression because she does not think of attacking anybody but only of acquiring security."
Without paying any heed the others continued to fill their arsenals with weapons, to pile up their
stores of explosives, to increase the numbers of their troops. At the same time the League of Nations, the instrument of
the victorious powers, declared that Germany must first pass through a period of "probation" before it would be
possible to discuss with her the question of the disarmament of the other countries. On October 14, 1933, Hitler broke away
from this League of Nations with which it was impossible to come to any agreement. Shortly afterwards, however, on December
18, 1933, he came forward with a new proposal for the improvement of international relations. This proposal included the
following six points:
"1. Germany receives full equality of rights.
2. The fully armed States undertake amongst themselves not to increase their armaments beyond their present level.
3. Germany adheres to this agreement, freely undertaking to make only so much actual moderate use of
the equality of rights granted to her as will not represent a threat to the security of any other European power.
 4. All States recognize certain obligations in regard to conducting war on humane principles, or
to the elimination of certain weapons for use against the civilian population.
5. All States
accept a uniform general control which will watch over and ensure the observance of these obligations.
6. The European nations guarantee one another the unconditional maintenance of peace by the conclusion of non-aggression
pacts, to be renewed after ten years."
Following upon this a proposal was made to increase the strength
of the German army to 300,000 men, corresponding to the strength required by Germany "having regard to the length of
her frontiers and the size of the armies of her neighbors", in order to protect her threatened territory against attacks.
The defender of the principle of peaceable agreement was thus trying to accommodate himself to the unwillingness of the
others to disarm by expressing a desire for a limited increase of armaments for his own country. An exchange of notes, starting
from this and continuing for years, finally came to a sudden end with an unequivocal "no" from France. This "no"
was moreover accompanied by tremendous increases in the armed forces of France, Britain and Russia.
this way Germany's position became still worse than before. The danger to the Reich was so great that Adolf Hitler felt
himself compelled to act. On March 16, 1935, he reintroduced conscription. But in direct connection with this measure he
once more announced an offer of agreements of an extensive nature, the purpose of which was to ensure that any future war
would be conducted on humane principles, in fact to make such a war practically impossible by eliminating destructive armaments.
In his speech of May 21, 1935, he declared:
"The German Government is ready to take an
active part in all efforts which may lead to a practical limitation of armaments. It regards a return to the former idea
of the Geneva Red Cross Convention as the only possible way to achieve this. It believes that at first there will be only
the possibility of a gradual abolition and outlawry of weapons and methods of warfare which are essentially contrary to
the Geneva Red Cross Convention which is still valid.
Just as the use of dumdum bullets was
once forbidden and, on the whole, thereby prevented in practice, so the use of other definite arms should be forbidden and
prevented. Here the German Govern-  ment has in mind all those arms which bring death and destruction not so much to the
fighting soldiers as to non-combatant women and children.
The German Government considers
as erroneous and ineffective the idea to do away with aeroplanes while leaving the question of bombing open. But it believes
it possible to proscribe the use of certain arms as contrary to international law and to excommunicate those nations which
still use them from the community of mankind, its rights and its laws.
It also believes that
gradual progress is the best way to success. For example, there might be prohibition of the dropping of gas, incendiary
and explosive bombs outside the real battle zone. This limitation could then be extended to complete international outlawry
of all bombing. But so long as bombing as such is permitted, any limitation of the number of bombing planes is questionable
in view of the possibility of rapid substitution.
Should bombing as such be branded as a barbarity
contrary to international law, the construction of bombing aeroplanes will soon be abandoned as superfluous and of no purpose.
If, through the Geneva Red Cross Convention, it turned out possible as a matter of fact to prevent the killing of a defenseless
wounded man or prisoner, it ought to be equally possible to forbid, by an analogous convention, and finally to stop, the
bombing of equally defenseless civilian populations.
In such a fundamental way of dealing
with the problem, Germany sees a greater reassurance and security for the nations than in all pacts of assistance and military
The German Government is ready to agree to any limitation which leads to abolition
of the heaviest arms, especially suited for aggression. Such are, first, the heaviest artillery, and, secondly, the heaviest
tanks. In view of the enormous fortifications on the French frontier such international abolition of the heaviest weapons
of attack would ipso facto give France 100 per cent security.
Germany declares herself ready
to agree to any limitation whatsoever of the calibre-strength of artillery, battleships, cruisers and torpedo boats. In
like manner the German Government is ready to accept any international limitation of the size of warships. And finally it
is ready to agree to limitation of tonnage for submarines, or to their complete abolition in case of international agreement.
 And it gives the further assurance that it will agree to any international limitation or
abolition of arms whatsoever for a uniform space of time."
This time again Hitler's declarations did not
find the slightest response. On the contrary, France made an alliance with Russia in order to increase her preponderating
influence on the Continent still further, and to augment to a gigantic degree the pressure on Germany from the East.
In view of the evident destructive intentions of his opponents, Adolf Hitler was therefore obliged to take
new measures to ensure the safety of the German Reich. On March 3, 1936, he occupied the Rhineland, which had been without
military protection since Versailles, and thus closed the wide gate through which the Western neighbor could carry out an
invasion. Once again he followed the defensive step which he had been obliged to take with a liberal appeal for general
reconciliation and for the settlement of all differences. On March 31, 1936, he formulated the following peace plan:
"1. In order to give to future agreements securing the peace of Europe the character of inviolable
treaties, those nations participating in the negotiations do so only on an entirely equal footing and as equally esteemed
members. The sole compelling reason for signing these treaties can only lie in the generally recognized and obvious practicability
of these agreements for the peace of Europe, and thus for the social happiness and economic prosperity of the nations.
2. In order to shorten in the economic interest of the European nations the period of uncertainty,
the German Government proposes a limit of four months for the first period up to the signing of the pacts of non-aggression
guaranteeing the peace of Europe.
3. The German Government gives the assurance not to add any
reinforcements whatsoever to the troops in the Rhineland during this period, always provided that the Belgian and French
Governments act in the same way.
4. The German Government gives the assurance not to move during
this period closer to the Belgian and French frontiers the troops at present stationed in the Rhineland.
5. The German Government proposes the setting up of a commission composed of the two guarantor Powers, Britain and Italy,
and a disinterested third neutral power, to guarantee this assurance to be given by both parties.
 6. Germany, Belgium and France are each entitled to send a representative to this Commission. If Germany, France or
Belgium think that for any particular reason they can point to a change in the military situation having taken place within
this period of four months, they have the right to inform the Guarantee Commission of their observations.
7. Germany, Belgium and France declare their willingness in such a case to permit this Commission to make the necessary
investigations through the British and Italian military attaches, and to report thereon to the Powers participating.
8. Germany, Belgium and France give the assurance that they will bestow the fullest consideration
to the objections arising therefrom.
9. Moreover the German Government is willing on a basis
of complete reciprocity with Germany's two western neighbors to agree to any military limitations on the German western
10. Germany, Belgium and France and the two guarantor Powers agree to enter into
negotiations under the leadership of the British Government at once or, at the latest, after the French elections, for the
conclusion of a 25-years non-aggression or security pact between France and Belgium on the one hand, and Germany on the
11. Germany agrees that Britain and Italy shall sign this security pact as guarantor
Powers once more.
12. Should special engagements to render military assistance arise as a
result of these security agreements, Germany on her part declares her willingness to enter into such engagements.
13. The German Government hereby repeats its proposal for the conclusion of an air-pact to supplement
and consolidate these security agreements.
14. The German Government repeats that should the
Netherlands so desire it is willing to include that country too in this West-European security agreement.
15. In order to stamp this peace-pact, voluntarily entered into between Germany and France, as the reconciliatory conclusion
of a centuries-old dispute, Germany and France pledge themselves to take steps to see that in the education of the young,
as well as in the press and publications of both nations, everything shall be avoided which might be calculated to poison
the relationship between the two  peoples, whether it be a derogatory or contemptuous attitude, or improper interference
in the internal affairs of the other country. They agree to set up at the headquarters of the League of Nations at Geneva,
a joint commission whose function it shall be to lay all complaints received before the two Governments for information and
16. In pursuance of their intention to give this agreement the character of
a sacred pledge, Germany and France undertake to ratify it by means of a plebiscite of the two nations.
17. Germany expresses her willingness, on her part, to establish contact with the states on her south-eastern and north-eastern
frontiers, in order to invite them directly to conclude the pacts of non-aggression already proposed.
18. Germany expresses her willingness to re-enter the League of Nations, either at once, or after the conclusion of these
agreements. At the same time, the German Government again expresses as its expectation that, after a reasonable time and
by the method of friendly negotiations, the question of colonial equality of rights and that of the separation of the Covenant
of the League of Nations from its foundations in the Versailles Treaty will be cleared up.
19. Germany proposes the setting up of an International Court of Arbitration, which shall be responsible for the observance
of the various agreements concluded, and whose decisions shall be binding on all parties.
the conclusion of this great work of securing European peace, the German Government considers it urgently necessary to endeavor
by practical measures to put a stop to the unlimited competition in armaments. In her opinion this would mean not merely
an improvement in the financial and economic position of the nations, but above all a diminution of the psychological tension.
The German Government, however, has no faith in the attempt to bring about universal settlements,
as this would be doomed to failure from the outset, and can therefore be proposed only by those who have no interest in
achieving practical results. On the other hand it is of the opinion that the negotiations held and the results achieved in
limiting naval armaments should have an instructive and stimulating effect.
The German Government
therefore proposes that future conferences shall have one clearly defined objective.
the present, it believes the most important task is to bring aerial warfare into the moral and humane atmosphere of the protection
afforded to non-combatants or the wounded by the Geneva Convention. Just as the killing of defenseless wounded, or prisoners,
or the use of dumdum bullets, or the waging of submarine warfare without warning, have been either forbidden or regulated
by international conventions, so it must be possible for civilized humanity to prevent the senseless abuse of any new type
of weapon, without running counter to the object of warfare.
The German Government therefore
puts forward the proposal that the immediate practical tasks of this conference shall be:
Prohibition of dropping gas, poison, or incendiary bombs.
2. Prohibition of dropping bombs
of any kind whatsoever on open towns and villages outside the range of the medium-heavy artillery of the fighting fronts.
3. Prohibition of the bombarding with long-range guns of towns more than 20 km. distant from the
4. Abolition and prohibition of the construction of tanks of the heaviest type.
5. Abolition and prohibition of artillery of the heaviest calibre.
As soon as possibilities for further limitation of armaments emerge from such discussions and agreements, they should be
The German Government hereby declares itself prepared to join in every such settlement,
in so far as it is valid internationally.
The German Government believes that if even a first
step is made on the road to disarmament, this will be of enormous importance to the relationship between the nations, and
to the recovery of confidence, trade and prosperity.
In accordance with the general desire
for the restoration of favorable economic conditions, the German Government is prepared immediately after the conclusion
of the political treaties to enter into an exchange of opinions on economic problems with the other nations concerned, in
the spirit of the proposals made, and to do all that lies in its power to improve the economic situation in Europe, and
the world economic situation which is closely bound up with it.
 The German Government believes
that with the peace plan proposed above it has made its contribution to the reconstruction of a new Europe on the basis
of reciprocal respect and confidence between sovereign states. Many opportunities for such a pacification of Europe, for
which Germany has so often in the last few years made her proposals, have been neglected. May this attempt to achieve European
understanding succeed at last!
The German Government confidently believes that it has opened
the way in this direction by submitting the above peace plan."
Anyone who today reads this comprehensive
peace plan will realize in what direction the development of Europe, according to the wishes of Adolf Hitler, should really
have proceeded. Here was the possibility of truly constructive work, this could have been a real turning-point for the welfare
of all nations. But once more he who alone called for peace was not heard. Only Britain replied with a rather scornful questionnaire
which avoided any serious consideration of the essential points involved. Incidentally, however, she disclosed her actual
intentions by setting herself up as the protector of France and by instituting and commencing regular military staff conversations
with the French Republic just as in the period before the Great War.
There could no longer be any doubt
now that the Western Powers were following the old path towards an armed conflict and were steadily preparing a new blow
against Germany, although Adolf Hitler's whole thoughts and endeavors were directed towards proving to them that he wanted
to remain on the best possible terms with them. In the course of the years he had undertaken numerous steps in this direction,
of which a few more shall be referred to here. He negotiated the Naval Agreement of June 18, 1935 with Great Britain, which
provided that the German Navy should only have a strength of 35% of that of the British Navy. By this he wanted to demonstrate
that the Reich, to use his own words, had "neither the intention nor the means, nor was it necessary" to enter
into any rivalry as regards naval power, such as had had so fateful an influence on its relations to Great Britain in the
well-remembered days before the Great War.
He assured France on every possible occasion of his desire to live
at peace with her. He repeatedly renounced in plain terms any claim to Alsace-Lorraine. On the return to the Reich of the
Saar territory as the result of the plebiscite, he declared on March 1, 1935:
is our hope that through this act of just compensation, in which we see a return to natural reason, relations between Germany
and France have permanently improved. Therefore as we desire peace, we must hope that our great neighbor is ready and willing
to seek peace with us. It must be possible for two great people to join together and collaborate in opposing the difficulties
which threaten to overwhelm Europe."
He even endeavored to arrive at a better understanding with Poland,
the eastern ally of the Western Powers, although this country had unlawfully incorporated millions of Germans in 1919 and
had subjected them to the worst oppression ever since. On January 26, 1934, he concluded a non-aggression pact with her
in which the two Governments agreed "to settle directly all questions of whatever sort which concern their mutual relations."
Thus on all sides he opposed to the enemy plans his determination to preserve peace and strove to protect Germany
in this way. When however he saw that London and Paris were arming for attack, he was once more obliged to undertake fresh
measures of defense. The enemy camp, as we have seen above, had been enormously extended through the alliance between France
and Russia. In addition to this the two powers had secured a line of communication to the south of the Reich through Czechoslovakia
having concluded a treaty with Russia which put her in the position of a bridge between east and west. Czechoslovakia, however,
was in control of the high-lying country of Bohemia and Moravia, which Bismarck had called the citadel of Europe, and this
citadel projected far into German territory. The threat to Germany thus assumed truly overpowering proportions.
The genius of Adolf Hitler found a way of meeting this danger. The conditions in German Austria, which under the terror
of the Schuschnigg Government were tending towards civil war, offered him the opportunity of stepping in to save the situation,
and to lead back into the Reich the sister nation to the south-east that had been sentenced by the victorious powers to
lead the life of a hopelessly decaying "Free State". After he had thus established himself near the line of communication
between France and Russia mentioned above, a process of dissolution set in in the mixed State of Czechoslovakia, which had
been artificially put together from the most diverse national elements, until after the liberation of the Sudetenland and
the secession of Slovakia, the Czechs themselves asked for the protection of the German Reich. With this the enemy's bridge
came into Adolf Hitler's possession; and at the same time direct  connection was made possible with Italy, whose friendship
had been secured some time previously.
While he was gaining this strategical success for the security of his
country, Adolf Hitler was again endeavoring with great eagerness to reach a peaceable understanding with the Western Powers.
In Munich directly after liberation of the Sudeten Germans, approved by Britain, France and Italy, he made an agreement
with the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, the text of which was a follows:
have had a further meeting to-day and have agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first
importance for the two countries and for Europe.
We regard the agreement signed last night
and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.
We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any
other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources
of difference and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."
September 30, 1938. Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain."
Two months later, on Hitler's instructions,
the German Foreign Minister, von Ribbentrop, made the following agreement with France:
Joachim von Ribbentrop, Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs,
M. Georges Bonnet, French Minister of Foreign Affairs,
in the name and by order of their Governments, are, at their meeting in Paris, on December 6, 1938, agreed as follows:
1. The German Government and the French Government fully share the conviction that peaceful and
good-neighborly relations between Germany and France constitute one of the most essential elements for the consolidation
of the situation in Europe and the maintenance of general peace. The two Governments will in consequence use all their efforts
to ensure the development of the relations between their countries in this direction.
2. The two Governments recognize that between the two countries there is no territorial question outstanding, and they solemnly
recognize as final the frontiers between their countries as they now exist.
3. The two Governments
are resolved, while leaving unaffected their particular relations with other Powers, to remain in contact with regard to
all questions concerning their two countries, and mutually to consult should the later evolution of those questions lead
to international difficulties.
In token whereof the representatives of the two Governments
have signed the present Declaration, which comes into immediate effect.
Done in two original
Documents in the French and German language respectively, in Paris, December 6, 1938.
Joachim von Ribbentrop,
Minister for Foreign Affairs
According to all calculations one should have been able to assume that the way was clear
for collaborative reconstruction in which all leading powers would participate, and that the Fuehrer's endeavors to secure
peace would at last meet with success. But the contrary was true. Scarcely had Chamberlain reached home when he called for
rearmament on a considerable scale and laid plans for a new and tremendous encirclement of Germany. Britain now took over
from France the leadership of this further encirclement of the Reich, in order to obtain a substitute for the lost Czechoslovakia
many times its value. She opened negotiations with Russia, granted Poland a guarantee and also Rumania, Greece and Turkey.
These were alarm signals of the greatest urgency.
Just at this time Adolf Hitler was occupied with the task of
finally eliminating sources of friction with Poland. For this purpose he had made an uncommonly generous proposal by which
the purely German Free City of Danzig would return to the Reich, and a narrow passage through the Polish Corridor, which
since 1919 had torn asunder the north-eastern part of Germany to an unbearable extent, would provide communication with
the separated area. This proposal, which moreover afforded Poland the prospect of a 25-year non-aggression pact and other
advantages, was nevertheless rejected in Warsaw, because there it was believed, conscious as the authorities were of forming
one of the principal members of the common  front set up by London against Germany, that any concession, however minor,
could be refused. This was not all! With the same consciousness Poland then started to be aggressive, threatened Danzig,
and prepared to take up arms against Germany.
Thus the moment was close at hand for the attack on the Reich by
the countries which had been brought together for the purpose. Adolf Hitler, making a final extreme effort in the interests
of peace, saved what he could. On August 23rd, Ribbentrop succeeded in reaching an agreement in Moscow for a non-aggression
pact with Russia. Two days later the German Fuehrer himself made a final and truly remarkable offer to Britain, declaring
himself ready "to enter into agreements with Great Britain", "which... would not only, on the German side,
in any case safeguard the existence of the British Empire, but if necessary would guarantee German assistance for the British
Empire, irrespective of where such assistance might be required". At the same time he was prepared "to accept a
reasonable limitation of armaments, in accordance with the new political situation and economic requirements". And
finally he assured once again that he had no interest in the issues in the west and that "a correction of the borders
in the west are out of any consideration."
The reply to this was a pact of assistance signed the same day
between Britain and Poland, which rendered the outbreak of war inevitable. Then a decision was made in Warsaw to mobilize
at once against Germany, and the Poles began with violent attacks not only on the Germans in Poland, who for some time had
been the victims of frightful massacres, but on Germans in German territory.
But even when Britain and France
had already declared the war they desired, and Germany had overcome the Polish danger in the east by a glorious campaign
without a parallel, even then Adolf Hitler raised his voice once more in the name of peace. He did so although his hands
were now free to act against the enemy in the west. He did so, although the fight against him personally was proclaimed
in London and Paris, in immeasurable hate, as a crusade. At this moment he possessed the supreme self-control to proclaim
in his speech of October 6, 1939, a new plan for the pacification of Europe to public opinion throughout the world. This
plan was as follows:
"By far the most important task, in my opinion, is the creation of
not only a belief in, but also a sense of, European security.
 1. For this it is necessary
that the aims of the foreign policy of each European State should be made perfectly clear. As far as Germany is concerned,
the Reich Government is ready to give a thorough and exhaustive exposition of the aims of its foreign policy. In so doing,
it begins by stating that the Treaty of Versailles is now regarded by it as obsolete, in other words, that the Government
of the German Reich and with it the whole German people no longer see cause or reason for any further revision of the Treaty,
apart from the demand for adequate colonial possessions justly due to the Reich, involving in the first place a return of
the German colonies. This demand for colonies is based not only on Germany's historical claim to her colonies, but above
all on her elementary right to a share of the world's resources of raw materials. This demand does not take the form of
an ultimatum, nor is it a demand which is backed by force, but a demand based on political justice and sane economic principles.
2. The demand for a real revival of international economic life coupled with an extension of
trade and commerce presupposes a reorganization of the international economic system, in other words, of production in the
individual states. In order to facilitate the exchange of the goods thus produced, however, a new system of markets must
be found and a final settlement of currencies arrived at, so that the obstacles in the way of unrestricted trade can be
3. The most important condition, however, for a real revival of economic
life in and outside of Europe is the establishment of an unconditionally guaranteed peace and of a sense of security on
the part of the individual nations. This security will not only be rendered possible by the final sanctioning of the European
status, but above all by the reduction of armaments to a reasonable and economically tolerable level. An essential part of
this necessary sense of security, however, is a clear definition of the legitimate use and application of certain modern
armaments which can at any given moment strike straight at the heart of every nation and hence create a permanent sense
of insecurity. In my previous speeches in the Reichstag I made proposals with this end in view. At that time they were rejected
- presumably for the simple reason that they were made by me.
I believe, however, that a sense
of national security will not return to Europe until clear and binding international agreements  have provided a comprehensive
definition of the extent to which the use of certain weapons is permitted or forbidden.
Geneva Convention once succeeded in prohibiting, in civilized countries at least, the killing of wounded, the ill-treatment
of prisoners, war against non-combatants, etc., and just as it was possible gradually to achieve the universal observance
of this statute, a way ought surely to be found to regulate aerial warfare, the use of poison gas, of submarines etc., and
also so to define contraband that war will lose its terrible character of a conflict waged against women and children and
against non-combatants in general. The growing horror of certain methods of modern warfare will of its own accord lead to
their abolition, and thus they will become obsolete.
In the war with Poland, I endeavored
to restrict aerial warfare to objectives of military importance, or only to employ it to combat resistance at a given point.
But it must surely be possible to emulate the Red Cross in drawing up some universally valid international regulation. It
is only when this is achieved that peace can reign, particularly on our densely populated continent a peace which, un-contaminated
by suspicion and fear, will provide the only possible condition for real economic prosperity. I do not believe that there
is any responsible statesman in Europe who does not in his heart desire prosperity for his people. But such a desire can
only be realized if all the nations inhabiting this continent decide to work together. To assist in ensuring this co-operation
must be the aim of every man who is sincerely struggling for the future of his own people.
To achieve this great end, the leading nations on this continent will one day have to come together in order to draw up,
accept and guarantee a statute on a comprehensive basis which will ensure for them a sense of security, of calm, - in short,
Such a conference could not possibly be held without the most thorough preparation,
i. e. without exact elucidation of every point at issue. It is equally impossible that such a conference, which would determine
the fate of this continent for many years to come, could carry on its deliberations while cannons are thundering, or mobilized
armies bringing pressure to bear upon it. Since, however, these problems must be solved sooner or later, it would surely
be more sensible to tackle the solution before millions of men are first uselessly sent to their death, and billions of
dollars' worth of property destroyed.
The continuation of the present state of affairs in the
west is unthinkable. Each day will soon demand increasing sacrifices. Perhaps the day will come when France will begin to
bombard and demolish Saarbrücken. The German artillery will in turn lay Mühlhausen in ruins. France will retaliate
by bombarding Karlsruhe, and  Germany in her turn shell Strassburg. Then the French artillery will fire at Freiburg,
and the Germans at Kolmar or Schlettstadt. Long-range artillery will then be set up, and from both sides destruction will
strike deeper and deeper, and whatever cannot be reached by the long-range artillery will be destroyed from the air. And
that will be very interesting for certain international journalists, and very profitable for the aeroplane, arms, and munition
manufacturers, etc., but appalling for the victims. And this battle of destruction will not be confined to the land. No,
it will reach far out over the sea. To-day there are no longer any islands.
And the national
wealth of Europe will be scattered in the form of shells, and the vigor of every nation will be sapped on the battlefields.
One day, however, there will again be a frontier between Germany and France, but instead of flourishing towns there will
be ruins and endless graveyards."
The fate of this plan was the same as that of all the previous appeals
made by Adolf Hitler in the name of reason, in the interests of a true renascence of Europe. His enemies paid him no heed.
On this occasion also no response was forthcoming from them. They rigidly adhered to the attitude which they had taken up
in the beginning.
In the face of this series of historical facts is there any need for further details as to
the question of why they did so? They had created Versailles, and when Versailles threatened to collapse they wanted the
war, in order to follow it with an even worse Versailles. The reproaches which they make today to Adolf Hitler and Germany,
recoil one and all on those who make them, and characterize their actions. They are the disturbers of peace, they are the
ones who meditate the forcible oppression of other peoples and seek to plunge Europe in devastation and disaster. If if
were not so, they would long ago have taken the hand that was stretched out to them or at least have made a gesture of honestly
wishing to cooperate in a new order, and thus spare the nations "blood, tears and sweat" in excess.
history is the world court; and in this case as always when it reaches its decision it will pronounce a just verdict.
Dr. Friedrich Stieve
Published in 1940 by the Washington Journal under
the auspices of the Deutsche Informationsstelle.This digitalized version © 2009 by The Scriptorium.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLRvfuqg_M8 Proxy Highlight
Jan 8, 2017 ... The "Hooton Plan" During
World War II, Hooton proposed to eradicate the German people by infiltrating them slowly with masses of non-European male
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7rMVuETAy0 Proxy Highlight
Sep 21, 2016 ... In German with English subtitles by DIDI 18. Ursula
Haverbeck, the courageous octogenarian previously imprisoned for pointing out the lack of evidence to support the holocaust
delusion, here presents details of the planned genocide of the european christian peoples via The Hooten Plan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-s9_8-WIFg Proxy Highlight
Sep 24, 2016 ... Ursula Haverbeck, the courageous octogenarian previously
imprisoned for pointing out the lack of evidence to support the holocaust delusion, here presents de...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--XGno0izxA Proxy Highlight
Sep 24, 2016 ... Ursula Haverbeck talks about the migrant crisis in
Europe, Germany, the world wars, Hooton plan, Nizer plan, Morgenthau plan, and more. https://www.youtube. c...
Sep 20, 2016 ... The Hooton Planand the Migrant Crisis SUBTITLED IN
ENGLISH BY DIDI 18, this is an almost 30 minute video by Ursula Haverbeck explaining why Europe is being invaded ... it's
all in the Hooton Plan! Only one book describing the Hooton Plan is still available, but only in German. Ursula tells us
that four ...
Sep 21, 2016 ... In German with English subtitles by DIDI 18. Ursula
Haverbeck, the courageous octogenarian previously imprisoned for pointing out the lack of evidence to support the holocaust
delusion, here presents details of the planned genocide of the European christian peoples via The Hooten Plan.
www.newnationalist.net/2017/06/11/germany-to-be-trans... Proxy Highlight
Jun 11, 2017 ... In practice a much more horrific version
of the Hooton Plan was jump started with a genocide. An estimated five million or more German POWs (see Rhine- Meadows death
camps- You Tube banned in Europe) and civilians were exterminated and murdered in the Hellstorm period of 1944-1946 –
(You Tube ...
Click on this text to visit the GERMAN VICTIMS - DEUTSCHE OPFER website...
Hitler's 'Barbarossa' Proclamation
On the morning of June 22, 1941, Reich Minister
Joseph Goebbels announced to the world the startling news that German forces, together with Finnish and Romanian
troops, had struck against the vast Soviet Union. On German radio he read Adolf Hitler's historic proclamation
justifying the attack. Among other things, he said that Stalin had massed some 160 divisions to strike westwards.
In reality, more than 300 Soviet divisions were assembled against Germany and Europe. Hitler and his generals
had thereby greatly underestimated the Soviet danger -- a fateful miscalculation that ultimately proved catastrophic,
and not just for Germany. To the Italian leader Benito Mussolini, Hitler wrote that deciding to attack Soviet Russia
was "the most difficult decision of my life." And even though it meant engaging Germany in a two-front
war, something he had specifically warned against in Mein Kampf, this was a decision he never regretted.
Hitler's strike against the Soviet Union, code-named "Barbarossa," has often been called his worst single
military blunder because the immense clash he unleashed ended four years later, in May 1945, with his suicide in
his Berlin command post, Soviet forces hoisting the Red hammer-and-sickle banner above the Reichstag, and Germany's
unconditional surrender. Hitler's "Barbarossa" assault is often, but simplistically, portrayed as a
treacherous and unprovoked surprise attack against a peaceable ally, motivated by greed, dreams of empire, loathing
of Russians and other Slavic peoples, and visceral hatred of Communism. Today, 60 years later, German and Russian
historians continue to grapple with the origins of this mightiest military clash in history. Because Hitler's proclamation
of June 22, 1941, helps to explain the German leader's motives for turning against Soviet Russia, it is a document
of historic importance. The text is given here in full.
German people! National Socialists!
with heavy cares, condemned to months-long silence, the hour has now come when at last I can speak frankly.
When on September 3, 1939, the German
Reich received the British declaration of war there was repeated anew the British attempt to thwart every beginning
of a consolidation of Europe and thereby its rise, by fighting against whatever power on the Continent was strongest
at any given time. That is how, in times past, Britain ruined Spain in many wars. That is how she conducted her
wars against Holland. That is how later she fought France with the aid of all Europe, and that is how, at the turn of
the century, she began the encirclement of the then German Reich and, in 1914, the [First] World War. It was only
on account of its internal lack of unity that Germany was defeated in 1918. The consequences were terrible.
declarations that the fight was solely against the Kaiser and his regime, and once the German army had laid down
its arms, the annihilation of the German Reich began according to plan.
While the prophecies of a French statesman that
there were two million Germans too many -- in other words, that this number would have to be eliminated by hunger,
disease or emigration -- were apparently being fulfilled to the letter, the National Socialist movement began its
work of unifying the German people, and thereby initiating the resurgence of the Reich. This rise of our people
from distress, misery and shameful disregard was in the form of a purely internal renaissance. In no way did that
affect, much less threaten, Britain.
Nevertheless, a new, hate-filled policy of encirclement against Germany began immediately.
Internally and externally there came into being that plot, familiar to all of us, between Jews and democrats,
Bolsheviks and reactionaries, with the sole aim of inhibiting the establishment of the new German people's state, and of
plunging the Reich anew into impotence and misery.
Apart from us, the hatred of this international world conspiracy
was directed against those nations that, like ourselves, were neglected by fortune and were obliged to earn their
daily bread in the hardest struggle for existence.
Above all, the right of Italy and Japan, just as much as that of
Germany, to share in the goods of this world was contested and in fact was formally denied. The alliance of these
[three] nations was, therefore, purely an act of self-protection in the face of the egoistic global combination
of wealth and power that threatened them. As early as 1936 [Winston] Churchill, according to statements by the
American General Wood before a committee of the American House of Representatives, declared that Germany was once
again becoming too powerful and must therefore be destroyed.
In the Summer of 1939 the time seemed to have come for Britain
to begin to realize its intended annihilation by repetition of a comprehensive policy of encirclement of Germany.
The plan of the campaign of lies staged for this purpose consisted in declaring that other people were threatened,
in tricking them with British promises of guarantees and assistance, and of getting them to go against Germany, just
as had happened prior to the [First] World War.
From May to August 1939, Britain thus succeeded in broadcasting to the world
that Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland and Bessarabia. as well as Ukraine, were being directly threatened by
Germany. Some of these states allowed themselves to be misled into accepting the promise of guarantee proffered
with these assertions, thus joining the new encirclement front against Germany. Under these circumstances I considered
myself entitled to assume responsibility, before my own conscience and before the history of the German people,
not only of assuring these countries or their governments of the falseness of these British assertions, but also
of setting at rest the strongest power in the east [the Soviet Union], by especially solemn declarations regarding
the limits of our interests.
National Socialists! At that time you probably all felt that this step was a bitter and difficult one
for me. The German people has never harbored hostile feelings against the peoples of Russia. However, for more
than two decades the Jewish Bolshevik rulers in Moscow had been endeavoring to set aflame not only Germany but
all Europe. At no time did Germany ever attempt to carry her National Socialist worldview into Russia, but on
the contrary Jewish Bolshevik rulers in Moscow unswervingly endeavored to foist their domination upon us and other
European nations, not only by ideological means but above all with military force. The consequences of the activity
of this regime were nothing but chaos, misery and starvation in all countries.
I, on the other hand, have been striving for
two decades, with a minimum of intervention and without destroying our production, to arrive at a new socialist
order in Germany, one that not only eliminates unemployment but also permits the productive worker to receive an
ever greater share of the fruits of his labor. The achievements of this policy of national economic and social
reconstruction -- which strove for a true national community by overcoming rank and class divisions -- are unique
in today's world.
It was therefore only with extreme difficulty that I brought myself in August 1939 to send my [Foreign]
Minister [von Ribbentrop] to Moscow in an endeavor there to counter the British encirclement policy against Germany.
I did this only out of a sense of responsibility toward the German people, but above all in the hope of finally,
in spite of everything, achieving long-term detente and of being able to reduce sacrifices that otherwise might
have been demanded of us.
While Germany solemnly affirmed in Moscow that the designated territories and countries -- with the exception
of Lithuania -- lay outside any German political interests, a special [supplementary] agreement was concluded
in case Britain were to succeed in inciting Poland into actually going to war against Germany. In this case, as well, German
claims were subject to limitations entirely out of proportion to the achievements of the German forces.
The consequences of this treaty, which I myself desired and which was concluded in the interests of the German
nation, were very severe, particularly for Germans living in the countries concerned. Far more than half a million
[ethnically] German men and women, all small farmers, artisans and workmen, were forced to leave their former
homeland practically overnight in order to escape from a new [Soviet] regime that at first threatened them with
boundless misery and sooner or later with complete extermination.
Nevertheless, thousands of Germans disappeared. It was impossible
ever to determine their fate, let alone their whereabouts. Among them were no fewer than 160 men of German Reich
citizenship. To all this I remained silent because I had to! For, after all, it was my one desire to bring about
a final relief of tension and, if possible, a permanent settlement with this [Soviet] state.
However, already during our advance
in Poland, Soviet rulers suddenly, and contrary to the treaty, also claimed Lithuania. The German Reich never
had any intention of occupying Lithuania, and not only failed to present any such demand to the Lithuanian government,
but on the contrary refused the request of the then Lithuanian government to send German troops to Lithuania in
that spirit for that purpose as inconsistent with the aims of German policy.
Despite all this I complied also with this fresh
Russian demand. However, this was only the beginning of continually renewed extortions, which have been repeated
The victory in Poland, which was won exclusively by German troops, prompted me to address yet another
peace offer to the Western powers [Britain and France]. It was rejected, due to the efforts of the international
and Jewish warmongers. Already at that time the reason for this rejection lay in the fact that Britain still had
hopes of being able to mobilize a European coalition against Germany, which was to include the Balkans and Soviet
Russia. It was therefore decided in London to send Mr. Cripps as ambassador to Moscow. He received clear instructions
under all circumstances to resume relations between Britain and Soviet Russia, and develop them in a pro-British
direction. The British press reported on the progress of this mission, except insofar as tactical reasons did
not impose silence.
In the fall of 1939 and the spring of 1940 the first results actually made themselves felt. As Russia
undertook to subjugate by armed force not only Finland but also the Baltic states, she suddenly motivated this
action by the assertion, as ridiculous as it was false, that she must protect these countries from an outside
threat, or forestall it. This could only be meant to apply to Germany, for no other power could even intervene in the Baltic
area, let alone go to war there. Still I had to be silent. However, those in power in the Kremlin immediately went
in the spring of 1940 Germany, in accordance with the so-called Friendship Treaty [of Sept. 28, 1939, with Soviet
Russia], withdrew her forces from the eastern frontier and, in fact, for the most part cleared these areas entirely
of German troops, a deployment of Russian forces at that time was already beginning, to an extent that could only
be regarded as a deliberate threat to Germany.
According to a statement that [Soviet Foreign Minister] Molotov
personally made at that time, there were 22 Russian divisions in the Baltic states alone already in the spring of
1940. Given that the Russian government always claimed that it had been called in by the local population, the
purpose of their presence there could only be a demonstration against Germany.
While our soldiers from May 10, 1940,
onward were breaking Franco-British power in the west, Russian military deployment on our eastern frontier was
continuing to an ever more menacing extent. From August 1940 onward I therefore considered it to be in the interest of
the Reich to no longer permit our eastern provinces, which moreover had been laid waste so often before, to remain
unprotected in the face of this tremendous deployment of Bolshevik divisions.
Thus, and just as intended by this British-Soviet
Russian cooperation, there came about the tying up of such strong [German] forces in the east that a radical conclusion
of the war in the west, particularly as regards aircraft, could no longer be vouched for by the German leadership.
This, however, was in line with the goals not only of British but also of Soviet Russian policy, for both Britain
and Soviet Russia intended to let this war go on for as long as possible in order to weaken all Europe and render
it ever more impotent.
Russia's threatened attack on Romania was in the last analysis equally intended to gain possession of
or, if possible, to destroy, an important base of the economic life of not only Germany, but of all of Europe.
Since 1933 the German Reich sought with boundless patience to win over states in southeastern Europe as trading
partners. We therefore also had the greatest interest in their internal consolidation and order. Russia's advance
into Romania and Greece's alliance with Britain threatened to quickly turn these regions as well into a general
theater of war.
Contrary to our principles and customs, and at the urgent request of the then Romanian government, which
was itself responsible for this development, I advised that it acquiesce to the Soviet Russian demands for the sake
of peace, and to cede [the province of] Bessarabia. The Romanian government believed, however, that it could answer
for this before its own people only if Germany and Italy in compensation would at least guarantee the integrity
of what still remained of Romania. I did so with heavy heart, above all because when the German Reich gives a
guarantee, that means it also abides by it. We are neither Englishmen nor Jews.
I still believe at this late hour to have served
the cause of peace in that region, albeit by assuming a serious obligation of our own. In order, however, finally
to solve these problems and achieve clarity concerning the Russian attitude toward Germany, as well as under pressure
of continually increasing mobilization on our eastern frontier, I invited Mr. Molotov to come to Berlin.
The Soviet Foreign
Minister [during their November 1940 meeting] then demanded Germany's clarification of or agreement to the following
Molotov's first question: Is the German guarantee for Romania also directed against Soviet Russia in case
of attack by Soviet Russia against Romania?
My answer: The German guarantee is a general one and is unconditionally binding upon
us. Russia, however, never declared to us that she had other interests in Romania beyond Bessarabia. The [Soviet]
occupation of Northern Bukovina was already a violation of this assurance. I did not therefore think that Russia could
now suddenly have more far-reaching intentions against Rumania.
Molotov's second question: Russia again feels itself menaced by
Finland, Russia is determined not to tolerate this. Is Germany ready not to give any aid to Finland, and above
all immediately to withdraw German relief troops marching through to Kirkenes?
My answer: As ever, Germany has absolutely no
political interests in Finland. A new war by Russia against the small Finnish nation could not, however, be regarded
any longer by the German government as tolerable, all the more so because we could never believe that Finland could
threaten Russia. Under no circumstances did we want another theater of war to arise in the Baltic.
question: Is Germany prepared to agree that Soviet Russia give a guarantee to Bulgaria and, in this regard, send
Soviet troops to Bulgaria, in connection with which he -- Molotov -- was prepared to state that the Soviets did
not intend on that account, for example, to depose the King?
My answer: Bulgaria is a sovereign state, and I have no
knowledge that Bulgaria had ever asked Soviet Russia for any kind of guarantee such as Romania had requested from
Germany. Moreover, I would have to discuss the matter with my allies.
Molotov's fourth question: Soviet Russia absolutely requires
free passage through the Dardanelles, and for her protection also demands occupation of a number of important bases
on the Dardanelles and the Bosporus. Is Germany in agreement with this or not?
My answer: Germany is prepared at any time to
agree to altering the Treaty of Montreux  in favor of the Black Sea states. Germany is not prepared to agree
to Russia's taking possession of bases on the Straits.
National Socialists! Here I adopted the only attitude that I could
adopt as the responsible leader of the German Reich, but also a conscientiously responsible representative of
European culture and civilization. The result was to increase the activity in Soviet Russia directed against the
Reich, above all, however, the immediate commencement of undermining the new Romanian state from within, and an
attempt to remove the Bulgarian government by propaganda.
With the help of confused and immature leaders of the Romanian
[Iron Guard] Legion a coup d'etat was staged in Romania whose aim was to overthrow Chief of State General Antonescu
and produce chaos in the country so as to eliminate thee legal authority and thus remove the precondition for
implementing the German guarantee. I nevertheless still believed it best to remain silent.
Immediately after the failure of this
undertaking, there was renewed reinforcement of concentrations of Russian troops on Germany's eastern frontier.
Panzer detachments and parachute troops were transferred in ever increasing numbers to dangerous proximity to the
German frontier. The German armed forces and the German homeland know that until a few weeks ago not a single German
tank or motorized division was stationed on our eastern frontier.
If any final proof was required for the coalition meanwhile formed
between Britain and Soviet Russia, despite all diversion and camouflage, the Yugoslav conflict provided it. While
I made every effort to undertake a final attempt to pacify the Balkans and, in sympathetic cooperation with the
Duce [Mussolini], invited Yugoslavia to join the Tripartite Pact, Britain and Soviet Russia jointly organized that
coup d'etat which, in a single night, removed the government that had been ready to come to agreement.
For today we can
inform the German nation that the Serb putsch against Germany did not take place merely under the British, but
primarily under Soviet Russian auspices. While we remained silent on this matter as well, the Soviet leaders now
went one step further. They not only organized the putsch, but a few days later [April 5, 1941] concluded that
well-known friendship treaty with those submissive creatures, which was meant to strengthen the Serbs in their
will to resist pacification of the Balkans, and to incite them against Germany. And this was no platonic intention:
Moscow demanded mobilization of the Serbian army.
Because, even then, I still believed it better not to speak out,
those in power in the Kremlin went still further: The government of the German Reich today possesses documentary
evidence proving that Russia, in order finally to bring Serbia into the war, gave her a promise to supply her, by way
of Salonika, with weapons, aircraft, munitions and other war materials against Germany. And this happened almost
at the very moment that I was advising Japanese Foreign Minister Matsuoka to bring about an easing of tensions
with Russia, still hoping thereby to serve the cause of peace.
Only the rapid advance of our incomparable divisions to Skoplje
[Skopje], as well as the capture of Salonika itself, frustrated the aims of this Soviet Russian-British plot.
Officers of the Serbian air force, however, fled to Russia and were there immediately received as allies.
It was only the
victory of the Axis powers in the Balkans that thwarted the plan to tie down Germany this summer in months of fighting
in southeastern Europe while meantime steadily completing the deployment of Soviet Russian armies and strengthening
their readiness for battle in order, finally, together with Britain and supported by anticipated American supplies,
to tie down and then defeat the German Reich and Italy.
Thus Moscow not only broke but miserably betrayed the stipulations
of our friendship treaty. All this was done while the rulers in the Kremlin, exactly as in the case of Finland
and Romania, up to the last moment pretended peace and friendship and issued seemingly harmless denials.
Although I have been obliged by circumstances
again and again to keep silent, the moment has now come when to continue as a mere observer would not only be
a sin of omission but a crime against the German people -- yes, even against the whole of Europe.
Today something like 160 Russian divisions
are standing at our frontier. For weeks there have been constant violations of this frontier, not only affecting
us but also in the far north [against Finland], as well as Romania. Russian airmen consider it sport nonchalantly
to overlook these frontiers, presumably to prove to us that they already feel themselves masters of these territories.
During the night of June 17 to 18 Russian patrols again penetrated into Reich territory, and could only be driven
back after prolonged exchange of fire.
This has brought us to the hour when it is necessary for us to counter this
plot of Jewish-British warmongers and equally the Jewish rulers of the Bolshevik center in Moscow.
At this moment a deployment of forces is taking place that, in its extent and scope, is the greatest the world
hitherto has seen. United with their Finnish comrades, the fighters of the victory of Narvik are standing in the
Northern Arctic. German divisions commanded by the conqueror of Norway [General Dietl], together with the heroes
of Finnish freedom under their Marshal [Mannerheim], are protecting Finnish soil. Formations of the German eastern
front extend from East Prussia to the Carpathians. German and Romanian soldiers are united under Chief of State
Antonescu from the banks of the Prut along the lower reaches of the Danube to the shores of the Black Sea.
The task of this
front, therefore, is not merely the protection of individual countries, but the safeguarding of Europe, and thereby
the salvation of all.
I therefore decided today to once again lay the fate and future of the German Reich and our
people in the hands of our soldiers.
May the Lord God help us especially in this fight!
From The Journal of Historical Review, Nov.-Dec. 2000 (Vol. 19,
No. 6), pages 50 ff.
Click on this text to examine THE MYTH OF GERMAN VILLAINY (Paperback Book) by Benton L. Bradberry (Author)
Click on this text to hear an interview with Benton Bradberry - The Myth of German Villainy - Hour 1
Hundred Years of War against Germany
1895 to 1995
By Steffen Werner
1895, a series of articles began in the British weekly The Saturday Review, which called for the annihilation
of Germany and whose disastrous greed for German plunder still reverberates to the present day.
With the Second Reich, a German state came into being which was rapidly creating a modern economy which
imperiled the economic predominance of Great Britain. Coal and steel were the two indicators by which national
economies were measured prior to the First World War. The production of raw materials in Germany grew by 334%
in the quarter-century before the First World War, from 4 million to 17.8 million tons, while the figures for
Great Britain rose from 7.7 to 9 million, therefore an increase of 17%. During the same period the mining of coal
in Germany increased from 76.2 to 255.8 million tons (240%) but in Britain only 60%, to 240 million tons. Germany's
foreign trade was reaching proportions alarming to Great Britain. An investigation by the English Parliament in
1885 noted that the Germans produced more cheaply and their products were geared to the preferences of their buyers.
Knowledge of languages, tirelessness and flexibility were considered to be the merits of the German commercial
travelers. A trademark law was passed in England as a counter-measure, which prescribed that German products be
marked "Made in Germany," yet the British middlemen and consumers nevertheless still often preferred
the German goods, on which account the obligatory mark was modified to "Foreign made."
That this new development was no accident was discovered by Paul Valéry
in a British commissioned work from the year 1896, in which the reasons for this new development would be raised
to a dogma:
"One learns that the military
victories through which this [German] nation established itself are small when compared with the economic
triumphs which it has already wrested; already their many markets in the world are more tightly held than the territories
which it owes to its army [...] one grasps that Germany has turned to industry and trade as it once did
to its military: with level-headedness and resolve. One senses that it is omitting no means. If one wishes to explain
this new [...] greatness, then one should call to mind: constant hard work, most precise investigation
of the sources of wealth and unrelenting manufacturing of the means for producing it; exact topography of the favorable
sites and most convenient connecting routes; and above all, perfect obedience, a subordination of all motives
under a sort of simple, exclusive, powerful thought - which is strategic in form, economic in purpose, scientific
in its profound design and its realm of authority. Thus does the totality of the German enterprises have its impact
The European upper classes saw their indolent life imperiled by this upswing of the German
economy. They were living, according to Max Scheler, in a Paradise:
"For our Eastern neighbors there was more dreaming, plotting, feeling, praying,
and quiet submission to the yoke of fate, but also the drinking of schnapps, strolling romantically through life,
careless and illicit coarse enjoyment [...] For the English, it was easy to buy and sell, according to
the old way, accustomed to winning, and in the manner of old grand merchants, proud of the old proven types of
goods, without adapting to the needs of customers in the world market [...] it was also, however, to enjoy
life in sports, wagering, gaming, country life, traveling, to end the week's work on Friday evening and to go to
the sports stadium [...] - but to do all this with a matter-of-fact feeling, grounded in the situation
and geography of the island, of having been divinely chosen to be Lord of the Sea [...] not as a member
of Europe, but as a power equal to all of Europe, indeed, a power which was a match for the entire world, equal
to guiding the nations outside of Europe, of leading them and of being their political arbiter. And the same paradise
meant for France: increasing financial wealth with few children, pensions after 20-30 years of work, great colonial
empire, time and idle leisure for luxury, intellect, outward appearances, adventures full of sensuality with beautiful
which the German power of achievement set loose in these European upper classes, was captured by Max Scheler in
appeared on their every horizon [...] the image of a new, strange archangel, the face [...] as
severe and iron-like as the old one of the myth, but otherwise quite different [...] He bore the stamp
of a plain workman, with good, tough fists, he was a man who labored and kept working, on and on, according to
the inner testimonial of his own convictions, not in order to outdo or for the sake of some sort of renown, and
not for enjoyment apart from or after the work, nor in order to contemplate and admire the beauty of the world
in that spare time following work, but quietly and slowly, immersed in his labor, yet with a terror-exciting steadiness,
exactitude and punctuality when seen from the outside, and wholly lost within himself and his task, he worked,
worked on and kept working - and this the world was least able to grasp - out of pure joy in boundless work in itself -
without goal, without purpose, without end. What will become of us, what shall happen to us - felt the nations
[...] How shall we exist, faced by these new masses? Shall we change ourselves, seeking to emulate him?
No and again no! We cannot obey this new demand! But we do not want it and shall not do it!"
In 1895 these upper classes, beginning with Great Britain, formed a War Party
against Germany which is still at work today and which will be documented by citations from the years 1895 to 1994.
Delendam, Delendam, Delendam!
Review of 24 August 1895:
"OUR TRUE FOREIGN POLICY.
[...] As we have before
pointed out, the dominant fact of the situation with regard to our foreign policy is the steadfast enmity of France.
We can call this enmity unreasonable or untimely, but its existence is not to be doubted. Some papers, therefore,
recommend that England should at once join the Triple Alliance; that Lord Salisbury should promise the German
Emperor assistance and support in case of any attack made upon the estates or interests of the Allies in Europe,
on condition that the Allies should support England in case of any aggression upon her territories in other parts
of the world. For various reasons this policy, although eminently safe, does not altogether please us. First
of all, we English have always made war hitherto upon our rivals in trade and commerce; and our chief rival in
trade and commerce to-day is not France but Germany. In case of a war with Germany,
we should stand to win much and lose nothing; whereas, in case of a war with France, no matter
what the issue might be, we stand to lose heavily."
The Saturday Review of 1 February 1896:
"A Biological View of
our Foreign Policy by a Biologist.
The record of the past history of life upon the catch has made us familiar with one phase in the drama
of evolution. For countless generations a number of species may have been struggling on tolerably equal terms,
now one, now the other, securing some little advantage, when suddenly a turn in the kaleidoscope of the world gives
one of them an advantage of real moment. The lucky species multiplies rapidly; it spreads over the land and the
seas, its rivals perishing before it or being driven into the most inhospitable corners; [...]
The great nations of
the earth are local varieties, species in the making. It is not necessary that there should be anatomical distinctions
among them; although, indeed, the English, Germans, French, Russians and Americans, Chinese and Japanese, have
each their distinct groups of average characters. [...]
The world is rapidly approaching the epoch of
these last wars, of wars which cannot end in peace with honour, of wars whose
spectre cannot be laid by the pale ghost of arbitration. The facts are patent. Feeble races are being wiped off
the earth, and the few great, incipient species arm themselves against each other. England, as
the greatest of these - greatest in geographical distribution, greatest to expansive force, greatest in race-pride
- has avoided for centuries the only dangerous kind of war. Now, with the whole earth occupied and the movements
of expansion continuing, she will have to fight to the death against successive rivals. [...]
Of European nations,
Germany is most alike to England. In racial characters, in religious and scientific thought, in sentiments
and aptitudes, the Germans, by their resemblances to the English, are marked out as our natural rivals. In all
parts of the earth, in every pursuit, in commerce, in manufacturing, in exploiting other races, the English and
the Germans jostle each other. Germany is a growing nation; expanding far beyond her territorial
limit, she is bound to secure new foothold or to perish in the attempt. [...] Were
every German to be wiped out to-morrow, there is no English trade, no English pursuit that would not immediately
expand. Were every Englishman to be wiped out tomorrow, the Germans would gain in proportion.
Here is the first great racial struggle of the future: here are two growing nations pressing against each other,
man to man all over the world. One or the other has to go; one or the other will go.
biological view of foreign policy is plain. First, federate our colonies and prevent geographical isolation turning
the Anglo-Saxon race against itself. Second, be ready to fight Germany, as Germania
est delenda [Germany must be destroyed]; third, be ready to fight America
when the time comes. Lastly, engage in no wasting tears against peoples from whom we have nothing to fear."
The Saturday Review of 11 September 1897:
"England and Germany
Prince Bismarck has long
recognised what at length the people of England are beginning to understand - that in
Europe there are two great, irreconcilable, opposing forces, two great nations who would make the whole world their
province, and who would levy from it the tribute of commerce. England, with her long history of
successful aggression, with her marvellous conviction that in pursuing her own interests she is spreading
light among nations dwelling in darkness, and Germany, bone of the same bone, blood of the same blood, with
a lesser will-force, but, perhaps, with a keener intelligence, compete in every, corner of the globe.
In the Transvaal, at the Cape, in Central Africa, in India and the East, in the islands of the Southern sea, and
in the fair North-West, wherever - and where has it not ? - the flag has followed the Bible and trade has followed
the flag, there the German bagman is struggling with he English peddler. Is there a mine to exploit, a
railway to build, a native to convert from breadfruit to tinned meat, from temperance to trade gin, the German and the
Englishman are struggling to be first. [That's in the mind of these Englishmen -cy] A million petty
disputes build up the greatest cause of war the world has ever seen. If Germany were extinguished
to-morrow, the day after to-morrow there is not an Englishman in the world who would not be the richer. Nations
have fought for years over a city or a right of succession; must they not fight for two hundred million pounds
of Winston S. Churchill in March 1936 in the Lower House:
four hundred years the foreign policy of England has been to oppose the strongest, most aggressive, most dominating
Power on the Continent [...]. Faced by Philip II of Spain, against Louis XIV under William
III and Marlborough, against Napoleon, against William II of Germany, it would have been easy and must have been
very tempting to join with the stronger and share the fruits of his conquest. However, we always
took the harder course, joined with the less strong Powers, made a combination among them, and thus defeated and
frustrated the Continental military tyrant whoever he was, whatever nation he led. Thus we preserved
the liberties of Europe [...].
Observe that the policy of England takes no account of which nation it is that seeks the overlordship
of Europe. The question is not whether it is Spain, or the French Monarchy, or the French Empire, or the German
Empire, or the Hitler régime. It has nothing to do with rulers or nations; it is concerned solely with
whoever is the strongest or the potentially dominating tyrant. Therefore, we should not be afraid of being accused
of being pro-French or anti-German. If the circumstances were reversed, we could equally be pro-German and anti-French.
It is a law of public policy which we are following, and not a mere expedient dictated by accidental circumstances,
or likes and dislikes, or any other sentiment.
The question, therefore, arises which is today the Power in Europe which is the strongest,
and which seeks in a dangerous and oppressive sense to dominate. Today, for this year, probably for part of 1937,
the French Army is the strongest in Europe. But no one is afraid of France. Everyone knows that
France wants to be let alone, and that with her it is only a case of self-preservation. Everyone knows that the
French are peaceful and overhung by fear. [...]
Germany, on the other hand, fears no one.
She is arming in a manner which has never been seen in German history. She is led by a handful of triumphant
desperadoes. The money is running short, discontents are arising beneath these despotic rulers. Very soon they will have to choose, on the one hand, between economic and financial collapse or internal
upheaval, and on the other, a war which could have no other object, and which, if successful, can have no other
result, than a Germanised Europe under Nazi control. Therefore, it seems to me that all the old
conditions present themselves again, and that our national salvation depends upon our gathering once again all
the forces of Europe to contain, to restrain, and if necessary to frustrate, German domination. For, believe
me, if any of those other Powers, Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm II, had with our aid become the absolute
masters of Europe, they could have despoiled us, reduced us to insignificance and penury on the morrow of their
Report of Carl
J. Burkhardt [Swiss diplomat] of a conversation on 15 August 1938 with the Polish foreign minister [Jozef] Beck:
"The Poles are waiting
in apparent calm. Beck, during our nocturnal journey, made me privy to his plans to some extent.
Furthermore, he is playing his double-game. It is no German game, as many French and the Polish opposition believe.
It is a game in which the greatest profit is hoped for Poland, a profit which is supposed to come out of a final
and unavoidable German catastrophe. For this reason, the Germans are being encouraged in their
wrong actions, and in Danzig they are enjoying letting the extremists triumph while at the same time they repeatedly
stress adherence to the outer form of the treaties. One day there will be a reckoning, interest and compound interest
will be demanded. Already now, by collaborating in this way with the National Socialists, they have succeeded in
creating a solidarity of aversion toward any revision of the treaties in the whole West, in France, England and
America. [...] That was entirely different in 1932. At that time Western opinion in the great democracies
for the most part supported the German minorities. People got excited over badly drawn borders, over isolated
provinces. Thanks to the excessive methods of Nazism, all of that has ended, and now in Warsaw they are
hoping not only for the unconditional integration of Danzig into the Polish state territory, but for much more,
for all of East Prussia, for Silesia, even for Pomerania. In the year 1933 they still spoke in
Warsaw of Polish Pomerania, but now they say 'our Pomerania.' Beck makes a purely Polish policy,
ultimately an anti-German policy, a policy of only a seeming Polish-German détente, since the occupation
of the Rhineland and the French passivity at the occasion of this event. But they are making efforts to encourage
the Germans quite methodically in their errors."
Note of Eduard Benesch [Czechoslovakia President] of August 23/24, 1939, in London:
"It was a properly tough
tactic, to drive Hitler to war."
Report of Friedrich Grimm [German constitutional lawyer] concerning a visit in May 1945:
"In May 1945, a few
days after the collapse, I had a memorable discussion with an important representative of the opposing side. He
introduced himself to me as a university professor of his nation who wished to talk with me about the historical
foundations of the war. It was a conversation on an elevated level that we were having. Suddenly, he broke off
and pointed to the leaflets which were lying on the table in front of me, with which we were flooded in the first
days after the surrender and which were mainly concerned with the concentration camp atrocities. 'What do you
say to that?' he asked me. I replied: 'Oradour and Buchenwald? You're beating a dead horse with me. I am an attorney
and condemn injustice wherever I meet it, but most of all when it occurs on our side. Nonetheless, I know
how to make a distinction between facts and the political usage made of them. I know what atrocity propaganda is.
After the First World War, I read all publications of your experts concerning these questions, the writings of
the Northcliff bureau, the book 'From War to Peace' of the French finance minister Klotz, in which he describes how the
fairy tales about the hacked-off children's hands were invented, and what use was made of them, the enlightening
writings of the magazine Crapouillot, which compares the atrocity propaganda of 1870 with that of 1914/1918, and
finally the classic book by Ponsonby: 'Falsehood in Wartime.' In it, it is revealed that in the previous
war they already had magazines in which artificial mountains of corpses were arranged by means of a photo montage
with dolls. These pictures were distributed. In doing so, the captions were left blank. They were later inserted
telephonically by propaganda headquarters according to need.' My visitor exploded: 'I see I've come across
an expert. Now I also want to say who I am. I am no university professor. I am from the headquarters of which
you have spoken. For months I have been conducting what you have correctly described: atrocity propaganda - and
with it we have won the total victory.' I replied: 'I know and now you must stop!' He responded: 'No,
now we are just properly beginning! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will increase it until no one
will have a good word to say about the Germans any longer, until any of the sympathy you have had in other countries
will have been destroyed, and until the Germans themselves will have fallen into such confusion that they no longer
know what they are doing!' I ended the conversation: 'Then you will be taking a great responsibility upon yourself!'"
The British magazine Sunday Correspondent on
September 17, 1989, for the fiftieth anniversary of the start of the Second World War and of the reunification marking
"We must now be honest
about the German question, as uncomfortable as it may be for the Germans, for our international partners and even
ourselves [...] The question remains, in essence, the same. Not how do we prevent
German tanks from rolling over the Oder or the Marne, but how Europe will deal with a people whose
number, talent, and efficiency is allowing it to become our regional super-power. We
did not enter the war in 1939 in order to save Germany from Hitler or the Jews from Auschwitz or the Continent
from Fascism. As in 1914, we entered the war for the no less noble reason that we were not able to accept a German
predominance in Europe."
[Polish President] in an interview with the Dutch newspaper Elsevier of April 7, 1990:
"I do not shrink even
from making a declaration which makes me unpopular in Germany. If the Germans destabilize Europe anew in
one way or another, one should no longer resort to a division, but rather simply eradicate the nation from the
map. The East and the West possess the necessary advanced technologies to carry out this sentence."
Henry Kissinger in the Welt am Sonntag of November
idea of the USA and Germany as Partners in Leadership was not exactly very wise [...] Actually, this notion
drives everyone to the barricades, for in the final analysis two world wars were waged in order
to prevent just that, a dominant role of Germany."
* * *
The citations imply that all the wars, revolutions, persecutions and expulsions of the
20th century were matter-of-factly initiated by rationally planning nations or were tolerated, for the sake of
power and money. In view of the apocalyptic terror and horror resulting from these undertakings, a clear analysis
appears more practical than moral accusations.
the British upper class - and their international partners - war is an entirely normal activity. The British
pragmatically ask: How did our forebears hold it? What was their advantage? Did they not, for four hundred years,
wage war against their main rival or the strongest continental power? One weighs, like a merchant: is it advantageous
to wage war against France, can Austria hurt us? What will war against Germany bring us? 250 million pounds = 5
million marks per year? The security of our predominance? Must we fight against the USA later?
The thought of whether a war is morally defensible does not even occur! For
it is, in any case, "tough" to drive someone to war. For war becomes a game, a double-game. For one places
snares by quite methodically encouraging the opponent in his errors. In this 'game,' the 'greatest profit' entices.
"Take inside Germany whatever you like": that's how one buys allies; for oneself, one takes money. Is
it not better that the other, the enemy, totally disappears? Does he not destabilize the situation, imperil
the loot, if he has recovered? Is it not better to exterminate the Germans at once? Is it not smarter to eradicate
Germany from the map? Germania esse delendam! One has the advanced technologies - by which the neutron
bomb is probably meant: the Germans would be dead and the loot intact.
For there is no honorable peace permitted. For the atrocity propaganda is to
be continued and increased until no one will any longer have a good word to say about the enemy. The enemy becomes
Evil in himself. The objection of Friedrich Grimm, which generally applies to such actions: "Then they will
take a great responsibility upon themselves" - fails here. Responsibility toward the enemy does not exist
and guilt not at all. Guilt, in this system, is merely a question of power. God isn't needed here, there is no God permitted!
"Thou shalt not kill" devolved into meaningless chatter. Man puts himself in God's place.
The sponsors embracing such ideas are: a high British politician, Navy
Minister of the First World War and Prime Minister of the Second World War; a former Czech state President; a Polish
foreign minister of the year 1938; a Polish President of 1990; and a former American Secretary of State.
The continuity with which these ideas are pursued from 1895 to 1994 is alarming,
and the matter-of-fact attitude with which not only the ideas, but also their acceptance, are still presumed in
1989 by a probably broad public of a British weekly paper. Baffled, with Kissinger, that here it is no longer
preventing a German predominance, which is discussed, since even the thought of a Germany as partner of the USA
is pronounced dangerous.
The Tough Kernel
The authors of the three anonymous articles quoted in
the beginning are partly known. Concerning the author of the first article of August 24, 1895: "The Proper
Foreign Policy for Us English," Hans Grimm, who in 1895 was in Great Britain as a young businessman, learned
this about his host:
"And it happened by chance that my boss, who himself belonged to the English Conservative Party, had been unexpectedly
informed that that essay of August 24, 1895, on English foreign policy had originated from a quite definite
faction in the English Foreign Office, directed by the half-German, Sir Eyre Crowe." (Shown right)
Behind the biologist, the author of the article
of February 1, 1896: "A Biological Perspective on our English Foreign Policy by a Biologist," is concealed
Sir P. Chalmers Mitchell, Professor of Astronomy and Biology at Oxford, as Hans Grimm likewise discovered. According to Grimm, Mitchell was a Captain in the British General Staff from 1916 to 1919 and had connections to Crowe.
Information about the group around Crowe is given in a diary note of October 12, 1918,
of First Lieutenant C. Repinton, in which he writes that Crowe, Mallet, and Tyrell will be going as negotiators
from the Foreign Office to the planned peace conference. Moreover, he maintains:
the F.O. between 1885 and 1893, and, with Carnock and Bertie, were the head and front of the anti-German party
all along, vexed at our surrenders to Germany and persuaded that Germany planed our ruin. Between them they made
the German peril the central feature of our foreign policy."
is still one more to be counted as belonging to this circle of the F.O., whose significance for the outbreak of
the First World War can hardly be overestimated: Sir Edward Grey.
Edward Grey became parliamentary Under-Secretary under Lord Rosebery, who took over the Foreign Office. In 1895
Rosebery is voted out and Grey loses his office. Grey writes that these years were "very important"
for his life.
To these experiences clearly
belongs also the world-view that England must oppose Germany and turn to France. In his memoirs, couched in a very
vague diplomatic language, we read:
"In light of after-events, the whole policy of these years from 1896 to 1904
may be criticized as having played into the hands of Germany."
Concrete criticism is expressed by Grey in this manner:
"We relied on German
support i and we received it; but we never could be sure when some price for that support might not be extracted."
The England of Grey wanted to remain the sole
master of the world and not share the power with anyone, most certainly not Germany. This is the basic
thought, which runs through Grey's memoirs, and his joy when the British policy of 1904 draws closer to France
expresses itself effusively in comparison with his otherwise dry text:
"The real cause for
satisfaction was that the exasperating friction with France was to end, and that the menace of war with France
had disappeared. The gloomy clouds were gone, the sky was clear, and the sun shone warmly. Ill-will, dislike,
hate, whether the object of them be a person or a nation, are a perpetual discomfort; they come between us and
all that is beautiful and happy; they put out the sun. If the object be a nation with whom our interests are in
contact, they poison the atmosphere of international affairs. This had been so between Great Britain and France.
[...] That was all to be changed; it was to become positively pleasant, where we had seen before only
what was repellant; to understand and to be understood where before there had been misrepresentation and misconstruction;
to have friends instead of enemies - this, when it happens, is one of the great pleasures of life."
Of course, the price for this was "perpetual discomfort,"
"poison," "misrepresentation," and "misconstruction" in the relationship to Germany,
but that did apparently not let anything come between Grey and "all that is beautiful and happy." In Grey's
eyes, France was no longer a match for England, whereas Germany was about to outperform England economically. In
1905, Grey took over the Foreign Office and subsequently surrounded himself with the gentlemen from the anti-German
circle of the Foreign Office. Crowe, Mallet, Tyrell, and Bertie all reached key positions and collaborated closely
with Grey. Carnock is the only one about whom I did not find anything. Bertie had already previously
been ambassador in Paris and in future formed one of the pillars of the new British policy. According to Margaret Bovari, the ambassadors of the most important European nations were exchanged under Grey, but the
Parisian embassy, with Sir F. Bertie, remained unchanged, and "it emerges from the private letters between
him and Grey that close relations and an excellent accord must have prevailed between the two men." From 1905
to 1906, Louis Mallet was Private Secretary to Grey, and from 1906 to 1907, he was Senior Clerk in the Foreign
Office. From 1907-1913, he was Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and diplomat in Constantinople between
1913 and 1914. Margaret Boveri sees the influence of Mallet upon Grey as having been "considerable" and
numbers him "amongst the most zealous advocates of English-Russian friendship. Still more pronounced with
him than this tendency is the anti-German attitude." William Tyrell was Senior Clerk in the Foreign Office
from 1907 to 1918 and from 1907 to 1915 he was Private Secretary to Edward Grey.
In his memoirs, Grey especially emphasized Tyrell and writes in reference
"The public little or
no means of knowing how much it owes in public service to special gifts and qualities in individual civil servants
in high positions in the Department of State. In each case, where such qualities exist, a man renders service
peculiarly his own, besides taking an able part in the conduct of business in the Department. [...] I
had the occasion, in office to know the great value of Tyrell's public service; but the thing that is prize is
our friendship, that began in the Foreign Office, and has continued uninterrupted and intimate after official
finally became Senior Clerk in the Foreign Office in 1906 and was Assistant Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs from 1912 to 1920. His role in the British policy toward Germany cannot be overestimated. For Hermann Lutz, expert in the investigatory
committee of the Reichstag for the war-guilt question, Eyre Crowe is "the Evil Spirit of the Foreign Office.", and Margaret Boveri confirms this:
"Although we [...]
must assess his direct influence upon the daily decisions in the Foreign Office as small [because of his
relatively low position; due to his German mother he presumably climbed only slowly], his fixed stance was however
surely of enormous effect upon the shaping of the atmosphere which prevailed in the Western Department and from
which policy was made."
be briefly remarked - this will be developed later - that from a subordinate position, as expert on Germany, Crowe
decisively influenced official policy several times. Edward Grey himself gives Crowe prominent mention in his
"It has been a great
satisfaction since I left office to see great knowledge, ability and unsurpassed devotion to the public service
recognized in the promotion of Sir Eyre Crowe to be head of the Foreign Office."
And he added as a footnote:
"Since these words were written the public
service of the country has suffered an irreparable loss in the death of Sir Eyre Crowe."
Grey, the anti-German circles which were behind the Saturday Review article of 1895, thereby ascended to
Grey knew portions of the pattern of thinking
there and approved indirectly. Thus, Grey recorded a conversation of 28 April 1908 with Clemenceau and considered
it to be so important that he included it as one of the few documents in his memoirs. There we read:
"M. Clemenceau had some
conversation with me at the Foreign Office this morning.
He dwelt with great
emphasis upon the certainty that we should have to intervene on the continent of Europe against any power which
attained a position of domination there, just as we had had to do in the time of Napoleon.
He said we ought to be prepared for this. [...] He felt this to be most important. The fate
of Napoleon had been decided not at Trafalgar but at Waterloo. And so it would have to be again, in the case of
any Power which attempted to dominate the continent."
Clemenceau is consciously making use of those modes of thought from the Saturday Review
articles in order to drive England into war against Germany, and Grey responds in such a way that not only are these
modes of thought familiar to him, but he is also influenced by them. This is also shown by a quotation from Grey,
which is found in Margaret Boveri:
"The Germans are not
clear about the fact that England always has gotten into opposition to or has intentionally proceeded against any
power which establishes a hegemony in Europe."
By his conduct, Grey deceived many Germans about his anti-German attitude, and not only diplomats
but also scientists, to the extent that caused Hans Rothfels to derisively refer to the remark of a Prussian artillery
lieutenant concerning Napoleon:
"A kindhearted fellow,
but stupid, stupid."
As a contributor
to The Saturday Review in the years from 1895 to 1897, G.B. Shaw was of course familiar with the anti-German
development and surely knew the authors of the articles agitating against Germany. He tried to warn the German
ambassador Lichnowsky in London about Grey and his policy. He laid out a proposal to Lichnowsky. Shaw:
"He rejected it without
reflecting for a moment. It was inappropriate [he said], because Sir Edward Grey was one of the greatest
living statesmen, moreover the most sincere friend of Germany. I could [...] not raise my hands to heaven
and, with Huss, cry out: Sancta simplicitas [holy simpleton]! Besides, it was of course Lichnowsky, not
I, who was going to the stake. [...] It was not my task to enlighten the Duke about the fact that he was
walking straight into a trap."
A trap so
thorough in construction that Shaw writes concerning the British wire-pullers on the occasion of the outbreak of
the First World War:
"They felt in this important
hour, as though England was lost if but a single traitor in their midst let out into the world a tiny kernel of
truth about anything."
1905 onward, the Foreign Office begins systematically to construct a front with Russia and France against Germany.
This development is proven on the basis of the public documents from the German side after the lost war. Crowe,
but not only he, worked systematically against Germany through numerous papers, but above all through his memorandum
of January 1, 1907, in which he claimed that Germany was striving for world rule and wanted to secretly attack England. In
a counter-expert opinion, Sanderson, Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from 1894 to 1906,
dismissed the worst distortions in Crowe's memorandum. Grey passed the paper on only to his like-minded comrades;
otherwise it went nowhere.
It would lead us too far afield to present all the lies, distortions,
misrepresentations and ploys with which Grey, Crowe, and Company prepared the way for a war against Germany.
They have been thoroughly explored to the last detail in many investigations in Germany.
G.B. Shaw has reduced the First World War to this nullity:
"The present destruction of the German military
power is [...] a completely regular operation of British foreign policy, which was executed according
to plan with all the resolve, patience, cunning and power which we in England are accustomed to use, and with overwhelming
success. But likewise also, however, with the amazing English talent of veiling from oneself what
one is doing. The Englishman never knows what the 'Foreign Office' is up to; [...] An
instinct tells him that it is better for him [...] not to know."
The whole text is rife with such quotations and others, which describe the techniques
and partly the motive of British imperialism. Concerning the key role of Grey and his methods, one more citation:
"Grey was not ruined over his mistakes; rather,
for him the fact became fatal that the necessity of feeding the British public a children's fairy-tale
about the nature and causes of the war made it impossible for him to highlight his triumph; for this was of a
kind which he himself had described as machiavellian."
There is also a solid fact, which proves that Shaw knew exactly what he was talking about,
that he knew the fundamental ideas of Grey. In 1912, he made a public proposal for how the peace could be kept;
that is what he had also laid out to Lichnowsky:
"In order to avoid war,
England would have to strengthen its army as guardian over the balance of powers and officially and unambiguously
declare that in the event of a German attack on France, it will throw its sword onto the scales in favor of the
latter. But on the other hand, it would have to give its assurance that it will defend Germany in the event the
latter is attacked by Russia or France or by both."
According to all that is known today, the
First World War of 1914 would not have happened. Germany would have been able to calmly put up with the parade
from Russia toward its borders!
As is well known,
Rome and Carthage fought three wars, Great Britain and Germany, so far, only two! Since Germany has been reunified
and Communism has collapsed, as a result of which German assistance against the Soviet Union is no longer needed,
this Carthage Syndrome surfaced again. Kissinger and Walesa, whose greed for loot is immeasurable, were cited.
But there are still other texts without aggressive background, which give reason for hope.
On March 12, 1948, a few days after the downfall in the CSR and the subsequent suicide of Jan
Masaryk, the Chief Prosecutor for Great Britain at the Nuremberg war crime trials, Sir Hartley Shawcross,
stated according to the London Times:
"Believe me, three years ago, two years ago,
I was violently pro-Russian, on the extreme left of my party." [...]
by step I have been forced more and more to the conclusion that the aims of Communism in Europe are sinister and
I prosecuted the Nazis in Nuremberg. With my Russian colleagues
I condemned Nazi aggression and Nazi terror.[]I feel shame and humiliation now to see under a different name the same aims pursued, the same technique
followed, without check."
international edition of the U.S. magazine Newsweek wrote on May 8, 1995, the 50th anniversary
of the unconditional surrender of the German Armed Forces:
"The chiefs of state
who are assembling this week for the solemn remembrance of the end of the Second World War, will formally dedicate
themselves to the theme of reconciliation. The winners of the year 1945 showed toward the losers an unusual degree
of generosity, as they had not done after the First World War - with disastrous consequences. However, the state
which first brought about this reconciliation will not be taking part in the gathering. It is the Soviet Union,
whose ideological menace caused the victorious Western powers to put Germany and Japan on their feet again in
the framework of a free-market economy and political democracy. More closely considered, this war did not end even
in 1945. Those who were waging war merely found themselves in new systems of alliances, and with modified tactics.
The end did not come until 1990-91, when Germany was reunified and the Soviet Union imploded. According to this
general view of the chronology, it can be said that the war lasted seventy-five years. The Kaiser and Hitler lost
and Germany has won."
the German government? A small episode proves that those who govern there know much better than the governed
what is going on globally. When then British Prime Minister John Major, in his address in Berlin for the 50th
anniversary of the war's end, spoke of the second Thirty Years War from 1914-1945:
"Fifty years ago Europe saw
the end of the 30 Years War, 1914 to 1945. The slaughter in the trenches, the destruction of cities and
the oppression of citizens: all these left a Europe in ruins just as the other 30 Years War did three centuries
Bulletin of the German government (No. 38, May 12, 1995) falsified the text of the speech
Jahren erlebte Europa das Ende der dreißig Jahre, die nicht einen, sondern zwei Weltkriege beeinhaltet hatten.
Das Gemetzel in den Schützengräben, die Zerstörung der Städte und die Unterdrückung der
Bürger hinterließen ein Europa in Trümmern, gerade, wie es einige Jahrhunderte zuvor der Dreißigjährige
Krieg getan hatten."
"Fifty years ago, Europe experienced the end of the thirty years which encompassed not one, but two world
wars. The slaughter in the trenches, the destruction of cities and the oppression of citizens left behind a Europe
in ruins, just as the Thirty Years War had done some centuries before."
But still weeks after the speech, the British embassy sent the upper text with
the clear formulation "the other 30 Years War"! By the will of the German Federal Government, the
fact that Major sees the First and Second World War as parts of a single
event, was not allowed to become publicly known in Germany.
once wrote warningly, with an eye on Germany:
"Great Carthage waged
three wars. It was still powerful after the first, still inhabitable after the second. After the third, it could
no longer be found."
First World War, a foreign diplomat expressed to Churchill:
"In the twenty years
of my residency there, I was witness to a profound and total revolution in England, even as the French Revolution
was. The ruling classes in your country have been almost completely robbed of their political power and, to a
large extent, their prosperity and property as well; and all this [...] without the loss of a single human
upper classes, the idle ones of Scheler and Shaw, who wanted to be "clever" as they went out of their
way to start a war, they have paid! Anastasia, the wife of the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevitch - who,
in 1914 after a murder in Sarajevo, is supposed to have called out triumphantly to Poincaré: "War will
break out. Nothing more will remain of Austria [...] Germany will be destroyed!" - lost everything!
In 1947, after the Second World War, India, the Crown
of the British Empire, became independent. Egypt freed itself from Great Britain and subsequently Great Britain
had to cede the Suez Canal. In 1957 the Gold Coast became the first independent state of Black Africa, after which
a large number of colonies followed. Churchill had yet to learn what Shaw knew: that the world for which one exchanged
one's soul, had its own way of melting in one's hands. Not even the First, and most certainly not the Second World
War, Great Britain was able to win by its own resources! From a position as master of the world, Great Britain
was relegated to insignificance, and the descent seems not to have come to an end yet. New powers are
arising. Their influence, by means of the modern terrorist techniques of war and the unhesitating way with which
they are used, can easily grow to extreme proportions. They are staking claims and creating new centers of conflict.
They threaten to unite the Islamic powers and Fundamentalism. A new war against Germany would propel their power
into the stratosphere. It is to be feared that powerful groups will continue not to see that the world of today
is much larger than the White man's world.
In any case,
the analogy of Rome = Great Britain and Carthage = Germany is false. For Carthage was the commercial and sea power
and Rome the land power of antiquity! Brecht was a master of language, but had no head for politics. His history
would tell a different story today: Great Britain won two wars. It was still powerful after the first, still inhabitable
after the second. Does anyone seriously believe that Great Britain could dare to wage yet a third war against
Source: The Revisionist 1(4)
(2003), pp. 373-385.
Click on this text to hear Hitler's Prophecy...
If Hitler Had Won World War II We’d Have A Better, More Just World Today
LEGENDARY U.S. General George
S. Patton realized late in the war that the United States fought the wrong country. Patton felt the U.S. should have sided
with Germany to destroy Jewish Bolshevik/Communist USSR. This information comes from Patton’s diary entries, letters
he wrote to his wife, and comments he made to military officers and staff.
World War II was incredibly complex. However, in the final analysis,
WWII was essentially a war between two competing ideologies: Nationalism vs. Jewish internationalism/globalism.
Adolf Hitler and his allies fought to preserve the concept of nationalism, not just for Germans but for all peoples the
world over. Nationalism really just means the sovereignty of an ethnic people and the right of such ethnic people/nationalists
— within their own bordered country — to self-determination. What is meant by self-determination?
Self-determination just means an ethnic people preserving their unique culture and heritage and pursuing their collective
goals as a unique people. This applies to any ethnic peoples: Nigerians, Germans, Swedes, Vietnamese, Mexicans,
On the other side of WWII was Jewish (Bolshevik) internationalism (today we simply call this ‘globalism’).
In the 1920’s, 1930’s, and of course during WWII, powerful Jewish internationalists were fervently advancing
the Jewish worldview of eventually eliminating all nations… except for a Jewish homeland…
(what was later to be — after WWII — the nation of Israel in 1948). Today we see that nothing has changed; Jewish
internationalism/globalism still works toward gradually “merging” all peoples of the world (particularly in
the Western World) into one globalist system with a global government, global laws, consistent global culture, global bank,
global currency, etc. In short, Jewish globalism (i.e., the weakening and eventual elimination of all nations) is the exact
opposite of nationalism (i.e., a world composed of nations … specifically, ethnically homogenous and
bordered nations). The Allied powers of WWII (led by Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, et al) were tools of International Jewry
and thus de facto fighting for the Jewish globalist worldview. After the (Jewish-run) Allies won WWII in 1945,
international Jewish forces were then free to exercise a Jewish ‘Sphere of Influence’ over the greater
Western World (and as we see today, increasingly over the rest of the world).
Alternatively, if Hitler had won World War II and then exercised a
Nationalist ‘Sphere of Influence’ over the greater Western World, we’d have a more just, fair,
and moral Western World today. The rest of the world would have similarly benefited had the Germans been victorious since
German influence would have surely spread elsewhere (ideas such as non-usurious banking and strong family oriented culture
would likely have spread globally).
Had Hitler won World War II, what would be different in the post-war world? Here are a few examples:
1 – No USSR
(the Soviet government murdered millions of its own people during its 70 year reign — to study this topic read the
writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; Hitler would have liberated the USSR, though taking large parts of its Western region
for lebensraum, “living space”)
2 – No cold war (because there would be no USSR)
3 – No Communist Eastern Europe/Iron Curtain
(when WWII ended, Eastern Europe fell to Communism — this was part of Stalin’s spoils of war)
4 – No Red China and Mao’s subsequent
killing of 40 – 60 million Chinese (the USSR created favorable conditions for Mao’s Communists which ultimately
led to Mao’s victory over Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalists in 1949, thus if no USSR, no Mao victory)
5 – No Communist
North Vietnam (both the Soviet Union and Red China aided Ho Chi Minh)
6 – No Communist Cambodia and Pol Pot’s slaughter of 2
million Cambodians (Red China aided Pol Pot)
7 – No dividing Korea into North Korea and South Korea (the Allies split Korea after
WWII ended, with North Korea becoming Communist… another of Stalin’s spoils of war)
8 – No Communist Cuba (given the previous,
what support would Castro have had in the 1950’s?)
9 – No Communism anywhere (Hitler was the world’s most
10 – Liberalism and multiculturalism wouldn’t dominate Western ethos (both are Jewish creations and
both have always been heavily promoted/advanced by Jews; thus if no Jewish influence, then no liberalism and no multiculturalism…
at least certainly nowhere near the degree we see today)
11 – No Cultural Marxism and no political correctness (these
are social engineering “tools” which came out of the Jewish think tank known as the Frankfurt School)
12 – No third
world immigration into Western nations (Jews wouldn’t be in power positions to craft and force through liberal immigration
laws; Jews are responsible for each and every Western nation’s liberal immigration policy/laws, as all were orchestrated
by a consortium consisting of the World Jewish Congress, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and B’nai B’rith)
13 – No depraved filth on TV, in movies, etc. (because Jews wouldn’t run Hollywood)
14 – No widespread
pornography (Jewish lawyers and Jewish activists were the main challengers of anti-obscenity laws, under the guise of “Freedom
15 – There would still be prayer in public schools (Jewish lawyers were instrumental in banning prayer in
public schools under the guise of so-called “separation of church and state,” something that appears nowhere
in the U.S. Constitution)
16 – No man-hating radical feminist movement (Jews such as Betty Friedan, Sonia Pressman, and Gloria Steinem,
among others, were the key drivers of radical feminism)
17 – No Israel and all the problems it has brought the USA and the immeasurable
misery it has wrought on the Palestinians
18 – Jews would be living in Madagascar (perhaps) and would be carefully monitored (Madagascar
was one place Hitler considered as a Jewish homeland)
Many reading this will ask, “But what about the Holocaust?” The
Holocaust has been grossly exaggerated by organized Jewry in order to create sympathy for Jews worldwide and thus help advance
the Jewish agenda (i.e., people seen as victims tend to get their way). It is also used as a political weapon to justify
Israeli militarism against the Palestinians. Hitler’s Final Solution (rebranded in the early 1970’s as the “Holocaust”)
was a plan to remove Jews from Europe, not to kill them. During WWII, just as the U.S. couldn’t trust Japanese Americans,
thus causing FDR to round many of them up and place them in concentration camps, Hitler couldn’t trust Jews since
many were partisans sympathetic to the USSR and hence they aided the USSR in various subversive, anti-German activities.
Therefore the National Socialists rounded up Jews and placed them in concentration camps.
Somewhere around one million Jews died during
WWII (not six million) mostly due to disease and starvation in the final months of the war. Heavy Allied bombing of Germany
and parts of German occupied Europe destroyed many roads, rail lines, and bridges making it impossible for Germany to adequately
supply the camps with food and medicine. The result is that many Jews died of starvation and disease; and of course many
non-Jews also died of starvation and disease (again, due to a massive Allied bombing campaign and its destruction of German
transportation infrastructure). Lastly, there were no “gas chambers.” Much has been written about this. To study
the “gas chamber” subject, read the research papers published by Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno (there are
many others as well). To get a broad overview of the Holocaust, read my article, What Was The Holocaust… What Actually Happened?
should also be noted that Hitler never wanted to “conquer the world.” He simply wanted to safeguard Europe and
the greater Western World from all manner of nefarious Jewish influence and, more broadly, safeguard the world-at-large
specifically from, 1) usurious Jewish banking and, 2) Jewish-driven cultural degradation.
As previously stated, the Allied heads-of-State
(Roosevelt, Churchill, et al) were puppets of International Jewry; each sold his soul for power and prestige. Again, as
earlier stated, World War II was a war between two competing ideologies: Nationalism -vs- Jewish Bolshevik internationalism/globalism
— unfortunately International Jewry won.
Was World War II “the good war” as is often claimed? No, it was exactly the opposite.
The Allied victory marked the beginning of the end of Western Civilization.
Why Hitler Declared War on the United States
Here is the complete text of Hitler's historic
address of Dec. 11, 1941, in which the German leader recounts the reasons for the outbreak of war in September 1939, explains
why he decided to strike against the Soviet Union in June 1941, reviews the dramatic course of the war thus far, and deals
at length with US President Roosevelt's hostile policies toward Germany. Hitler details the US government's increasingly
belligerent actions against Germany and Italy, and concludes by announcing that Germany was now joining Japan in war against
the United States.
Click on this text to watch: The Unspoken Victims - German Expulsion from Prussia - Schwiebus and Meseritz today...
Click on this text to view: Adolf Hitler The greatest story Never told Full 6 hours Documentary .......
Click on this text to see New Evidence on 'Barbarossa': Why Hitler Attacked Soviet Russia...
Click on this text to see video: Viktor Suvorov shows that Stalin should be considered the "chief culprit" of World War II.
In his much-discussed book "Icebreaker," and in several follow-up works, the Russian historian presents extensive evidence
to show that the German attack against the Soviet Union in June 1941 was a preventive strike because Stalin was preparing
to launch a massive Soviet assault against Germany and Europe. This lecture by Suvorov was given at the US Naval Academy in
Oct. 2009. This video presentation is in four parts. Runtime of this first part: 13 mins.
Click on this text to see: A Program FOR THE JEWS, An Answer TO ALL ANTI-SEMITES, A PROGRAM FOR HUMANITY BY Rabbi HARRY WATON....
Click on this text to visit German Victims Deutsche Opfer website...
Click on this text to examine "Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947" by Thomas Goodrich...
Who Involved the U.S. in WWII When 83% of Americans Voted
By N. Jones (Historical Tribune)
Besides the Pearl Harbour False Flag,
How did They Manipulate America into WWII? – A war 83% of Americans (according to the June 3rd, 1941, Gallup
Poll results) were against and asserted they wished to remain uninvolved?
Protocol of the Elders
of Zion – VII:6
“…In a word, to sum up our system of keeping the governments of the goyim
in Europe in check, we shall show our strength to one of them by terrorist attempts and to all, if we allow the
possibility of a general rising against us, we shall respond with the guns of America or China or Japan….
“We Jews,” as the spokesmen of this clannish nationalism might put it, “are well aware
that in America, England, France and the Soviet Union, as well as in every other part of the world, the rule is:
Judah must come first!
As long as the interests of America are identical with the interests of Old
Testament ‘Nazism’, we will be good Americans, but as soon as our interests begin to conflict with the interests
of America, we shall betray her too. Generally speaking, democracy suits us if and when it is led by as many Jews
as possible. The so-called freedom of the press is good for us too, provided the descendants of the seed of Abraham,
above all, can avail themselves of it. Yes! this freedom is a valuable thing, but only where we Jews are at liberty
to do anything we like!”
Oh, you faint-hearted ones, who listen terror-stricken to the marching S.A. and
S.S. troops; be not afraid! By now we are experts in undermining and capturing democracies. We are familiar with
the methods of imposing our particular interests on the masses. America, the richest state of the Goyim is being
shaken by mortal economic crisis. The time is ripe to start our all-out offensive, which, will also give political
power into our hands. And ours will be a take-over of a more permanent character than that of Hitler. We are going
to conquer America neither by arms nor by theories. We possess a reliable prescription to call down Nemesis on
America. The fate of America was prescribed by our own Führer – Moses! Torah is our Mein Kampf!
This will be the year for sounding the Trumpets in America, where in Washington’s time, the total
number of Jews were a mere four thousand. But now our bankers, our socialists and our journalists will be blowing trumpets
and, our ‘Brain-Trust’ will execute the New Deal at the expense of the American Pioneer-Population.
Thereafter, the only remaining question will be: Whom are we going to put in the Presidential Chair at Washington?
“Those of you living in despair in your palatial residence in Wall Street or in 13th Street, as
well as in the ghettos of Brooklyn and Bronx, must not doubt that we shall find our man, who will be a real match
for Hitler, while at the same time, place political power over America into our hands. You need only read our
directions in the Protocols.”
(The World Conquerors, p. 80-81)
produced constitutional status, which took the place of what was the only safeguard of the Goyim, namely despotism
(autocracy)… then it was that we replaced the Ruler by a caricature of a government – by a president,
taken from the mob, from the midst of our puppet overture – our slaves. In the near future we shall establish
elections, in favour of such presidents, as have in their past some dark undiscovered stain, some “Panama”
or other – then they will be trustworthy agents for the accomplishment of our plans, out of fear of revelations…”
“Who will therefore, be the new President, who will place America in our hands and will execute our
His name is Franklin D. Roosevelt! – the late descendant of the Spanish Sephardim.
Fear not dear Franklin, our “Advisors” are now gathering around you, to support you in the decision
making for all your future endeavours, which is at such a pivotal time in our world history. Felix Frankfurter
from Vienna, Henry Morgenthau from Mannheim, Bernard Baruch from Könoigsberg and Albert Einstein from Berlin. Samuel
Roseman who will write your speeches is there, so are our labour leaders; amongst them our compatriot Sidney Hillman
who controls American labour in the Administration for you. There is David Dubinsky, also a fellow immigrant from
Russia, who will transform the Christian workers into tax payers for Zionism.
The entourage we will
provide you will consist exclusively of trustworthy men, such as La Guardia, Mayor of New York, a Jew from Fiume
and, Alger Hiss, the protègè of Frankfurter and of Senator Lehman. Bernard Baruch will control the
351 most important branches of American industry, which will militarily equip the American boys to go fight against
our cryptonite – National Socialism.
On behalf of America, Alger Hiss will conduct the talks with
Stalin and, Einstein, Oppenheimer and David Lilienthal will produce the atomic bomb. As managers of the UNNRA,
La Guardia and Herbert Lehman will help the intended future Jewish ‘Displaced Persons‘ of our coming
war – a war which we will declare. Our appointed Henry Morgenthau Jr., Secretaty of the Treasury, will prepare
a splendid plan for the extermination of the German people, based on the insightful authorship of our intellectual
confidant, President of the ‘American Federation of Peace,’ Theodore Kaufman. Our own Mortiz Gomberg,
will see to it that 18 million people from the countries of our opponent will become ‘Stateless’ in
Europe, our trustworthy men will distribute $11 million worth of cheques to provide our Bolshevik counterparts with arms
and Harry Dexter White will also give them U.S. occupation printing plates, to enable the ‘Displaced Persons’
to print with abandon, so they can be cashed-up to usurp all positions of European “Authority” after
our boys summarily assassinate all who have opposed us – at the expense of the American people who reject
involvement in our coming war.
No, fear not dear Franklin, the patriotism of this American dream to sail
across the seas to punish OUR enemies, is in the good and trustworthy hands of Judah!
– the unofficial President of America.
Judge Samuel Roseman – the Founder and Head of the
‘Brains-Trust’ – Roosevelts “Advisors”
Professor Raymond Moley – Favorite
Rabbi Stephan Wise (Weiz) – President of the WJC and Roosevelts closest Advisor/Firm
Hand – see here: The Jewish Plan for WWII and all the Benefits it would Bring World Jewry
Morgenthau Sr. – Unofficial Advisor, Jewish State Lawyer.
Theodore N. Kaufman – President of the ‘American
Federation of Peace’ / Author of ‘Germany Must Perish’, precursor to the Morgenthau Plan –
see here: Germany Must Perish
Harry Dexter White (Weit) – Senior U.S. Treasury department official
(Transport of U.S. printing plates to Bolsheviks – see here: WWII: Espionage and the US funding of the Conquering
Communists of Europe
Felix Frankfurter – Supreme Court Justice
Justice Benjamin Cardozo –
Gerald Shwope – Advisor.
E. A. Filene – Advisor.
Charles Taussig – Brains-Trust
Nathan Margold – Interior Department Solicitor.
Charles Wyzanski Jr. – Labour Department
Professor Leo Wolman – Labour Strike Board.
Rose Schneiderman – Labour Advisory
Isador Lubin Jr. – Labour Bureau Statistician.
Solomon Rosenblatt – Amusement Administrator.
E. A. Goldenweiser – Federal Research Director.
Jerome Frank – General Councel.
Ezekile – Economic Advisor (Co-author of A.A.A. Laws).
Herbert Feis – “The Brains of the State Department.”
Henry Morgenthau Jr. – Secretary of the Treasury.
David Lilienthal – TVA Director.
– Labour Advisory Board.
L. N. Landau – PWA General Solicitor.
A. Steinhard – Minister
Professor Albert E. Taussig – NRA Advisor.
Alexander Sachs – NRA Code Authority.
Karp – NRA Director of Personnel.
Robert Freshner – CC C Forest Army Head.
Robert Strauss –
NRA Assistant Administrator.
Donald Richberg – NRA Advisor.
H. I. Strauss – Ambassador to France.
Ferdinand Pecora – “Special” Investigator.
Samuel Untermayer – Stock-Exchange Bill
Professor James M. Landis – Federal Trade Commissioner…
Just to name a few
of the “Trustworthy Men” (JEWS) of American interests.
| || |
Click on this text to visit: TRUTH AND JUSTICE FOR GERMANS SOCIETY....
Eine Aussöhnung mit der Geschichte kann es nur mit der Wahrheit geben
und nicht auf der Basis von Lügen!
Click on this text to see: Leon Degrelle - The Epic Story of the Waffen SS ...
I have been asked that question a thousand times since 1945,
and nothing is more difficult to answer.
Approximately 2000 books have dealt with the Second World War and with its
central figure, Adolf Hitler. But has the real Hitler been discovered by any of them? "The enigma of Hitler is beyond
all human comprehension" the left-wing German weekly 'Die Zeit' once put it.
Salvador Dali, art's unique genius, sought to
penetrate the mystery in one of his most intensely dramatic paintings. Towering mountain landscapes all but fill the canvas,
leaving ony a few luminous meters of seashore dotted with delicately miniaturized human figures: the last witness to a dying
peace. A huge telephone receiver dripping tears of blood hangs from the branch of a dead tree; and here and there hang umbrellas
and bats whose portent is visibly the same. As Dali tells it, "Chamberlain's umbrella appeared in this painting in a
sinister light, made evident by the bat, and it struck me when I painted it as a thing of enormous anguish."
He then confided:
"I felt this painting to be deeply prophetic. But I confess that I haven't yet figured out the Hitler enigma either.
He attracted me only as an object of my mad imaginings and because I saw him as a man uniquely capable of turning things
completely upside down."
What a lesson in humility for the braying critics who have rushed into print
since 1945 with their thousands of 'definitive' books, most of them scornful, about this man who so troubled the introspective
Dali that forty years later he still felt anguished and uncertain in the presence of his own hallucinatory painting. Apart
from Dali, who else has ever tried to present an objective portrayal of this extraordinary man who Dali labeled the most
explosive figure in human history?
LIKE PAVLOV'S BELL
The mountains of Hitler books based on blink hatred and ignorance do little
to describe or explain the most powerful man the world has ever seen. How, I ponder, do these thousands of disparate portraits
of Hitler in any way resemble the man I knew? The Hitler seated beside me, standing up, talking, listening. It has become
impossible to explain to people fed fantastic tales for decades that what they have read or heard on television just does
not correspond to the truth.
People have come to accept fiction, repeated
a thousand times over, as reality. Yet they have never seen Hitler, never spoken to him, never heard a word from his mouth.
The very name of Hitler immediately conjures up a grimacing devil, the fount of all of one's negative emotions. Like Pavlov's
bell, the mention of Hitler is meant to dispense with substance and reality. In time, however, history will demand more than
these summary judgements.
Hitler is always present before my eyes: as a man of peace in 1936, as a man
of war in 1944. It is not possible to have been a personal witness to the life of such an extraordinary man without being
marked by it forever. Not a day goes by but Hitler rises again in my memory, not as a man long dead, but as a real being
who paces his office floor, seats himself in his chair, pokes the burning logs in the fireplace.
The first thing anyone noticed when he came into
view was his small mustache. Countless times he had been advised to shave it off, but he always refused: people were used
to him the way he was.
He was not tall -- no more than was Napoleon or Alexander the Great.
Hitler had deep blue eyes that many found bewitching, although I did
not find them so. Nor did I detect the electric current his hands were said to give off. I gripped them quite a few times
and was never struck by his lightening.
His face showed emotion or indifference according to the passion or apathy of the moment. At
times he was as though benumbed, saying not a word, while his jaws moved in the meanwhile as if they were grinding an obstacle
to smithereens in the void. Then he would come suddenly alive and launch into a speech directed at you alone, as though he
were addressing a crowd of hundreds of thousands at Berlin's Tempelhof airfield. Then he became as if transfigured. Even
his complexion, otherwise dull, lit up as he spoke. And at such times, to be sure, Hitler was strangely attractive and as
if possessed of magic powers.
Anything that might have seemed too solemn in his remarks, he quickly tempered with a touch of humour. The picturesque
world, the biting phrase were at his command. In a flash he would paint a word-picture that brought a smile, or come up
with an unexpected and disarming comparison. He could be harsh and even implacable in his judgements and yet almost at the
same time be surprisingly conciliatory, sensitive and warm.
After 1945 Hitler was accused of every cruelty, but it was not in
his nature to be cruel. He loved children. It was an entirely natural thing for him to stop his car and share his food with
young cyclists along the road. Once he gave his raincoat to a derelict plodding in the rain. At midnight he would interrupt
his work and prepare the food for his dog Blondi.
He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living creature.
He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed to provide his food. He would allow only eggs on his table,
because egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed.
Hitler's eating habits were a constant source of amazement to me.
How could someone on such a rigorous schedule, who had taken part in tens of thousands of exhausting mass meetings from
which he emerged bathed with sweat, often losing two to four pounds in the process; who slept only three to four hours a
night; and who, from 1940 to 1945, carried the whole world on his shoulders while ruling over 380 million Europeans: how,
I wondered, could he physically survive on just a boiled egg, a few tomatoes, two or three pancakes, and a plate of noodles?
But he actually gained weight!
He drank only water. He did not smoke and would not tolerate smoking in his presence. At one
or two o'clock in the morning he would still be talking, untroubled, close to his fireplace, lively, often amusing. He never
showed any sign of weariness. Dead tired his audience might be, but not Hitler.
He was depicted as a tired old man. Nothing was
further from the truth. In September 1944, when he was reported to be fairly doddering, I spent a week with him. His mental
and physical vigor were still exceptional. The attempt made on his life on July 20th had, if anything, recharged him. He
took tea in his quarters as tranquilly as if we had been in his small private apartment at the chancellery before the war,
or enjoying the view of snow and bright blue sky through his great bay window at Berchtesgaden.
At the very end of his life, to be sure, his
back had become bent, but his mind remained as clear as a flash of lightening. The testament he dictated with extraordinary
composure on the eve of his death, at three in the morning of April 29, 1945, provides us a lasting testimony. Napoleon
at Fontainebleau was not without his moments of panic before his abdication. Hitler simply shook hands with his associates
in silence, breakfasted as on any other day, then went to his death as if he were going on a stroll. When has history ever
witnessed so enormous a tragedy brought to its end with such iron self control?
Hitler's most notable characteristic was ever
his simplicity. The most complex of problems resolved itself in his mind into a few basic principles. His actions were geared
to ideas and decisions that could be understood by anyone. The laborer from Essen, the isolated farmer, the Ruhr industrialist,
and the university professor could all easily follow his line of thought. The very clarity of his reasoning made everything
behaviour and his life style never changed even when he became the ruler of Germany. He dressed and lived frugally. During
his early days in Munich, he spent no more than a mark per day for food. At no stage in his life did he spend anything on
himself. Throughout his 13 years in the chancellery he never carried a wallet or ever had money of his own.
Hitler was self-taught
and made not attempt to hide the fact. The smug conceit of intellectuals, their shiny ideas packaged like so many flashlight
batteries, irritated him at times. His own knowledge he had acquired through selective and unremitting study, and he knew
far more than thousands of diploma-decorated academics.
I don't think anyone ever read as much as he did. He normally read one book
every day, always first reading the conclusion and the index in order to gauge the work's interest for him. He had the power
to extract the essence of each book and then store it in his computer-like mind. I have heard him talk about complicated
scientific books with faultless precision, even at the height of the war.
His intellectual curiosity was limitless. He was readily familiar
with the writings of the most diverse authors, and nothing was too complex for his comprehension. He had a deep knowledge
and understanding of Buddha, Confucius and Jesus Christ, as well as Luther, Calvin, and Savonarola; of literary giants such
as Dante, Schiller, Shakespeare and Goethe; and analytical writers such as Renan and Gobineau, Chamberlain and Sorel.
He had trained himself in philosophy by studying Aristotle and Plato. He could
quote entire paragraphs of Schopenhauer from memory, and for a long time carried a pocked edition of Schopenhauer with him.
Nietzsche taught him much about the willpower.
His thirst for knowledge was unquenchable. He spend hundreds of hours studying the works of
Tacitus and Mommsen, military strategists such as Clausewitz, and empire builders such as Bismark. Nothing escaped him:
world history or the history of civilizations, the study of the Bible and the Talmud, Thomistic philosophy and all the masterpieces
of Homer, Sophocles, Horace, Ovid, Titus Livius and Cicero. He knew Julian the Apostate as if he had been his contemporary.
His knowledge also
extended to mechanics. He knew how engines worked; he understood the ballistics of various weapons; and he astonished the
best medical scientists with his knowledge of medicine and biology.
The universality of Hitler's knowledge may surprise or displease
those unaware of it, but it is nonetheless a historical fact: Hitler was one of the most cultivated men of this century.
Many times more so than Churchill, an intellectual mediocrity; or than Pierre Lavaal, with him mere cursory knowledge of
history; of than Roosevelt; or Eisenhower, who never got beyond detective novels.
THE YOUNG ARCHITECT
Even during his earliest years, Hitler was different
than other children. He had an inner strength and was guided by his spirit and his instincts.
He could draw skillfully when he was only eleven
years old. His sketches made at that age show a remarkable firmness and liveliness. He first paintings and watercolors,
created at age 15, are full of poetry and sensitivity. One of his most striking early works, 'Fortress Utopia,' also shows
him to have been an artist of rare imagination. His artistic orientation took many forms. He wrote poetry from the time he
was a lad. He dictated a complete play to his sister Paula who was amazed at his presumption. At the age of 16, in Vienna,
he launched into the creation of an opera. He even designed the stage settings, as well as all the costumes; and, of course,
the characters were Wagnerian heroes.
More than just an artist, Hitler was above all an architect. Hundreds of his works were notable
as much for the architecture as for the painting. From memory alone he could reproduce in every detail the onion dome of
a church or the intricate curves of wrought iron. Indeed, it was to fulfill his dream of becoming an architect that Hitler
went to Vienna at the beginning of the century.
When one sees the hundreds of paintings, sketches and drawings he created at
the time, which reveal his mastery of three dimensional figures, it is astounding that his examiners at the Fine Arts Academy
failed him in two successive examinations. German historian Werner Maser, no friend of Hitler, castigated these examiners:
"All of his works revealed extraordinary architectural gifts and knowledge. The builder of the Third Reich gives the
former Fine Arts Academy of Vienna cause for shame."
In his room, Hitler always displayed an old photograph of his mother.
The memory of the mother he loved was with him until the day he died. Before leaving this earth, on April 30, 1945, he placed
his mother's photograph in front of him. She had blue eyes like his and a similar face. Her maternal intuition told her
that her son was different from other children. She acted almost as if she knew her son's destiny. When she died, she felt
anguished by the immense mystery surrounding her son.
Throughout the years of his youth, Hitler lived the life of a virtual
recluse. He greatest wish was to withdraw from the world. At heart a loner, he wandered about, ate meager meals, but devoured
the books of three public libraries. He abstained from conversations and had few friends.
It is almost impossible to imagine another such
destiny where a man started with so little and reached such heights. Alexander the great was the son of a king. Napoleon,
from a well-to-do family, was a general at 24. Fifteen years after Vienna, Hitler would still be an unknown corporal. Thousands
of others had a thousand times more opportunity to leave their mark on the world.
Hitler was not much concerned with his private
life. In Vienna he had lived in shabby, cramped lodgings. But for all that he rented a piano that took up half his room,
and concentrated on composing his opera. He lived on bread, milk, and vegetable soup. His poverty was real. He did not even
own an over-coat. He shoveled streets on snowy days. He carried luggage at the railway station. He spent many weeks in shelters
for the homeless. But he never stopped painting or reading.
Despite his dire poverty, Hitler somehow managed to maintain a clean
appearance. Landlords and landladies in Vienna and Munich all remembered him for his civility and pleasant disposition.
His behavior was impeccable. His room was always spotless, his meager belongings meticulously arranged, and his clothes
neatly hung or folded. He washed and ironed his own clothes, something which in those days few men did. He needed almost
nothing to survive, and money from the sale of a few paintings was sufficient to provide for all his needs.
SEARCH FOR DESTINY
Impressed by the
beauty of the church in a Benedictine monastery where he was part of the choir and served as an altar boy, Hitler dreamt
fleetingly of becoming a Benedictine monk. And it was at that time, too, interestingly enough, that whenever he attended
mass, he always had to pass beneath the first swastika he had ever seen: it was graven in the stone escutcheon of the abbey
father, a customs officer, hoped the boy would follow in his footsteps and become a civil servant. His tutor encouraged him
to become a monk. Instead the young Hitler went, or rather fled, to Vienna. And there, thwarted in his artistic aspirations
by the bureaucratic mediocrities of academia, he turned to isolation and meditation. Lost in the great capital of Austria-Hungary,
he searched for his destiny.
During the first 30 years of Hitler's life, the date April 20, 1889, meant nothing to anyone. He was born on that
day in Braunau, a small town in the Inn valley. During his exile in Vienna, he often thought of his modest home, and particularly
of his mother. When she fell ill, he returned home from Vienna to look after her. For weeks he nursed her, did all the household
chores, and supported her as the most loving of sons. When she finally died, on Christmas eve, his pain was immense. Wracked
with grief, he buried his mother in the little country cemetery. "I have never seen anyone so prostrate with grief,"
said his mother's doctor, who happened to be Jewish.
A STRONG SOUL
Hitler had not yet focused on politics, but without his rightly knowing,
that was the career to which he was most strongly called. Politics would ultimately blend with his passion for art. People,
the masses, would be the clay the sculptor shapes into an immortal form. The human clay would become for him a beautiful
work of art like one of Myron's marble sculptures, a Hans Makart painting, or Wagner's Ring Trilogy.
His love of music, art and architecture had not
removed him from the political life and social concerns of Vienna. In order to survive, he worked as a common laborer sided
by side with other workers. He was a silent spectator, but nothing escaped him: not the vanity and egoism of the bourgeoisie,
not the moral and material misery of the people, nor yet the hundreds of thousands of workers who surged down the wide avenues
of Vienna with anger in their hearts.
He had also been taken aback by the growing presence in Vienna of bearded Jews wearing caftans,
a sight unknown in Linz. "How can they be Germans?" he asked himself. He read the statistics: in 1860 there were
69 Jewish families in Vienna; 40 years later there were 200,000. They were everywhere. He observed their invasion of the
universities and the legal and medical professions, and their takeover of the newspapers.
Hitler was exposed to the passionate reactions
of the workers to this influx, but the workers were not alone in their unhappiness. There were many prominent persons in
Austria and Hungary who did not hide their resentment at what they believed was an alien invasion of their country. The
mayor of Vienna, a Christian-Democrat and a powerful orator, was eagerly listened to by Hitler.
Hitler was also concerned with the fate of the
eight million Austrian Germans kept apart from Germany, and thus deprived of their rightful German nationhood. He saw Emperor
Franz Josef as a bitter and petty old man unable to cope with the problems of the day and the aspirations of the future.
Quietly, the young
Hitler was summing things up in his mind.
First: Austrians were part of Germany, the common fatherland.
Second: The Jews were aliens within the German
Third: Patriotism was only valid if it was shared by all classes. The common people with whom Hitler had shared
grief and humiliation were just as much a part of the fatherland as the millionaires of high society.
Fourth: Class war would sooner or later condemn
both workers and bosses to ruin in any country. No country could survive class war; only cooperation between workers and
bosses can benefit the country. Workers must be respected and live with decency and honor. Creativity must never be stifled.
When Hitler later
said that he had formed his social and political doctrine in Vienna, he told the truth. Ten years later his observations
made in Vienna would become the order of the day.
Thus Hitler was to live for several years in the crowded city of Vienna as
a virtual outcast, yet quietly observing everything around him. His strength came from within. He did not rely on anyone
to do his thinking for him. Exceptional human beings always feel lonely amid the vast human throng. Hitler saw his solitude
as a wonderful opportunity to meditate and not to be submerged in a mindless sea. In order not to be lost in the wastes
of a sterile desert, a strong soul seeks refuge within himself. Hitler was such a soul.
The lightning in Hitler's life would come from
his artistic talent would be channeled into his mastery of communication and eloquence. Hitler would never conceive of popular
conquests without the power of the word. He would enchant and be enchanted by it. He would find total fulfillment when the
magic of his words inspired the hearts and minds of the masses with whom he communed.
He would feel reborn each time he conveyed with
mystical beauty the knowledge he had acquired in his lifetime.
Hitler's incantory eloquence will remain, for a very long time, a
vast field of study for the psychoanalyst. The power of Hitler's word is the key. Without it, there would never have been
a Hitler era.
Did Hitler believe in God? He believed deeply in God. He called God the Almighty, master of all that is known and
portrayed Hitler as an atheist. He was not. He had contempt for hypocritical and materialistic clerics, but he was not alone
in that. He believed in the necessity of standards and theological dogmas, without which, he repeatedly said, the great institution
of the Christian church would collapse. These dogmas clashed with his intelligence, but he also recognized that it was hard
for the human mind to encompass all the problems of creation, its limitless scope and breathtaking beauty. He acknowledged
that every human being has spiritual needs.
The song of the nightingale, the pattern and color of a flower, continually brought him back
to the great problems of creation. No one in the world has spoken to me so eloquently about the existence of God. He held
this view not because he was brought up as a Christian, but because his analytical mind bound him to the concept of God.
transcended formulas and contingencies. God was for him the basis of everything, the ordainer of all things, of his Destiny
and that of all others.
To deal with the massive unemployment and economic paralysis
of the Great Depression, both the US and German governments launched innovative and ambitious programs.
Although President Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” measures helped
only marginally, the Third Reich’s much more focused and comprehensive policies proved remarkably effective. Within
three years unemployment was banished and Germany’s economy was flourishing.
While Roosevelt’s record in dealing with the Depression is pretty well known, the remarkable
story of how Hitler tackled the crisis is not widely understood or appreciated.
Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. A few weeks later, on March 4, Franklin Roosevelt
took office as President of the United States. Each man remained his country’s chief executive for the next twelve
years -- until April 1945, shortly before the end of World War II in Europe. In early 1933 industrial production in each
country had fallen to about half of what it had been in 1929. Each leader quickly launched bold new initiatives to tackle
the terrible economic crisis, above all the scourge of mass unemployment. And although there are some striking similarities
between the efforts of the two governments, the results were very different.
One of the most influential and widely read American
economists of the twentieth century was John Kenneth Galbraith. He was an advisor to several presidents, and for a time
served as US ambassador to India. He was the author of several dozen books, and for years taught economics at Harvard University.
With regard to Germany’s record, Galbraith wrote: “… The elimination of unemployment in Germany during
the Great Depression without inflation -- and with initial reliance on essential civilian activities -- was a signal accomplishment.
It has rarely been praised and not much remarked. The notion that Hitler could do no good extends to his economics as it
does, more plausibly, to all else.”
The Hitler regime’s
economic policy, Galbraith goes on, involved “large scale borrowing for public expenditures, and at first this was
principally for civilian work -- railroads, canals and the Autobahnen [highway network]. The result was a far more effective
attack on unemployment than in any other industrial country.” / 1 “By late 1935,” he also wrote, “unemployment
was at an end in Germany. By 1936 high income was pulling up prices or making it possible to raise them … Germany,
by the late thirties, had full employment at stable prices. It was, in the industrial world, an absolutely unique achievement.”
/ 2 “Hitler also anticipated modern economic policy,” the economist noted, “by recognizing that a rapid
approach to full employment was only possible if it was combined with wage and price controls. That a nation oppressed by
economic fears would respond to Hitler as Americans did to F.D.R. is not surprising.”
Other countries, Galbraith wrote, failed to understand or to learn from the German experience:
“The German example was instructive but not persuasive. British and American conservatives looked at the Nazi financial
heresies -- the borrowing and spending -- and uniformly predicted a breakdown … And American liberals and British
socialists looked at the repression, the destruction of the unions, the Brownshirts, the Blackshirts, the concentration
camps, and screaming oratory, and ignored the economics. Nothing good [they believed], not even full employment, could come
Two days after taking office as Chancellor,
Hitler addressed the nation by radio. Although he and other leaders of his movement had made clear their intention to reorganize
the nation’s social, political, cultural and educational life in accord with National Socialist principles, everyone
knew that, with some six million jobless and the national economy in paralysis, the great priority of the moment was to
restore the nation’s economic life, above all by tackling unemployment and providing productive work.
“The misery of our people is horrible to behold!,” said Hitler in this inaugural
address. / 5 “Along with the hungry unemployed millions of industrial workers there is the impoverishment of the whole
middle class and the artisans. If this collapse finally also finishes off the German farmers we will face a catastrophe
of incalculable dimension. For that would be not just the collapse of a nation, but of a two-thousand-year-old inheritance
of some of the greatest achievements of human culture and civilization …”
The new government, Hitler said, would “achieve the great task of reorganizing our nation’s
economy by means of two great four-year plans. The German farmer must be rescued to maintain the nation’s food supply
and, in consequence, the nation’s vital foundation. The German worker will be saved from ruin with a concerted and
all-embracing attack against unemployment.”
four years,” he pledged, “unemployment must be decisively overcome … The Marxist parties and their allies
have had 14 years to show what they can do. The result is a heap of ruins. Now, people of Germany, give us four years and
then pass judgment upon us!”
Rejecting the cloudy and
impractical economic views of some radical activists in his Party, Hitler turned to men of proven ability and competence.
Most notably, he enlisted the help of Hjalmar Schacht, a prominent banker and financier with an impressive record in both
private business and public service. Even though Schacht was certainly no National Socialist, Hitler appointed him President
of Germany’s central bank, the Reichsbank, and then as Minister of Economics.
After taking power, writes Prof. John Garraty, a prominent American historian, Hitler and his new
government “immediately launched an all-out assault on unemployment … They stimulated private industry through
subsidies and tax rebates, encouraged consumer spending by such means as marriage loans, and plunged into the massive public-works
program that produced the autobahn [highway system], and housing, railroad and navigation projects.”
The regime’s new leaders also succeeded in persuading formerly skeptical and even
hostile Germans of their sincerity, resolve and ability. This fostered trust and confidence, which in turn encouraged businessmen
to hire and invest, and consumers to spend with an eye to the future.
As he had promised, Hitler and his National Socialist government banished unemployment within four years. The number
of jobless was cut from six million at the beginning of 1933, when he took power, to one million by 1936. / 7 So rapidly
was the jobless rate reduced that by 1937-38 there was a national labor shortage.
For the great mass of Germans, wages and working conditions improved steadily. From 1932 to 1938
gross real weekly earnings increased by 21 percent. After taking into account tax and insurance deductions and adjustments
to the cost of living, the increase in real weekly earnings during this period was 14 percent. At the same time, rents remained
stable, and there was a relative decline in the costs of heating and light. Prices actually declined for some consumer goods,
such as electrical appliances, clocks and watches, as well as for some foods. "Consumer prices rose at an average annual
rate of just 1.2 percent between 1933 and 1939," notes British historian Niall Ferguson. "This meant that Germans
workers were better off in real as well as nominal terms: between 1933 and 1938, weekly net earnings (after tax) rose by
22 percent, while the cost of living rose by just seven percent." Even after the outbreak of war in September 1939,
workers’ income continued to rise. By 1943 average hourly earnings of German workers had risen by 25 percent, and
weekly earnings by 41 percent.
The “normal” work
day for most Germans was eight hours, and pay for overtime work was generous. / 10 In addition to higher wages, benefits
included markedly improved working conditions, such as better health and safety conditions, canteens with subsidized hot
meals, athletic fields, parks, subsidized theater performances and concerts, exhibitions, sports and hiking groups, dances,
adult education courses, and subsidized tourism. / 11 An already extensive network of social welfare programs, including
old age insurance and a national health care program, was expanded.
Hitler wanted Germans to have “the highest possible standard of living,” he said in an interview with
an American journalist in early 1934. “In my opinion, the Americans are right in not wanting to make everyone the
same but rather in upholding the principle of the ladder. However, every single person must be granted the opportunity to
climb up the ladder.” / 12 In keeping with this outlook, Hitler’s government promoted social mobility, with
wide opportunities to improve and advance. As Prof. Garraty notes: “It is beyond argument that the Nazis encouraged
working-class social and economic mobility.” To encourage acquisition of new skills, the government greatly expanded
vocational training programs, and offered generous incentives for further advancement of efficient workers.
Both National Socialist ideology and Hitler’s basic outlook, writes historian John
Garraty, “inclined the regime to favor the ordinary German over any elite group. Workers … had an honored place
in the system.” In accord with this, the regime provided substantive fringe benefits for workers that included subsidized
housing, low-cost excursions, sports programs, and more pleasing factory facilities.
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, historian Joachim Fest acknowledged: “The
regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to
rise, it in fact demonstrated class neutrality … These measures did indeed break through the old, petrified social
structures. They tangibly improved the material condition of much of the population.”
A few figures give an idea of how the quality of life improved. Between 1932, the last
year of the pre-Hitler era, and 1938, the last full year before the outbreak of war, food consumption increased by one sixth,
while clothing and textile turnover increased by more than a quarter, and of furniture and household goods by 50 percent.
/ 16 During the Third Reich’s peacetime years, wine consumption rose by 50 percent, and champagne consumption increased
five-fold. / 17 Between 1932 and 1938, the volume of tourism more than doubled, while automobile ownership during the 1930s
tripled. / 18 German motor vehicle production, which included cars made by the US-owned Ford and General Motors (Opel) works,
doubled in the five years of 1932 to 1937, while Germany’s motor vehicle exports increased eight-fold. Air passenger
traffic in Germany more than tripled from 1933 to 1937.
business revived and prospered. During the first four years of the National Socialist era, net profits of large corporations
quadrupled, and managerial and entrepreneurial income rose by nearly 50 percent. / 20 Between 1933 and 1938, notes historian
Niall Ferguson, Germany's "gross domestic product grew, on average, by a remarkable eleven percent a year," with
no significant increase in the rate of inflation. / 21 “Things were to get even better,” writes Jewish historian
Richard Grunberger in his detailed study, The Twelve-Year Reich. “In the three years between 1939 and 1942 German industry
expanded as much as it had during the preceding fifty years.”
Although German businesses flourished, profits were controlled and by law were kept within moderate limits. / 21
Beginning in 1934, dividends for stockholders of German corporations were limited to six percent annually. Undistributed
profits were invested in Reich government bonds, which had an annual interest yield of six percent, and then, after 1935,
of four and a half percent. This policy had the predictable effect of encouraging corporate reinvestment and self-financing,
and thereby of reducing borrowing from banks and, more generally, of diminishing the influence of commercial capital.
Corporation tax rates were steadily raised, from 20 percent in 1934 to 25 percent in 1936,
and to 40 percent in 1939-40. Directors of German companies could grant bonuses to managers, but only if these were directly
proportionate to profits and they also authorized corresponding bonuses or “voluntary social contributions” to
Between 1934 and 1938, the gross taxable income
of German businessmen increased by 148 percent, and overall tax volume increased during this period by 232 percent. The
number of taxpayers in the highest income tax bracket -- those earning more than 100,000 marks annually -- increased during
this period by 445 percent. (By contrast, the number of taxpayers in the lowest income bracket -- those earning less than
1500 marks yearly -- increased by only five percent.)
in National Socialist Germany was sharply “progressive,” with those of higher income paying proportionately more
than those in the lower income brackets. Between 1934 and 1938, the average tax rate on incomes of more than 100,000 marks
rose from 37.4 percent to 38.2 percent. In 1938 Germans in the lowest tax brackets were 49 percent of the population and
had 14 percent of the national income, but paid only 4.7 percent of the tax burden. Those in the highest income category,
who were just one percent of the population but with 21 percent of the income, paid 45 percent of the tax burden.
Jews made up about one percent of Germany’s total population when Hitler came to
power. While the new government moved quickly to remove them from the nation’s political and cultural life, Jews were
permitted to carry on in economic life, at least for several years. In fact, many Jews benefited from the regime’s
recovery measures and the general economic revival. In June 1933, for example, Hitler approved a large-scale government
investment of 14.5 million marks in the Jewish-owned firm Hertie, a Berlin department store chain. This “bail out”
was done to prevent the ruin of the large firm’s suppliers, financiers, and, above all, its 14,000 employees.
Prof. Gordon Craig, who for years taught history at Stanford University, points out: “In
the clothing and retail trades, Jewish firms continued to operate profitably until 1938, and in Berlin and Hamburg, in particular,
establishments of known reputation and taste continued to attract their old customers despite their ownership by Jews. In
the world of finance, no restrictions were placed upon the activities of Jewish firms in the Berlin Bourse [stock market],
and until 1937 the banking houses of Mendelssohn, Bleichröder, Arnhold, Dreyfuss, Straus, Warburg, Aufhäuser,
and Behrens were still active.” / 27 Five years after Hitler had come to power, the Jewish role in business life was
still a significant one, and Jews still held considerable real estate holdings, especially in Berlin. This changed markedly
in 1938, however, and by the end of 1939 Jews had been largely removed from German economic life.
Germany’s crime rate fell during the Hitler years, with significant drops in the
rates of murder, robbery, theft, embezzlement and petty larceny. / 28 Improvement in the health and outlook of Germans impressed
many foreigners. “Infant mortality has been greatly reduced and is considerably inferior to that in Great Britain,”
wrote Sir Arnold Wilson, a British M.P. who visited Germany seven times after Hitler had come to power. “Tuberculosis
and other diseases have noticeably diminished. The criminal courts have never had so little to do and the prisons have never
had so few occupants. It is a pleasure to observe the physical aptitude of the German youth. Even the poorest persons are
better clothed than was formerly the case, and their cheerful faces testify to the psychological improvement that has been
wrought within them.”
The improved psychological-emotional
well-being of Germans during this period has also been noted by social historian Richard Grunberger. “There can be
little doubt,” he wrote, “that the [National Socialist] seizure of power engendered a wide-spread improvement
in emotional health; this was not only a result of the economic upswing, but of many Germans’ heightened sense of
identification with the national purpose.”
a dramatic upswing after it joined the German Reich in March 1938. Immediately following the Anschluss (“union”),
officials moved quickly to relieve social distress and revitalize the moribund economy. Investment, industrial production,
housing construction, consumer spending, tourism and the standard of living rose rapidly. Between June and December 1938
alone, the weekly income of Austria’s industrial workers rose by nine percent. The National Socialist regime’s
success in banishing unemployment was so rapid that American historian Evan Burr Bukey was moved to call it “one of
the most remarkable economic achievements in modern history.” The jobless rate in Austria dropped from 21.7 percent
in 1937 to 3.2 percent in 1939. The Austrian GNP rose 12.8 percent in 1938, and an astonishing 13.3 percent in 1939.
An important expression of national confidence was a sharp increase in the birth rate.
Within a year after Hitler came to power, the German birth rate jumped by 22 percent, rising to a high point in 1938. It
remained high even in 1944 -- the last full year of World War II. / 32 In the view of historian John Lukacs, this jump in
the birth rate was an expression of “the optimism and the confidence” of Germans during the Hitler years. “For
every two children born in Germany in 1932, three were born four years later,” he notes. “In 1938 and 1939, the
highest marriage rates in all of Europe were registered in Germany, superseding even those among the prolific peoples of
Eastern Europe. The phenomenal rise of the German birthrate in the thirties was even steeper than the rise of the marriage
rate.” / 33 “National Socialist Germany, alone among countries peopled by whites, succeeded in attaining some
increase in fertility,” notes the outstanding Scottish-born American historian Gordon A. Craig, with a sharp rise
in the birth rate after Hitler came to power, and a steady increase in the years that followed.
In a lengthy address to the Reichstag in early 1937, Hitler recalled the pledges he had
made when his government assumed power. He also explained the principles on which his policies were based, and looked back
at what had been accomplished in four years. / 35 “… Those who talk about `democracies’ and ‘dictatorships’,”
he said, “simply do not understand that a revolution has been carried out in this country, the results of which can
be considered democratic in the highest sense of the term, if democracy has any real meaning … The National Socialist
Revolution has not aimed at turning a privileged class into a class that will have no rights in the future. Its aim has
been to give equal rights to those who had no rights … Our objective has been to make it possible for the whole German
people to be active, not only in the economic but also in the political field, and to secure this by organizationally involving
the masses … During the past four years we have increased German production in all areas to an extraordinary degree.
And this increase in production has been to the benefit of all Germans.”
In another address two years later, Hitler spoke briefly about his regime’s economic achievement: / 36 “I
overcame chaos in Germany, restored order, enormously raised production in all fields of our national economy, by strenuous
efforts produced substitutes for numerous materials that we lack, encouraged new inventions, developed traffic, caused mighty
roads to be built and canals to be dug, called into being gigantic factories, and at the same time endeavored to further
the education and culture of our people for the development of our social community. I succeeded in finding useful work
once more for the whole of the seven million unemployed, who so touched all our hearts, in keeping the German farmer on
his soil in spite of all difficulties, and in saving the land itself for him, in restoring a prosperous German trade, and
in promoting traffic to the utmost.”
been claimed, even by some supposedly reputable scholars, that Hitler’s success in reviving his nation’s economic
life was based largely on government spending for rearmament and preparation for war. This is a myth. As the renowned British
historian A. J. P. Taylor noted: / 37 “Germany’s economic recovery, which was complete by 1936, did not rest
on rearmamnent; it was caused mainly by lavish expenditure on public works, particularly on motor roads, and this public
spending stimulated private spending also, as [British economist John Maynard] Keynes had said it would. Hitler actually
skimped on armaments, despite his boasting, partly because he wished to avoid the unpopularitiy which a reduction of the
German standard of living would cause, but more from the confident belief that he would always succeed in bluff. Thus, paradoxidcally,
while nearly eveeryone else in Europe expected a great war, Hitler was the one man who neither expected nor planned for it.”
American historian John Garraty compared the American and German responses to the Great
Depression in a much-discussed article published in the American Historical Review. He wrote: / 38 “The two movements
[that is, in the US and in Germany] nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of
other industrial nations. Of the two the Nazis were the more successful in curing the economic ills of the 1930s. They reduced
unemployment and stimulated industrial production faster than the Americans did and, considering their resources, handled
their monetary and trade problems more successfully, certainly more imaginatively. This was partly because the Nazis employed
deficit financing on a larger scale and partly because their totalitarian system better lent itself to the mobilization of
society, both by force and by persuasion. By 1936 the depression was substantially over in Germany, far from finished in
the United States.”
In fact, the jobless rate in the
United States remained high until the stimulation of large-scale war production took hold. Even as late as March 1940, the
US unemployment rate was still almost 15 percent of the work force. It was production for war, not Roosevelt’s “New
Deal’ programs, that finally brought full employment.
William Leuchtenburg, a prominent American historian known best for his books on the life and career of Franklin Roosevelt,
summed up the President’s mixed record in a highly acclaimed study. “The New Deal left many problems unsolved
and even created some perplexing new ones,” concluded Leuchtenburg. “It never demonstrated that it could achieve
prosperity in peacetime. As late as 1941, the unemployed still numbered six million, and not until the war year of 1943
did the army of jobless finally disappear.”
between the German and American economic records during the 1930s is all the more striking when one takes into account that
the US had vastly greater natural resource wealth, including large petroleum reserves, as well as a lower population density,
and no hostile, well-armed neighbors.
In an address given
in December 1941, Hitler himself compared the record of his government and that of President Roosevelt in dealing with the
challenge of the world economic crisis.
German Reich experienced an enormous improvement in social, economic, cultural and artistic life in just a few years under
National Socialist leadership,” he said, “President Roosevelt was not able to bring about even limited improvements
in his own country. This task should have been much easier in the United States, with barely 15 people per square kilometer,
as compared to 140 in Germany. If economic prosperity is not possible in that country, it must be the result of either a
lack of will by the ruling leadership or the complete incompetence of the men in charge. In just five years, the economic
problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was eliminated. During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously
increased his country's national debt, devalued the dollar, further disrupted the economy, and maintained the same number
In another major address given that
same year, Hitler compared the social-political-economic systems of the United States, the Soviet Union, and Germany. /
42 “We’ve now gotten to know two [social-political] extremes,” he said. “One is that of the Capitalist
states, which use lies, fraud and swindling to deny their peoples the most basic vital rights, and which are concerned entirely
with their own financial interests, for which they are ready to sacrifice millions of people. On the other hand we’ve
seen [in the Soviet Union] the Communist extreme: a state that’s brought unspeakable misery to millions and millions,
and which, following its doctrine, sacrifices the happiness of others. From this [awareness], in my view, there is for all
of us only one obligation, namely, to strive more than ever toward our national and socialist ideal … In this [German]
state the prevailing principle is not, as in Soviet Russia, the principle of so-called equality, but rather only the principle
Could Hitler’s economic policies
work in the United States? These policies are probably most workable in countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands,
with a well-educated, self-disciplined and ethnically-culturally cohesive population, and a traditionally strong “communitarian”
ethos with a correspondingly high level of social trust. Hitler’s economic policies are less applicable in the United
States and other societies with an ethnically-culturally diverse population, a markedly individualistic, “laissez-faire”
tradition, and a correspondingly weaker “communitarian” spirit.
David Lloyd George — who had been Britain’s prime minister during the First World War -- made an extensive
tour of Germany in late 1936. In an article published afterwards in a leading London newspaper, the British statesman recounted
what he had seen and experienced.
“Whatever one may
think of his [Hitler’s] methods,” wrote Lloyd George, “and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary
country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude
towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook.
rightly claimed at Nuremberg that in four years his movement had made a new Germany. It is not the Germany of the first decade
that followed the war — broken, dejected and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full
of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence
outside its own frontiers.
“There is for the first time
since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit
throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere, and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew Germany
well were very impressed with the change.”
great people,” the seasoned statesman went on to warn, “will work better, sacrifice more, and, if necessary,
fight with greater resolution because Hitler asks them to do so. Those who do not comprehend this central fact cannot judge
the present possibilities of modern Germany.”
prejudice and ignorance have hindered a wider awareness and understanding of Hitler’s economic policies and their impact,
his success in economic policy has been acknowledged by historians, including scholars who are generally very critical of
the German leader and his regime’s policies.
a Hungarian-born American historian whose books have generated much comment and praise, has written: “Hitler’s
achievements, domestic rather than foreign, during the six [peacetime] years of his leadership of Germany were extraordinary
… He brought prosperity and confidence to the Germans, the kind of prosperity that is the result of confidence. The
thirties, after 1933, were sunny years for most Germans; something that remained in the memories of an entire generation
Sebastian Haffner, an influential German
journalist and historian who was also a fierce critic of the Third Reich and its ideology, reviewed Hitler’s life
and legacy in a much-discussed book. Although his portrayal of the German leader in The Meaning of Hitler is a harsh one,
the author all the same writes:
“Among these positive
achievements of Hitler the one outshining all others was his economic miracle.” While the rest of the world was still
mired in the economic paralysis, Hitler had made “Germany an island of prosperity.” Within three years, Haffner
goes on, “crying need and mass hardship had generally turned into modest but comfortable prosperity. Almost equally
important: helplessness and hopelessness had given way to confidence and self-assurance. Even more miraculous was the fact
that the transition from depression to economic boom had been accomplished without inflation, at totally stable wages and
prices … It is difficult to picture adequately the grateful amazement with which the Germans reacted to that miracle,
which, more particularly, made vast numbers of German workers switch from the Social Democrats and the Communists to Hitler
after 1933. This grateful amazement entirely dominated the mood of the German masses during the 1936 to 1938 period …”
"The scale of the Nazi economic achievement should not be underestimated," concludes
Niall Ferguson, a Harvard University professor of history. "It was real and impressive. No other European economy achieved
such a rapid recovery ... To most people in 1930s Germany it seemed there had been an economic miracle. The Volksgemeinschaft
[national community] was more than mere rhetoric; it meant full employment, higher wages, stable prices, reduced poverty,
cheap radios (the Volksempfänger) and budget holidays. It is too easily forgotten that there were more holiday camps
than concentration camps in Germany between 1935 and 1939. Workers became better trained, farmers saw their incomes rise.
Nor were foreigners unimpressed by what was happening. American corporations including Standard Oil, General Motors and
IBM all rushed to invest directly in the German economy."
Fest, another prominent German journalist and historian, reviewed Hitler’s life in an acclaimed and comprehensive biography.
“If Hitler had succumbed to an assassination or an accident at the end of 1938,” he wrote, “few would
hesitate to call him one of the greatest of German statesmen, the consummator of Germany’s history.” “No
objective observer of the German scene could deny Hitler’s considerable exploits,” noted American historian
John Toland. “If Hitler had died in 1937 on the fourth anniversary of his coming to power … he undoubtedly would
have gone down as one of the greatest figures in German history. Throughout Europe he had millions of admirers.”
Mark Weber (Institute for Historical Review)
Click on this text to see WW2 From the Germans Point of View...
CORRECTION: IT TOOK THREE JEWISH CONTROLLED EMPIRES
King Edward VIII Wanted to Ally with Hitler and
Blamed “Jews and Reds” for WWII
The research, carried
out by UK-based German historian Karina Urbach, delved into the historical archives of 30 nations, including Germany, Spain
and Russia, revealing the fascist sympathies of many European aristocrats.
Writing for The Conversation website ahead of the release of her new book, Go-Betweens for Hitler, Urbach said Edward
VIII, who abdicated the throne in 1936 and became the Duke of Windsor, “has always been known for his pro-Nazi sympathies.”
She added: “However, the extent of his betrayal could never be fully verified
due to the secrecy of the Royal Archives.”
Archives have always ensured that letters from German relatives of the royal family in the run up to World War II remain
“Naturally, such censorship has led to endless conspiracy
However, over nearly a decade of painstaking
research in European archives, Urbach turned up vital evidence into the secret political lives of pro-fascist aristocrats.
“I have accumulated damning evidence by sifting through 30 archives all over
the world that are open,” Urbach wrote.
reports and German, Spanish and Russian documents show members of the British royal family were indeed far closer to Nazi
Germany than has previously been recognized.”
A key portion
of the research deals with the relationship between the Duke of Windsor and a trusted German relative, Charles Edward Duke
of Coburg – a bitterly anti-Semitic minor German aristocrat who acted as a messenger, it is claimed, between privileged
fascists around Europe.
Meetings between Coburg and British royals
are even listed in the Court Circular, a record of the British monarchy’s meetings and appointments.
Further evidence was found in the Spanish archives.
“In June 1940 Don Javier Bermejillo, a Spanish diplomat and old friend of Windsor – he
had known him since the 1920s – reported a conversation he had had with the Duke to his superiors,” Urbach said.
The diplomat says he had heard the embittered duke blame “the Jews, the Reds
and the Foreign Office” for the approaching war, long before it began.
Windsor wanted to put politicians, including Anthony Eden, “up against a wall,” Urbach claims.
Perhaps most troublingly, the records hint at a possible correlation between the
Duke’s fascist leanings and the start of the German bombing campaign against Britain.
“In another conversation on June 25, 1940,” Urbach writes, “Bermejillo reported
that Windsor stressed if one bombed England effectively this could bring peace.
“Bermejillo concluded that the Duke of Windsor seemed very much to hope that this would occur: ‘He
wants peace at any price.’”
The report found its way
into the hands of Spain’s own fascist dictator, General Franco, according to Urbach. It was “then passed on to
“The bombing of Britain started on 10
July,” she added.
Germany's enemies maintain today (1940) that Adolf Hitler is
the greatest disturber of peace known to history, that he threatens every nation with sudden attack and oppression.
That he has created
a terrible war machine in order to cause trouble and devastation all around him. At the same time they intentionally conceal
an all-important fact: they themselves drove the Leader of the German people finally to draw the sword.
compelled him to seek to obtain at last by the use of force that which he had been striving to gain by persuasion from the
beginning: the security of his country.
They did this not only by declaring war on him on September 3, 1939, but also by blocking step
for step for seven years the path to any peaceful discussion.
The attempts repeatedly made
by Adolf Hitler to induce the governments of other states to collaborate with him in a reconstruction of Europe resemble
an ever-recurring pattern in his conduct since the commencement of his labors for the German Reich. But these attempts were
wrecked every time by reason of the fact that nowhere was there any willingness to give them due consideration, because
the evil spirit of the Great War still prevailed everywhere, because in London and Paris and in the capitals of the Western
Powers' vassal states there was only one fixed intention: to perpetuate the power of Versailles.
A rapid glance at the most important events will furnish incontrovertible proof for this statement.
When Adolf Hitler came to the fore, Germany was as gagged and as helpless as the
victors of 1918 wanted her to be. Completely disarmed, with an army of only 100,000 men intended solely for police duties
within the country, she found herself within a tightly closed ring of neighbors all armed to the teeth and leagued together.
To the old enemies in the West, Britain, Belgium and France, new ones were artificially created and added in the East and
the South: above all Poland and Czechoslovakia. A quarter of the population of Germany were forcibly torn away from their
mother country and handed over to foreign powers. The Reich, mutilated on all sides and robbed of every means of defense,
at any moment could become the helpless victim of some rapacious neighbor.
Then it was that Adolf Hitler for the first time made his appeal to the common sense of the other powers. On May
17, 1933, a few months after his appointment to the office of Reichskanzler, he delivered a speech in the German Reichstag,
from which we extract the following passages:
will be perfectly ready to disband her entire military establishment and destroy the small amount of arms remaining to her,
if the neighboring countries will do the same thing with equal thoroughness.
... Germany is entirely ready to renounce aggressive weapons of every sort if the armed nations,
on their part, will destroy their aggressive weapons within a specified period, and if their use is forbidden by an international
... Germany is at all times prepared
to renounce offensive weapons if the rest of the world does the same. Germany is prepared to agree to any solemn pact of
non-aggression because she does not think of attacking anybody but only of acquiring security."
No answer was received.
Without paying any heed
the others continued to fill their arsenals with weapons, to pile up their stores of explosives, to increase the numbers
of their troops. At the same time the League of Nations, the instrument of the victorious powers, declared that Germany
must first pass through a period of "probation" before it would be possible to discuss with her the question of
the disarmament of the other countries. On October 14, 1933, Hitler broke away from this League of Nations with which it
was impossible to come to any agreement. Shortly afterwards, however, on December 18, 1933, he came forward with a new proposal
for the improvement of international relations. This proposal included the following six points:
"1. Germany receives full equality of rights.
2. The fully armed States undertake amongst themselves not to increase their armaments
beyond their present level.
3. Germany adheres
to this agreement, freely undertaking to make only so much actual moderate use of the equality of rights granted to her as
will not represent a threat to the security of any other European power.
4. All States recognize certain obligations in regard to conducting war on humane principles, or to
the elimination of certain weapons for use against the civilian population.
5. All States accept a uniform general control which will watch over and ensure the observance
of these obligations.
6. The European nations guarantee
one another the unconditional maintenance of peace by the conclusion of non-aggression pacts, to be renewed after ten years."
Following upon this a proposal was made to increase the strength of the German
army to 300,000 men, corresponding to the strength required by Germany "having regard to the length of her frontiers
and the size of the armies of her neighbors", in order to protect her threatened territory against attacks. The defender
of the principle of peaceable agreement was thus trying to accommodate himself to the unwillingness of the others to disarm
by expressing a desire for a limited increase of armaments for his own country. An exchange of notes, starting from this
and continuing for years, finally came to a sudden end with an unequivocal "no" from France. This "no"
was moreover accompanied by tremendous increases in the armed forces of France, Britain and Russia.
In this way Germany's position became still worse than before. The danger to the Reich was so
great that Adolf Hitler felt himself compelled to act. On March 16, 1935, he reintroduced conscription. But in direct connection
with this measure he once more announced an offer of agreements of an extensive nature, the purpose of which was to ensure
that any future war would be conducted on humane principles, in fact to make such a war practically impossible by eliminating
destructive armaments. In his speech of May 21, 1935, he declared:
"The German Government is ready to take an active part in all efforts which may lead to a practical limitation of armaments.
It regards a return to the former idea of the Geneva Red Cross Convention as the only possible way to achieve this. It believes
that at first there will be only the possibility of a gradual abolition and outlawry of weapons and methods of warfare which
are essentially contrary to the Geneva Red Cross Convention which is still valid.
Just as the use of dumdum bullets was once forbidden and, on the whole, thereby prevented in
practice, so the use of other definite arms should be forbidden and prevented. Here the German Govern-  ment has in mind
all those arms which bring death and destruction not so much to the fighting soldiers as to non-combatant women and children.
The German Government considers as erroneous and ineffective
the idea to do away with aeroplanes while leaving the question of bombing open. But it believes it possible to proscribe
the use of certain arms as contrary to international law and to excommunicate those nations which still use them from the
community of mankind, its rights and its laws.
It also believes that gradual progress is the best way to success. For example, there might be prohibition of the dropping
of gas, incendiary and explosive bombs outside the real battle zone. This limitation could then be extended to complete
international outlawry of all bombing. But so long as bombing as such is permitted, any limitation of the number of bombing
planes is questionable in view of the possibility of rapid substitution.
Should bombing as such be branded as a barbarity contrary to international law, the construction of
bombing aeroplanes will soon be abandoned as superfluous and of no purpose. If, through the Geneva Red Cross Convention,
it turned out possible as a matter of fact to prevent the killing of a defenseless wounded man or prisoner, it ought to
be equally possible to forbid, by an analogous convention, and finally to stop, the bombing of equally defenseless civilian
In such a fundamental way of dealing
with the problem, Germany sees a greater reassurance and security for the nations than in all pacts of assistance and military
The German Government is ready to
agree to any limitation which leads to abolition of the heaviest arms, especially suited for aggression. Such are, first,
the heaviest artillery, and, secondly, the heaviest tanks. In view of the enormous fortifications on the French frontier
such international abolition of the heaviest weapons of attack would ipso facto give France 100 per cent security.
Germany declares herself ready to agree to any limitation whatsoever
of the calibre-strength of artillery, battleships, cruisers and torpedo boats. In like manner the German Government is ready
to accept any international limitation of the size of warships. And finally it is ready to agree to limitation of tonnage
for submarines, or to their complete abolition in case of international agreement.
 And it gives the further assurance that it will agree to any international limitation or
abolition of arms whatsoever for a uniform space of time."
time again Hitler's declarations did not find the slightest response. On the contrary, France made an alliance with Russia
in order to increase her preponderating influence on the Continent still further, and to augment to a gigantic degree the
pressure on Germany from the East.
In view of the evident destructive
intentions of his opponents, Adolf Hitler was therefore obliged to take new measures to ensure the safety of the German Reich.
On March 3, 1936, he occupied the Rhineland, which had been without military protection since Versailles, and thus closed
the wide gate through which the Western neighbor could carry out an invasion. Once again he followed the defensive step
which he had been obliged to take with a liberal appeal for general reconciliation and for the settlement of all differences.
On March 31, 1936, he formulated the following peace plan:
"1. In order to give to future agreements securing the peace of Europe the character of inviolable treaties, those nations
participating in the negotiations do so only on an entirely equal footing and as equally esteemed members. The sole compelling
reason for signing these treaties can only lie in the generally recognized and obvious practicability of these agreements
for the peace of Europe, and thus for the social happiness and economic prosperity of the nations.
2. In order to shorten in the economic interest of the European nations the period
of uncertainty, the German Government proposes a limit of four months for the first period up to the signing of the pacts
of non-aggression guaranteeing the peace of Europe.
3. The German Government gives the assurance not to add any reinforcements whatsoever to the troops in the Rhineland during
this period, always provided that the Belgian and French Governments act in the same way.
4. The German Government gives the assurance not to move during this period closer
to the Belgian and French frontiers the troops at present stationed in the Rhineland.
5. The German Government proposes the setting up of a commission composed of the two guarantor
Powers, Britain and Italy, and a disinterested third neutral power, to guarantee this assurance to be given by both parties.
6. Germany, Belgium and France are each entitled to send a representative
to this Commission. If Germany, France or Belgium think that for any particular reason they can point to a change in the
military situation having taken place within this period of four months, they have the right to inform the Guarantee Commission
of their observations.
7. Germany, Belgium and
France declare their willingness in such a case to permit this Commission to make the necessary investigations through the
British and Italian military attaches, and to report thereon to the Powers participating.
8. Germany, Belgium and France give the assurance that they will bestow the fullest
consideration to the objections arising therefrom.
9. Moreover the German Government is willing on a basis of complete reciprocity with Germany's two western neighbors to
agree to any military limitations on the German western frontier.
10. Germany, Belgium and France and the two guarantor Powers agree to enter into negotiations under the leadership of the
British Government at once or, at the latest, after the French elections, for the conclusion of a 25-years non-aggression
or security pact between France and Belgium on the one hand, and Germany on the other.
11. Germany agrees that Britain and Italy shall sign this security pact as guarantor
Powers once more.
12. Should special engagements
to render military assistance arise as a result of these security agreements, Germany on her part declares her willingness
to enter into such engagements.
13. The German
Government hereby repeats its proposal for the conclusion of an air-pact to supplement and consolidate these security agreements.
14. The German Government repeats that should the Netherlands
so desire it is willing to include that country too in this West-European security agreement.
15. In order to stamp this peace-pact, voluntarily entered into between Germany and France,
as the reconciliatory conclusion of a centuries-old dispute, Germany and France pledge themselves to take steps to see that
in the education of the young, as well as in the press and publications of both nations, everything shall be avoided which
might be calculated to poison the relationship between the two  peoples, whether it be a derogatory or contemptuous attitude,
or improper interference in the internal affairs of the other country. They agree to set up at the headquarters of the League
of Nations at Geneva, a joint commission whose function it shall be to lay all complaints received before the two Governments
for information and investigation.
16. In pursuance
of their intention to give this agreement the character of a sacred pledge, Germany and France undertake to ratify it by
means of a plebiscite of the two nations.
expresses her willingness, on her part, to establish contact with the states on her south-eastern and north-eastern frontiers,
in order to invite them directly to conclude the pacts of non-aggression already proposed.
18. Germany expresses her willingness to re-enter the League of Nations, either at
once, or after the conclusion of these agreements. At the same time, the German Government again expresses as its expectation
that, after a reasonable time and by the method of friendly negotiations, the question of colonial equality of rights and
that of the separation of the Covenant of the League of Nations from its foundations in the Versailles Treaty will be cleared
19. Germany proposes the setting up of an International
Court of Arbitration, which shall be responsible for the observance of the various agreements concluded, and whose decisions
shall be binding on all parties.
After the conclusion
of this great work of securing European peace, the German Government considers it urgently necessary to endeavor by practical
measures to put a stop to the unlimited competition in armaments. In her opinion this would mean not merely an improvement
in the financial and economic position of the nations, but above all a diminution of the psychological tension.
The German Government, however, has no faith in the attempt
to bring about universal settlements, as this would be doomed to failure from the outset, and can therefore be proposed
only by those who have no interest in achieving practical results. On the other hand it is of the opinion that the negotiations
held and the results achieved in limiting naval armaments should have an instructive and stimulating effect.
The German Government therefore proposes that future conferences
shall have one clearly defined objective.
For the present, it
believes the most important task is to bring aerial warfare into the moral and humane atmosphere of the protection afforded
to non-combatants or the wounded by the Geneva Convention. Just as the killing of defenseless wounded, or prisoners, or the
use of dumdum bullets, or the waging of submarine warfare without warning, have been either forbidden or regulated by international
conventions, so it must be possible for civilized humanity to prevent the senseless abuse of any new type of weapon, without
running counter to the object of warfare.
Government therefore puts forward the proposal that the immediate practical tasks of this conference shall be:
1. Prohibition of dropping gas, poison, or incendiary bombs.
2. Prohibition of dropping bombs of any kind whatsoever on open
towns and villages outside the range of the medium-heavy artillery of the fighting fronts.
3. Prohibition of the bombarding with long-range guns of towns more than 20 km. distant
from the battle zone.
4. Abolition and prohibition
of the construction of tanks of the heaviest type.
5. Abolition and prohibition of artillery of the heaviest calibre.
As soon as possibilities for further limitation of armaments emerge from such discussions and agreements, they should be
The German Government hereby declares
itself prepared to join in every such settlement, in so far as it is valid internationally.
The German Government believes that if even a first step is made on the road to
disarmament, this will be of enormous importance to the relationship between the nations, and to the recovery of confidence,
trade and prosperity.
In accordance with the general
desire for the restoration of favorable economic conditions, the German Government is prepared immediately after the conclusion
of the political treaties to enter into an exchange of opinions on economic problems with the other nations concerned, in
the spirit of the proposals made, and to do all that lies in its power to improve the economic situation in Europe, and
the world economic situation which is closely bound up with it.
German Government believes that with the peace plan proposed above it has made its contribution to the reconstruction of
a new Europe on the basis of reciprocal respect and confidence between sovereign states. Many opportunities for such a pacification
of Europe, for which Germany has so often in the last few years made her proposals, have been neglected. May this attempt
to achieve European understanding succeed at last!
The German Government confidently believes that it has opened the way in this direction by submitting the above peace plan."
Anyone who today reads this comprehensive peace plan will realize in what direction
the development of Europe, according to the wishes of Adolf Hitler, should really have proceeded. Here was the possibility
of truly constructive work, this could have been a real turning-point for the welfare of all nations. But once more he who
alone called for peace was not heard. Only Britain replied with a rather scornful questionnaire which avoided any serious
consideration of the essential points involved. Incidentally, however, she disclosed her actual intentions by setting herself
up as the protector of France and by instituting and commencing regular military staff conversations with the French Republic
just as in the period before the Great War.
There could no
longer be any doubt now that the Western Powers were following the old path towards an armed conflict and were steadily preparing
a new blow against Germany, although Adolf Hitler's whole thoughts and endeavors were directed towards proving to them that
he wanted to remain on the best possible terms with them. In the course of the years he had undertaken numerous steps in
this direction, of which a few more shall be referred to here. He negotiated the Naval Agreement of June 18, 1935 with Great
Britain, which provided that the German Navy should only have a strength of 35% of that of the British Navy. By this he wanted
to demonstrate that the Reich, to use his own words, had "neither the intention nor the means, nor was it necessary"
to enter into any rivalry as regards naval power, such as had had so fateful an influence on its relations to Great Britain
in the well-remembered days before the Great War.
He assured France
on every possible occasion of his desire to live at peace with her. He repeatedly renounced in plain terms any claim to
Alsace-Lorraine. On the return to the Reich of the Saar territory as the result of the plebiscite, he declared on March 1,
"It is our hope that through this act of just compensation,
in which we see a return to natural reason, relations between Germany and France have permanently improved. Therefore as
we desire peace, we must hope that our great neighbor is ready and willing to seek peace with us. It must be possible for
two great people to join together and collaborate in opposing the difficulties which threaten to overwhelm Europe."
He even endeavored to arrive at a better understanding with Poland, the eastern
ally of the Western Powers, although this country had unlawfully incorporated millions of Germans in 1919 and had subjected
them to the worst oppression ever since. On January 26, 1934, he concluded a non-aggression pact with her in which the two
Governments agreed "to settle directly all questions of whatever sort which concern their mutual relations."
Thus on all sides he opposed to the enemy plans his determination to preserve peace
and strove to protect Germany in this way. When however he saw that London and Paris were arming for attack, he was once
more obliged to undertake fresh measures of defense. The enemy camp, as we have seen above, had been enormously extended
through the alliance between France and Russia. In addition to this the two powers had secured a line of communication to
the south of the Reich through Czechoslovakia having concluded a treaty with Russia which put her in the position of a bridge
between east and west. Czechoslovakia, however, was in control of the high-lying country of Bohemia and Moravia, which Bismarck
had called the citadel of Europe, and this citadel projected far into German territory. The threat to Germany thus assumed
truly overpowering proportions.
The genius of Adolf Hitler found a way of meeting this danger. The conditions in German Austria, which under the
terror of the Schuschnigg Government were tending towards civil war, offered him the opportunity of stepping in to save
the situation, and to lead back into the Reich the sister nation to the south-east that had been sentenced by the victorious
powers to lead the life of a hopelessly decaying "Free State". After he had thus established himself near the
line of communication between France and Russia mentioned above, a process of dissolution set in in the mixed State of Czechoslovakia,
which had been artificially put together from the most diverse national elements, until after the liberation of the Sudetenland
and the secession of Slovakia, the Czechs themselves asked for the protection of the German Reich. With this the enemy's
bridge came into Adolf Hitler's possession; and at the same time direct connection was made possible with Italy, whose friendship
had been secured some time previously.
While he was gaining this
strategical success for the security of his country, Adolf Hitler was again endeavoring with great eagerness to reach a peaceable
understanding with the Western Powers. In Munich directly after liberation of the Sudeten Germans, approved by Britain,
France and Italy, he made an agreement with the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, the text of which was a follows:
"We have had a further meeting to-day and have agreed in
recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for the two countries and for Europe.
We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German
Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.
We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal
with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible
sources of difference and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."
September 30, 1938. Adolf
Hitler, Neville Chamberlain."
Two months later, on Hitler's instructions, the German Foreign Minister,
von Ribbentrop, made the following agreement with France:
"Herr Joachim von Ribbentrop, Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs,
and M. Georges Bonnet, French Minister of Foreign Affairs,
in the name and by order of their Governments, are, at their meeting in Paris, on December 6, 1938, agreed as follows:
1. The German Government and the French Government fully share
the conviction that peaceful and good-neighborly relations between Germany and France constitute one of the most essential
elements for the consolidation of the situation in Europe and the maintenance of general peace. The two Governments will
in consequence use all their efforts to ensure the development of the relations between their countries in this direction.
 2. The two Governments recognize that between the two countries
there is no territorial question outstanding, and they solemnly recognize as final the frontiers between their countries
as they now exist.
3. The two Governments are resolved,
while leaving unaffected their particular relations with other Powers, to remain in contact with regard to all questions
concerning their two countries, and mutually to consult should the later evolution of those questions lead to international
In token whereof the representatives
of the two Governments have signed the present Declaration, which comes into immediate effect.
Done in two original Documents in the French and German language respectively, in
Paris, December 6, 1938.
Joachim von Ribbentrop,
Minister for Foreign Affairs
According to all calculations one should have
been able to assume that the way was clear for collaborative reconstruction in which all leading powers would participate,
and that the Fuehrer's endeavors to secure peace would at last meet with success. But the contrary was true. Scarcely had
Chamberlain reached home when he called for rearmament on a considerable scale and laid plans for a new and tremendous encirclement
of Germany. Britain now took over from France the leadership of this further encirclement of the Reich, in order to obtain
a substitute for the lost Czechoslovakia many times its value. She opened negotiations with Russia, granted Poland a guarantee
and also Rumania, Greece and Turkey. These were alarm signals of the greatest urgency.
Just at this time Adolf Hitler was occupied with the task of finally eliminating sources of friction
with Poland. For this purpose he had made an uncommonly generous proposal by which the purely German Free City of Danzig
would return to the Reich, and a narrow passage through the Polish Corridor, which since 1919 had torn asunder the north-eastern
part of Germany to an unbearable extent, would provide communication with the separated area. This proposal, which moreover
afforded Poland the prospect of a 25-year non-aggression pact and other advantages, was nevertheless rejected in Warsaw,
because there it was believed, conscious as the authorities were of forming one of the principal members of the common 
front set up by London against Germany, that any concession, however minor, could be refused. This was not all! With the
same consciousness Poland then started to be aggressive, threatened Danzig, and prepared to take up arms against Germany.
Thus the moment was close at hand for the attack on the Reich by the countries
which had been brought together for the purpose. Adolf Hitler, making a final extreme effort in the interests of peace,
saved what he could. On August 23rd, Ribbentrop succeeded in reaching an agreement in Moscow for a non-aggression pact with
Russia. Two days later the German Fuehrer himself made a final and truly remarkable offer to Britain, declaring himself
ready "to enter into agreements with Great Britain", "which... would not only, on the German side, in any
case safeguard the existence of the British Empire, but if necessary would guarantee German assistance for the British Empire,
irrespective of where such assistance might be required". At the same time he was prepared "to accept a reasonable
limitation of armaments, in accordance with the new political situation and economic requirements". And finally he assured
once again that he had no interest in the issues in the west and that "a correction of the borders in the west are
out of any consideration."
The reply to this was a pact of assistance
signed the same day between Britain and Poland, which rendered the outbreak of war inevitable. Then a decision was made
in Warsaw to mobilize at once against Germany, and the Poles began with violent attacks not only on the Germans in Poland,
who for some time had been the victims of frightful massacres, but on Germans in German territory.
But even when Britain and France had already declared the war they desired, and Germany had overcome
the Polish danger in the east by a glorious campaign without a parallel, even then Adolf Hitler raised his voice once more
in the name of peace. He did so although his hands were now free to act against the enemy in the west. He did so, although
the fight against him personally was proclaimed in London and Paris, in immeasurable hate, as a crusade. At this moment
he possessed the supreme self-control to proclaim in his speech of October 6, 1939, a new plan for the pacification of Europe
to public opinion throughout the world. This plan was as follows:
"By far the most important task, in my opinion, is the creation of not only a belief in, but also a sense of, European
1. For this it is necessary that the aims of the foreign
policy of each European State should be made perfectly clear. As far as Germany is concerned, the Reich Government is ready
to give a thorough and exhaustive exposition of the aims of its foreign policy. In so doing, it begins by stating that the
Treaty of Versailles is now regarded by it as obsolete, in other words, that the Government of the German Reich and with
it the whole German people no longer see cause or reason for any further revision of the Treaty, apart from the demand for
adequate colonial possessions justly due to the Reich, involving in the first place a return of the German colonies. This
demand for colonies is based not only on Germany's historical claim to her colonies, but above all on her elementary right
to a share of the world's resources of raw materials. This demand does not take the form of an ultimatum, nor is it a demand
which is backed by force, but a demand based on political justice and sane economic principles.
2. The demand for a real revival of international economic life coupled with an extension
of trade and commerce presupposes a reorganization of the international economic system, in other words, of production in
the individual states. In order to facilitate the exchange of the goods thus produced, however, a new system of markets
must be found and a final settlement of currencies arrived at, so that the obstacles in the way of unrestricted trade can
be gradually removed.
3. The most important condition,
however, for a real revival of economic life in and outside of Europe is the establishment of an unconditionally guaranteed
peace and of a sense of security on the part of the individual nations. This security will not only be rendered possible
by the final sanctioning of the European status, but above all by the reduction of armaments to a reasonable and economically
tolerable level. An essential part of this necessary sense of security, however, is a clear definition of the legitimate
use and application of certain modern armaments which can at any given moment strike straight at the heart of every nation
and hence create a permanent sense of insecurity. In my previous speeches in the Reichstag I made proposals with this end
in view. At that time they were rejected - presumably for the simple reason that they were made by me.
I believe, however, that a sense of national security will not return to Europe
until clear and binding international agreements have provided a comprehensive definition of the extent to which the
use of certain weapons is permitted or forbidden.
The Geneva Convention once succeeded in prohibiting, in civilized countries at least, the killing of wounded, the ill-treatment
of prisoners, war against non-combatants, etc., and just as it was possible gradually to achieve the universal observance
of this statute, a way ought surely to be found to regulate aerial warfare, the use of poison gas, of submarines etc., and
also so to define contraband that war will lose its terrible character of a conflict waged against women and children and
against non-combatants in general. The growing horror of certain methods of modern warfare will of its own accord lead to
their abolition, and thus they will become obsolete.
In the war with Poland, I endeavored to restrict aerial warfare to objectives of military importance, or only to employ
it to combat resistance at a given point. But it must surely be possible to emulate the Red Cross in drawing up some universally
valid international regulation. It is only when this is achieved that peace can reign, particularly on our densely populated
continent a peace which, un-contaminated by suspicion and fear, will provide the only possible condition for real economic
prosperity. I do not believe that there is any responsible statesman in Europe who does not in his heart desire prosperity
for his people. But such a desire can only be realized if all the nations inhabiting this continent decide to work together.
To assist in ensuring this co-operation must be the aim of every man who is sincerely struggling for the future of his own
To achieve this great end, the leading
nations on this continent will one day have to come together in order to draw up, accept and guarantee a statute on a comprehensive
basis which will ensure for them a sense of security, of calm, - in short, of peace.
Such a conference could not possibly be held without the most thorough preparation, i. e. without
exact elucidation of every point at issue. It is equally impossible that such a conference, which would determine the fate
of this continent for many years to come, could carry on its deliberations while cannons are thundering, or mobilized armies
bringing pressure to bear upon it. Since, however, these problems must be solved sooner or later, it would surely be more
sensible to tackle the solution before millions of men are first uselessly sent to their death, and billions of dollars'
worth of property destroyed.
The continuation of
the present state of affairs in the west is unthinkable. Each day will soon demand increasing sacrifices. Perhaps the day
will come when France will begin to bombard and demolish Saarbrücken. The German artillery will in turn lay Mühlhausen
in ruins. France will retaliate by bombarding Karlsruhe, and  Germany in her turn shell Strassburg. Then the French
artillery will fire at Freiburg, and the Germans at Kolmar or Schlettstadt. Long-range artillery will then be set up, and
from both sides destruction will strike deeper and deeper, and whatever cannot be reached by the long-range artillery will
be destroyed from the air. And that will be very interesting for certain international journalists, and very profitable
for the aeroplane, arms, and munition manufacturers, etc., but appalling for the victims. And this battle of destruction
will not be confined to the land. No, it will reach far out over the sea. To-day there are no longer any islands.
And the national wealth of Europe will be scattered in the form
of shells, and the vigor of every nation will be sapped on the battlefields. One day, however, there will again be a frontier
between Germany and France, but instead of flourishing towns there will be ruins and endless graveyards."
The fate of this plan was the same as that of all the previous appeals made by
Adolf Hitler in the name of reason, in the interests of a true renascence of Europe. His enemies paid him no heed. On this
occasion also no response was forthcoming from them. They rigidly adhered to the attitude which they had taken up in the
In the face of this series of historical facts is there
any need for further details as to the question of why they did so? They had created Versailles, and when Versailles threatened
to collapse they wanted the war, in order to follow it with an even worse Versailles. The reproaches which they make today
to Adolf Hitler and Germany, recoil one and all on those who make them, and characterize their actions. They are the disturbers
of peace, they are the ones who meditate the forcible oppression of other peoples and seek to plunge Europe in devastation
and disaster. If if were not so, they would long ago have taken the hand that was stretched out to them or at least have
made a gesture of honestly wishing to cooperate in a new order, and thus spare the nations "blood, tears and sweat"
World history is the world court; and in this case as always
when it reaches its decision it will pronounce a just verdict.
Dr. Friedrich Stieve
Published in 1940 by the Washington Journal under the auspices of the Deutsche Informationsstelle.
Far-Reaching Offer of Peace to Britain: Behind the Hess Flight
journey to Britain by fighter aircraft to Scotland has traditionally been dismissed as the deranged solo mission of a madman.
But Peter Padfield, an historian, has uncovered evidence he says shows that, Hess, the deputy Fuhrer, brought with him
from Hitler a detailed peace treaty, under which the Nazis would withdraw from western Europe, in exchange for British
neutrality over the imminent attack on Russia ... Mr Padfield, who has previously written a biography of Hess as well
as ones of Karl Dönitz and Heinrich Himmler, believes the treaty was suppressed at the time, because it would have
scuppered Churchill's efforts to get the USA into the war, destroyed his coalition of exiled European governments, and
weakened his position domestically ...
Click on this text to see what Hitler attempted to dismantle...The Murderously Evil Jewish Oligarchy
Click on this text to see the NSDAP Transfer Agreement or HAAVARA designed to empty Jews out of Germany and transfer them
SEE Rabbi Waton's book: A Program FOR THE JEWS An Answer TO ALL ANTI-SEMITES A PROGRAM FOR HUMANITY BY HARRY WATON
Once anyone fully realizes that they have been incessantly lied to and have been played
the fool by Jews, they think it all through and then realize that EVERYTHING we were told about Adolf Hitler, the Nationalsozialistische
Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) and Germany leading up to and during WWII are the biggest lies of all, and...
The only thing worse than being played the fool is remaining a fool.
INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW
Fraudulent "Nazi" Quotations ...By Mark Weber
Fraudulent quotations attributed to Hitler and other
Third Reich leaders have been widely circulated for years. Such quotes are often used by polemicists — of both the
left and the right — to discredit their ideological adversaries by showing that Nazis held similar views. This
tactic works because people have been educated to believe that anything Hitler and other Nazi leaders thought or said was
malevolent, wrong-headed or evil, and that no reasonable or ethical person could hold similar views.
look at a few of the many remarks falsely attributed to Hitler and other top Nazis.
is the Enemy of the State'
Hitler's propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, supposedly said:
you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only
for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It
thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy
of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
Rush Limbaugh, the popular
American radio commentator, is just one of the many influential Americans who has cited this quotation. During a May 2007
radio broadcast he claimed that these remarks are "from Hitler's war room, the Nazi spinmeister-in-chief, Joseph Goebbels,"
who was "speaking for his cronies in the Nazi party." Limbaugh went on to claim that American "Democrat Party"
leaders were using "a version" of Goebbels' technique to try to "repress dissent." And in January 2011
US Congressman Steve Cohen, a Democratic party politician of Tennessee, accused Republicans of propagating "a big lie,
just like Goebbels" about a proposed national health care plan.
In fact, Goebbels' views were quite different
than what this fraudulent quote suggests. He consistently held that propaganda should be accurate and truthful.
In an address given in September 1934 in Nuremberg, he said: "Good propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may
not lie. It has no reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that people cannot take the truth. They can. It is
only a matter of presenting the truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A propaganda that lies proves
that it has a bad cause. It cannot be successful in the long run."
In an article written in 1941, he cited
examples of false British wartime claims, and went on to charge that British propagandists had adopted the "big lie"
technique that Hitler had identified and condemned in his book Mein Kampf. Goebbels wrote: "The English follow the
principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking
Hitler and Gun Control
In a speech, sometimes said to have
been delivered in 1935, Hitler is supposed to have exclaimed: "This year will go down in history! For the first time,
a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow
our lead into the future!"
This quote has been popular with Americans who defend the constitutional right
to "keep and bear arms." It's cited to discredit those who support restrictions on firearms ownership and use.
It's also cited to support the often-made charge that Hitler and his government curtailed gun ownership in Germany, and confiscated
weapons held by private citizens.
The truth is rather different. When Hitler and his National Socialist Party
took power in early 1933, they inherited a somewhat restrictive firearms law that the liberal-democratic "Weimar"
government had enacted five years earlier. In 1938 Hitler's government revised the earlier law by loosening those restrictions,
thereby enhancing the rights of Germans to own weapons. The most thorough confiscation of firearms ever imposed on Germans
was carried out at the end of the Second World War by the occupation forces of the United States and other victorious Allied
Hitler on 'Law and Order'
Hitler is supposed to have said during a speech
in 1932, shortly before he became Chancellor:
"The streets of our cities are in turmoil. The universities
are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us
with her might and the Republic is in danger. Yes, danger from within and without. We need law and order! Yes, without law
and order our nation cannot survive ... Elect us and we shall restore law and order. We shall, by law and order, be respected
among the nations of the world. Without law and order our Republic shall fail."
This quotation, which is
meant to embarrass and discredit those who support "law and order," was especially popular with younger Americans
during the late 1960s and early 1970s. It appeared on posters and in the 1971 movie "Billy Jack."
his many election campaign speeches in 1932 Hitler stressed the themes of justice, freedom, jobs and national unity —
not "law and order." German universities in 1932 were not "filled with students rebelling and rioting."
In fact, German students were among the most fervent supporters of Hitler and his National Socialist movement.
Goering on Culture
Hermann Goering, a high-ranking Third Reich official, is often quoted
as having said: "Whenever I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver." Reichsmarschall Goering (Göring),
who was commander of Germany's air force, would never have said anything like this. Along with other high-level Third Reich
leaders, he esteemed the arts, and prided himself on his appreciation of culture.
This quote is a distortion of
a line by a character in the play Schlageter by German writer Hanns Johst. The original line (translated) is "When
I hear [the word] culture ... I release the safety on my Browning!" A version of this quote is presented in a staged
scene in "Why We Fight," a US government wartime propaganda film, to suggest that the typical "Nazi"
was an uncultured thug.
Hitler and Conscience
"I am liberating man from
the degrading chimera known as conscience," Hitler is supposed to have said. This widely repeated quote appears, for
example, in The Great Quotations, a supposedly authoritative collection compiled by Jewish American journalist and author
George Seldes. It's a version of a remark attributed to Hitler by Hermann Rauschning in his book, The Voice of Destruction
(Conversations with Hitler), which is a source of many fraudulent quotations supposedly based on private talks with Hitler
that, in fact, never took place.
The "original" text of this quote, as presented by Rauschning, is:
"Providence has ordained that I should be the greatest liberator of humanity. I am freeing men from the restraints
of an intelligence that has taken charge; from the dirty and degrading self-mortifications of a chimera called conscience
and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and personal independence which only a very few can bear."
In fact, Hitler repeatedly emphasized the importance of acting conscientiously. For example, in at least three different
public statements or speeches 1941 alone, he spoke about acting in accord with his conscience. Rudolf Hess, a close friend
and trusted colleague, once said that his devotion to Hitler was based in large measure on his regard for Hitler's resolute
conscience. In a 1934 speech Hess said: "The conscience of a moral personality is a far greater protection against
the misuse of an office than is the supervision of parliament or the separation of powers. I know no one who has a stronger
conscience, or is more true to his people, than Adolf Hitler ... The Führer's highest court is his conscience and his
responsibility to his people and to history."
Hitler: 'Destroy By All Means'
The US government propaganda film, "Why We Fight," quotes Hitler as having said: "My motto is 'Destroy
by all and any means. National Socialism will reshape the world'." This is a version of a remark attributed to Hitler
by Hermann Rauschning in his influential book. The "original" text, as presented by Rauschning, is: "I want
war. To me all means will be right ... My motto is not 'Don't, whatever you do, annoy the enemy!' My motto is 'Destroy him
by all and any means.' I am the one who will wage the war!" Another version of this invented remark appears in the
book Hitler and Nazism (1961), by historian Louis Leo Snyder, who was a professor at City College of New York.
Hitler on Terrorism
Hitler has often been quoted as saying: "Terrorism is the best political
weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." This quote is based on two invented remarks in
Hermann Rauschning's mendacious book, The Voice of Destruction.
Hitler: 'We Are Barbarians'
Hitler has often been quoted as saying: "They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians.
We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end."
This is another fraudulent Hitler quote from the fanciful work of Hermann Rauschning.
and 'Brutal Youth'
"A violently active, dominating, intrepid, brutal youth — that is what I
am after ... I want to see in its eyes the gleam of pride and independence, of prey. I will have no intellectual training.
Knowledge is the ruin of my young men." This widely cited remark is included, for example, in George Seldes' The Great
Quotations. The source cited by Seldes is an item in The Nation by the popular American journalist and author John Gunther
In fact, this is a version of a remark attributed to Hitler by Hermann Rauschning, whose imaginative
work is a source of many phony "quotes." Another fraudulent Hitler remark in this same spirit and from this same
source, likewise cited by the supposedly authoritative Seldes, is this: "Universal education is the most corroding
and disintegrating poison that liberalism ever invented for its own destruction."
These remarks misrepresent
Hitler's real views. In fact, National Socialist Germany was a world leader in science, learning, technology and medicine.
Hitler was admired by some of the leading intellectuals of the age, including Knut Hamsun, Ezra Pound, Louis-Ferdinand Celine
and Martin Heidegger.
References / For Further Reading
Randall Bytwerk, "False
Nazi Quotations" (http://bytwerk.com/gpa/falsenaziquotations.htm)
Paul F. Boller, Jr. and John George, They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading
Attributions (New York: Oxford, 1989).
Joseph Goebbels, "From Churchill's Factory of Lies," ("Aus
Churchills Lügenfabrik"), January 1941. Reprinted in Zeit ohne Beispiel (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb29.htm) (1941)
Joseph Goebbels, "Propaganda" (Nuremberg: 1934)
William L. Pierce, Gun Control in Germany 1928-1945 (1994)
John Toland, Adolf Hitler (1976)
Mark Weber, "Goebbels and World War II Propaganda," 2011
Mark Weber, "Goebbels' Place in History," The Journal of Historical Review, 1995.
Mark Weber, "Hitler as 'Enlightenment Intellectual': The Enduring Allure of Hitlerism," 1997
Mark Weber, "Rauschning's Phony 'Conversations With Hitler': An Update," 1985
Click on this text to Learn the Truth about WW2 - Living in Hitler's Germany.....
THE IDIOTIC MYTH OF 'DEUTSCHLAND UBER ALLES'
The big bad baby Hitler hadn't even
born yet when the lyric "Deutschland uber alles" was coined. In fact, Hitler's mom, Klara, hadn't been born either!
Additionally, the phrase "Deutschland uber alles" - (Germany above all things), is always,
and I mean always, presented out-of-context, as if to suggest that the Germans were boasting of their superiority to all
other peoples. The following line of the song clarifies and confirms that the anthem, far from being a song about conquest,
was actually about the unified defense of the small German states which, historically, have been relentlessly attacked by
Romans, Huns, Mongols and, most relevant to the song, the French. Here is the full translation of the harmless and beautiful
song of national defense and brotherhood:
1. Germany, Germany above all * (Deutschland uber
Above everything in the world * (in terms of love for Germany)
always, for protection and defense
Brothers stand together.
Maas to the Memel
From the Etsch to the Belt,
Germany, Germany above
Above all in the world.
2. German women, German fidelity,
German wine and German song,
Shall retain, throughout the world,
Their old respected fame,
To inspire us to noble deeds
the length of our lives.
German women, German fidelity,
and German song.
3. Unity and right and freedom
For the German
Let us all strive to this goal
Brotherly, with heart and
Unity and rights and freedom
Are the pledge of fortune grand.
Prosper in this fortune's glory,
Prosper German fatherland.
These lyrics transcend ideology and political systems. Indeed, it was the ultra-liberal, western puppet, Jewish-owned
Wiemar Republic, not "the Nazis," who declared the Deutschlandlied the National Anthem in 1922! But that won't
stop the Marxist-Jewish propagandists from continuing to dupe good men with never-ending disinformation about "the Nazis"
and the phrase "Deutschland uber alles."
Stop using the word "NAZI".... using the word is a reflection of your having
been thoroughly brain-washed and conditioned by the sinister Jews who have absolutely subjugated, and continue to ruin,
There was never any such organisation as Nazi’s or a Nazi Party
The National Socialists (N.S.D.A.P. - Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) never referred to themselves
It was, as it still is today, a political slogan used as a repressive weapon for the purposes of stifling
dissent – hypocritically, the very social condition the National Socialists’ enemies have accused purported
“evil Nazi’s” of having inflicted upon the German populace of the 1930’s.
The term “Nazi” is nothing more than an epithet and after 90 years, it is high time we learned where it came
from, who invented it and why.
The term “Nazi” was actually created
by the Communist-Marxist enemies of the National Socialists (the NSDAP). It was/is a pejorative connotation; a belittling
insult and a slur. The Germans, not Hitler, nor any other high ranking party officials ever referred to themselves as “Nazis”!
They called themselves ‘National Socialists’ and nothing more.
Those who can
read German and have studied any of the original documents and speeches, should know this already, but most do not. Yet
the world and countless generations continue to echo this epithet as if it was as certain as the sun rising. This should
give some insight into the mind manipulating power of media and propaganda. It should then, also give a clear indication
of who is actually in control of the worlds media and propaganda – the Communist-Marxist enemies!
The term ‘Nazi’ (along with ‘Nazism’) is little more than a political epithet invented
by Konrad Heiden during the 1920’s, as a means of disparaging the NSDAP and the political and financial ideals of
National Socialism in general. Heiden was a member of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and conveniently, also an influential
Jewish journalist for both the Frankfurter Zeitung and the Vossische Zeitung German newspapers. Heiden’s SDP was renowned
for its internal conflict created by its elements of Marxist members and progressively during the 1920’s and early
1930’s, ultimately lost the majority of its seats in the Reichstag to the National Socialists. By 1933, of the 647
seats in the Reichstag, the NSDAP held 288, the SDP held only 120 and the Communist Party, a mere 81 seats.
The slang term Nazi is a variation of the nickname Sozi (short for Sozialisten), which, at the time, was used
in reference to members of Heidens’ SDP. “Nazi” was a political pun, based upon the Austro-Bavarian slang
word for “simpleton” or “country bumpkin” and derived from the fairly common name, Ignatz (German
form of Ignatius), colloquially meaning, a foolish, clumsy or awkward person. It would be the equivalent of calling someone
So, if for no other reason than it being an insult, it should
be easily understood why the term was regarded as derogatory by the National Socialists and why they would never use it to
describe themselves as such.
One should also see why it would be made popular by the
Communist-Marxist agitating propagandists and understood how it was seized upon by various other political opponents and
subversive political movements – both within Germany and abroad – including the political leaders of the western
powers, who clearly had been infiltrated by the same Communist-Marxist elements as well.
It should immediately become apparent that, if there is no such thing as a “Nazi” – except in
the propaganda which was invented and spewed by this man – then it follows logically, that there is also no such thing
as a “Neo-Nazi” either. Those who would describe themselves as such are as ignorant as those who say they “hate
Nazi’s” – they are equally deceived.
Further, again, if there was never
any such thing as a “Nazi” (which includes the conspiratorial suggestion that there is purported magical etymology
of ‘Na-Zi’) then there was never any political party merger between the National Socialists (Na-) and the Zionist
Organisations (-Zi), as gatekeeping and co-intelligence operations, even disseminated by the likes of Eustace Mullins, would
Those who believe and are led by such clever nonsense, are also equally
deceived. This clever nonsense (along with much more) is used purely to misdirect people away from ever discovering the core
truth of the Third Reich’s simple, however extraordinary achievements and more importantly, WHY and HOW they were
achieved, which was in complete defiance of the well coordinated network of international politics and finance… the
easy and simple truth of prosperity that can be obtained by all, which the international Communist propagandists fear the
people of the world would ever discover, as it would see their monumental, parasitic power, disintegrate virtually overnight.
It is therefore, also highly likely, that those who promote ‘Neo-Nazism’ are also just agents whose
job it is to keep the spectre of ‘evil Nazis’ alive in the minds of the divided and oppressed ethnic populations
(as we also continually see with countless movies and allusions from all media), in order to continually effect the demonisation
of all those who would dare question the whole history about Hitler, the National Socialists and WWII… which we have
all, naively, been sold.
BACK DOOR TO WAR-The Roosevelt Foreign Policy 1933 to 1941...... https://archive.org/stream/CharlesCallanTansillBackDoorToWarRooseveltForeignPolicy19331941/Charles_Callan_Tansill_Back_door_to_war_Roosevelt_foreign_policy_1933_1941#page/n0/mode/1up
Who Involved the U.S. in WWII When 83% of Americans Voted
By N. Jones (Historical Tribune)
Besides the Pearl Harbour False Flag, How did
They Manipulate America into WWII? – A war 83% of Americans (according to the June 3rd, 1941, Gallup Poll results)
were against and asserted they wished to remain uninvolved?
Protocol of the Elders of Zion – VII:6
“…In a word, to sum up our system of keeping the governments of the goyim in Europe in check, we shall show
our strength to one of them by terrorist attempts and to all, if we allow the possibility of a general rising against us,
we shall respond with the guns of America or China or Japan….
“We Jews,” as the spokesmen of
this clannish nationalism might put it, “are well aware that in America, England, France and the Soviet Union, as
well as in every other part of the world, the rule is: Judah must come first!
As long as the interests of America
are identical with the interests of Old Testament ‘Nazism’, we will be good Americans, but as soon as our interests
begin to conflict with the interests of America, we shall betray her too. Generally speaking, democracy suits us if and
when it is led by as many Jews as possible. The so-called freedom of the press is good for us too, provided the descendants
of the seed of Abraham, above all, can avail themselves of it. Yes! this freedom is a valuable thing, but only where we Jews
are at liberty to do anything we like!”
Oh, you faint-hearted ones, who listen terror-stricken to the marching
S.A. and S.S. troops; be not afraid! By now we are experts in undermining and capturing democracies. We are familiar with
the methods of imposing our particular interests on the masses. America, the richest state of the Goyim is being shaken by
mortal economic crisis. The time is ripe to start our all-out offensive, which, will also give political power into our
hands. And ours will be a take-over of a more permanent character than that of Hitler. We are going to conquer America neither
by arms nor by theories. We possess a reliable prescription to call down Nemesis on America. The fate of America was prescribed
by our own Führer – Moses! Torah is our Mein Kampf!
This will be the year for sounding the Trumpets
in America, where in Washington’s time, the total number of Jews were a mere four thousand. But now our bankers, our
socialists and our journalists will be blowing trumpets and, our ‘Brain-Trust’ will execute the New Deal at
the expense of the American Pioneer-Population. Thereafter, the only remaining question will be: Whom are we going to put
in the Presidential Chair at Washington?
“Those of you living in despair in your palatial residence in Wall
Street or in 13th Street, as well as in the ghettos of Brooklyn and Bronx, must not doubt that we shall find our man, who
will be a real match for Hitler, while at the same time, place political power over America into our hands. You need only
read our directions in the Protocols.”
(The World Conquerors, p. 80-81)
produced constitutional status, which took the place of what was the only safeguard of the Goyim, namely despotism (autocracy)…
then it was that we replaced the Ruler by a caricature of a government – by a president, taken from the mob, from
the midst of our puppet overture – our slaves. In the near future we shall establish elections, in favour of such
presidents, as have in their past some dark undiscovered stain, some “Panama” or other – then they will
be trustworthy agents for the accomplishment of our plans, out of fear of revelations…”
will therefore, be the new President, who will place America in our hands and will execute our orders?”
is Franklin D. Roosevelt! – the late descendant of the Spanish Sephardim.
Fear not dear Franklin, our “Advisors”
are now gathering around you, to support you in the decision making for all your future endeavours, which is at such a pivotal
time in our world history. Felix Frankfurter from Vienna, Henry Morgenthau from Mannheim, Bernard Baruch from Könoigsberg
and Albert Einstein from Berlin. Samuel Roseman who will write your speeches is there, so are our labour leaders; amongst
them our compatriot Sidney Hillman who controls American labour in the Administration for you. There is David Dubinsky,
also a fellow immigrant from Russia, who will transform the Christian workers into tax payers for Zionism.
entourage we will provide you will consist exclusively of trustworthy men, such as La Guardia, Mayor of New York, a Jew
from Fiume and, Alger Hiss, the protègè of Frankfurter and of Senator Lehman. Bernard Baruch will control the
351 most important branches of American industry, which will militarily equip the American boys to go fight against our
cryptonite – National Socialism.
On behalf of America, Alger Hiss will conduct the talks with Stalin and,
Einstein, Oppenheimer and David Lilienthal will produce the atomic bomb. As managers of the UNNRA, La Guardia and Herbert
Lehman will help the intended future Jewish ‘Displaced Persons‘ of our coming war – a war which we will
declare. Our appointed Henry Morgenthau Jr., Secretaty of the Treasury, will prepare a splendid plan for the extermination
of the German people, based on the insightful authorship of our intellectual confidant, President of the ‘American
Federation of Peace,’ Theodore Kaufman. Our own Mortiz Gomberg, will see to it that 18 million people from the countries
of our opponent will become ‘Stateless’ in Europe, our trustworthy men will distribute $11 million worth of cheques
to provide our Bolshevik counterparts with arms and Harry Dexter White will also give them U.S. occupation printing plates,
to enable the ‘Displaced Persons’ to print with abandon, so they can be cashed-up to usurp all positions of
European “Authority” after our boys summarily assassinate all who have opposed us – at the expense of the
American people who reject involvement in our coming war.
No, fear not dear Franklin, the patriotism of this
American dream to sail across the seas to punish OUR enemies, is in the good and trustworthy hands of Judah!
Baruch – the unofficial President of America.
Judge Samuel Roseman – the Founder and Head of the ‘Brains-Trust’
– Roosevelts “Advisors”
Professor Raymond Moley – Favorite Advisor.
Wise (Weiz) – President of the WJC and Roosevelts closest Advisor/Firm Hand – see here: The Jewish Plan for WWII
and all the Benefits it would Bring World Jewry
Henry Morgenthau Sr. – Unofficial Advisor, Jewish State
Theodore N. Kaufman – President of the ‘American Federation of Peace’ / Author of ‘Germany
Must Perish’, precursor to the Morgenthau Plan – see here: Germany Must Perish
Harry Dexter White
(Weit) – Senior U.S. Treasury department official (Transport of U.S. printing plates to Bolsheviks – see here:
WWII: Espionage and the US funding of the Conquering Communists of Europe
Felix Frankfurter – Supreme Court
Justice Benjamin Cardozo – Advisor.
Gerald Shwope – Advisor.
E. A. Filene – Advisor.
Charles Taussig – Brains-Trust Advisor.
Nathan Margold – Interior Department Solicitor.
Jr. – Labour Department Solicitor.
Professor Leo Wolman – Labour Strike Board.
Rose Schneiderman –
Labour Advisory Board.
Isador Lubin Jr. – Labour Bureau Statistician.
Solomon Rosenblatt – Amusement
E. A. Goldenweiser – Federal Research Director.
Jerome Frank – General Councel.
Ezekile – Economic Advisor (Co-author of A.A.A. Laws).
Herbert Feis – “The Brains of the State Department.”
Henry Morgenthau Jr. – Secretary of the Treasury.
David Lilienthal – TVA Director.
– Labour Advisory Board.
L. N. Landau – PWA General Solicitor.
A. Steinhard – Minister to Sweden.
Professor Albert E. Taussig – NRA Advisor.
Alexander Sachs – NRA Code Authority.
Maurice Karp –
NRA Director of Personnel.
Robert Freshner – CC C Forest Army Head.
Robert Strauss – NRA Assistant Administrator.
Donald Richberg – NRA Advisor.
H. I. Strauss – Ambassador to France.
Ferdinand Pecora – “Special”
Samuel Untermayer – Stock-Exchange Bill Advisor.
Professor James M. Landis – Federal Trade
Just to name a few of the “Trustworthy Men” (JEWS) of American interests.
Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States only after the
leaked Rainbow Five plan convinced him that war with the United States was inevitable.
Establishment historians state that Adolf Hitler made a mistake when he declared war on the
United States. For example, British historian Andrew Roberts wrote: “It seems an unimaginably stupid thing to
have done in retrospect, a suicidally hubristic act less than six months after attacking the Soviet Union. America was an
uninvadable land mass of gigantic productive capacity and her intervention in 1917-18 had sealed Germany’s fate in
the Great War.”
Historian Martin Gilbert wrote in regard to Germany’s declaration of war on the United States:
“It was perhaps
the greatest error, and certainly the single most decisive act, of the Second World War.”
In this article I will explain why Hitler
was forced to declare war on the United States.
Steps Toward War
In his State of the Union address to Congress on January 6, 1941, Roosevelt outlined his plan for lend-lease aid
to the anti-Axis powers. International law has long recognized that it is an act of war for a neutral government to supply
arms, munitions, and implements of war to a belligerent. But Roosevelt brushed off objections to lend-lease based on international
law. Roosevelt stated:
“Such aid is not an act of war, even if a dictator should unilaterally proclaim it to be.”
In this same speech,
Roosevelt barred the door to suggestions of a negotiated peace:
“We are committed to the proposition that the principles of
morality and considerations of our own security will not permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored
President Roosevelt signed the Lend-Lease Act into law on March 11, 1941. This legislation marked the end of any
pretense of neutrality on the part of the United States. Despite soothing assurances by Roosevelt that the United States
would not get into the war, the adoption of the Lend-Lease Act was a decisive move which put America into an undeclared
war in the Atlantic.
It opened up an immediate appeal for naval action to insure that munitions and supplies procured under the Lend-Lease
Act would reach Great Britain.
On April 9, 1941, the United States entered into an agreement with a Danish official for the
defense of Greenland. Roosevelt simultaneously illegally sent American Marines to occupy Greenland.
In June 1941, Roosevelt agreed with Churchill
to relieve the British troops in Iceland, and this was done with U.S. Marines on July 7, 1941. Also in June 1941, Roosevelt
ordered the closing of all the German and Italian consulates in the United States.
Another step toward war was the adoption on April
24, 1941, by the United States of a naval patrol system in the Atlantic to insure delivery of munitions and supplies to
Great Britain. The American Navy under this scheme was assigned the responsibility of patrolling the Atlantic Ocean west
of a median point represented by 25º longitude. American warships and planes within this area would search out German
vessels and submarines and broadcast their position to the British Navy. Roosevelt tried to represent the naval patrol as
a merely defensive move, but it was clearly a hostile act toward Germany designed to help the British war effort.
The first wartime
meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill began on August 9, 1941, in a conference at the harbor of Argentia in Newfoundland.
The principal result of this conference was the signing of the Atlantic Charter on August 14, 1941. Roosevelt repeated to
Churchill during this conference his predilection for an undeclared war, saying:
“I may never declare war; I may make war.
If I were to ask Congress to declare war, they might argue about it for three months.”
The Atlantic Charter was in effect a joint declaration
of war aims, although Congress had not voted for American participation in the war. The Atlantic Charter, which provided
for Anglo-American cooperation in policing the world after the Second World War, was a tacit but inescapable implication
that the United States would soon become involved in the war. This implication is fortified by the large number of top military
and naval staff personnel who were present at the conference.
Roosevelt’s Orders to Shoot-on Sight German Ships and Submarines
Roosevelt’s next move toward war was the issuing of secret orders on August 25,
1941, to the Atlantic Fleet to attack and destroy German and Italian “hostile forces.” These secret orders resulted
in an incident on September 4, 1941, between an American destroyer, the Greer, and a German submarine. Roosevelt falsely
claimed in a fireside chat to the American public on September 11, 1941, that the German submarine had fired first.
The reality is
that the Greer had tracked the German submarine for three hours, and broadcast the submarine’s location for the benefit
of any British airplanes and destroyers which might be in the vicinity. The German submarine fired at the Greer only after
a British airplane had dropped four depth charges which missed their mark. During this fireside chat Roosevelt finally admitted
that, without consulting Congress or obtaining congressional sanction, he had ordered a shoot-on-sight campaign against
On September 13, 1941, Roosevelt ordered the Atlantic Fleet to escort convoys in which there were no American vessels.
This policy would make it more likely to provoke future incidents between American and German vessels. Roosevelt also agreed
about this time to furnish Britain with “our best transport ships.” These included 12 liners and 20 cargo vessels
manned by American crews to transport two British divisions to the Middle East.
More serious incidents followed in the Atlantic.
On October 17, 1941, an American destroyer, the Kearny, dropped depth charges on a German submarine. The German submarine
retaliated and hit the Kearny with a torpedo, resulting in the loss of 11 lives. An older American destroyer, the Reuben
James, was sunk with a casualty list of 115 of her crew members. Some of her seamen were convinced the Reuben James had already
sunk at least one U-boat before she was torpedoed by the German submarine.
On October 27, 1941, Roosevelt broadcast over nationwide radio his
Navy Day address. Roosevelt began his Navy Day address by stating that German submarines had torpedoed the U.S. destroyers
Greer and Kearny. Roosevelt characterized these incidents as unprovoked acts of aggression directed against all Americans,
and that “history will record who fired the first shot.”
What Roosevelt failed to mention in his broadcast is that in each
case the U.S. destroyers had been involved in attack operations against the German submarines, which fired in self-defense
only as a last resort. Hitler wanted to avoid war with the United States at all costs, and had expressly ordered German
submarines to avoid conflicts with U.S. warships, except to avoid imminent destruction. It was Roosevelt’s shoot-on-sight
orders to U.S. Navy vessels that were designed to make incidents like the ones Roosevelt condemned inevitable.
provocations, the American public was still against entering the war. By the end of October 1941, Roosevelt had no more
ideas how to get into a formal and declared war:
“…He had said everything ‘short of war’ that could
be said. He had no more tricks left. The hat from which he had pulled so many rabbits was empty.”
Even full-page advertisements entitled “Stop
Hitler Now” inserted in major American newspapers by Roosevelt’s supporters had failed to sway the American
public. The advertisements warned the American people that a Europe dominated by Hitler was a threat to American democracy
and the Western Hemisphere. The advertisements asked: “Will the Nazis considerately wait until we are ready to fight
them? Anyone who argues that they will wait is either an imbecile or a traitor.” Roosevelt endorsed the advertisements,
saying that they were “a great piece of work.”
Yet the American people were still strongly against war.
Pearl Harbor Attack
Provoking Japan into an overt act of war was the principal policy that guided Roosevelt’s actions toward Japan
throughout 1941. Lt. Cmdr. Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote an eight-action
memorandum dated October 7, 1940, outlining how to provoke a Japanese attack on the United States.
The climax of Roosevelt’s measures designed
to bring about war in the Pacific occurred on July 25, 1941, when Roosevelt froze all Japanese assets in the United States.
This brought commercial relations between the nations to an effective end, including an end to the export of oil to Japan.
the Japanese premier, requested a meeting with Roosevelt to resolve the differences between the United States and Japan.
American Ambassador Grew sent a series of telegrams to Washington, D.C. in which he strongly recommended that such a meeting
take place. However, Roosevelt steadfastly refused to meet with the Japanese premier.
Foreign Minister Toyoda made a dispatch to Japanese
Ambassador Nomura on July 31, 1941. Since U.S. Intelligence had cracked the Japanese diplomatic code, Roosevelt and his
associates were able to read this message:
“Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England
and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our
Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas… I know that the Germans
are somewhat dissatisfied with our negotiations with the United States, but we wish at any cost to prevent the United States
from getting into the war, and we wish to settle the Chinese incident.”
This obvious Japanese desire for peace with the
United States did not change Roosevelt’s policy toward Japan. Roosevelt refused to lift the oil embargo against Japan.
The Roosevelt administration was well aware that Japan imported approximately 90% of her oil, and that 75% to 80% of her
oil imports came from the United States. Roosevelt also knew that the Netherlands East Indies, which produced 3% of the world’s
oil output, was the only other convenient oil producer that could meet Japan’s import needs.
On October 31, 1941, an oil agreement between
Japan and the Netherlands East Indies expired. The Netherlands East Indies had promised to deliver about 11.4 million barrels
of oil to Japan, but actually delivered only half of that amount. The Japanese Navy had consumed approximately 22% of its
oil reserves by the time the war broke out.
By the closing months of 1941, the United States was intercepting and breaking within a matter
of hours almost every code produced by Japan. In the last week of November 1941, President Roosevelt knew that an attack
by the Japanese in the Pacific was imminent.
Roosevelt warned William Bullitt against traveling across the Pacific:
“I am expecting the Japs to attack any
time now, probably within the next three or four days.”
Roosevelt and his administration knew this based on the intercepted
Japanese messages. This information was not given to the commanders at Pearl Harbor to enable them to prepare for and thwart
the Japanese attack.
Adm. Husband Kimmel, commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, states that if he had all of the important information
then available to the Navy Department, he would have gone to sea with his fleet and been in a good position to intercept
the Japanese attack. Kimmel concludes in regard to the Pearl Harbor attacks:
When the information available in Washington
was disclosed to me I was appalled. Nothing in my experience of nearly 42 years of service in the Navy had prepared me for
the actions of the highest officials in our government which denied this vital information to the Pearl Harbor commanders.
If those in authority
wished to engage in power politics, the least that they should have done was to advise their naval and military commanders
what they were endeavoring to accomplish. To utilize the Pacific Fleet and the Army forces at Pearl Harbor as a lure for
a Japanese attack without advising the commander-in-chief of the fleet and the commander of the Army base at Hawaii is something
I am wholly unable to comprehend.
The Rainbow Five Plan
On December 8, 1941, President Roosevelt made a speech to Congress calling
for a declaration of war against Japan. Condemning the attack on Pearl Harbor as a “date which will live in infamy,”
Roosevelt did not once mention Germany.
Hitler’s policy of keeping incidents between the United States and Germany to a minimum
seemed to have succeeded. Hitler had ignored or downplayed the numerous provocations that Roosevelt had made against Germany.
Even after Roosevelt issued orders to shoot-on-sight at German submarines, Hitler had ordered his naval commanders and air
force to avoid incidents that Roosevelt might use to bring America into the war. Also, since the Tripartite Pact did not
obligate Germany to join Japan in a war initiated by Japan, it appeared unlikely that Hitler would declare war on the United
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor surprised Hitler. Hitler had never wanted Japan to attack the United States. Germany had
repeatedly urged Japan to attack Singapore and the rest of Great Britain’s Far East Empire, but Japan refused to do
so. After the war Col. Gen. Alfred Jodl said that Hitler had wanted Japan to attack Great Britain and the Soviet Union in
the Far East, which would have set up a two-front war. Hitler thought Roosevelt would probably not be able to persuade the
American public to go to war to defend Britain’s Asian colonies. Jodl said that Hitler had wanted in Japan “a
strong new ally without a strong new enemy.”
Hitler’s decision to stay out of war with the United States was made
more difficult on December 4, 1941, when the Chicago Tribune carried in huge black letters the headline: F.D.R.’s WAR
PLANS! The Washington Times Herald, the largest paper in the nation’s capital, carried a similar headline.
Chesly Manly, the
Tribune’s Washington correspondent, revealed in his report what Roosevelt had repeatedly denied: that Roosevelt was
planning to lead the United States into war against Germany. The source of Manly’s information was no less than a
verbatim copy of Rainbow Five, the top-secret war plan drawn up at Roosevelt’s request by the joint board of the United
States Army and Navy. Manly’s story even contained a copy of President Roosevelt’s letter ordering the preparation
of the plan.
Rainbow Five called for the creation of a 10-million-man army, including an expeditionary force of 5 million men
that would invade Europe in 1943 to defeat Germany. On December 5, 1941, the German Embassy in Washington, D.C., cabled
the entire transcript of the newspaper story to Berlin. The story was reviewed and analyzed in Berlin as “the Roosevelt
War Plan.” On December 6, 1941, Adm. Erich Raeder submitted a report to Hitler prepared by his staff that analyzed
the Rainbow Five plan. Raeder concluded the most important point contained in Rainbow Five was the fact that the United
States would not be ready to launch a military offensive against Germany until July 1943.
On December 9, 1941, Hitler returned to Berlin
from the Russian front and plunged into two days of conferences with Raeder, Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, and Reichsmarschall
Hermann Göring. The three advisors stressed that the Rainbow Five plan showed that the United States was determined
to defeat Germany. They pointed out that Rainbow Five stated that the United States would undertake to carry on the war against
Germany alone even if Russia collapsed and Britain surrendered to Germany. The three advisors leaned toward Adm. Raeder’s
view that an air and U-boat offensive against both British and American ships might be risky, but that the United States
was already unquestionably an enemy.
On December 9, 1941, Roosevelt made a radio address to the nation that is seldom mentioned
in the history books. In addition to numerous uncomplimentary remarks about Hitler and Nazism, Roosevelt accused Hitler
of urging Japan to attack the United States. Roosevelt declared:
“We know that Germany and Japan are conducting their military
and naval operations with a joint plan. Germany and Italy consider themselves at war with the United States without even
bothering about a formal declaration…Your government knows Germany has been telling Japan that if Japan would attack
the United States, Japan would share the spoils when peace came. She was promised by Germany that if she came in she would
receive control of the whole Pacific area and that means not only the Far East, but all the islands of the Pacific and also
a stranglehold on the west coast of North and Central and South America.”
All of the above statements are obviously lies.
Germany and Japan did not have a joint naval plan before Pearl Harbor, and never concocted one for the rest of the war.
Germany did not have foreknowledge and certainly never encouraged Japan to attack the United States. Japan never had any
ambition to attack the west coast of North, Central, or South America. Germany also never promised anything to Japan in the
Far East. Germany’s power in the Far East was negligible.
Roosevelt concluded in his speech on December 9, 1941:
to eliminate the danger from Japan, but it would serve us ill if we accomplished that and found that the rest of the world
was dominated by Hitler and Mussolini. So we are going to win the war and we are going to win the peace that follows.”
On December 10,
1941, when Hitler resumed his conference with Raeder, Keitel, and Göring, Hitler said that Roosevelt’s speech
confirmed everything in the Tribune story. Hitler considered Roosevelt’s speech to be a de facto declaration of war.
Since war with the United States was inevitable, Hitler felt he had no choice but to declare war on the United States. Hitler
declared war on the United States in his Reichstag speech on December 11, 1941, stating among other things:
Since the beginning
of the war, the American President Roosevelt has steadily committed ever more serious crimes against international law.
Along with illegal attacks against ships and other property of German and Italian citizens, there have been threats and even
arbitrary deprivations of personal freedom by internment and such. The increasingly hostile attacks by the American President
Roosevelt have reached the point that he has ordered the American navy to immediately attack, fire upon and sink all German
and Italian ships, in complete violation of international law. American officials have even boasted about destroying German
submarines in this criminal manner. American cruisers have attacked and captured German and Italian merchant ships, and
their peaceful crews were taken away to imprisonment. In addition, President Roosevelt’s plan to attack Germany and
Italy with military forces in Europe by 1943 at the latest was made public in the United States, and the American government
made no effort to deny it.
Despite the years of intolerable provocations by President Roosevelt, Germany and Italy sincerely and very patiently
tried to prevent the expansion of this war and to maintain relations with the United States. But as a result of his campaign,
these efforts have failed.
Hitler ended this speech with a declaration of war against the United States. Roosevelt had finally gotten a declared
war with Germany using Japan as a back door to war.
Closing Thoughts on Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the United States
No nation has ever been led into war with as many soothing promises of peace as the
American public received from President Roosevelt. Most of the American public felt that the United States had entered the
First World War under false pretenses. Polls consistently showed that the American public did not favor entry into a second
war in Europe. Roosevelt assuaged these fears with statements such as “…I have passed unnumbered hours, I shall
pass unnumbered hours, thinking and planning how war may be kept from this nation.”
The truth is that Roosevelt did everything in
his power to plunge the United States into war against Germany. Roosevelt eventually went so far as to order American vessels
to shoot-on- sight German and Italian vessels—a flagrant act of war. However, Hitler wanted to avoid war with the
United States at all costs. Hitler expressly ordered German submarines to avoid conflicts with U.S. warships, except to prevent
imminent destruction. It appeared that Hitler’s efforts would be successful in keeping the United States out of the
war against Germany.
Hitler declared war on the United States only after the leaked Rainbow Five plan convinced him that war with the
United States was inevitable. The extraordinary cunning of leaking Rainbow Five at the very time he knew a Japanese attack
was pending enabled Roosevelt to overcome the American public’s resistance to entering the war. It allowed the entry
of the United States into World War Two in such a way as to make it appear that Germany and Japan were the aggressor nations.
Benton Bradberry - The Myth of German Villainy ... https://youtu.be/LkMrCHaSi0M
Full documentary The Faking of Adolf Hitler for History https://youtu.be/Dn_cKvrGuLM
FREE BOOK READ: Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufman Newark, N.J., Argyle press Copyright 1941... http://web.archive.org/web/20150906065803/http://hailtosatansvictory666.angelfire.com/Germany_Must_Perish_1941.pdf
Judea Declares War on Germany - Dr Fredrick Toben ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe6npWo7Wug
JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY
"Judea Declares War on Germany!" - Daily Express headline, March 24, 1933.
"Judea Declares War on Germany! Jews of all the World Unite! Boycott of German Goods! Mass Demonstrations!"
- These were all headlines in the Daily Express on March 24, 1933.
"The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany.
Fourteen million Jews stand together as one man, to declare war against Germany.
Jewish wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his commerce and
the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war against Hitler's people."
- Daily Express, March 24, 1933.
"Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike,
who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here.
is not sufficient that you should buy no goods made in Germany.
refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any
goods or who patronises German ships or shipping....
we will undermine the
Hitler regime and bring the
German people to their senses by destroying
their export trade on which their very existence depends."
Undermeyer, in a Radio Broadcast on WABC, New York, August 6, 1933.
(Reported in the New York Times, August 7, 1933. Joining with Samuel Untermeyer in calling for a war against Germany,
Bernard Baruch, at the same time, was promoting preparations for war against Germany)
emphasised that the defeat of Germany and Japan and their elimination from world trade would give Britain a tremendous
opportunity to swell her foreign commerce in both volume and profit."
- Baruch, The Public Years, by Bernard M. Baruch, p. 347 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Samuel Untermeyer was a Jewish leader and close friend
of presidents Wilson and Roosevelt.
Bernard Baruch was a presidential adviser
to Wilson, Roosevelt and Truman.
"This declaration called the war against Germany, which was now determined on, a 'holy war'.
This war was to be carried out against Germany to its conclusion,
to her destruction"
(Diese Erklarung nannte den Krieg gegen Deutschland,
der nun beschlossen sei, einen heiligen Krieg.
Dieser Krieg miisse gegen
Deutschland bis zu dessen Ende, bis zu dessen Vernichtung, gefiihrt werden).
- Dr. Franz J. Scheidl, Geschichte der Verfemung Deutschlands.
"War in Europe in 1934 was inevitable."
- H. Morgenthau, Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Hearst Press, September, 1933
(also quoted in "The Palestine Plot" by B. Jenson, p. 1 1 (printed by John McKinley, 11-15 King Street, Perth,
"For months now the struggle against Germany is waged by each Jewish community,
at each conference, in all our syndicates, and by each Jew all over the world.
There is reason to believe that our part in this struggle has general value.
We will trigger a spiritual and material war of all the world against Germany's ambitions to become
once again a great nation,
to recover lost territories and colonies.
But our Jewish interests demand the complete destruction of Germany.
Collectively and individually, the German nation is a threat to us Jews."
- Vladimir Jabotinsky (founder of the Jewish terrorist group, Irgun Zvai Leumi) in Mascha Rjetsch, January,
(also quoted in "Histoire de l'Armee Allemande" by Jacques
Benoist-Mechin, Vol. IV, p. 303).
"Hitler will have no war (does not want war), but we will force it on him, not this year,
- Emil Ludwig Cohn in Les Annales, June, 1934 (also quoted
in his book "The New Holy Alliance").
"We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany."
- David A. Brown, National Chairman, United Jewish Campaign, 1934
in "I Testify Against The Jews" by Robert Edward Edmondson,
188 and "The Jewish War of Survival" by Arnold Leese, page 52).
"We want to bring about a deep hatred
for the Germans, for German soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
We must hate
until we win."
- Lord Beaverbrook, quoted in Niemals! by Heinrich Goitsch.
"There is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure.
We Jews are the most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply
- Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 27, 1935.
"Before the end of the year, an economic bloc of England, Russia, France and the U.S. A
will be formed to bring the German and Italian economic systems to their knees."
- Paul Dreyfus, "La Vie de Tanger" May 15, 1938.
On the 3rd of June, 1938, the American Hebrew
boasted that they had Jews in the foremost positions of influence in Britain,
and France, and that these "three sons of Israel will be sending the Nazi dictator to hell."
- Joseph Trimble, the American Hebrew.
"Germany is our public enemy number
one. It is our object to declare war without mercy against her.
be sure of this: We will lead that war!"
- Bernard Lecache, the president
of the "International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism,"
in its newspaper "Droit de Vivre" (Right to Life), 9 November, 1938.
"The war now proposed is for the purpose
of establishing Jewish hegemony throughout the world."
General George Van Horn Mosely, The New York Tribune, March 29, 1939.
"I wish to confirm in the most explicit
manner, the declaration which I and my colleagues made
during the last months,
and especially in the last week:
that the Jews "stand by Great Britain
and will fight on the side of the democracies."
Our urgent desire is
to give effect to these declarations.
We wish to do so in a way entirely
consonant with the general scheme of British action,
and therefore would
place ourselves, in matters big and small, under the co-ordinating direction of His Majesty's Government.
The Jewish Agency is ready to enter into immediate arrangements for utilizing Jewish manpower,
technical ability, resources, etc."
- Chaim Weizmann, President of
the World Jewish Congress, Head of the Jewish Agency and later President of Israel,
London Times, September 5, 1939, and the London Jewish Chronicle, September 8, 1939.
"The millions of Jews who live in America,
England and France, North and South Africa, and,
not to forget those in
Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany to its final end."
- Central Blad Voor Israeliten in Nederland, September 13, 1939.
"Stop talking about peace conditions!
Break Germany in pieces!" - The Daily Herald, No.7426, 9 December, 1939.
"The Jews, taken collectively, view
this war as a holy war." - The Daily Herald, No. 7450, 1939,
in "Reichstagsbrand, Aufklarung einer historischen Legende,"
U. Backes, K.H. JanBen, E. Jesse, H. Kohler, H. Mommsen, E Tobias.
"Even if we Jews are not physically
at your side in the trenches, we are morally with you.
This war is our war
and you fight it with us."
- Schalom Asch, Les Nouvelles Litterairres,
February 10, 1940.
"In losing Germany, Jewry lost a territory from which it exerted power.
Therefore it was determined to re-conquer it."
Louis Marschalko, "The World Conquerors : The Real War Criminals."
"The World Jewish Congress has been
at war with Germany for seven years."
- Rabbi M. Perlzweig (head of
the British Section of the World Jewish Congress),
Toronto Evening Telegram,
February 26, 1940.
"The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism."
- Rabbi Felix Mendlesohn, Chicago Sentinel, October 8, 1942.
"We are not denying and are not afraid to confess that this war is our war and that it is waged for the liberation
Stronger than all fronts together is our front, that of Jewry.
We are not only giving this war our financial support on which the entire
war production is based,
we are not only providing our full propaganda power
which is the moral energy that keeps this war going.
The guarantee of victory
is predominantly based on weakening the enemy forces, on destroying them in their own country,
within the resistance. And we are the Trojan horses in the enemy's fortress.
Thousands of Jews living in Europe constitute the principal factor in the destruction of our enemy. T
here, our front is a fact and the most valuable aid for victory."
- Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Jewish Congress, Head of the Jewish Agency and later President of
in a Speech on December 3, 1942, in New York.
"Played golf with Joe Kennedy (U.S. Ambassador to Britain).
that Chamberlain stated that America and world Jewry forced England into World War II."
- James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy (later Secretary of Defense), Diary, December 27, 1945 entry.
"It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked
solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests.
Nor had I ever wished that after the appalling first World War, there would ever be a second against
either England or America."
- Adolf Hitler, April, 1945.
The joke doing the rounds of the British Union of Fascists at this time, was that the Jewish national anthem was,
'Onward Christian Soldiers.'
World Jewish Congress Declared
War on Germany
Long Before Germany Took Any Action Against Jews
The following article is composed of excerpts taken from "The White Man's Bible"
written by Ben Klassen:
The war against the
German people as such dates back hundreds of years. We have shown this further in our previous chapter on the unrelenting
warfare between the parasitic Jews and their unfortunate victims.
Total War against Germany.
They went all out in one of the most frantic,
malicious wars of propaganda a gullible and uncomprehending world has ever witnessed. In short, Judea declared Total War on
Germany and Hitler— financially, propagandawise, militarily, economically, racially, and in every other aspect that
was in their power— and that power as we shall see, was formidable. Before Hitler would, or could, even lift a finger
against them, the Jews were ready and wasted no time in launching a massive world-wide campaign against him. To illustrate
this obvious fact we are again going to quote the Jews themselves, and their press in a limited sampling. There are volumes
of evidence, but these few quotes should illustrate the point conclusively.
Plans laid before Hitler came to power.
As early as August 1933, Samuel Untermeyer, president of the World Jewish Economic Federation called together a
large congress of Jewish leaders from all over the world to declare war on Germany in the name of the Jews. The meeting was
held in Amsterdam, Holland. Upon returning to the United States from that meeting, Untermeyer made a speech on Radio Station
WABC (N.Y.) on August 6, 1933 in which he announced that the Jews of the world had declared war on Germany and would starve
them to death. This was long before any action of any kind had been taken against any Jew, and six years before military action
was initiated in 1939.
“We have been at war with him (Hitler) from the day
that he gained power” stated the London Jewish Chronicle May 8, 1942 in its “Sermon of the Week.”
Rabbi M. Perlzweig, head of the British Section of the World Jewish Congress, speaking
in Canada, stated: “The World Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years.” (Toronto Evening
Telegram, February 26, 1940.)
The Dutch-Jewish paper, Centraal-Blaad Voor Israeliten
in Nederland declared on September 13, 1939: “The millions of Jews who live in America, England and France, North and
South Africa, and, not to forget, those in Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany to its
We must remember that at this time (September 13, 1939) the
war was less than two weeks old, no concentration camps, no gas chambers, etc., for Jews or anybody else had been set up,
or even alleged to be in existence. (The whole “gas chamber” story was nothing but another Jewish lie, as we will
see in another chapter.)
The Chicago Jewish Sentinel, on October 8, 1942 declared:
“The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism.” Indeed it was. To be more
specific, in behalf of the Jews themselves. They knew it, they instigated it, they perpetrated it, they stagemanaged it, The
naive and gullible goyim, meanwhile, slaughtered each other with a vengeance, not knowing, or not wanting to know, who the
real perpetrators, the real war criminals were.
Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jew-communist
and founder of the Irgun terrorist organization wrote in the January 1934 issue of Natcha Retch: “The fight against
Germany has been carried on for months by every Jewish community, conference, congress, trade organization, by every Jew in
the world. There is reason to believe that our part in the struggle will be of general value. We shall let loose a spiritual
and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany’s ambition is to become a great nation again, to reconquer
her lost territories and colonies. Our Jewish interests on the other hand demand the complete destruction of Germany. The
German nation is collectively and individually a danger to us Jews.”
Hitler offered Hand of Friendship to England.
Hitler, whose concern
was not only for the Germans, understood the deadly program of the parasitic Jew. He pleaded in vain with England not to play
the Jewish game. Speaking in September of 1939, he said:
numerous occasions I have offered the friendship of the German people to England and the English people. My entire policy
was built upon the idea of this understanding. I was always rebuffed… We know that the British people as a whole cannot
be made responsible. It is that Jewish plutocratic and democratic ruling class which hates our Reich.”
English Traitors fronted for Jews.
On behalf of
the non-Jewish ruling class it must be pointed out that those who went along with the Jews were by and large chabez-goi, people
like Winston Churchill, traitors who were in the pay of the Jews, or under their control and coercion. So firm was this Jewish
control over the British people (as well as the French, Americans, Poles and others) that the Jews were in fact successful
in plunging the world into a fratricidal war of destruction on a scale such as the world has never witnessed before.
Plans to Exterminate German People.
Some of the Jews wanted to exterminate
those Germans surviving the destructions of war by sterilization. Theodore N. Kaufman, spelling out the program in the book
entitled Germany Must Perish, said: By Sterilization. “To achieve the purpose of German extinction it would be necessary
to only sterilize some 48,000,000— a figure which excludes, because of their limited power to procreate, males over
60, and females over 45…”
By Starvation. Other groups of Jews wanted
to exterminate the Germans by starvation. A notorious advocate of the method was Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury
in the Roosevelt Administration. The following quotation is from the memoirs of Cordell Hull, who was Secretary of State in
the same administration.
“Morgenthau’s plan, I added, would wipe out
everything in Germany except land, and the Germans would have to live on the land. This meant that only 60% of the German
population could support themselves on the German land, and the other 40% would die.”
Germans Looted and Starved. A version of the evil Jewish plan was in fact implemented for a period immediately after
the war. Huge amounts of all kinds of machinery, factories, and rolling stock that survived the war were shipped to communist
Russia. Viewing all this, Mr. R. R. Stokes, a Labor M.P. in Britain declared at the time:
“Today in Germany, 6 months after our victory, graves are being dug for people not
yet dead, people who will die of starvation in the next few months.”
U.S. Senator William Langer of North Dakota said
of the Morgenthau plan, and his remarks are entered in the Congressional Record, April 18, 1946: “Mr. Morgenthau now
stands convicted before the conscience of the world as an instigator of systematic annihilation of the German speaking people.
The record further proves beyond any question of doubt, that these fanatical and reactionary high priests of hate and vengeance
will never be able to defend their conspiracy before the bar of human reason and human decency.” Six Million Swindle
Invented. It was only through the opposition of people like Senator Langer who could not stomach the vicious murder conspiracy
of the Jewish network that the Jewish program of sterilization of the German people, or the program of starving them to death,
or a combination of both, was not carried through. By whipping up hatred about the mythical “six million” to a
near frenzy the Jews almost, but not quite, succeeded in their goal of mass murder of the German race.
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 post-World War I treaties. Formerly
German territory now belongs to Poland, cutting right through the Prussian/Pomeranian region
of Germany. As had been the case with Germans stranded in Czechoslovakia, the
Germans in Poland (those not expelled in 1919) are a persecuted minority.
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.
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.
Unjustly labeled by historians as an "appeaser",
Chamberlain had to be maneuvered into war by powerful factions above and around him.
FORBIDDEN HISTORY: QUOTE TO REMEMBER
"Chamberlain (speaking off the record to Ambassador Joseph Kennedy
while playing golf) stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war".
-The Forrestal Diaries ed. Millis, Cassell 1952 p129
AUGUST 31, 1939
GLEIWITZ (and other) BORDER ATTACKS / JEWISH-POLISH GUERILLAS ATTACK GERMAN RADIO STATION
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
The "Poles" 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.
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.
THE SETTING 1940:
Germany is in total control of
the European war situation. The French have signed an armistice with Germany and are out of the war. The British
army has been forced to evacuate the continent at Dunkirk (Hitler had graciously allowed them to escape).
The Soviets and Americans are not in the war, and Hitler has a very generous peace offer on the table for Britain.
As they had during their
losing days of World War I, British politicians reach out to international Jewry for help in inducing America into
the war. During World War I, Britain's 'Balfour Declaration' promised Palestine to the Jews in exchange for bringing
about U.S. entry. Now, 'Lord Arthur Greenwood's Declaration' is offering them THE WORLD!
Note one of Greenwood's amazingly prophetic statements contained
in the article below, 'When we have achieved victory, and we assuredly shall..."
But there is absolutely
no chance of British victory unless the U.S. can be dragged into the conflict. Therefore, Greenwood must
already know that the U.S. will enter the war (which it does 14 months later). This official promise of
a 'New World Order' is clearly intended to further encourage American Jewish support for entering the war.
Greenwood promises: "In
the rebuilding of civilized society after the war, there should and will be a real opportunity for Jews everywhere
to make a distinctive and constructive contribution."
In other words, Lord Greenwood is saying: "Get America
in and we'll give you all of Europe after the war!" Greenwood's imperialist 'dance with the Devil' will prove fatal. After the war, Britain would end up broke
and lose control of her own Empire to the Marxist Jews as well.
Arriving at London in early 1938, newly-appointed U.S. Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy took up quickly
with another transplanted American.
Viscountess Nancy Witcher Langhorne Astor
assured Kennedy early in their friendship that he should not be put off by her pronounced and proud anti-Catholicism. “I’m
glad you are smart enough not to take my [views] personally,” she wrote. Astor pointed out that she had a number of
Roman Catholic friends – G.K. Chesterton among them – with whom she shared, if nothing else, a profound hatred
for the Jewish race.
Joe Kennedy, in turn, had always detested Jews generally, although
he claimed several as friends individually. Indeed, Kennedy seems to have tolerated the occasional Jew in the same way Astor
tolerated the occasional Catholic.
As fiercely anti-Communist as they were anti-Semitic,
Kennedy and Astor looked upon Adolf Hitler as a welcome solution to both of these “world problems” (Nancy’s
phrase). No member of the so-called “Cliveden Set” (the informal cabal of appeasers who met frequently at Nancy
Astor’s palatial home) seemed much concerned with the dilemma faced by Jews under the Reich. Astor wrote Kennedy that
Hitler would have to do more than just “give a rough time” to “the killers of Christ” before she’d
be in favor of launching ”Armageddon to save them. The wheel of history swings round as the Lord would have it.
Who are we to stand in the way of the future?” Kennedy replied that he expected the “Jew media” in the
United States to become a problem, that “Jewish pundits in New York and Los Angeles” were already making noises
contrived to “set a match to the fuse of the world.”
During May of 1938, Kennedy engaged in extensive
discussions with the new German Ambassador to the Court of St. James’s, Herbert von Dirksen. In the midst of these
conversations (held without approval from the U.S. State Department), Kennedy advised von Dirksen that President Roosevelt
was the victim of “Jewish influence” and was poorly informed as to the philosophy, ambitions and ideals of Hitler’s
regime. (The Nazi ambassador subsequently told his bosses that Kennedy was “Germany’s best friend” in
Columnists back in the states condemned Kennedy’s fraternizing. Kennedy
later claimed that 75% of the attacks made on him during his Ambassadorship emanated from “a number of Jewish publishers
and writers. … Some of them in their zeal did not hesitate to resort to slander and falsehood to achieve their aims.”
He told his eldest son, Joe Jr., that he disliked having to put up with “Jewish columnists” who criticized him
with no good reason.
Like his father, Joe Jr. admired Adolf Hitler. Young Joe had come
away impressed by Nazi rhetoric after traveling in Germany as a student in 1934. Writing at the time, Joe applauded Hitler’s
insight in realizing the German people’s “need of a common enemy, someone of whom to make the goat. Someone,
by whose riddance the Germans would feel they had cast out the cause of their predicament. It was excellent psychology,
and it was too bad that it had to be done to the Jews. The dislike of the Jews, however, was well-founded. They were
at the heads of all big business, in law etc. It is all to their credit for them to get so far, but their methods had been
quite unscrupulous … the lawyers and prominent judges were Jews, and if you had a case against a Jew, you were nearly
always sure to lose it. … As far as the brutality is concerned, it must have been necessary to use some ….”
Brutality was in the eye of the beholder. Writing to Charles Lindbergh shortly after Kristallnacht
in November of 1938, Joe Kennedy Sr. seemed more concerned about the political ramifications stemming from high-profile,
riotous anti-Semitism than he was about the actual violence done to the Jews. ”… Isn’t there some
way,” he asked, “to persuade [the Nazis] it is on a situation like this that the whole program of saving western
civilization might hinge? It is more and more difficult for those seeking peaceful solutions to advocate any plan when the
papers are filled with such horror.” Clearly, Kennedy’s chief concern about Kristallnacht was that it might serve
to harden anti-fascist sentiment at home in the United States.
Like his friend Charles Coughlin (an anti-Semitic
broadcaster and Roman Catholic priest), Kennedy always remained convinced of what he believed to be the Jews’ corrupt,
malignant, and profound influence in American culture and politics. “The Democratic [party] policy of the United States
is a Jewish production,” Kennedy told a British reporter near the end of 1939, adding confidently that Roosevelt would
“fall” in 1940.
But it wasn’t Roosevelt who fell. Kennedy resigned his ambassadorship
just weeks after FDR’s overwhelming triumph at the polls. He then retreated to his home in Florida: a bitter, resentful
man nurturing religious and racial bigotries that put him out-of-step with his country, and out-of-touch with history.
Adolf Hitler Art Presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBwo9mLN5zk
And now I understand what you tried to say to me
How you suffered for your
How you tried to set them free.
They would not listen
They did not know how
Hitler Library: http://www.hitler-library.org
"They used Poland as a dummy"...Adolf Hitler https://youtu.be/W4nTsIl0Xkk
FROM HITLER'S REICHSTAG SPEECH
DECEMBER 11, 1941 (4
Days after Pearl Harbor)
Why is there now another
American president determined to incite wars and, above all, to stir up hostility against Germany to the point
of war? National Socialism came to power in Germany in the same year  that Roosevelt came to power in the
United States. At this point it is important to examine the factors behind current developments.
First of all, the
personal side of things: I understand very well that there is a world of difference between my own outlook on life
and attitude, and that of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt came from an extremely wealthy family. By birth and origin
he belonged to that class of people that is privileged in a democracy and assured of advancement. I myself was
only the child of a small and poor family, and I had to struggle through life by work and effort in spite of immense
As a member of the privileged
class, Roosevelt experienced the [First] World War in a position under Wilson's shadow [as assistant secretary of
the Navy]. As a result, he only knew the agreeable consequences of a conflict between nations from which some
profited while others lost their lives.
this same period, I lived very differently. I was not one of those who made history or profits, but rather one
of those who carried out orders. As an ordinary soldier during those four years, I tried to do my duty in the face
of the enemy. Of course, I returned from the war just as poor as when I entered in the fall of 1914. I thus shared
my fate with millions of others, while Mr. Roosevelt shared his with the so-called upper ten thousand.
war, while Mr. Roosevelt tested his skills in financial speculation in order to profit personally from the inflation,
that is, from the misfortune of others, I still lay in a military hospital along with many hundreds of thousands
of others. Experienced in business, financially secure and enjoying the patronage of his class, Roosevelt
then finally chose a career in politics. During this same period, I struggled as a nameless and unknown man for the
rebirth of my nation, which was the victim of the greatest injustice in its entire history.
Two different paths
in life! Franklin Roosevelt took power in the United States as the candidate of a thoroughly capitalistic party,
which helps those who serve it. When I became the Chancellor of the German Reich, I was the leader of a popular
national movement, which I had created myself. The powers that supported Mr. Roosevelt were the same powers
I fought against, out of concern for the fate of my people, and out of deepest inner conviction. The "brain
trust" that served the new American president was made up of members of the same national group that we fought
against in Germany as a parasitical expression of humanity, and which we began to remove from public life.
And yet, we also had
something in common: Franklin Roosevelt took control of a country with an economy that had been ruined as a result
of democratic influences, and I assumed the leadership of a Reich that was also on the edge of complete ruin,
thanks to democracy. There were 13 million unemployed in the United States, while Germany had seven million unemployed
and another seven million part-time workers. In both countries, public finances were in chaos, and it seemed that
the spreading economic depression could not be stopped.
From then on, things developed in the United
States and in the German Reich in such a way that future generations will have no difficulty in making a definitive
evaluation of the two different socio-political theories. Whereas the German Reich experienced an enormous
improvement in social, economic, cultural and artistic life in just a few years under National Socialist leadership,
President Roosevelt was not able to bring about even limited improvements in his own country.
This task should have been much easier in the United States, with barely
15 people per square kilometer, as compared to 140 in Germany. If economic prosperity is not possible in that
country, it must be the result of either a lack of will by the ruling leadership or the complete incompetence
of the men in charge. In just five years, the economic problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was eliminated.
During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously increased his country's national debt, devalued the dollar,
further disrupted the economy and maintained the same number of unemployed.
But this is hardly remarkable when one realizes that
the intellects appointed by this man, or more accurately, who appointed him, are members of that same group who,
as Jews, are interested only in disruption and never in order. While we in National Socialist Germany took measures
against financial speculation, it flourished tremendously under Roosevelt. The New Deal legislation of this man
was spurious, and consequently the greatest error ever experienced by anyone. If his economic policies had continued
indefinitely during peace time, there is no doubt that sooner or later they would have brought down this president,
in spite of all his dialectical cleverness. In a European country his career would certainly have ended
in front of a national court for recklessly squandering the nation's wealth. And he would hardly have avoided a
prison sentence by a civil court for criminally incompetent business management.
Reichstag Speech Pt.2 (excerpts)
Many respected Americans also shared this view. A threatening opposition was
growing all around this man, which led him to think that he could save himself only by diverting public attention
from his domestic policies to foreign affairs. In this regard it is interesting to study the reports of Polish
Ambassador Potocki from Washington, which repeatedly point out that Roosevelt was fully aware of the danger that
his entire economic house of cards could collapse, and that therefore he absolutely had to divert attention to
The circle of Jews around Roosevelt encouraged him in this. With Old Testament vindictiveness they regarded
the United States as the instrument that they and he could use to prepare a second Purim [slaughter of enemies]
against the nations of Europe, which were increasingly anti-Jewish. So it was that the Jews, in all of
their satanic baseness, gathered around this man, and he relied on them.
The American president increasingly used his
influence to create conflicts, intensify existing conflicts, and, above all, to keep conflicts from being resolved
peacefully. For years this man looked for a dispute anywhere in the world, but preferably in Europe, that he could
use to create political entanglements with American economic obligations to one of the contending sides, which
would then steadily involve America in the conflict and thus divert attention from his own confused domestic economic
His actions against the German Reich in this regard have been particularly blunt. Starting in 1937, he
began a series of speeches, including a particularly contemptible one on October 5, 1937, in Chicago, with which
this man systematically incited the American public against Germany . He threatened to establish a kind of quarantine
against the so-called authoritarian countries. As part of this steady and growing campaign of hate and incitement,
President Roosevelt made another insulting statement [on Nov. 15, 1938] and then called the American ambassador
in Berlin back to Washington for consultations.
Starting in November 1938, he began systematically and
consciously to sabotage every possibility of a European peace policy. In public he hypocritically claimed to be
interested in peace while at the same time he threatened every country that was ready to pursue a policy of peaceful
understanding by blocking credits, economic reprisals, calling in loans, and so forth. In this regard,
the reports of the Polish ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels provide a shocking insight.
This man increased
his campaign of incitement in January 1939. In a message to the U.S. Congress he threatened to take every measure
short of war against the authoritarian countries.
He repeatedly claimed that other countries were trying
to interfere in American affairs, and he talked a lot about upholding the Monroe Doctrine. Starting in March 1939
he began lecturing about internal European affairs that were of no concern of the President of the United States.
In the first place, he doesn't understand these problems, and secondly, even if he did understand them and appreciated
the historical circumstances, he has no more right to concern himself with central European affairs than the German
head of state has to take positions on or make judgments about conditions in the United States.
Mr. Roosevelt went
even beyond that. Contrary to the rules of international law, he refused to recognize governments he didn't like,
would not accept new ones, refused to dismiss ambassadors of non-existent countries, and even recognized them
as legal governments. He went so far as to conclude treaties with these ambassadors, which then gave him the right
to simply occupy foreign territories [Greenland and Iceland ].
On April 15, 1939, Roosevelt made his famous appeal
to me and the Duce [Mussolini], which was a mixture of geographical and political ignorance combined with the
arrogance of a member of the millionaire class. We were called upon to make declarations and to conclude non-aggression
pacts with a number of countries, many of which were not even independent because they had either been annexed
or turned into subordinate protectorates by countries [Britain and France] allied with Mr. Roosevelt.
You will recall, my Deputies, that then [on April 28, 1939] I gave a
polite but straightforward answer to this obtrusive gentleman, which succeeded in stopping, at least for a few months,
the storm of chatter from this unsophisticated warmonger.
But now the honorable wife [Eleanor] took his
place. She and her sons [she said] refused to live in a world such as ours. That is at least understandable,
for ours is world of work and not one of deceit and racketeering. After a short rest, though, he was back
Reichstag Speech Pt. 3 (excerpts)
On November 4, 1939, the Neutrality Act was revised and the arms embargo was repealed in favor of a one-sided supply
[of weapons] to Germany's adversaries. In the same way, he pushed in eastern Asia for economic entanglements with
China that would eventually lead to effective common interests.
On April 9  he froze all Norwegian and Danish
assets [in the U.S.] on the lying pretext of wanting to keep them from falling into German hands, even though
he knew full well, for example, that Germany has not interfered with, much less taken control of, the Danish government's
administration of its financial affairs. Along with the other governments in exile, Roosevelt now recognized one
On May 15, 1940, Dutch and Belgian
governments in exile were also recognized, and at the same time Dutch and Belgian assets [in the USA ] were frozen.
And now he feared that if peace were to come about in Europe, the billions he had squandered on military
spending would soon be recognized as an obvious case of fraud, because no one would attack America unless America
itself provoked the attack.
On June 17, 1940,
the President of the United States froze French assets [in the USA] in order, so he said, to keep them from being
seized by Germany, but in reality to get hold of the gold that was being brought from Casablanca on an American
In July 1940 Roosevelt began to take many new measures toward war, such as permitting the service of American
citizens in the British air force and the training of British air force personnel in the United States.
In August 1940 a joint military policy for the
United States and Canada was established. In order to make the establishment of a joint American-Canadian defense
committee plausible to at least the stupidest people, Roosevelt periodically invented crises and acted as if America
was threatened by immediate attack. He would suddenly cancel trips and quickly return to Washington and do similar
things in order to emphasize the seriousness of the situation to his followers, who really deserve pity.
He moved still closer
to war in September 1940 when he transferred fifty American naval destroyers to the British fleet, and in return
took control of military bases on British possessions in North and Central America. Future generations will determine
the extent to which, along with all this hatred against socialist Germany, the desire to easily and safely take
control of the British empire in its hour of disintegration may have also played a role.
After Britain was
no longer able to pay cash for American deliveries he imposed the Lend-Lease Act on the American people. As President,
he thereby obtained the authority to furnish lend-lease military aid to countries that he, Roosevelt, decided it
was in America's vital interests to defend. After it became clear that Germany would not respond under
any circumstances to his continued boorish behavior, this man took another step forward in March 1941.
As early as December
19, 1939, an American cruiser [the Tuscaloosa] that was inside the security zone maneuvered the [German]
passenger liner Columbus into the hands of British warships. As a result, it had to be scuttled. On that
same day, US military forces helped in an effort to capture the German merchant ship Arauca.
On January 27, 1940, and once again contrary to international law, the
US cruiser Trenton reported the movements of the German merchant ships Arauca, La Plata
and Wangoni to enemy naval forces.
On June 27, 1940, he announced a limitation on the free
movement of foreign merchant ships in US ports, completely contrary to international law.
In November 1940 he permitted US warships to pursue the German merchant ships
Phrygia, Idarwald and Rhein until they finally had to scuttle themselves to keep from
falling into enemy hands.
On April 13, 1941,
American ships were permitted to pass freely through the Red Sea in order to supply British armies in the Middle
In the meantime, in March  all German ships were confiscated by the American authorities. In the
process, German Reich citizens were treated in the most degrading way, ordered to certain locations in violation
of international law, put under travel restrictions, and so forth. Two German officers who had escaped from Canadian
captivity [to the United States] were shackled and returned to the Canadian authorities, likewise completely contrary
to international law.
On March 27  the same president who is [supposedly] against all aggression announced support for [General]
Simovic and his clique of usurpers [in Yugoslavia], who had come to power in Belgrade after the overthrow of the
legal government. Several months earlier, President Roosevelt had sent [OSS chief] Colonel Donovan, a very inferior
character, to the Balkans with orders to help organize an uprising against Germany and Italy in Sofia [Bulgaria]
In April he [Roosevelt] promised
lend-lease aid to Yugoslavia and Greece. At the end of April he recognized Yugoslav and Greek emigrants as governments
in exile. And once again, in violation of international law, he froze Yugoslav and Greek assets.
Starting in mid-April
 US naval patrols began expanded operations in the western Atlantic, reporting their observations to the
On April 26, Roosevelt delivered twenty high speed patrol boats to Britain. At the same time, British
naval ships were routinely being repaired in US ports.
On May 12, Norwegian ships operating for Britain were armed and repaired [in the USA], contrary to international
law. On June 4, American troop transports arrived in Greenland to build air fields.
And on June 9 came the first British report that a US war ship,
acting on orders of President Roosevelt, had attacked a German submarine near Greenland with depth charges.
On June 14, German
assets in the United States were frozen, again in violation of international law.
On June 17, on the basis of a lying pretext, President Roosevelt demanded the recall of the German consuls
and the closing of the German consulates. He also demanded the shutting down of the German "Transocean"
press agency, the German Library of Information [in New York] and the German Reichsbahn [national railway] office.
On July 6 and 7 ,
American armed forces acting on orders from Roosevelt occupied Iceland, which was in the area of German military
operations. He hoped that this action would certainly, first, finally force Germany into war [against the USA]
and, second, also neutralize the effectiveness of the German submarines. At the same time, he promised
military aid to the Soviet Union.
July 10 Navy Secretary Knox suddenly announced that the US Navy was under orders to fire against Axis warships.
On September 4 the US destroyer Greer,
acting on his orders, operated together with British airplanes against German submarines in the Atlantic.
Five days later, a German submarine identified US destroyers as escort
vessels with a British convoy.
In a speech delivered on September 11 , Roosevelt at last personally
confirmed that he had given the order to fire against all Axis ships, and he repeated the order.
On September 29, US patrols attacked a German submarine east of Greenland with
On October 17 the US destroyer
Kearny, operating as an escort for the British, attacked a German submarine with depth charges.
And on November 6 US armed forces seized the German ship Odenwald in
violation of international law, took it to an American port, and imprisoned its crew.
Reichstag Speech Pt.4 (excerpts)
I will overlook as meaningless the insulting attacks and rude statements by
this so-called President against me personally. That he calls me a gangster is particularly meaningless, since
this term did not originate in Europe, where such characters are uncommon, but in America. And aside from
that, I simply cannot feel insulted by Mr. Roosevelt because I regard him, like his predecessor Woodrow Wilson,
as mentally unsound.
We know that this man, with his Jewish supporters, has operated against
Japan in the same way. I don't need to go into that here. The same methods were used in that case as well. This
man first incites to war, and then he lies about its causes and makes baseless allegations. He repugnantly wraps
himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy, while at the same time slowly but very steadily leading humanity into
war. And finally, as an old Freemason, he calls upon God to witness that his actions are honorable. His
shameless misrepresentations of truth and violations of law are unparalleled in history.
I am sure that all
of you have regarded it as an act of deliverance that a country [Japan] has finally acted to protest against all
this in the very way that this man had actually hoped for, and which should not surprise him now [the attack on
Pearl Harbor]. After years of negotiating with this deceiver, the Japanese government finally had its
fill of being treated in such a humiliating way. All of us, the German people and, I believe, all other
decent people around the world as well, regard this with deep appreciation.
We know the power behind Roosevelt. It is the
same eternal Jew that believes that his hour has come to impose the same fate on us that we have all seen and experienced
with horror in Soviet Russia. We have gotten to know first hand the Jewish paradise on earth. Millions
of German soldiers have personally seen the land where this international Jewry has destroyed and annihilated
people and property. Perhaps the President of the United States does not understand this. If so, that only speaks
for his intellectual narrow-mindedness.
And we know that his entire effort is aimed at this goal: Even if we
were not allied with Japan, we would still realize that the Jews and their Franklin Roosevelt intend to destroy
one state after another. The German Reich of today has nothing in common with the Germany of the past. For our part,
we will now do what this provocateur has been trying to achieve for years. And not just because we are allied with
Japan, but rather because Germany and Italy with their present leaderships have the insight and strength
to realize that in this historic period the existence or non-existence of nations is being determined, perhaps for
all time. What this other world has in store for us is clear. They were able to bring the democratic
Germany of the past to starvation, and they seek to destroy the National Socialist Germany of today.
When Mr. Churchill
and Mr. Roosevelt declare that they want to one day build a new social order, that's about the same as a bald-headed
barber recommending a tonic guaranteed to make hair grow. Rather than incite war, these gentlemen, who
live in the most socially backward countries, should have concerned themselves with their own unemployed people.
They have enough misery and poverty in their own countries to keep themselves busy insuring a just distribution
of food there. As far as the German nation is concerned, it doesn't need charity, either from Mr. Churchill or
Mr. Roosevelt -- but it does demand its rights. And it will do what it must to insure its right to life,
even if a thousand Churchills and Roosevelts conspire together to prevent it.
Our nation has a history of nearly two thousand
years. Never in this long period has it been so united and determined as it is today, and thanks to the National
Socialist movement it will always be that way. At the same time, Germany has perhaps never been as far-sighted,
and seldom as conscious of honor. Accordingly, today I had the passports returned to the American charge d'affaires,
and he was bluntly informed of the following:
President Roosevelt's steadily expanding policy
has been aimed at an unlimited world dictatorship. In pursuing this goal, the United States and Britain
have used every means to deny the German, Italian and Japanese nations the prerequisites for their vital natural
existence. For this reason, the governments of Britain and the United States have opposed every effort to create
a new and better order in the world, for both the present and the future.
Since the beginning of the war, the American President
Roosevelt has steadily committed ever more serious crimes against international law. Along with illegal attacks
against ships and other property of German and Italian citizens, there have been threats and even arbitrary deprivations
of personal freedom by internment and such. The increasingly hostile attacks by the American President Roosevelt
have reached the point that he has ordered the U.S. navy, in complete violation of international law, to immediately
and everywhere attack, fire upon and sink German and Italian ships. American officials have even boasted
about destroying German submarines in this criminal manner.
American cruisers have attacked and captured German and Italian merchant ships, and their peaceful crews were
taken away to imprisonment In addition, President Roosevelt's plan to attack Germany and Italy with military forces
in Europe by 1943 at the latest was made public in the United States [by the Chicago Tribune and several
other newspapers on Dec. 4, 1941], and the American government made no effort to deny it.
years of intolerable provocations by President Roosevelt, Germany and Italy sincerely and very patiently tried
to prevent the expansion of this war and to maintain relations with the United States. But as a result
of his campaign, these efforts have failed.
Click on this link to visit Metapedia Alternative Encyclopedia for German WWII Revisionism
War Crimes Against Germans
CAMP – RHEINWIESEN LAGER (RIVER RHEIN MEADOWS)
Million Germans robbed of their land and home and driven out of German territory, former German territory, or their homelands
where they had lived for a couple of centuries – primarily in the East. A huge number of them was tortured to death
or executed. Most of them had to flee for their lives often with just a few items or just their clothes on their backs.
This was all arranged by the evil world rulers who incited hate in the local people against the Germans with lies via
their filthy, evil media. Many Germans died on the road fleeing through enemy territory, often several countries. They were
robbed, raped and murdered. Some became ill and did not survive.
Million German women and girls were raped inside of Germany alone. Including fleeing or driven out ethnic Germans from Eastern
Europe, the number of raped women and girls is probably 5 Million. Many travelled without men as most of the men were fighting
the war on one or the other side. 10 -15 % died from the injuries or torture during rape. The Bolshevik Jew and Military
Leader Ilya Ehrenburg ordered the Russian soldiers with leaflets to rape the pride out of the German women and kill them.
the evacuation of the German civilians from East Germany, 1,000 ships of all sizes and classes
were utilized for the rescue of German refugees and expulsion victims. 2 Million refugees were saved
on these ships. However, more than 200 civilian ships were attacked and destroyed and as a result 40,000 German
women and children drowned in the Eastern Sea. The famous ship Wilhelm Gustloff was one of the ships that never reached
a save harbor.
A memorial to the people of the MS Gustloff
THE ALLIES TREATED GERMAN PRISONERS
by Michael Walsh
crime trials for allied soldiers overdue.” Says analyst
NEWS DESK 24th JUNE 2000MICHAEL WALSH
“British and allied troops appearing as defendants
in war crimes trials with brutal Serbs and former Red Army thugs is well overdue”, says 20th Century analyst,
Michael Walsh. His research exposes allied genocide, enslavement and institutionalized ill treatment of axis prisoners-of-war
both during and after World War 11.
He says, “the scale of abuse of
prisoners-of-war was contrary to the Geneva and other conventions to which Britain and its allies were signatories. As late
as 1948, three years after the war’s end, the British Government’s treatment of its foreign prisoners was subject
to International Red Cross scrutiny and international condemnation. The IRC threatened to bring the British government before
international tribunals for abuse and illegal enslavement. Typically, British administered prisoner-of-war camps were worse
than Belsen long after the war had ended and war disruption ceased. Tragically even civilians were illegally held, deported
and murdered in the tens of thousands whilst the evil killers responsible have so far evaded justice.
The respected Associated Press Photographer, Henry Griffin who had taken the pictures of corpses
in Buchenwald and Dachau when visiting Allied POW camps agreed: “The only difference I can see between these men and
those corpses is that here they are still breathing.” (1)
to revelations by members of the House of Commons, about 130,000 former German officers and men were held during the winter
of 1945-46 in British camps in Belgium under conditions which British officers have described as ‘not much better
than Belsen.” (2)
TORTURE AND BRUTALITY
Adding to international outrage, Cyril Connolly,
one of England’s most acclaimed writers reported: “British guards imprisoned German troops and tortured them.”
He described how “they were so possessed by propaganda about German ‘Huns’ that they obviously enjoyed
demonstrating their atrocities to visiting journalists. A British reporter named Moorehead who was present at these ‘torture
fests’ observed that ‘a young British medical officer and a captain of engineers managed the Bergen-Belsen camp.
“The captain was in the best of moods,” he said. “When we approached the cells of gaoled guards, the sergeant
lost his temper.” The captain explained. ‘This morning we had an interrogation. I’m afraid the prisoners
don’t look exactly nice.’
The cells were opened for the visiting
journalists. “The German prisoners lay there, crumpled, moaning, covered with gore. The man next to me made vain attempts
to get to his feet and finally managed to stand up. He stood there trembling, and tried to stretch out his arms as if fending
off blows. “Up!” yelled the sergeant. “Come off the wall.”
pushed themselves off from the wall and stood there, swaying. In another cell the medical officer had just finished an interrogation.
“Up.” yelled the officer. “Get up.” The man lay in his blood on the floor. He propped two arms on
a chair and tried to pull himself up. A second demand and he succeeded in getting to his feet. He stretched his arms towards
us. “Why don’t you kill me off?” he moaned.
“The dirty bastard is jabbering this all morning.” the sergeant stated.
SHOOTING PRISONERS ‘FOR FUN’
British Army veteran A.W Perkins of Holland-on-Sea described conditions in the ‘Sennelager’ British concentration
camp, which shockingly held, not captured troops but civilians. He recounts; “During the latter half of 1945 I was
with British troops guarding suspected Nazi civilians living on starvation rations in a camp called Sennelager. They were
frequently beaten and grew as thin as concentration camp victims, scooping handfuls of swill from our waste bins.”
This ex-guard described how other guards amused themselves by baiting starving prisoners. “They
could be shot on sight if they ventured close to the perimeter fence. It was a common trick to throw a cigarette just inside
the fence and shoot any prisoner who tried to reach it.” (4).
Press representatives ask to examine the prison camps, the British loudly refuse with the excuse that the Geneva Convention
bars such visits to prisoner-of-war camps.” complained press correspondent Arthur Veysey from London on May 28th
“UNDERFED AND BEATEN” ADMITS TOP AMERICAN NEWSPAPER
Typically “The prisoners lived
through the winter in tents and slept on the bare ground under one blanket each. They say they are underfed and beaten and
kicked by guards. Many have no underclothes or boots.” reported the Chicago Tribune Press Service on 19 May 1946 one
year after the war’s end.
“In the summer of 1946 an increasing
number of prisoners of-war were escaping from British slave camps often with British civilian aid. “Accounts of the
chases by military police are reminiscent of pre-Civil War pursuits by fleeing Negro fugitives.” stated
an Associated Press dispatch (London, August 27th, 1946) more than sixteen months after the war ended.
CIVILIANS; WOMEN AND CHILDREN MACHINE-GUNNED
of thousands of middle-European peoples, displaced by the war who fell into British hands were treated even worse in British
controlled Austria and Yugoslavia. There, Britain and the NKVD ran the concentration camps jointly. The latter, forerunners
to the evil KGB, were invited to assist the British in the capture and corralling, deportation and slaughter of their captives.
One British officer described how “The prisoners (civilians) were treated coarsely but not
brutally. They were pushed and shoved but there was no resistance, no fighting or trying to get back or get away. They were
all completely docile, resigned to their fate. The soldiers collected them all quickly into groups and marched them away
to be machine-gunned in groups.’
The British officer added, ‘some
of them didn’t get very far I’m afraid. At the back of the station there was a wood, a copse, and they seemed
to be marched behind this copse. Shortly afterwards there were quite a number of sustained bursts of machine-gun fire. I
can’t say for certain what happened, because I couldn’t see the shooting. But I am pretty sure that a lot of
them were shot there and then, not on the siding itself but just around the corner of the wood.”
This is typical of many accounts when units of the British Army working with Red Army NKVD officers,
hunted down and butchered tens of thousands of Cossack civilian refugees including children in Austria, in summer, 1945 after
the war had ended.
A BLOOD-SPATTERED BRITISH TRANSPORT TRAIN
Tens of thousands of people of many nationalities were hunted down and rounded up like cattle to
be taken to the Red Army’s killing fields. One account described how ‘the whole train was bespattered with blood.
They were open-plan carriages, and I remember the bloodstains where bodies had been dragged right down the corridor between
the seats and down three of four steps. The lavatories were absolutely covered in blood….”
“Another such patrol, consisting of two Red Army officers and four British soldiers set off
into the hills on horseback on June 8th. They captured one such group on
the lower slopes…. “The Cossacks ran off, leaving just a few, mainly women and children who were too weak to
move. One soldier spotted a Cossack in the distance, aimed his rifle at him, fired and saw him drop. …. As he was
not seen to rise again it was assumed he had been killed.”
Duncan McMillan remembers, ‘Being guided to a small railway station where there was a barbed-wire enclosure’
He saw the Cossacks being unloaded from the trucks and described how they were stripped of their possessions, even food
before being marched away. ‘Many British soldiers who were there have testified that they heard the rattle of machine-guns
nearby just moments after the prisoners were removed.” James Davidson said: “We thought that machine-gunning
must be the finish of them. We thought they were just taken back there and slaughtered.”
awful accounts were described in Nicholas Bethell’s book, The Last Secret published by Futura, (London) in 1974. The
English legal apparatus suppressed further accounts.
SLAVE LABOUR IN THE CENTURY
In August 1946 15 months after the end of the Second World War, according to the International Red
Cross, “Britain had 460,000 German prisoners slaving for her.” This was in direct contravention of the Geneva
Convention (Enslavement of Prisoners-of-War is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Article.75) which Britain was a signatory
to. Arthur Veysey of the Chicago Tribune Press Service on May 28th 1946 reported “When they (German POWs)
learned upon arrival in British and French ports they were to be worked indefinitely as slaves, they became sullen.”
PROFITING FROM GERMAN SLAVES
Arthur Veysey appalled by the British
government’s abuse of human rights and the illegality of its evil slave-ownership policies and defiance of the Geneva
Convention said, “The British Government nets over $250,000,000 annually from its slaves. The Government, which frankly
calls itself the ‘owner’ of the prisoners, hires the men out to any employer needing men, charging the going
rate for such work, usually $15 to $20 a week. It pays the slaves from 10 to 20 cents a day. The prisoners are never paid
in cash, but are given credits either in the form of vouchers or credits.”
UNION FOLLOWS BRITAIN’S SLAVE EMPIRE EXAMPLE
When American attempts were made to prevent
Stalin from abducting five million Germans, many of them civilians including children, as slave laborers after Germany’s
defeat, the Soviets made their point. They produced a proclamation signed by General Dwight Eisenhower a year earlier, which
gave the Soviets complete freedom to do whatever, they wished with captured Germans. This included deportation, enslavement;
to loot and destroy without restraint, even using German transport to do so. They reminded the US Government that they had
an equal right to do as the Americans were doing and were exercising the same right.
accounts describe events when Berlin and Breslau surrendered. “The long grey-green columns of prisoners were marched
east downcast and fearful towards huge depots near Leningrad, Moscow, Minsk, Stalingrad, Kiev, Kharkov and Sevastopol. All
fit men had to march 22 miles a day. Those physically handicapped went
in handcarts or carts pulled by spare beasts.” This was reported in the Congressional Record on March 29th 1946.
STARVATION OF POWS IN FRANCE
By August 1946 France according to the
International Red Cross had enslaved nearly three-quarters of a million former German servicemen. Of these 475,000 had been
captured by the Americans who ‘in a deal’ had transferred them to French control for the expressed purpose of
forced labour. Interestingly in a macabre way, the French returned 2,474 German POWs complaining that they were weaklings.
Those returned must indeed have been in a bad way for the 472,526 remaining slaves
had already been described by correspondents as; “a beggar army of pale, thin men clad in vermin infested tatters.”
All were pronounced unfit for work, three quarters of them due to deliberate starvation. Of this unfortunate ‘army’
of slaves 19% were so badly treated they needed to be hospitalized (6)
notorious camp in the Sarthe District for 20,000 prisoners, inmates received just 900 calories a day; thus 12 died every
day in the hospital. Four to five thousand are unable to work any more. Recently trains with new prisoners arrived at the
camp; several prisoners had died during the trip, several others had tried to stay alive by eating coal that had been lying
in the freight train by which they came. (7)
On December 5th 1946 the American
Government requested the repatriation (by October 1, 1947) to Germany of the 674,000 German prisoners-of-war it had handed
over to France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg.
France agreed in principle but refused
to abide by the release date stipulated. They pointed out, correctly, that a December 1st 1945 memorandum clearly
stated that German prisoners handed over to the French by the US Government ‘were chattels to be used indefinitely
as forced labour’. (8)
US ARMY SLAUGHTERED GERMAN POWS
The German armed forces invariably obeyed the Rules of War conventions to the letter. Speaking for
himself and other allied military commanders, Major General Robert W. Grow, U.S.A. Commander 6th Armored Division in Europe
conceded there was ‘no German atrocity problem’.
“My service during World War Two
was in command of an armored division throughout the European campaign, from Normandy to Saxony. My division lost quite a
number of officers and men captured between July 1944 and April 1945. In no instance did I hear of personnel from our division
receiving treatment other than proper under the ‘Rules of Land Warfare’. As far as the 6th Armored Division
was concerned in its 280 days of front line contact, there was no ‘atrocity problem’. Frankly, I was aghast,
as were many of my contemporaries, when we learned of the proposed ‘war crimes’ trials and the fact that military
commanders were among the accused. I know of no general officer who approved of them.” (9)
Despite the German observance of convention the American forces response was often as summary and
as brutal as those practiced by their Soviet allies. Only in cases where large numbers of captured soldiers had been taken
were they to be enslaved. If captured in smaller groups the US Army policy was simply to slaughter their captured prisoners
where they stood.
A specific study is now being made for the purpose of compiling
evidence of such atrocities to which the author, Michael Walsh, would appreciate input.
such case was the cold-blooded slaying of an estimated 700 troops of the 8th SS Mountain Division. These troops
who had fought with honorable distinction had earlier captured a US field hospital. Although the German troops had conducted
themselves properly they were, when subsequently captured by the US Army, routinely separated and gunned down in groups
by squads of American troops.
US ARMY TURNS PEACEFUL DACHAU INTO CHARNEL HOUSE
A similar fate befell infantrymen of the SS Westphalia Brigade who were captured by the US 3rd
Armored Division. Most of the German captives were shot through the back of the head. “The jubilant Americans told
the locals to leave their bodies in the streets as a warning to others of US revenge” Their corpses lay in the streets
for five days before the occupying forces relented and allowed the corpses to be buried. After the war the German authorities
attempted, without success, to prosecute the GIs responsible. (10)
Ironically in the light of postwar research it has been revealed that the only atrocities committed
at Dachau were those carried out by the victorious allies. Equally ironically this camp was an allied concentration camp
(eleven years) for a longer period of time than it was a German administered camp. There, “Three hundred SS camp guards
were quickly neutralized.” on the orders of General Dwight D. Eisenhower.
term neutralized of course is a politically correct (or cowardly) way of saying that prisoners-of-war were rounded up and
machine-gunned in groups. Accounts of the mass murder of prisoners-of-war at Dachau have been described in at least two
books; ‘The Day of the Americans by Nerin Gun, Fleet Publishing Company, New York, and, Deliverance
Day – The Last Hours at Dachau by Michael Selzer; Lippincot, Philadelphia
books describe how German prisoners were collected in groups, placed against a wall and methodically machine-gunned by American
soldiers while some were still standing, hands raised in surrender. American soldiers casually climbed over the still twitching
bodies, killing the wounded. Whilst this was happening, American photographers were taking pictures of the massacres that
have since been published.
At Dachau, which was in the American zone of Germany, a shock force of American and Polish guards attempted to
entrain a group of Russian prisoners from Vlasov’s Army who had refused to be repatriated under the new American ruling.
‘All of these men refused to entrain,’
Robert Murphy wrote in his report of the incident. ‘They begged to be shot. They resisted entrainment by taking off
their clothes and refusing to leave their quarters…. Tear-gas forced them out of the building into the snow where
those who had cut and stabbed themselves fell exhausted and bleeding in the snow. Nine men hanged themselves and one had
stabbed himself to death and one other who had stabbed himself subsequently died; while twenty others are still in hospital
from self-inflicted wounds. The entrainment was finally effected of 368 men.” (11)
last operation of this kind in Germany took place at Plattling near Regensburg, where fifteen hundred men of Vlasov’s
Army had been interned by the Americans. In the early hours of February 24th, 1946, they were driven out of their huts wearing
only their night-clothes, and handed over to the Russians in the forest near the Bavarian-Czech border. Before the train
set off on its return journey the American guards were horrified to see the bodies of Vlasov’s men who had already
committed suicide hanging in rows from trees, and when they returned to Plattling even the German SS prisoners in the nearby
POW camp jeered at them for what they had done.” (13)
According to the Toronto Daily Star,
March, 9th, 1968, “Former members of an illegal Israeli force which was given absolute freedom to slaughter Germans
conceded that “More than 1,000 Nazi SS Officers died as a result of eating arsenic-impregnated bread introduced April,
13th, 1946, in an American-run prisoner-of-war camp near Nuremberg.”
the US victory (the battle for Remagen Bridge) Germans in the Rhineland surrendered en masse. Between April and
July 1945, some 260,000 German prisoners-of-war were held under American guard in the boggy fields between Remagen and Sinzig.
They were kept in the open air and their daily ration was one potato, a biscuit, a spoonful of vegetables and some water.
Racked by disease, at least 1,200 died, according to German records.” (14)
CHURCH CONDEMNS US SLAVERY
In the USA where 140,000 German prisoners-of-war
were shipped, the Catholic Bishops Conference described how, “Multitudes of civilians and prisoners of war have been
deported and degraded into forced labor unworthy of human beings.”
of thousands, if not millions, are put like slaves to forced labor, although the only thing with which they can be reproached
is the fact that they were soldiers. Many of these poor fellows are without news from home and have not been allowed to
send a sign of life to their dear ones.”
GERMAN SLAVES HELD IN ALLIED COUNTRIES
United States 140,000 (US Occupation Zone of which 100,000 were held
in France, 30,000 in Italy, 14,000 in Belgium. Great Britain 460,000
German slaves. The Soviet Union 4,000,000 – 5,000,000 estimated. France had 680,000
German slaves by August 1946. Yugoslavia 80,000, Belgium 48,000, Czechoslovakia
45,000, Luxembourg 4,000, Holland 1,300. Source: International Red Cross.
“AN EVIL PRECEDENT”
An outraged International Red Cross organization
opined: “The United States, Britain and France, nearly a year after peace are violating International Red Cross agreements
they solemnly signed in 1929. Although thousands of former German soldiers are being used in the hazardous work of clearing
minefields, sweeping sea mines and razing shattered buildings, the Geneva Convention expressly forbids employing prisoners
‘in any dangerous labour or in the transport of any material used in warfare.’
Henry Wales in Geneva, Switzerland on April 13, 1946 added, ‘The bartering
of captured enemy soldiers by the victors throws the world back to the dark ages when feudal barons raided adjoining duchies
to replenish their human live stock. It is an iniquitous system and an evil precedent because it is wide open for abuse
with difficulty in establishing responsibility. It is manifestly unjust and sell them for political reasons as the African
Negroes were a century ago.”
GERMAN TREATMENT OF POWs FAR MORE HUMANE
By contrast the German armed forces behaved impeccably towards their prisoners-of-war. “The
most amazing thing about the atrocities in this war is that there have been so few of them. I have come up against few instances
where the Germans have not treated prisoners according to the rules, and respected the Red Cross reported respected newspaper
The Progressive February, 4th 1945.
Wood, London Correspondent of the London Express agreed. “The Germans even in their greatest moments
of despair obeyed the Convention in most respects. True it is that there were front line atrocities – passions run
high up there – but they were incidents, not practices, and misadministration of their American prison camps was very
uncommon.” Lieutenant Newton L. Marguiles echoed his words.
Judge Advocate, Jefferson Barracks, April 27th1945. “It is true that the Reich exacted forced labour
from foreign workers, but it is also true that, they were for the most part paid and fed well.”
“I think some of the persons found themselves better off than at any time in their lives before.”
added Dr.James K.Pollack, Allied Military Government.
“What did the Germans do to get
efficient production from forced labour that we were not able to do with Germans working down the mines? They fed their help
and fed them well.” Said Max H. Forester, Chief of AMG’s Coal and Mining Division in July 1946.
WILL NEMESIS DELIVER?
Asked what were the chances of the evil
perpetrators of such crimes being brought to justice, Michael Walsh said that the only thing that stood between the allied
sadists and the hangman’s rope was the will to bring them to trial.
on retrospective justice is already a fact of life. Its failure is that war crimes justice is selective and so far applicable
only to the defeated foe under highly questionable and internationally criticized legal procedures.
What is needed is to raise public awareness and a lead be given by those in public life whose voice
is less likely to be censored. He added that the interests of justice must come before national pride, political expediency
and military guilt. “How else.” He added, “can human civilization progress than through the administration
of justice that is blind to race, political dogma and national interests?
Record, December 11, 1945 p. A-5816. (2) Gruesome Harvest, R.F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics, Chicago, 1947. (3) Cyril Connolly, The Golden Horizon, Weidenfeld and
Nicholson, London (4) Daily
Mail, London, 22nd, April, 1995 (5) John Thompson, Chicago Tribune Press Service, Geneva, August 24, 1946).
(6) Gruesome Harvest, R.F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics,
Chicago, 1947). (7) Louis
Clair, The Progressive, 14 January, 1946). (8) Gruesome Harvest, R.F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics, Chicago, 1947). (9) Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-Appraisal, H.K Thompson/Henry
Strutz, Amber Publishing Corp. N.Y 1976. (10) Daily Mail, London, May 1, 1995. (11) Douglas Botting, In The Ruins of The Reich, George Allen & Unwin, London (12) Douglas Botting, In The Ruins of The Reich, George
Allen & Unwin, London (13)
Douglas Botting, In The Ruins of The Reich, George Allen & Unwin, London (14) Roger Boyes, The (London) Times, 7th March 1995
WAR CRIMES USA
“. . . there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed: and hid that
shall not be made known.” – Matthew 10:26
Is America finally about to be thrown a scrap or two of historical
truth? If so, have the Soviet relations of recent months, which has caused its leaders to admit to the murder of millions
of their own people, allowed a few rays of truth to filter down and penetrate the Iron Curtain which has been erected over
World War II, and which has kept vital facts from our people?
Something out of the ordinary seems to be going on within
America’s ruling circles. Are we finally to be told the truth about World War II?
Recently a book was written by an eminent Canadian author,
James Bacque, of Toronto. It is titled OTHER LOSSES and deserves the widest possible distribution in the United States,
especially among our veterans who fought World War II. Although Mr. Bacque’s book does not picture America and her
allies in a favorable light, it has had an amazing reception in Canada, although the people of the United States, for the
most part have been kept in the dark about one of the most heinous episodes of World War II, which revolves around the Supreme
Commander of the Allies in Europe, Gen. Dwight David Eisenhower, who was known during his days at West Point as that “terrible
I have my own opinions of Dwight David Eisenhower, opinions formed during the early days of World
War II, from information I received from officers who knew “Ike” before he became Supreme Commander.
During the days before World War II, “Ike,”
as he was affectionately called, was noted as a ”ladies man, and the best damned bridge player on the Post.”
(Quotation not mine.) When anyone would mention Ike as a troop commander, it was met with hilarious, profane skepticism.
Then too, my opinions of Ike were formed by the attitude of my Commanding General, Gen. George Patton, who looked on Eisenhower
as a “whimp,” not worthy of his rank.
As many of you will remember, Ike was promoted to Supreme Commander in Europe. From
Lieutenant Colonel, in early 1941, Eisenhower was promoted to full Colonel in March 1941, to Brigadier General (temporary)
in September. In February 1942, after he became a favorite of Gen. George Marshall during the Louisiana Maneuvers, he was
appointed Assistant Chief of the War Plans Division. About this time, Ike became acquainted with the daughter of President
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and she introduced her boy friend to “pappa.” Evidently F.D.R. recognized in this
young officer, a man who would agree with his plans and who would do anything to get promoted. This began a rapid spiral
of promotions which by-passed many officers who outranked him and who were much more qualified for the posts he occupied.
He became Chief of Operations Division, War Department General Staff (March, 1942), to Commanding General of the European
Theater of Operations in June 1942, to Allied Commander in Chief, for the invasion of North Africa (November, 1942), Sicily,
(May 1943), Italy (September, 1943) and finally to his ultimate designation by President F.D.R. as Supreme Commander, Allied
Expeditionary Force for the invasion of Europe.
It was Eisenhower’s advise to F.D.R. and Churchill, which caused the war to drag on for two extra years,
resulting in millions of deaths on both sides, and hundreds of billions of dollars of profit for Eisenhower’s racial
brethren, the International bankers, who financed both sides.
In early 1943, General Patton and the British Commander,
Gen. Montgomery, presented a plan to Churchill and F.D.R. which called for the invasion of Europe through the “soft
underbelly of Europe.” This would have liberated all the eastern European countries from Communist control and would
have ended the war in 1943.
But Eisenhower’s hatred of the Germans, which was openly shown many times during those terrible
days of the war, demanded that as many Germans as possible be made to suffer for their part in the war.
It might be well to state here, that as early as 1902,
International Jewry had a plan for the destruction of Christianity in Europe.
This called for the destruction, first of Czarist Russia,
which took place in 1917, and then for the destruction of Germany. A war chest of some $2-billion was set aside for this
purpose, long before a man named Adolf Hitler came on the scene. When Churchill and F.D.R. listened to the advice of Stalin,
instead of their two best military leaders, it gave Stalin two years to establish control over all of Eastern Europe, which
is now known as the Warsaw Pact Nations.
We can see the further treason in Eisenhower’s actions, when in 1945, as Patton’s
armored forces swept into Germany, they were held back from entering Berlin, and were even ordered to withdraw to the Western
borders of Germany, until Soviet troops could enter Germany.
Any military commander “worth their salt,” knows that
Patton could have ended the war on the Eastern border of Germany and that country would have never been divided. Patton by
this time was beginning to realize that a conspiracy existed among the top war leaders, which were keeping him from the
victory he so richly deserved. It was a traumatic lesson which was to be later repeated with General Douglas MacArthur in
Korea, when he was not allowed to attack enemy positions north of the Yalu River.
The One Worlder’s in Washington, D.C., and London
had other plans and aided Stalin in his rape of Eastern Europe and Germany.
It was the “terrible Swedish Jew” Eisenhower,
whose open hatred of everything German, caused him to promote Operation Keelhaul, at the end of the war, where thousands of anti-Communist fighters, who had surrendered to American forces, were forced
at bayonet point, back to the tender mercies of the Communists. Thousands of them were murdered outright, or disappeared
into the Gulags of Russia.
returned to the States, made a hero by the controlled prostitute press of America, and his popularity from a populace he
had betrayed, was such that he became the 34th President of the United States in 1953.
Eisenhower was quoted at the war’s end as saying:
”I hate war as only a soldier who has lived through it can only as one who has seen it’s brutality, it’s
futility, it’s Stupidity” But he did not hate it as much as he hated Germans, and he took a terrible Jewish
revenge on over a million surrendered German soldiers and civilians when the war ended. Praised by the media and the ”kept”
historians, this man was directly responsible for one of the most reprehensible acts in the history of civilized warfare.
One which should put him in the same class with Atilla the Hun and other barbarians.
The peace which was inflicted on a completely defeated
Germany in 1945, was called the Morgenthau Plan. It was promoted by Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, a Jew, who later stated that most of the ideas for this plan had come from Eisenhower.
Now, after a tremendous research of over twenty years,
the truth about this Jew Commander of America’s forces, who became the 34th President of the United States, can be
In 1945, during the post-World War II period, American foreign policy was largely in the hands of a small group
of very powerful Zionists based in Washington, D.C. This secret, invisible government, which has controlled America for over
fifty years, was headed then by Sen. Herbert Lehman; Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, and Secretary of the Treasury,
Henry Morgenthau. They drew up the “blueprint” for a plan, which the enthusiastic Eisenhower carried out in
Europe, which was the most monstrous policy of hate and vengeance known in the annals of civilized history.
This policy is still in operation today, fifty years
later, where media pundits, twisting, exaggerating, and even manufacturing historical claims, have hounded, harassed, and
had arrested 70 and 80-year old European war veterans for alleged ”war crimes,” which were supposed to have
taken place over fifty years ago.
The following article, entitled THE EISENHOWER DEATH CAMPS, was taken from the January
1990 issue of INSTAURATION, a scholarly American monthly. Every American veteran who served in World War II should know
these facts. They are entitled to know how we were lied to and inveigled into a war for the benefits of the Internationalists.
Every American Legion and Veteran’s of foreign War Post in this country, should have this article read to its them
bets, for you see, the same treason was carried out in Korea and then later in Vietnam. It is we, the veteran’s of
America, who have the right to know the truth, about the traitors who were responsible for the murder of our buddies, and
the crippling of hundreds of thousands more, and who are even now laying the groundwork to get your sons and daughters involved
in World War Ill.
Archives in Washington, (D.C.) contains an official document called the Weekly Prisoner of War and Disarmed Enemy Forces
Report for the week ending Sept. 8, 1945. It shows that 1,056,482 German prisoners were then being held by the U.S. Army
in the European theater, of whom 692,895 were still classified as POWs (Prisoners of War) and the other 363,587 as DEFs (Disarmed
This latter designation
was illegal under international law and completely contrary to the Geneva Convention, to which both the United States and
Germany were signatories. A German soldier designated DEF had no right to any food, shelter, or water in fact, to anything.
Quite often he did not receive even the basic necessities of life and died within days.
In the first week of September 1945, 13,051 of the 363,587
Germans died and were listed cryptically as “other losses.” This was the equivalent of a death rate of 3.6% per
week. At such a rate, all the remaining 350,536 DEFs would have been dead within 28 weeks before the end of the approaching
The civilian death rate immediately outside the American camps in Germany was about 2% per year, or nearly 100
times lower, despite the greater proportion of older people. Since adequate supplies were readily available to the American
troops at all times, this killing seems to have been deliberate.
As for the 692,895 German soldiers still falsely listed
as POWs, the last of them had actually been transferred from POW to DEF status a month earlier on August 4, by order of General Eisenhower. Their death rate quickly quadrupled within weeks, from
.2% to .8% per week. Assuming the latter rate for the week ending September 8,
about 5,543 of the so-called POWs listed in the report as being alive and in American hands had died that week – all
would have died within just over two years.. (The reason this death rate was lower than 3.6% weekly for the longer-term
DEFs was simply that the barbaric treatment of the DEFs was cumulative, and that some of the American troops refused to
go along with this barbaric treatment.) I recall the winter of 1945, when I was on occupation duty in Japan. A similar order
came from our local U.S. military commander who was known for his hatred of all Japanese. It did not come from MacArthur’s
headquarters in Tokyo. We were not allowed to give food of any kind to Japanese civilians, although many of them were on
the verge of starvation. I was commanding a detachment of 28 men, which were guarding a Japanese Quarter Master dump at
the little town of Niski’ya’hama, about eighty miles south of Osaka. Food in this storehouse was literally spoiling,
yet we were not allowed to share it with the Japanese people. For Christmas rations that year, my detachment received eight
sheep carcasses and 28 turkeys, with no refrigeration for storage. Rather than see this food go to waste, I shared it with
the starving population, and when word leaked out, I came very close to being court marshaled. It was only the intervention
of a high ranking officer from MacArthur’s Headquarters which saved me.
The same thing happened over and over again in Germany,
and American officers and servicemen were court marshaled, on Eisenhower’s orders, for sharing their rations with the
starving Germans. If you were a young man, with several small children at home, you know how these enemy children played
on the minds of decent Americans who knew what their government was doing was wrong. Enemy children have never been enemies,
to big hearted Americans.
But with a man of unbounded hatred for the Germans, his order of August
4th, made it impossible for there to be such a thing as a bona fide German POW in American hands on European
Instead, there were vast
concentrations of men (including some women and children) starving to death in open, muddy, disease-ridden fields.
In November 1945, Eisenhower returned to Washington.
A month later, a slight relaxation went into effect. Men of conscience such as General George Patton, had no qualms about
killing German soldiers in combat, but he drew a line at the deliberate policy of murder which was advocated by Eisenhower.
I firmly believe this was one of the reasons he met his untimely death The truth which is now coming out of old records,
show that “war crimes” was by no means a German monopoly, and the “good war,” the Jewish media and
historians called it in the United States, was as evil as any conflict in world history.
Bacque’s careful calculations forced him to conclude:
Eisenhower had deplored the German’s
useless defense of the Reich in the last months of the war because of the waste of life. At least ten times as many Germans
– undoubtedly 800,000, almost certainly 900,000, and quite possibly a million died in the French and American camps
as were killed in all the combat on the Western front in northwest Europe from America’s entry into the war in December
1941, through April 1945.”
Bacque was ably assisted in his research by Col. Ernest F. Fisher, a senior historian
for the U.S. Army, as well as by other highly placed members of the American military. One of them, Col. Philip S. Lauben,
Chief of the German Affairs branch of SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force), stated that, in late 1945,
“the Vosges (northeast France) was just one big death camp (for Germans).”
In spite of everything which has been written about Eisenhower
which makes him out to be a hero, there seems little question that Dwight Eisenhower meets all the qualifications of a certified
war criminal, even if Bacque’s figures are off a bit. (If Germany had been the winner, there is little doubt he would
have been tried and found guilty of the most heinous crimes against mankind.)
Many veterans will get upset with this appraisal of a
man they looked on as a “bona fide” American hero. But the proof for these accusations can be found in what happened
to those Germans who were fortunate enough to surrender to the British and the Canadians some two million of them. The evidence
shows that “almost all continued in fair health and many were quickly released and sent home or transferred to the
French, to help in the post-war work of reconstruction.
Bacque specifically commends General Patton for behavior towards
his POWs it a civilized manner. His Third Army freed vast numbers of German captives during May 1945, to the dismay, no
doubt, of the Zionists who controlled Washington.
Both General Omar Bradley and J. C. H. Lee, Communications Zone (ComZ) Europe, ordered
the release of prisoners within a week of the war’s end. This SHAEF order was countermanded by Eisenhower on May IS,
While German soldiers from the British and Canadian zones were quickly regaining strength and were helping rebuild
Europe, Germans taken by the Americans were dying by the hundreds of thousands – emaciated figures in diarrhea smeared
clothing, huddling pitifully in watery holes with perhaps a scrap of cardboard over their heads and a rotten potato for
supper. At times many of them were reduced to drinking urine and eating grass.
Did all this happen because of one supremely unprincipled
and influential man named Eisenhower? Or was Ike in turn influenced by a small circle around him or by his superiors in
Washington? Historians will be probing this question for decades to come.
Here are the principle dates by which this infamy will
1944: Eisenhower told the British ambassador to Washington that the 3,500 officers of the German General staff
should be ”exterminated.” He also favored the liquidation of perhaps 100,000 prominent Germans. Soon after, he
wrote to his wife, Mamie: “God, I hate Germans! Why? Because the German is a beast!” Eisenhower said he was
ashamed to bear a German name.
August 1944: The North American wheat surplus was greater than at any time in history, nearly one
billion bushels. The U.S. corn surplus and potato crop also reached a new high.
March 10, 1944: A message sent from Eisenhower to the
Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS) of Britain and the U.S. recommended the creation of an entirely new class of prisoners, Disarmed
Enemy Forces or DEFs. At a press conference in Paris, this same day, Ike said: “If the Germans were reasoning like
normal beings, they would realize the whole history of the United States and Great Britain is to be generous towards a defeated
enemy. We observe all the laws of the Geneva Convention.”
March 19, 1945: Eisenhower’s special assistant,
General Everett Hughes, visited the American supply depots at Naples and Marseille. In both places, he writes, there are
”more stocks than we can ever use. (They) stretch as far as eye can see.”
Spring 1945: The International Red Cross had over 100,000
tons of food stockpiled in Switzerland. At one point, it sent two trainloads into the American Zone of Germany, but the
food was sent back. The Morgenthau Plan for a ”Carthaginian Peace” in Germany, to use the words of Military Governor
Lucius Clay, is implemented through the directive JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) 1067, which specifies to Eisenhower the policy
he must adopt towards every institution in Germany. The directive is largely the work of three of Henry Morgenthau’s
underlings in the Treasury Department Harry Dexter White, Frank Coe, and Harry Glasser. White and Glasser were both Jews
and all three were Communist ”fellow travelers.”
April 11, 1945: On the eve of his death, FDR told Morgenthau in
Warm Springs, GA: “Henry, I am with you l00%” When Truman took over, he continued Morgenthau’s “Carthaginian
Policy” towards conquered Germany.
April 17, 1945: The Americans opened their enormous Rheinberg Camp, six miles in circumference,
with no food or shelter whatsoever. As in the other big “Rhine meadow” camps, opened in mid-April, there was
initially no latrines and no water. In some camps, the men were so crowded they could not lie down. Meanwhile, at Camp Kripp,
near Remagen, the half-American Charles von Luttichau determines that his German comrades are receiving about 5% as much
food as their captors.” Complaining to the camp commander, HE SAID: ”Forget the Geneva Convention. You don’t
have any rights.”
Late April 1945: Heinz Janssen, a survivor of the Rheinberg camp, described conditions as they were
at the time. “Amputees slithered like amphibians through the mud , soaking and freezing. Naked to the skies day after
day and night after flight, they lay desperate in the sand of Rheinberg or sleep exhaustedly into eternity ill their collapsing
April 26, 1945: The Combined Chiefs of Staff sent a message to Eisenhower, urging him not to take any more German
prisoners after VE Day. He ignored it. The CCS approved of Ike’s proposed DEF status, but only for certain types of
German prisoners. The British refused to go against the Geneva Convention. The CCS orders the illegal DEF status to be kept
strictly secret. By this date, Eisenhower’s Quartermaster General of ASHAEF, Gen. Robert Littlejohn, has already twice
reduced the rations to German prisoners. A message to Gen. George C. Marshall, signed by Ike, mandated: ”No shelter”
for German prisoners, despite an unusually cold and wet March and April.
May 4, 1945: The first German POWs were transfer-red
to DEF status. Mail to and from all German prisoners was banned for more than a year.
May 8, 1945: Germany surrendered unconditionally. The
U.S. State Department wasted no time dismissing Switzerland as the official Protecting Power for German prisoners, contravening
the Geneva Convention. State also informed the International Red Cross that, with no Protecting Power to report to, there
is no point in sending delegates to the camps. From this day forward, prisoners held by the U.S. Army had no access to any
impartial observer. The British and Canadians also removed the Swiss protectors, but continued treating their POWs decently.
May, 1945: The American Red Cross reported that more
than 98% of Americans captured by the Germans will be coming home safely, thanks in part to the food parcels sent to them
during the war, which were promptly delivered by the Germans.
May 15, 1945: Eisenhower and Churchill talked about further
reducing the rations for the German POWs. Churchill was informed that the POWs have been getting 2,000 calories per day
(compared to 4,000 for American troops) and that 2,150 was regarded as an absolute minimum required for sedentary adults
living under shelter. Eisenhower failed to tell Churchill that the U.S. Army was not even feeding many DEFs, and that they
were feeding others, much less than 2,000 calories per day.
Mid-May 1945: The Bingen camp, near Bad Kreuznach in the Rhineland,
was now holding between 200,000 and 400,000 German POWs, with no shelter, food, water, or medicine. The death rate for prisoners
in these U.S. camps were now about 30% per year, according to a U.S. medical survey.
June 2, 1945: The European Theater Provost Marshal issued
two reports. One, the last in a series of daily reports, logged 2,870,400 POWs on hand. The other, the first report in a
weekly series, dated the same day, logged only 1,836,000. At one point in mid-June, the prisoner strength on the ration
list is given as 1,421,559, despite the evidence of Gen. J.C.H. Lee and others that there were about 4 million. This bizarre
bookkeeping persisted throughout 1945 in all branches of the occupying army. The apparent purpose was to obscure the death
toll by means of an indecipherable mass of conflicting Statistics. (One of Bacque’s greatest coups has been to decipher
Mid – June, 1945: British “Tommies” took over the huge Rheinberg camp from the Americans, saving
many thousands of German lives. The final act of the ”Yanks” before the British took charge, was to bulldoze
one section flat while the men were still living in their holes in the ground. Meanwhile, a team of doctors from the U.S.
Army Medical Corps completed a survey of some of the smaller Rhineland camps, holding some 80,000 POWs (not DEFs). They found
a death rate 80 times higher than anything they have known in their professional career.
July, 1945: Eisenhower becomes military governor of the
U.S. Zone in Germany. He continued to turn back all relief teams from Switzerland, the U.S. and elsewhere.
July 10, 1945: A French Army unit under Gen. Rousseau,
took over the Dietersheim camp (near Mainz) from the Americans. He found 32,000 men and women of all ages in a moribund
(dying) State. Another French officer Capt .Julien, was taking command 17 days later
and found a vast mire ”peopled with living skeletons, male and female, huddling under scraps of wet card board .”
Horrified, Julien wrote: ‘This is just like the photographs of Buchenwald and Dachau.
July 20, 1945: Gen. Littlejohn received a memo stating,
“These men, German POWs are authorized a maximum of 1,150 calories for the non-workers and 1,850 for workers.”
(Remember, it takes 2,000 calories of keep a sedentary adult alive.
July 26, 1945: The International Red Cross proposed restoring
mail service to German POWs. Fearing that the reality of the death camps might come to light, the U. S. War Department rejected
August 4, 1945: Eisenhower
ordered that all remaining German POWs be stripper of their rights, thus reducing them to DEF status.
August 27, 1945: In a long memorandum, Gen. Littlejohn
informed Eisenhower that 1,550,000 Germans who supposedly were getting U.S. ARMY RATIONS, WERE RECEIVING NOTHING. Ike turned
a deaf ear to his report and the death rate continued to climb.
August 30, 1945: Max Huber, head of the International
Red Cross, wrote a stinging letter to the U.S. State Department about American interference in efforts to save starving
Germans. Some months later, an evasive response, signed ”Eisenhower,” arrived in Washington, falsely claiming
that giving Red Cross food to enemy personnel was forbidden. Thousands of train cars loaded with decaying food were sent
back to Geneva arid to sources in Paris and Brussels. Huber apologized for tying up the French rail system because of the
food which was being returned by the Americans.
By this time, more than 2-million German men had been discharged into American custody,
including thousands of priests, ministers, doctors, and professors. Not one single camp commander or guard was questioned
by the Allied press corps and the controlled media of the U.S. concerning conditions in these hell holes.
It might be well, to stop right here and ask this question:
”Is anyone who reads this horrifying account, so naive as to believe that the American people would have put up with
these barbaric actions by its chief military men if they had known about it? Do you think that the politicians who were
in the forefront of those who kept these facts from Americans would have lasted very long in office, if the truth had been
known? Do you think that millions of Americans would show such concern for the Holocaust of the Jews, if they knew that
it was Jewish hatred for their fellow kinsmen, that were killing over a million Germans? I sincerely doubt it! That’s
why these facts have been kept from the American people for almost fifty years.
Late Summer, 1945: Jean-Pierre Pradervand, head of the
International Red Cross delegations in France, told Henry W. Dunning, an American Red Cross official, that conditions in
the French camps are worse, in many instances, than anything seen in the former Nazi camps. Pradervand showed Dunning pictures
of the living skeletons. Dunning explained all this to the American Red Cross in Washington, which informed key government
officials. Nevertheless, the cover-up continued. Pradervand also informed Charles De Gaulle that one-third of the prisoners
handed over to France by the Americans will die soon without a radical change in treatment. De Gaulle showed no interest
and the prisoners continued to die.
September 27, 1945: Pradervand’s pictures of German living skeletons were shown
to Eisenhower in his office.
September 30, 1945 – October 1: The French
newspaper, Le Monde, ran a story which began: “As one speaks today of Dachau, in
ten years people throughout the world will speak about camps such as Saint Paul d’Egiaux.”
14, 15, 20: The New York Times ran a cover-up report of the death camps by star newsman Drew Middleton. Interviewed by Bacque
in 1988, Middleton admitted that he never actually visited any of the 50 U.S. camps located within 40 miles of his Frankfurt
desk, but was only ‘driven by,’ as he was being debriefed by the military.”
December 1945: Eisenhower returned to the States and
the U.S. Army allowed the first relief shipment to enter the American sector.
1947 – 1950’s: Nearly all the surviving records
of the Rhineland death camps were destroyed. The West German government concluded that 1.7-million German soldiers were alive
at the wars’ end, and who were known to have been in fair health, and disappeared. The Western Allies pinned virtually
all the blame on the Soviets.
1950: The first German edition of ALLHERERTE KRIEGSVERBRECHEN is published. Never translated into
English, the book gives eye-witness descriptions of the conditions which prevailed in the American camps.
1960s – 1972: The West German Foreign Office, under
Willy Brandt subsidized books denying the atrocities in American POW camps and the high death rate.
1980: The International Committee of the Red Cross refuses
to open its archives to James Bacque and other investigators into Allied atrocities. To this day, the ICRC has remained
silent on the subject, despite the visits of Pradervand and other Red Cross delegates to many methhe camps.
September 1989: James Bacque’s book on the American
death camps, “Other Losses,” published by Stoddard, a Canadian Publishing House, was released, after being refused
by more than 30 American publishers. Saturday night, one of Canada’s most respected magazines. simultaneously published
a summary of this book as its lead story and within days Canada was buzzing about Gen. Eisenhower’s war crimes. Why
is it that we have heard little or nothing of this in the United States?
As American citizens, many of us who served in the American
Armed Forces during World War II, and a great many of us who are of German heritage, should demand of our leaders in Washington,
D.C. that the truth about this War be made known.
With accurate information of what really happened, instead of Zionist propaganda, just
possibly we might be able to avert World War III, which is now being planned by these same One Worlders.
It is interesting to note, that it has been proven in
recent years, that many of the pictures taken in Germany during WW II, purporting to be Jewish victims of ”racial extermination,”
were actually pictures of German civilians who had died under American war criminals.
(Most of the information in this article came from the
March 1990, CANADIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE. Their mut Wly intelligence newsletter is available from the above address)
INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL
The Wehrmacht [German] War Crimes Bureau
- The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau,
1939-1945, by Alfred M. de Zayas. Nebraska University Press, 1989. Softcover, 364 pages. Bibliography, index, photographs.
- Reviewed by Robert Clive
When the topic of atrocities committed during the Second World War is
discussed, such places as Babi Yar, Lidice, Malmedy and Oradour-sur-Glane almost immediately come to mind. But few will
mention — or even have heard of — Bromberg, Bassabetovka, Goldap, Hohensalza, Nemmersdorf, or St. Pierre de Rumilly.
The first group of names are associated with war crimes attributed to the Nazis. In the second list, the victims were Germans
murdered by anti-Axis forces.
That atrocities were committed by the Allies against Germans and non-combatant civilians on both the Eastern and
Western fronts is not often acknowledged. In large measure this reflects the fact that “victors write the history.”
As a recent spate of popular books attests, the Second World War has been established in the public consciousness as “the
last good war,” in which the forces of Evil were vanquished, despite the enormous costs involved, both material and
In an important
book only now available in English translation, Alfred M. de Zayas, a graduate of Harvard Law School, outlines the history
of the Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, which from September 1939 until May 1945 kept a running record of war crimes committed
against the Germans, their allies, and civilians.
The study grew out of research de Zayas undertook among previously unexamined German war-time legal
records while he was director of the “Working Group on the Laws of War” at the Institute of International Law
at Göttingen University (from which institution he also holds a Ph.D. in history). First published in 1979 as Die
Wehrmacht-Untersuchungsstelle by Universitas/Langen Muller, the book was very favorably received throughout German-speaking
Europe and served as the basis for a highly acclaimed two-part television documentary broadcast in Germany in 1983.
All belligerents investigated reported breaches of the laws and customs
of war. When hostilities ended in 1945, Axis political and military leaders were imprisoned and many were executed for their
alleged involvement in war crimes — a process that continues to this day. Allied officials who were responsible for
committing atrocities against Axis personnel have not been similarly dealt with.
The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau was the direct successor to the Prussian
Bureau of Investigation of Violations of the Laws of War, which conducted investigations until after the end of the First
World War as an arm of the Reich War Ministry. There was a remarkable degree of continuity between the two organizations.
Johannes Goldsche, a military judge who served as deputy chief of the Prussian Bureau, was appointed director of the Wehrmacht
Bureau and served in this capacity throughout the Second World War. Both bureaus had the identical mission: to document
allied offenses and submit reports. Some of their findings served as the basis for diplomatic protests lodged by the German
Foreign Office against the Allied powers. But as we know, during and after the two wars, international public opinion tended
to dismiss out of hand German allegations of Allied war crimes. Thus far, the one exception has been the case of Katyn,
where thousands of Polish officers and intellectuals were murdered by the Soviets near Smolensk.
The author did not accept German allegations at face value. After sifting
through several hundred volumes of official records, he interviewed more than 300 judges, witnesses, and victims. He cross-checked
events mentioned in Bureau reports by consulting other German record groups and relevant American, British, French, and
Swiss files. (Soviet records remain largely unavailable to scrutiny by Western researchers). De Zayas’s research “confirmed
the correctness of the protocols.” He goes on to forthrightly state:
All in all the coherency of the War Crimes Bureau files, the
confirmation of persons involved, and the comparison with other historical sources justify the conclusion that the Bureau
did function in a trustworthy manner, that its investigations were authentic and its documents reliable … The Bureau
was not a propaganda arm of the Nazi regime …
De Zayas divides his study into two parts. The first twelve chapters outline
the history of the Prussian bureau and then relate why and when the Wehrmacht agency was started. The Bureau’s personnel
and methods of operation are delineated.
Part Two presents details on specific cases. A careful line is drawn between historical events and
mere propaganda. To those who have been brought up on a steady diet of Nazi atrocity stories, it is this second section
that contains real eye-openers.
The Wehrmacht Bureau established that Polish military personnel and civilians committed numerous atrocities against
ethnic Germans living within Poland’s pre-war frontiers, and against German civilians and soldiers after the war commenced.
On the Western Front, the Bureau determined that the British were guilty of plundering the French and Belgian populace.
The famous Belgian cyclist Julian Vervaecke was among the civilians killed by British soldiers. The French likewise executed
Belgian non-combatants, Jewish refugees, and prisoners of war.
In his discussion of atrocities committed by the Allies in the West, de Zayas affirms
that “there was no fabrication of atrocity stories [by the Bureau] but rather the methodical collection and evaluation
of evidence. Nor was there any attempt to blame the Allies for destruction that may have been caused by the Germans themselves.”
Most of the existing records deal with atrocities committed on the Eastern
Front by the Red Army and Soviet secret police (the NKVD). From the outset of the war in the East, the Bureau received reports
of atrocities and wholesale violations of the internationally accepted rules of warfare. And as the Axis armies advanced,
Soviet subjects came forward to reveal additional acts of barbarism perpetrated by the Soviet authorities.
POWs, whether Germans or Axis allies, were often shot out of hand, or
shortly after they had been questioned. At Feodosiya, on the Black Sea, wounded soldiers were drenched with water and then
left on the beaches to freeze to death. Captured soldiers were not merely executed, but frequently subjected to torture and
mutilation first, then left where their remains could be easily discovered.
When the Red Army invaded German territory in late 1944, civilians who
had been unable to flee before their advance were condemned to undergo a regime of ferocious brutality. At such towns as
Goldap, Gumbinnen, and Nemmersdorf, even children were raped before being murdered by Russian soldiers. (The book includes
photographs of these deeds). Alexander Solzhenitsyn is cited by de Zayas for his testimony on this topic. The famous Russian
author, who fought as a captain in the Red Army, confirmed that, “all of us knew very well that if the girls were
German they could be raped and then shot. This was almost a combat distinction.”
The Bureau also documented Soviet crimes against non-Germans. Chapters
deal with Lvov, where thousands of civilians were found murdered in the prisons of the NKVD; Katyn; and Vinnitsa, a Ukrainian
town where mass graves dating from 1936 were discovered. De Zayas reiterates that “the War Crimes Bureau was not established
to fabricate documents on Allied war crimes: its records are genuine; its investigations were carried out methodically, in
a judicial manner.”
This study does not consider atrocities attributed to the Germans and their allies. De Zayas does point out, however,
that the Soviets conducted the first war crimes trials against members of the German armed forces when three soldiers captured
at Stalingrad were hanged in 1943, after being found “guilty” of liquidating Soviet citizens in specially constructed
With respect to the alleged Nazi “Final
Solution” to the Jewish Question, in a footnote de Zayas concedes:
Without exception, all the German military judges interviewed
by the author claimed not to have known about exterminations at any of the concentration camps until after the end of the
war. A few admitted hearing rumors of executions on the Eastern Front but claimed that they had been unable to obtain corroborative
de Zayas remarks:
The investigations described in this book manifest again and again the subjective conviction of the German military
judges in the field and of the staff members of the Bureau that the German armed forces were fighting honorably, in compliance
with the Hague and Geneva Convention, while those on the other side were violating those Conventions.
De Zayas has opened a new chapter in the study of the conduct
of the Second World War. Now that his book is available in English translation, and published by a distinguished university
press, its appearance hopefully will generate discussion of the topics it has raised, and inspire others to further research.
From The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1990 (Vol. 10, No. 2), pp. 237-241.
The Greatest Mass Rape in History by Kevin Alfred Strom
One of this century’s
greatest crimes, and probably one of the greatest crimes against women in history, was the mass rape of the conquered women
of Europe after the Judeo-Communist victory there in 1945. The rapists were mainly Red Army soldiers, some of them non-White
troops from the Far East and Central Asian Republics of the Soviet Union. But I am sorry to say that many of the rapists
were men of our own race, and some were Americans. They were brutes no doubt, but they were permitted and encouraged to
indulge their lower than bestial urges by official “Allied” policies which incited hatred particularly against
the Germans, but also against those of other European nationalities which were then allied with Germany in an anti-Communist
bloc. One cannot contemplate this great mass orgy of rape, gang rape, and sexual slavery of innocent women and little girls
without revulsion. It would be easy for you to toss this newsletter aside and pickup more pleasant or amusing reading. But
if you want to know the truth about one of the darkest secrets of our present establishment, a horrible crime against women
about which the Politically Correct feminists are strangely silent, then I urge you to read on.
I claim no originality for the documentation or recounting of this ghastly
crime perpetrated mainly by what Franklin Roosevelt called “our noble Soviet ally.” We are indebted to Dr. Austin
J. App, a professor and scholar of English literature at Catholic University, the University of Scranton, and LaSalle College,
among others, who risked career and livelihood to bring these truths to light. In April, 1946, when he published the work
upon which this article is based, entitled Ravishing the Women of Conquered Europe, he was a lone voice crying
out for justice in an America still high on war propaganda and on a “victory” that in the later Cold War years
and after would be seen clearly as a defeat for America and the West as much as it was for Germany.
As the Red Army advanced toward her in 1945, the city of Berlin had become
a city virtually without men. Out of a civilian population of 2,700,000, 2,000,000 were women. It is small wonder that the
fear of sexual attack raced through the city like a plague. Doctors were besieged by patients seeking information on the
quickest way to commit suicide, and poison was in great demand.
In Berlin stood a charity institution, the Haus Dehlem, an orphanage, maternity hospital,
and foundling home. Soviet soldiers entered the home, and repeatedly raped pregnant women and women who had just given birth.
This was not an isolated incident. No one will ever know how many women were raped, but doctors’ estimates run as
high as 100,000 for the city of Berlin alone, their ages ranging from 10 to 70.
On March 24, 1945, our “noble Soviet allies” entered Danzig.
A 50-year-old Danzig teacher reported that her niece, 15, was raped seven times, and her other niece, 22, was raped fifteen
times. A Soviet officer told a group of women to seek safety in the Cathedral. Once they were securely locked inside, the
beasts of Bolshevism entered, and ringing the bells and playing the organ, “celebrated” a foul orgy through
the night, raping all the women, some more than thirty times. A Catholic pastor in Danzig declared, “They violated
even eight-year-old girls and shot boys who tried to shield their mothers.”
The Most Reverend Bernard Griffin, British Archbishop, made a tour of
Europe to study conditions there, and reported, “In Vienna alone they raped 100,000 women, not once but many times,
including girls not yet in their teens, and aged women.”
A Lutheran pastor in Germany, in a letter of August 7, 1945, to the Bishop of Chichester,
England, describes how a fellow pastor’s “two daughters and a grandchild (ten years of age) suffer from gonorrhea,
[as a] result of rape” and how “Mrs. N. was killed when she resisted an attempt to rape her,” while her
daughter was “raped and deported, allegedly to Omsk, Siberia, for indoctrination.”
The day after our noble Soviet allies conquered Neisse, Silesia, 182 Catholic
nuns were raped. In the diocese of Kattowitz 66 pregnant nuns were counted. In one convent when the Mother Superior and
her assistant tried to protect the younger nuns with outstretched arms, they were shot down. A priest reported in Nord
Amerika magazine for November 1, 1945, that he knew “several villages where all the women, even the aged and
girls as young as twelve, were violated daily for weeks by the Russians.”
Sylvester Michelfelder, a Lutheran pastor, wrote in the Christian Century
“Bands of irresponsible bandits in Russian or American uniforms pillage and rob the trains. Women and girls are
violated in sight of everyone. They are stripped of their clothes.”
On April 27, 1946 Vatican Radio charged that in the Russian occupation
zone of Eastern Germany cries of help are going up “from girls and women who are being brutally raped and whose bodily
and spiritual health is completely shaken.”
The rapists did not all wear a red star. John Dos Passos, writing in LIFE magazine for January
7, 1946, quotes a “red-faced major” as saying that “Lust, liquor and loot are the soldier’s pay.”
A serviceman wrote to TIME magazine for November 12, 1945 “Many a sane American family would recoil in horror
if they knew how ‘Our Boys’ conduct themselves, with such complete callousness in human relationships over here.”
An army sergeant wrote “Our own Army and the British Army …have done their share of looting and raping…
This offensive attitude among our troops is not at all general, but the percentage is large enough to have given our Army
a pretty black name, and we too are considered an army of rapists.”
An Italian survivor of American bombing states that Black American troops,
stationed in Naples, were allowed by their superiors free access to poor, hungry, and humiliated Italian women. The result
of this interracial rape and sexual slavery was the production of a generation of pitiable mixed-race children, a legacy
of the brutal conqueror.
According to an AP dispatch of September 12, 1945, entitled “German-American Marriages Forbidden”, the
Franklin Roosevelt government instructed its soldiers that marriage with the inferior Germans was absolutely forbidden,
but those having illegitimate children by German women, whose husbands and boyfriends were conveniently dead or held as
prisoners or slave laborers, could count on allowance money. And, according to TIME magazine of September 17, 1945,
the government provided these soldiers with an estimated 50 million condoms per month, and graphically instructed
them as to their use. For all practical purposes, our soldiers were being told: “Teach these Germans a lesson —
and have a wonderful time!” Such were the great crusaders who brought “democracy” to Europe.
For the Americans and British, open rape was not as common as among the
Soviet troops. The Soviets simply raped any female from eight years up and if a German man or woman killed a Russian soldier
for anything, including rape, 50 Germans were killed for each incident, as reported in TIME magazine, June 11, 1945.
But for most of our boys, having that “wonderful time” depended a great deal on the “cooperation”
of the German and Austrian women. From the starving and the homeless, of course, sexual “cooperation” could be
bought for a few pennies or a mouthful of food. I don’t think we ought to dignify this arrangement with any other
than its true name of sexual slavery.
The Christian Century for December 5, 1945 reported “the American provost marshal, Lieutenant Colonel
Gerald F. Beane, said that rape presents no problem for the military police because a bit of food, a bar of chocolate, or
a bar of soap seem to make rape unnecessary. Think that over, if you want to understand the situation in Germany.”
The Weekly Review of London, for October 25, 1945, described it thus: “Young girls, unattached, wander about
and freely offer themselves for food or bed. …very simply, they have one thing left to sell, and they sell it…
…as a way of dying it may be worse than starvation, but it will put off dying for months — or even years.”
Dr. George N. Shuster, president of Hunter College, wrote in the Catholic
Digest of December 1945 after a visit to the American Zone of occupation, “You have said it all when you say
that Europe is now a place where woman has lost her perennial fight for decency because the indecent alone live.”
By official policy, the Allies created conditions in which the only German mothers who could keep their young children alive
were those who themselves or whose sisters became mistresses of the occupying troops. Our own officials admittedly brought
the Germans down to a total daily food intake less than that of an American breakfast, a level which leads to slow but sure
death unless relieved.
to testimony given in the United States Senate on July 17, 1945, when the colonial French troops under Eisenhower’s
command, presumably mostly Africans, entered the German city of Stuttgart, they herded German women into the subways and
raped some two thousand of them. In Stuttgart alone, troops under Eisenhower’s command raped more women in one week than troops under German command raped in all of France for four entire years. In fact,
of all the major belligerents in World War II, the German troops had by far the smallest record of rape and looting. In
fact, the German army’s incidence of rape in all of Germany’s occupied territories was even lower than that
of American troops stationed on American soil!
According to the International News Service in London, January 31, 1946, when American soldier’s
wives were brought to Germany, they were given special authorization to wear military uniforms because “the GIs did
not want their wives mistaken for Fraeuleins by other occupation troops.” A writer for the New York World Telegram
January 21, 1945 stated “Americans look on the German women as loot, just like cameras and Lugers.” Dr.
G. Stewart, in a health statement submitted to General Eisenhower, reported that in the first six months of American occupation,
venereal disease jumped to twenty times its former level in Germany.
I want you imagine an orgy of rape like this happening in your country,
in your neighborhood, to your family, to your wife, your sister, your daughter. I want you to imagine what it would feel
like to be totally powerless to stop it from happening, completely unable to bring the criminals to justice. And I want to
ask you, were there ever any “war crimes” or “hate crimes” trials of these butchers and rapists
and inciters to butchery and rape? We in America are very good at raining “smart bombs” on our adversaries, and
in violently enforcing the dictates of the United Nations on faraway peoples that our press have vilified. But we have really
been very insulated from the horrors of mass warfare on our own territory. However, unless we wake up, we will find that
someday the political situation in America will not be to the liking of the international elitists, and we may find foreign
troops in blue UN helmets on our shores, to “correct” the situation. They will of course be
called “peace-keeping” troops in the macabre Newspeak that our would-be masters have created, but their bombs
and bullets, I assure you, will kill your family quite as dead as any others. And in the homelands where those “peace-keepers”
hail from, I also assure you that the controlled media will have thoroughly indoctrinated them with a hatred of the nasty
Americans who must be put in their place for their sins of questioning the dictates of the New World Order. Just as today,
we are taught to hate the Iraqis and the Afrikaners of South Africa; just as yesterday we were taught to hate the Germans.
Few today remember that in the 1940s, the Allies, who even then were calling
their world-government-in-the-making the “United Nations,” were pursuing a policy of unconditional surrender,
which meant that the Germans would be obligated to accept an occupation government whose announced intentions, the infamous
and genocidal Morgenthau Plan, would have reduced Germany to medieval conditions and cut her population by enforced starvation.
Go to a large library and check out Secretary Morgenthau’s book, Germany Is Our Problem, Harper and Brothers,
1945. You will note the use of the term “United Nations” on the front flyleaf and in the foreword by Franklin
D. Roosevelt. A prominent Jewish writer in America, Theodore Kaufman, had in 1941 written a book entitled Germany Must
Perish, which advocated the extermination of all Germans by sterilization. Kaufman’s book received favorable
reviews in major American magazines and newspapers. Other books, such as Louis Nizer’s What To Do With Germany,
also contributed to this atmosphere of strident anti-German hatred. War propaganda and official policy combined to
create an image of the German as sub-human and deserving of almost infinite punishment if not annihilation.
Churchill said to the Germans in January, 1945, “We Allies are no
monsters. This, at least, I can say, on behalf of the United Nations, to Germany. …Peace, though based on unconditional
surrender, will bring to Germany and Japan immense and immediate alleviation of suffering and agony.”
Against that false claim the late Dr. Austin App proclaimed the truth:
Those Allies who were “no monsters” literally raped more European women than had ever before been raped in the
history of the world. They put Germany on a starvation-level diet. Under direct orders from Dwight Eisenhower, they killed
more than a million German POWs. They looted 12 million people of their homes, goods, food, and even clothes and drove them
from their homelands. They took one-fourth of their farmland, they took their ships and their factories and their farm implements
and then told them to live by farming. They abused and starved to death more German babies than there ever were Jews in
Germany. They raped and debauched hundreds of thousands of German, Austrian, and Hungarian girls and women from eight to
eighty. They brought to their death five times as many Germans in one year of peace as died during five years of war. Yes,
yes, of course, these men of the United Nations, these men of the New World Order are no monsters.
Quite apart from any ethnic or ideological considerations, World War II
was a war between, on the one side, the elitists who created Communism as a way-station on the road to their New World Order;
and on the other, those who opposed that New World Order. It is a tragedy of millennial proportions that America and Britain
were induced to fight on the side of Communism and Communism’s masters.
Ladies and gentlemen, you have
been lied to by those who want to submerge us into their world government. The public schools, the major media, and the
government are lying to you. If you want to keep your freedom, you need to wake up.
Wilhelm Gustloff, who worked for the Swiss government as a meteorologist, joined the German NSDAP (National
Socialiste Deutsch Arbeit Partei) in 1929. He put much effort into the distribution of the book, The Protocols of the Elders
of Zion, to the point that members of the Swiss Jewish community sued the book's distributor, the Swiss NSDAP/AO (NSDAP
Party outside Germany), for libel.
Gustloff was assassinated on February 4th, 1936 by David Frankfurter,
a Croatian Jewish student incensed by Gustloff's antisemitic activism.
There were hard feelings in Germany towards
Jews for many incidents, the assassination of Gustloff being one.... And then...
On November 9th, 1938 a German
diplomat stationed in Paris, Ernst vom Rath, was assassinated by a Polish Jew, Herschel Grynszpan... which touched-off the
spontaneous German civilian backlash reaction against Jews known as "Krystallnacht" (so called because of all the
broken glass present where Jewish businesses and Synagogues were vandalized)...
will assure us that it was either the Gestapo or SS that instigated and orchestrated the anti-Semitic riots... but that,
of course, is a typical lie.
It was Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbles, who personally quieted the
The Genocide of 15+ Million
Germans by the
German children deported from the eastern areas of Germany
taken over by Poland arrive in West Germany – August 1948  German refugees from the “death march” from
Lodz, a Polish city which evicted ethnic German residents 
Germans Expelled From Poland
German women and children flee west, 1945
The greatest ethnic cleansing in European history, and almost no one talks or knows about
it? How can that be?
As a result of the Second World War, an estimated 15 million ethnic Germans were stripped of their citizenship
and land and property, and expelled from their ancestral lands in Eastern Europe, mostly lands formerly part of Germany
which were stolen from Germany at the Versailles treaty following World War One. Seven to eight million Germans were
expelled from parts of Poland that were actually German land ceded to Poland following WW1. Three million were expelled
from portions of Czechoslovakia, primarily the Sudetenland. Some two million ethnic Germans living inside
the Soviet Union were expelled, many to Siberian gulags. Around half a million from Hungary, 300,000 from Romania,
and smaller numbers from Yugoslavia and other areas are also expelled. It is estimated that at least 2 million of those
Germans were murdered or otherwise died as a result of these expulsions, with some estimates running as high as 6 million
Real Holocaust Cattle Car Trains: German civilians ordered onto trains for expulsion
Many photographs such as these are co-opted by the Holocaust propagandists
and used as “proof” of actions against jews, when in reality it was Germans who were the victims.
A Real Holocaust Deportation Train
In many cases Ethnic Germans being forcibly expelled were ordered on to trains, some packed with
80 people crammed into each cattle car without adequate (or, occasionally, any) food, water or heating, to be shipped to
occupied Germany. This photograph is of Germans being expelled from the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia.
Sudeten Germans boarding trains to be expelled from Czechoslovakia
German Refugees from East Prussia, 1945 
Sudeten Germans make their way to the railway station in Liberec, in
former Czechoslovakia, to be transferred to Germany – July, 1946
11-12 million “Volksdeutsche” expellees
who make it back to Germany initially live in refugee camps, and make up around 20% of the post-war German population
German children at a refugee camp in western Germany,
December 1944 
German expellees in Northwestern Germany, 1948
A Real “Holocaust”,
Genocide, and Ethnic Cleansing: 3 Million Ethnic Germans Brutally Expelled From Czechoslovakia
Ethnic German civilians brutally massacred in Czechoslovakia
After the Soviet Army
moves out of Czechoslovakia, the Czech Army and civilians begin the mass murder and expulsion of the 3 million ethnic Germans
living mostly in northern and western Czechoslovakia. This was sanctioned by the Czech President and government, who
openly called for the “liquidation” of the German population from Czechoslovakia. Thousands of Germans
attempting to flee to the German border were dragged from trains and convoys and shot by the side of the road, and
buried in mass graves.
can be seen in the video being forced to dig graves (either for themselves or their own people), lined up along the side
of the road and shot, and even corpses ran over by a truck.
The Allies Endorse This Mass Ethnic Cleansing
the Potsdam Conference, the Allies “dispense justice” to the defeated Germans and endorse a so-called “orderly
and humane” expulsion of millions of ethnic Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and other Eastern European nations.
This is an official endorsement of ethnic cleansing and genocide by governments of nations unprecedented in world history.
The Expulsion Of The Germans: The Largest Forced
Migration In History
In December 1944 Winston Churchill announced to a startled House of Commons that the Allies had decided to carry
out the largest forced population transfer — or what is nowadays referred to as “ethnic cleansing”
— in human history.
Millions of civilians living in the eastern German provinces that were to be turned over to Poland
after the war were to be driven out and deposited among the ruins of the former Reich, to fend for themselves as
best they could. The Prime Minister did not mince words. What was planned, he forthrightly declared, was “the
total expulsion of the Germans... For expulsion is the method which, so far as we have been able to see, will
be the most satisfactory and lasting.”
The Prime Minister’s revelation alarmed some commentators, who recalled
that only eighteen months previously his government had pledged: “Let it be quite clearly understood and
proclaimed all over the world that we British will never seek to take vengeance by wholesale mass reprisals against
the general body of the German people.”
In the United States, senators demanded to know when the Atlantic Charter,
a statement of Anglo-American war aims that affirmed the two countries’ opposition to “territorial
changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned” had been repealed. George Orwell,
denouncing Churchill’s proposal as an “enormous crime,” took comfort in the reflection that so
extreme a policy “cannot actually be carried through, though it might be started, with confusion, suffering
and the sowing of irreconcilable hatreds as the result.”
Orwell greatly underestimated both the determination
and the ambition of the Allied leaders’ plans. What neither he nor anybody else knew was that in addition
to the displacement of the 7-8 million Germans of the East, Churchill, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and
Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had already agreed to a similar “orderly and humane” deportation of the
more than 3 million German-speakers — the “Sudeten Germans” — from their homelands in Czechoslovakia.
They would soon add the half-million ethnic Germans of Hungary to the list.
Although the governments of Yugoslavia
and Romania were never given permission by the Big Three to deport their German minorities, both would take advantage
of the situation to drive them out also.
By mid-1945, not merely the largest forced migration but probably the largest
single movement of population in human history was under way, an operation that continued for the next five years.
Between 12 and 14 million civilians, the overwhelming majority of them women, children and the elderly, were driven
out of their homes or, if they had already fled the advancing Red Army in the last days of the war, forcibly prevented
from returning to them.
From the beginning, this mass displacement was
accomplished largely by state-sponsored violence and terror. In Poland and Czechoslovakia, hundreds of thousands
of detainees were herded into camps — often, like Auschwitz I or Theresienstadt, former Nazi concentration
camps kept in operation for years after the war and put to a new purpose.
The regime for prisoners in many of these
facilities was brutal, as Red Cross officials recorded, with beatings, rapes of female inmates, gruelling forced
labour and starvation diets of 500-800 calories the order of the day. In violation of rarely-applied rules exempting
the young from detention, children routinely were incarcerated, either alongside their parents or in designated
children’s camps. As the British Embassy in Belgrade reported in 1946, conditions for Germans “seem
well down to Dachau standards.”
Though the death rates in the camps were often frighteningly high — 2,227
inmates of the Mysłowice facility in southern Poland alone perished in the last ten months of 1945 —
most of the mortality associated with the expulsions occurred outside them.
Forced marches in which inhabitants
of entire villages were cleared at fifteen minutes’ notice and driven at rifle-point to the nearest border, accounted
for many losses. So did train transports that sometimes took weeks to reach their destination, with up to 80 expellees
crammed into each cattle car without adequate (or, occasionally, any) food, water or heating.
The deaths continued on arrival
in Germany itself. Declared ineligible by the Allied authorities to receive any form of international relief and
lacking accommodation in a country devastated by bombing, expellees in many cases spent their first months or
years living rough in fields, goods wagons or railway platforms.
Malnutrition, hypothermia and disease took their
toll, especially among the very old and very young. Although more research is needed to establish the total number
of deaths, conservative estimates suggest that some 500,000 people lost their lives as a result of the operation.
Not only was the treatment of the
expellees in defiance of the principles for which the Second World War had professedly been fought, it created
numerous and persistent legal complications. At the Nuremberg trials, for example, the Allies were trying the
surviving Nazi leaders on charges of carrying out “deportation and other inhumane acts” against civilian
populations at the same moment as, less than a hundred miles away, they were engaging in large-scale forced removals
of their own.
To the present
day, expelling states continue to go to great lengths to exclude the deportations and their continuing effects
from the reach of international law. In October 2009, for example, the current President of the Czech Republic,
Václav Klaus, refused to sign the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty unless his country was granted an
“exemption” ensuring that surviving expellees could not use the Treaty to seek redress for their maltreatment
in the European courts.
Similar problems arose with the UN’s 1948 Genocide Convention, the first draft of
which outlawed the “forced and systematic exile of individuals representing the culture of a group.” This
provision was deleted from the final version at the insistence of the U.S. delegate, who pointed out that it “might
be interpreted as embracing forced transfers of minority groups such as have already been carried out by members
of the United Nations.”
How Britain tortured Nazi PoWs: The horrifying interrogation methods that belie our proud
boast that we fought a clean war
German SS officer was fighting to save himself from the gallows for a terrible war crime and might say anything to escape
the noose. But Fritz Knöchlein was not lying in 1946 when he claimed that, in captivity in London, he had been tortured
by British soldiers to force a confession out of him.
Tortured by British soldiers? In captivity? In London? The idea seems incredible.
a reputation as a nation that prides itself on its love of fair play and respect for the rule of law. We claim the moral
high ground when it comes to human rights. We were among the first to sign the 1929 Geneva Convention on the humane treatment
of prisoners of war.
Tainted: Bindfolded German soldiers may have been forced into untrue
admissions, it has been revealed.
Surely, you would think, the British avoid torture? But you would be wrong, as my research into what has gone on
behind closed doors for decades shows.
It was in 2005 during my work as an investigative reporter that I came across a veiled mention of a World War II
detention centre known as the London Cage. It took a number of Freedom Of Information requests to the Foreign Office before
government files were reluctantly handed over.
From these, a sinister world unfolded — of a torture centre that the British military operated throughout the
Forties, in complete secrecy, in the heart of one of the most exclusive neighbourhoods in the capital.
Thousands of Germans
passed through the unit that became known as the London Cage, where they were beaten, deprived of sleep and forced to assume
stress positions for days at a time.
Some were told they were to be murdered and their bodies quietly buried. Others were threatened with unnecessary
surgery carried out by people with no medical qualifications. Guards boasted that they were ‘the English Gestapo’.
The London Cage was part of a network
of nine ‘cages’ around Britain run by the Prisoner of War Interrogation Section (PWIS), which came under the
jurisdiction of the Directorate of Military Intelligence.
Out in the open: Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Scotland revealed some
secrets in his controversial book about interrogating German officers, 'The London Cage.'
Three, at Doncaster,
Kempton Park and Lingfield, were at hastily converted racecourses. Another was at the ground of Preston North End Football
Club. Most were benignly run.
prisoners thought to possess valuable information were whisked off to a top-secret unit in a row of grandiose Victorian
villas in Kensington Palace Gardens, then (as now) one of the smartest locations in London.
Today, the tree-lined street a stone’s throw from Kensington
Palace is home to ambassadors and billionaires, sultans and princes. Houses change hands for £50 million and
Yet it was here, seven
decades ago, in five interrogation rooms, in cells and in the guardroom in numbers six, seven and eight Kensington Palace
Gardens, that nine officers, assisted by a dozen NCOs, used whatever methods they thought necessary to squeeze information
it is crucial to put these events into context. When the gloves first came off at Britain’s interrogation centres —
the summer of 1940 — German forces were racing across France and the Low Countries, and Britain was fighting for its
very survival. The stakes could not have been higher.
In the following years, large parts of Britain’s cities were left in ruins, hundreds of thousands
of service personnel and civilians died, and barely a day passed without evidence emerging of a new Nazi atrocity. Little
wonder, perhaps, that it was felt acceptable for German prisoners to suffer in British interrogation centres.
And it should also be said that whatever
went on within their walls, it paled into insignificance compared with the horrors the Nazis visited on millions of prisoners.
So, how can we be sure about
the methods used at the London Cage? Because the man who ran it admitted as much — and was hushed up for half-a-century
by an establishment fearful of the shame his story would bring on a Britain that had been fighting for honesty, decency and
the rule of law.
was Colonel Alexander Scotland, an accepted master in techniques of interrogation. After the war, he wrote a candid account
of his activities in his memoirs, in which he recalled how he would muse, on arriving at the Cage each morning: ‘Abandon
all hope ye who enter here.’
Because, he said, before going into detail: ‘If any German had any information we wanted, it was invariably
extracted from him in the long run.’
As was customary, before publication Scotland submitted his manuscript to the War Office
for clearance in 1954. Pandemonium erupted. All four copies were seized. All those who knew of its contents were silenced
with threats of prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.
What caused the greatest consternation was his admission that the horrors had continued
after the war, when interrogators switched from extracting military intelligence to securing convictions for war crimes.
Feared: Col Robin 'Tin Eye' Stephens was prepared to seek his own rough
Of 3,573 prisoners who passed through Kensington Palace Gardens, more than 1,000 were persuaded
to sign a confession or give a witness statement for use in war crimes prosecutions.
Fritz Knöchlein, a former lieutenant
colonel in the Waffen SS, was one such case. He was suspected of ordering the machine-gunning of 124 British soldiers who
surrendered at Le Paradis in northern France during the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940. His defence was that he was not even
his trial, he claimed he had been tortured in the London Cage after the war. He was deprived of sleep for four days and
nights after arriving in October 1946 and forced to walk in a tight circle for four hours while being kicked by a guard
at each turn.
He was made to clean stairs and lavatories with a tiny rag, for days at a time, while buckets of water were poured
over him. If he dared to rest, he was cudgelled. He was also forced to run in circles in the grounds of the house while
carrying heavy logs and barrels. When he complained, the treatment simply got worse.
Nor was he the only one. He said men were repeatedly beaten about
the face and had hair ripped from their heads. A fellow inmate begged to be killed because he couldn’t take any more
accusations were ignored, however. He was found guilty and hanged.
Suspects in another high-profile war crime — the shooting of 50 RAF officers who
broke out from a prison camp, Stalag Luft III, in what became known as the Great Escape — also passed through the
the 21 accused, 14 were hanged after a war-crimes trial in Hamburg. Many confessed only after being interrogated by Scotland
and his men. In court, they protested that they had been starved, whipped and systematically beaten. Some said they had
been menaced with red-hot pokers and ‘threatened with electrical devices’.
Scotland, of course, denied allegations
of torture, going into the witness box at one trial after another to say his accusers were lying.
It was all the more surprising, then,
that a few years later he was willing to come clean about the techniques he employed at the London Cage.
In his memoirs, he disclosed that a number
of men were forced to incriminate themselves. A general was sentenced to death in 1946 after signing a confession at the
Cage while, in Scotland’s words, ‘acutely depressed after the various examinations’.
Flashback: The prisoners in the dock are Nazi leaders Hermann Goering
and Rudolph Hess - it is unknown how they might have been treated in prison.
A naval officer was convicted on the basis of a confession
that Scotland said he had signed only after being ‘subject to certain degrading duties’.
Scotland also acknowledged that one of
the men accused of the ‘Great Escape’ murders went to the gallows even though he had confessed after he had —
in Scotland’s own words — been ‘worked on psychologically’. At his trial, the man insisted he had
been ‘worked on’ physically as well.
Others did not share Scotland’s eagerness to boast about what had gone on in Kensington
Park Gardens. An MI5 legal adviser who read his manuscript concluded that Scotland and fellow interrogators had been guilty
of a ‘clear breach’ of the Geneva Convention.
They could have faced war-crimes charges themselves for forcing prisoners
to stand to attention for more than 24 hours at a time; forcing them to kneel while they were beaten about the head; threatening
to have them shot; threatening one prisoner with an unnecessary appendix operation to be performed on him by another inmate
with no medical qualifications.
Appalled by the embarrassment his manuscript would cause if it ever came out, the War Office and
the Foreign Office both declared that it would never see the light of day.
Two years later, however, they were forced to strike a deal with him
after he threatened to publish his book abroad. He was told he would never be allowed to recover his original manuscript,
but agreement was given to a rewritten version in which every line of incriminating material had been expunged.
World War II Victory Day June 1946; Marshall of the Royal Air Force,
Lord Tedder, salutes the crowds in Parliament Square during the Victory Day Parade.
A heavily censored version of The London Cage duly appeared in the bookshops in 1957.
But officials at the War Office,
and their successors at the Ministry of Defence, remained troubled.
Years later, in September 1979, Scotland’s publishers wrote
to the Ministry of Defence out of the blue asking for a copy of the original manuscript by the now dead colonel for
The request triggered fresh panic as civil servants sought reasons to deny the request. But in the end they quietly
deposited a copy in what is now the National Archives at Kew, where it went unnoticed — until I found it a quarter
of a century later.
Is there more to tell about the London Cage? Almost certainly. Even now, some of the MoD’s files on it remain
Scotland, his interrogators, technicians and typists, and the towering guardsmen left the building in January 1949.
The villas were unoccupied for several years.
Eventually, numbers six and seven were leased to the Soviet Union, which was looking for
a new embassy building. Today, they house the chancery of the Russian embassy.
Number eight — where it is thought the worst excesses were carried
out — remained empty. It was too large to be a family home in the post-war years and in too poor a state of repair
to be converted to offices. By 1955, the building had fallen into such disrepair it was sold to a developer, who knocked
it down and built a block of three luxury flats. One that went on the market in 2006 was valued at £13.5 million.
The Cage was not,
however, Britain’s only secret interrogation centre during and after World War II. MI5 also operated an interrogation
centre, code-named Camp 020, at Latchmere House, a Victorian mansion near Ham Common in South-West London, whose 30 rooms
were turned into cells with hidden microphones.
Horror: Liverpool after the Blitz - but were the real perpetrators brought
first of the German spies who arrived in Britain in September 1940 were taken there. Vital information about a coming German
invasion was extracted at great speed. This indicates the use of extreme methods, but these were desperate days demanding
desperate measures. In charge was Colonel Robin Stephens, known as ‘Tin Eye’, because of the monocle fixed to
his right eye.
It was not a term of affection. The object of interrogation, Stephens told his officers, was simple: ‘Truth
in the shortest possible time.’ A top secret memo spoke of ‘special methods’, but did not elaborate.
He arranged for
an additional 92-cell block to be added to Latchmere House, plus a punishment room — known chillingly as Cell 13 —
which was completely bare, with smooth walls and a linoleum floor.
Close to 500 people passed through the gates of Camp 020. Principal
among them were German spies, many of whom were ‘turned’ and persuaded — or maybe forced — to work
first inmates were members of the British Union of Fascists. Some were held in cells brightly lit 24 hours a day,
others in cells kept in total darkness.
Several prisoners were subjected to mock executions and were knocked
about by the guards. Some were apparently left naked for months at a time.
Camp 020 had a resident medical officer, Harold Dearden, a psychiatrist
who dreamed up regimes of starvation and of sleep and sensory deprivation intended to break the will of its inmates. He
experimented in techniques of torment that left few marks — methods that could be denied by the torturers and that
civil servants and government ministers could disown.
These techniques surfaced again after the war in a British interrogation facility at Bad
Nenndorf, a German spa town, in one of the internment camps for those considered a threat to the Allied occupation.
In the four years
after the war, 95,000 people were interned in the British zone of Allied-occupied Germany. Some were interrogated by what
was now termed the Intelligence Division.
In charge of Bad Nenndorf was ‘Tin Eye’ Stephens, on attachment from MI5, and drawing on his Camp 020
experiences. An inmate recalled him yelling questions at prisoners and then punching them.
Over the next two years, 372 men and 44 women would pass through his
hands. One German inmate recalled being told by a British intelligence officer: ‘We are not bound by any rules or
regulations. We do not care a damn whether you leave this place on a stretcher or in a hearse.’
He was made to sleep on a wet floor in
a temperature of minus 20 degrees for three days. Four of his toes had to be amputated due to frostbite.
A doctor in a nearby hospital complained
about the number of detainees brought to him filthy, confused and suffering from multiple injuries and frostbite. Many were
painfully emaciated after months of starvation. A number died.
The regime was intended to weaken, humiliate and intimidate prisoners.
complaints soaring, a British court of inquiry was convened to investigate what had been going at Bad Nenndorf. It concluded
that former inmates’ allegations of physical assault were substantially correct. Stephens and four other officers
were arrested while Bad Nenndorf was abruptly closed.
But there was a quandary for the Labour government. The political fallout could be deeply
damaging. There were other similar interrogation centres in Germany.
From the very top, there were urgent moves to hush things up.
court martial for ill-treatment of prisoners was heard behind closed doors. He did not deny any of the horrors. His defence
was that he had no idea the prisoners for whom he was responsible were being beaten, whipped, frozen, deprived of sleep
and starved to death.
This was the very defence that had been offered — unsuccessfully — by Nazi concentration camp commandants
at war-crimes trials. But he was acquitted.
The suspicion remains that he got off because, if cruelties did occur at Bad Nenndorf,
they had been authorised by government ministers.
Extracted from Cruel Britannia by Ian Cobain, published by Portobello Books
.. THE REAL HOLOCAUST
Bombing of Dresden: An Act of Genocide
|'After a very short while,’ reports a woman, herself an evacuee from
Cologne, trapped in another basement, ‘we had to put on our gas masks and goggles. Smoke and fumes were pouring through
the breaches in the cellar walls from the cellars on both sides. There were no gas masks however for the infants. The people
who suffered most were the elderly and the children. With my own eyes I had to watch as a three week old baby suffocated
in the arms of its mother.’ |
'On the square there were thousands of people standing packed shoulder to shoulder, not panicking
but very mute and still. Above them the fires raged. At the station entrance the heaps of dead children and others were already
being piled up, as they were brought out of the station. ‘There must have been a children’s train at the station.
More and more dead were stacked up. I took away one of their blankets for one of my babies, who were not dead but alive and
terribly cold.’ In the morning some elderly S.A. men came and one of them helped me and my family to get through the
town to safety.’
The bombing of Dresden was just as horrific as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Dresden was an unarmed city, and was
one of the major centers of culture in Germany. The bombing of Dresden was an act of genocide against the German people
and given this occurred very late in the war; in March of 1945, the attack was done to further break the German morale.
The attack was carried out with incendiary bombs [fire bombs], and to such an extent that nearly all of the oxygen was sucked
out of the city and Dresden was reduced to ashes. The suffering of innocents was beyond the imagination. This bombing, like
the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were direct attacks on unarmed civilians. The dates chosen for this specific onslaught
on the German people coincided with the Christian holy day of "Ash Wednesday." Few people are aware of the fact
that the 'Holy Bible' is nothing more than a book of Jewish witchcraft. For more about this see www.exposingchristianity.com. The Jews used this specific date [directing the spiritual energy of Christians] to reduce Dresden to ASHES.
‘The conflagration in Dresden nourished the suspicion that the western Allies were concerned only with the
liquidation of the German Volk,’ suggested the Inspector of German Fire Services in memoirs written after the war. To
those in Dresden who had survived the first attack, it seemed that all they had been told about the Allies’ Morgenthau
Plan was materialising only too quickly.'
"Like most historic Jewish
military operations, the great massacres of World War II occurred, not on the battlefield, but in peaceful neighborhood communities.
This was in accordance with the dictate of the Book of Esther, which directs the Jews to massacre women and children, and
to exterminate the families of those who dare to oppose them.
it was in Dresden, a historic German cultural center, where many thousands of German women and children, refugees from Communism
had gathered. They were assured by the Red Cross that they would be safe, even while the Jewish generals were preparing to
murder the men. The blood-maddened Jews desired not only to murder as many German civilians as possible but also to erase
from history all evidence of Western civilization, the greatest examples of White culture which had been gathered in Dresden,
the irreplaceable porcelain, the priceless paintings, the baroque furniture, and the rococo mansions with their poetry carved
in stone. All was laid waste in a mass bombing attack in which some 300,000 German civilians died in a city which was not
even a military target!
Like Dresden, Hiroshima was
also an ancient cultural center, with no visible military objective. Its non- combatant families also died horribly by the
hundreds of thousands. Many were pulverized instantly by the first atomic bomb ever used in a military operation, but thousands
of other victims lived on for years, mangled and burned, their limbs and organs slowly rotting away from radiation poisoning.
Even while the Japanese officials were desperately suing for peace, the Jews hastily ordered the dropping of a second atomic
bomb, this one on Nagasaki, bringing off a second 'test' of their Hell bomb against helpless non-combatants, as prescribed
by the Book of Esther. Again, hundreds of thousands of civilians died horribly."
"Before World War II, Dresden was called 'the Florence of the
Elbe' and was regarded as one the world's most beautiful cities for its architecture and museums. Dresden's contribution
to the war effort was minimal compared with other German cities. In February 1945, refugees fleeing the Russian advance
in the east took refuge there."
the night of February 13, hundreds of RAF bombers descended on Dresden in two waves, dropping their lethal cargo indiscriminately
over the city. The city's air defenses were so weak that only six Lancaster bombers were shot down. By the morning, some
800 British bombers had dropped 1,478 tons of high-explosive bombs and 1,182 tons of incendiaries on Dresden, creating a
great firestorm that destroyed most of the city and killed numerous civilians. Later that day, as survivors made their way
out of the smoldering city, over 300 U.S. bombers began bombing Dresden's railways, bridges, and transportation facilities,
killing thousands more. On February 15, another 200 U.S. bombers continued their assault on the city's infrastructure. All
told, the bombers of the U.S. Eighth Air Force dropped 954 tons of high-explosive bombs and 294 tons of incendiaries on
Dresden. Later, the Eighth Air Force would drop 2,800 more tons of bombs on Dresden in three other attacks before the war's
"At the end of the war, Dresden
was so badly damaged that the city was basically leveled. A handful of historic buildings--the Zwinger Palace, the Dresden
State Opera House, and several fine churches--were carefully reconstructed out of the rubble, but the rest of the city was
rebuilt with plain modern buildings. American author Kurt Vonnegut, who was a prisoner of war in Dresden during the Allied
attack and tackled the controversial event in his book Slaughterhouse-Five, said of postwar Dresden, 'It looked a lot like
Dayton, Ohio, more open spaces than Dayton has. There must be tons of human bone meal in the ground.'"
"‘The streets were littered
with hundreds of corpses,’ S.S. Obergruppenführer Kehrl described, ‘Mothers with their children, youths and
elderly people; sometimes their bodies were charred and burned, sometimes untouched; sometimes they were clothed, sometimes
naked, with a waxen pallor like tailors’ dummies. They lay in every attitude, now quiet and composed, now hideously
contorted, with the final struggle of death crying out in every line of their faces.’ Even those who had reached the
public air raid shelters had not escaped; there scenes were little different, unusual only where panic had broken out as the
people realised the nature of the fate they would never elude. ‘Here and there the positioning of the remains of the
bones and skulls betrayed how the occupants had fought each other to escape from their buried prisons.’ When rescue
teams finally cleared their way into the hermetically sealed bunkers and shelters after several weeks, the heat generated
inside them had been so intense that nothing remained of their occupants; a soft undulating layer of grey ash was left in
one bunker, from which the number of victims could only be estimated as ‘between 250 and 300’ by the doctors.
Doctors were frequently employed in these gruesome tasks of enumeration, as the German Reich Statistical Office was up to
January 31,1945 most meticulous about compiling its statistical tables and data. Pools of molten metal, which had formerly
been the pots, pans, and cooking utensils taken into them, further testified to the uncommon temperatures in these bunkers.
The task of recovering the bodies was allocated to the Sicherheitsund Hilfsdienst (S.H.D.), the Rescue and Repair Service,
which was organised in five divisions: fire service, comprised of local firebrigades as distinct from the para-military national
service; Instandsetzungsdienst, the service which repaired fractured gas mains, restored electricity and water supplies, and
demolished dangerous structures; the medical service, organised by the German Red Cross; the decontamination service, for
counter-measures during allied gas-attacks, and finally the veterinary service for tending wounded livestock and pets."
"Some people had met extremely
unpleasant ends, when the central heating systems were hit and the basements had flooded with scalding hot water. People who
had taken refuge in the static water tanks had also in some parts been scalded to death. The water tank on the corner of Muschinski-Strasse
for example had apparently boiled in the intense heat of the night’s fire-storm. A score of corpses, their skin lobster-red
from the heat, were floating in the water."
"In meteorology [he continued] the differences of temperature involved are of the order
of 20° to 30° Celsius. In this firestorm they were of the order of 600°, 800° or even one thousand degrees
Celsius. This explained the colossal violence of the fire-storm winds. Individuals were flung over and bowled like tumbleweed
along the streets as the hurricane ripped all the clothes from their bodies. Crowds of people fleeing for safety were seized
by the tornado, hurled into the flames and burned alive—a holocaust in the truest sense of the word."
The movie "Dresden"  is a very realistic portrayal of the horrendous tradgedy. This movie is very graphic and extremely sad.
Kurt Vonnegut Jr's "Slaughterhouse-Five"  also features the firebombing of Dresden.
FEBRUARY 1945: The cultural wonderland
of Dresden, Germany is swollen with terrified refugees who had fled westward from the rapists of Stalin's
advancing Red Army. The city became so crowded that new arrivals were asked to go westward because
there was no more room available. The refugees doubled the city's population from 600,000 to 1.2 million.
As part of a sick joke, the Allies choose the Catholic holy day of 'Ash Wednesday'
to literally turn Catholic Dresden to ashes.
the war already lost, between 200,000-300,000 innocent
German civilians (some estimates are as high as 500,000 due to the refugees!)
are burned alive by fire, boiled alive in molten pavement as they tried to run, roasted
alive in bomb shelters, or suffocated to death from smoke or oxygen depravation during the Dresden
firebombings of February 13-15, 1945.
destroy 90% of the city's center, where most of the people are trapped. People burst into screaming balls of fire and pain, before their heads and organs explode due to the intense heat. To
escape the open-air oven, terrified Germans flee toward death in the frigid river. The following day,
British fighter planes machine-gun survivors on the ground.
Adding modern insult to
historical injury, U.S. court-historians and the wholly-owned German government have since steadily
downgraded the death toll to a ridicuolusly "low" 40,000!
TO THE DRESDEN HOLOCAUST:
Let’s examine some of the players who were pressuring Johnson into
and escalating a full scale protracted war in Vietnam… besides the usual Joint Chiefs of Staff... and Robert S. McNamara
who was surely qualified (wink, wink) to become the 8th Secretary of Defense because he had been a Lieutenant Colonel in
the Army Air Corps during WWII; and he was the first non-Ford-family president of the Ford Motor Company prior to being
selected as Secretary of Defense by JFK.
The Rostow brothers, the sons of Jewish Russian socialists,
were a big influence on LBJ. Eugene V. Rostow was Dean of the Yale Law School when he was asked to become LBJ’s Under
Secretary of State for Political Affairs. Walt Whitman Rostow had been JFK’s Deputy National Security Advisor and
became LBJ’s National Security Advisor on April Fool’s Day (how poetic), 1966 until January 20, 1969.
a Jew, had served with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), under the "Father of American Intelligence,"
William "Wild Bill" Donovan, during WW II as part of a committee that selected German targets for U.S. bombardment.
Immediately after Germany’s unconditional surrender, Walt Rostow became Assistant Chief of the German-Austrian
Economic Division in the U.S. Department of State in Washington. He then became the Executive Secretary of the Economic
Commission for Europe in 1947. We can easily deduce that Walter Rostow was one of the key players in the murderously punitive
Morgenthau Plan that was perpetrated upon the demolished and helpless German nation. And he was a major influence in deciding
to erase Dresden on Ash Wednesday.
Rostow was considered a staunch anti-communist, which doesn’t ring true considering the man’s parents were Russian
born socialists. He was very prominent for his role in shaping U.S. foreign policy in Southeast Asia during the 1960s. Jewish
German-born Henry Kissinger replaced Walt Rostow as U.S. National Security Advisor beginning with the Nixon ______________________________________________________
Click on the text below to see videos indicated
Exposing the NAZI epithet, it's origin and who benefits...
Living in Hitler's Germany (A letter from Hans Schmidt)
Adolph Hitler, The Greatest Story Never Told
Hitler's War, What the Historians Neglect to Mention
The Truth About Gun Control in NSDAP Germany
Hitler, Man of the Year - TIME magazine 1938
Hitler and Jesse Owens 1936 Olympics
Hitler Explains The International Jewish Problem
Who REALLY Started World War II ? (The Danzig Massacres of 1939)
What Started World War 2 the real cause
Hitler Explains His Reasons For Invading Russia
WW2 - Hitler vs The Jewish Central Bankers Pt.1
Hitler, The Man Who Fought The Bank
Germany Must Perish (1941 book by Jewish Author)
Why did Adolf Hitler hate Jews
Hitler Explains The International Jewish Problem
Adolf Hitler defends Palestine
Hitler Speech True Then, True Now
INTERNATIONAL JEWRY WON WW2 WHICH THEY STARTED
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyns "The Jews in the Soviet Union" Part 1
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyns The Jews in the Soviet Union Part 2
SHOCKING TRUTH Jewish Zionists - Communist Bolsheviks
Hitler Speeches with accurate English subtitles
Adolf Hitler Last speech
"Adolf Hitler"One day the world will know I was right!!
Multicultural Wehrmacht and Waffen SS
Leon Degrelle - The Epic Story of the Waffen SS
Adolf Hitler's Pan European Army
800,000 Russians were fighting on the German side during WW2.
from Bolshevism': WWII German Troops Welcomed in the Soviet Union
As German forces advanced into the Soviet Union in 1941, many people welcomed
the troops as liberators from Bolshevik tyranny. The welcome was especially warm in the Baltic
countries, western Belarus and western Ukraine. As this four-minute video (no narration) shows, grateful people express
appreciation for the troops who brought freedom from harsh Soviet rule, and restored ancient rights. German soldiers,
as well as troops of German-allied nations, often helped local people repair homes and buildings, fix damaged infrastructure,
and re-open churches that the Bolsheviks had shut down or destroyed.
Under German Rule During World War II
Glimpses of life of Russians,
and people of other Soviet nationalities, under German occupation during World War II, are shown. Included are scenes of
people showing appreciation for German troops and administration, and for restoring freedoms that the Soviets had taken
away. Runtime: 4:01 mins. With music, but no narration. Also shown are
soldiers of the German-sponsored, anti-Stalinist "Russian Liberation Army." In addition to the many former Soviet
citizens who served in military units that fought with Germany and its allies against the Red Army were many others who
served as volunteer "Hiwis."
... Even though the Germans were
the foe, more often than not, they treated us better than Stalin's Reds. My dad was picked up by the Germans after being
left for dead by Stalin's troops, and was taken to one of their field hospitals. When he felt strong enough he left with
the help of peasants and made his way home ... For many in the West it may seem hard to believe, but Nazi occupation,
despite reprisals, was better than being under Stalin. Because, for the first time, farmers could work the land free of
the disastrous Bolshevik collective system, bumper crops were harvested. The Germans organized efficient food distribution.
At last there was no starvation in the land.
Ethnic Germans A Forgotten Genocide
Hellstorm - Exposing The Real Genocide of Nazi Germany
Churchill's Policy of Deliberately Bombing German Civilians - A British War Crime
The Real Holocaust Victims Were the Victims of British Firebombing in World War II
The untold story of Eisenhower's Rhine Meadows Death Camps
Eisenhower's Rhine-Meadows Death Camps
Gen George Patton On Jews And Germans
GENERAL PATTON was murdered .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a9qnD9sn4I
10,000,000 Germans Expelled From Eastern Europe after WWII
Between Fire and Ice: The Story of the Wilhelm Gustloff
For millions of Germans
cut off on the Baltic coast by the rapid Red Army advance, only one avenue of escape remained open—the sea.
Even here, however, Soviet aircraft controlled the skies above and submarines prowled unseen below. In the various
ports along the coast, thousands upon thousands of ragged, frozen refugees pressed to the water’s edge in hopes of
landing a spot on one of the few vessels available.
The numbers were so great and the fear so consuming that efforts to board when
ships did dock often resembled riots.
“The crush to get on board was just terrible,” a witness wrote from Pillau. “I
saw a pram being squeezed out of all recognition by the pushing masses. One old man fell into the water and there was nothing
one could do in the crush—also it was so cold he would have died on hitting the water.”
Because armed guards had orders to evacuate as many women and children as possible, babies
were used like tickets, with half-crazed mothers tossing infants down to relatives on the pier. Some children landed safely;
some did not.
If anything, the situation at
Gotenhafen was even more horrific. As the Wilhelm Gustloff made ready to take on passengers in late January 1945, the ship’s
crew was stunned by what they saw. “There must have been 60,000 people on the docks . . . ,” remembered second
engineer, Walter Knust. “[A]s soon as we let down the gangways people raced forward and pushed their way in. In the
confusion a lot of children got separated from their parents. Either the kids got on board leaving their parents on the
harbor or the children were left behind as their parents got pushed forward by the throng.”
A former cruise liner designed to accommodate
two thousand passengers and crew, by the time the Gustloff cast ropes on January 30, the beautiful white ship had taken
on as many as eight thousand refugees. Even so, as she backed away from port, her path was blocked by smaller craft jammed
“Take us with you,” the refugees cried. “Save the children!”
“We put down nets and everybody on the
small ships scrambled up as best they could,” said the Gustloff ’s radio operator, Rudi Lange. “As we
got under way I think I remember being told by one of the ship’s officers to send a signal that another 2,000 people
had come aboard.”
That black, stormy night, as she struggled through high winds and heavy, ice-filled waves, the Gustloff ’s
ventilation and plumbing systems failed utterly. Strained far beyond its limits, the tightly-sealed ship filled with a hot,
nauseating stench of urine, excrement, and vomit. The groans and screams of severely wounded soldiers and the wails of separated
families added to the ghastly horror. But the worst was yet to come. At approximately 9 p.m., three heavy jolts rocked the
passengers on the Gustloff.
“Vroom—Vroom—Vroom! That’s what it sounded like,” recalled a young boy upon hearing
“I heard [the] explosions,” wrote engineer Knust, “and I knew what had happened at once, because
the engines stopped and then I saw a rush of water through the engine room. First the ship lurched to starboard under the
force of the blast. Then she rose and began listing to port. I put on my shoes and jacket and hurried out into the corridor.”
thousands below deck stampeded through the narrow passageways crushing and clawing others in an attempt to reach the life
boats. “People were rushing about and screaming. Alarm bells shrilled,” remembered one terrorized passenger.
through the crowd to one of the boats,” said Paula Knust, wife of the ship’s officer. “It was so cold as
the wind hit us. I was wearing only slacks and a blouse and blazer. Already the ship had a heavy list. The waves seemed
very high, and you cannot imagine how terrible it looked.”
Most lifeboats were frozen solid and even those that could be freed
were mishandled in the panic and spilled their screaming occupants into the black sea. Walter and Paula Knust grappled with
one boat that did manage to get away. “As we hit the water,” the husband recalled, “I could see people
leaping from the side of the ship into the sea. I thought those who escaped drowning would freeze to death. It was so cold.”
Indeed, the water was so frigid that those who leaped overboard might just as well have jumped into boiling oil or acid for
their chances of survival were almost as slim. In seconds, minutes at most, the struggling swimmers were dead.
While loud speakers
blared words of comfort—“The ship will not sink. Rescue ships are on the way”—thousands of freezing
people pressed along the decks. Convinced that the sealed bulkheads had held and that indeed, the ship would not sink, many
passengers fled indoors once more to escape the razor sharp winds and –20 degree temperature. The respite proved brief,
ten o’clock a heavy tremor ripped the Gustloff as the bulkheads broke and the sea rushed in. Within seconds, the big
ship began to roll on its side. Sixteen-year-old Eva Luck was in the ballroom with her mother and little sister:
whole music room tilted and a great cry went up from all the people there. They literally slid in a heap along the angled
deck. A grand piano at one end went berserk and rolled across the crowded room crushing women and children in its path and
scattering others before it. Finally it smashed into the port bulkhead with a discordant roar as though a giant fist had
hit all the keys at once.
Elsewhere, other victims went flying through glass enclosed decks into the sea. Amid the screams, sirens and roar
of rushing water, gunshots sounded throughout the doomed ship as those trapped below committed suicide.
Miraculously escaping the ball room with the
help of a sailor, Eva Luck’s family frantically tried to escape:
My mother had forgotten to put her shoes on, and I moved clumsily
on high heels towards the iron rungs of the ladder going up the ship’s inside. People around us were falling about
as the ship moved but I was able to grasp the rungs and haul up my little sister. . . . My mother followed us to the upper
deck. When we got there it was terrible. I saw with horror that the funnel was lying almost parallel with the sea. People
were jumping in. I could hear the ship’s siren and felt the ice-cold water round my legs. I reached out to try and
grab my sister. I felt nothing but the water as it swept me out and over the side.
Fortunately for Eva and a few others, the force
of the flooding water freed a number of life rafts. As survivors scrambled aboard, the Gustloff began her swift descent.
“Suddenly,” remembered a woman in a lifeboat, “it seemed that every light in the ship had come on. The
whole ship was blazing with lights, and her sirens sounded out over the sea.”
Paula Knust also watched the drama:
I cannot forget
the loud clear sound of the siren as the Gustloff with all her lights on made the final plunge. I could clearly see the
people still on board the Gustloff clinging to the rails. Even as she went under they were still hanging on and screaming.
All around us were people swimming, or just floating in the sea. I can still see their hands grasping at the sides of our
boat. It was too full to take on any more.
When rescue ships later reached the scene, they pulled from the icy waters a mere nine hundred
survivors. All else—an estimated 8,000-9,000 men, women and children—were lost.
Even then, however, the nightmare did not end.
When rescue vessels touched land, scores of victims were disembarked at Gotenhafen. Thus, in less than twenty-four hours,
after a harrowing night of incredible terror, some refugees found themselves on the very docks they had hoped to leave,
once again searching desperately for a way to escape to approaching Red Army.
Most Heartless War Crime Ever Committed: When the Soviets Sank a German Refugee Ship Full of Children
The deliberate sinking of this refugee ship filled with innocent german women and children remains not
only the worst nautical disaster in world history but one of the most heartless and sadistic war crimes ever committed.
For millions of Germans cut off on the Baltic coast by the rapid Red Army advance, only one avenue of escape
remained open - the sea. Even here, however, Soviet aircraft controlled the skies above and submarines
prowled unseen below. In the various ports along the coast, thousands upon thousands of ragged, frozen refugees
pressed to the water’s edge in hopes of landing a spot on one of the few vessels available.
The numbers were
so great and the fear so consuming that efforts to board when ships did dock often resembled riots.
crush to get on board was just terrible,” a witness wrote from Pillau. “I saw a pram being squeezed
out of all recognition by the pushing masses. One old man fell into the water and there was nothing one could do
in the crush—also it was so cold he would have died on hitting the water.”
Because armed guards
had orders to evacuate as many women and children as possible, babies were used like tickets,
with half-crazed mothers tossing infants down to relatives on the pier. Some children landed safely; some
If anything, the situation at Gotenhafen was even more horrific. As the Wilhelm Gustloff made ready to
take on passengers in late January 1945, the ship’s crew was stunned by what they saw. “There must
have been 60,000 people on the docks . . . ,” remembered second engineer, Walter Knust. “[A]s soon as we let
down the gangways people raced forward and pushed their way in. In the confusion a lot of children got separated
from their parents. Either the kids got on board leaving their parents on the harbor or the children were left
behind as their parents got pushed forward by the throng.”
A former cruise liner designed to accommodate two thousand passengers
and crew, by the time the Gustloff cast ropes on January 30, the beautiful white ship had taken on as many as
eight thousand refugees. Even so, as she backed away from port, her path was blocked by smaller craft jammed with
us with you,” the refugees cried. “Save the children!”
“We put down nets and everybody on the
small ships scrambled up as best they could,” said the Gustloff ’s radio operator, Rudi Lange. “As
we got under way I think I remember being told by one of the ship’s officers to send a signal that another
2,000 people had come aboard.”
That black, stormy night, as she struggled through high winds and heavy, ice-filled
waves, the Gustloff ’s ventilation and plumbing systems failed utterly. Strained far beyond its limits, the
tightly-sealed ship filled with a hot, nauseating stench of urine, excrement, and vomit. The groans and screams
of severely wounded soldiers and the wails of separated families added to the ghastly horror. But the worst was
yet to come. At approximately 9 p.m., three heavy jolts rocked the passengers on the Gustloff.
what it sounded like,” recalled a young boy upon hearing the torpedoes.
“I heard [the] explosions,” wrote
engineer Knust, “and I knew what had happened at once, because the engines stopped and then I saw a rush
of water through the engine room. First the ship lurched to starboard under the force of the blast. Then she rose
and began listing to port. I put on my shoes and jacket and hurried out into the corridor.”
Panic-stricken, thousands below deck
stampeded through the narrow passageways crushing and clawing others in an attempt to reach the life boats. “People
were rushing about and screaming. Alarm bells shrilled,” remembered one terrorized passenger.
through the crowd to one of the boats,” said Paula Knust, wife of the ship’s officer. “It was
so cold as the wind hit us. I was wearing only slacks and a blouse and blazer. Already the ship had a heavy list.
The waves seemed very high, and you cannot imagine how terrible it looked.”
Most lifeboats were frozen solid and even those
that could be freed were mishandled in the panic and spilled their screaming occupants into the black sea. Walter
and Paula Knust grappled with one boat that did manage to get away. “As we hit the water,” the husband
recalled, “I could see people leaping from the side of the ship into the sea. I thought those who escaped
drowning would freeze to death. It was so cold.” Indeed, the water was so frigid that those who leaped overboard
might just as well have jumped into boiling oil or acid for their chances of survival were almost as slim. In
seconds, minutes at most, the struggling swimmers were dead.
While loud speakers blared words of comfort—“The ship
will not sink. Rescue ships are on the way”—thousands of freezing people pressed along the decks.
Convinced that the sealed bulkheads had held and that indeed, the ship would not sink, many passengers fled indoors
once more to escape the razor sharp winds and –20 degree temperature. The respite proved brief, however.
At ten o’clock
a heavy tremor ripped the Gustloff as the bulkheads broke and the sea rushed in. Within seconds, the big ship began
to roll on its side. Sixteen-year-old Eva Luck was in the ballroom with her mother and little sister:
whole music room tilted and a great cry went up from all the people there. They literally slid in a heap along the
angled deck. A grand piano at one end went berserk and rolled across the crowded room crushing women and children
in its path and scattering others before it. Finally it smashed into the port bulkhead with a discordant roar
as though a giant fist had hit all the keys at once.
Elsewhere, other victims went flying through glass enclosed decks
into the sea. Amid the screams, sirens and roar of rushing water, gunshots sounded throughout the doomed ship
as those trapped below committed suicide.
Miraculously escaping the ball room with the help of a sailor, Eva Luck’s
family frantically tried to escape:
My mother had forgotten to put her shoes on, and I moved clumsily on high heels towards the
iron rungs of the ladder going up the ship’s inside. People around us were falling about as the ship moved
but I was able to grasp the rungs and haul up my little sister. . . . My mother followed us to the upper deck.
When we got there it was terrible. I saw with horror that the funnel was lying almost parallel with the sea. People
were jumping in. I could hear the ship’s siren and felt the ice-cold water round my legs. I reached out to
try and grab my sister. I felt nothing but the water as it swept me out and over the side.
Fortunately for Eva and a few others,
the force of the flooding water freed a number of life rafts. As survivors scrambled aboard, the Gustloff began
her swift descent. “Suddenly,” remembered a woman in a lifeboat, “it seemed that every light in
the ship had come on. The whole ship was blazing with lights, and her sirens sounded out over the sea.”
Knust also watched the drama:
I cannot forget the loud clear sound of the siren as the Gustloff with all her lights on made the final
plunge. I could clearly see the people still on board the Gustloff clinging to the rails. Even as she went under
they were still hanging on and screaming. All around us were people swimming, or just floating in the sea. I can
still see their hands grasping at the sides of our boat. It was too full to take on any more.
When rescue ships later reached the
scene, they pulled from the icy waters a mere nine hundred survivors. All else—an estimated 8,000-9,000
men, women and children—were lost.
Even then, however, the nightmare did not end. When rescue vessels touched
land, scores of victims were disembarked at Gotenhafen. Thus, in less than twenty-four hours, after a harrowing
night of incredible terror, some refugees found themselves on the very docks they had hoped to leave, once again
searching desperately for a way to escape to approaching Red Army.
What if Germany had Won?
Gerhard Lauck: Joachim Peiper’s Final Struggle against Communism
Joachim Peiper was born on January 30th, 1915 as the son of an officer’s family in Berlin.
He belonged to the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. In 1938, he became the adjutant of Reichsführer SS Heinrich
Himmler. But as the war started, he wanted to serve at the front line. He commanded the 10th SS Leibstandarte A.H. company
in Poland, Holland, Belgium and in France.
In 1941 he fought in Russia with the 3rd
Panzergrenadier battalion of the SS Panzergrenadier regiment 2. He replaces the 320th infantry division of General Postel,
encircled in Kharkov.
On March 19th 1943 he takes Bielgorod. In September
1943 he is in Italy. In November of the same year he fights for the Reich in Jitomir and with the 1st army breaks through
the encirclement at Kamenets Podolsk.
Until October 1944 he fought at the West
Front. On December 16th 1944 – under the command of Sepp Dietrich’s 6th Panzer army – he is at the spearhead
of the offensive in the Ardennes with his 1st SS Panzer division L.A.H.
He advanced to La
Gleize near Stavelot. Cut off from the rest of the army, he was encircled. But he could escape with his men, on foot and
in icy cold, leaving back all the war material. Always fighting under Sepp Dietrich’s command, he battled the Soviets
until the end, at the west of the Danube near Vienna. The same way in the alps at St. Pollen and Krems where he and his men
finally surrendered to the Americans. He made it to SS-Obersturmbannführer and bearer of the Knight’s Cross with
After Germany’s capitulation this flawless, noble-minded
and incredibly brave soldier was imprisoned, beaten and humiliated. He was accused of having ordered the execution of American
POWs at Baugnez near Malmedy during the offensive in the Ardennes: Caught by the Kampfgruppe J.P., the captured U.S. soldiers
were taken to a meadow to wait there for their transport to the front line. Peiper left back some of his men as guards.
He himself drove at the head of his tanks far in front of the following troops to Ligneuville. As most of the Kampfgruppe
troops arrived in Baugnez, the troops remained there chatted with their comrades left behind. A Spähwagen had a breakdown
and was repaired. Suddenly a soldier sitting on a tank startled and noticed that some of the American prisoners had made
use of their inattentiveness and wanted to flee. But a shot fired from his handgun caused panic among the prisoners who were
running away in all directions. Submachine guns were used and 21 Americans shot while fleeing.
After the capitulation the men of the 1st SS Panzer
division were tracked down and taken to the camp Zuffenhausen. 400 were transferred to the prison of Schwäbisch Hall
near Stuttgart. Peiper’s troops consisted of mostly very young soldiers. One was 16, two were 17, eleven were 18 and
eight were 19 years old. 22 of the 72 convicts were thereby below the age of 20; all of them were tortured in order to force
any confessions. Peiper was an example for his crew, and under his command the team made well. There was never any betrayal
among his units. The men were taken to the KZ Dachau where 72 of the 74 accused were convicted at a show trial. One commited
suicide, one was Alsatian and was handed over to a French court. 43 – among them Peiper, who was called to account
for his men’s actions – were sentenced to death by hanging, 22 to life imprisonment, eight to 20, eleven to
ten years of prison. The trial was later newly heard and the sentence to death was replaced by life imprisonment. After eleven
years of custody, J. Peiper was released as the last of his comrades in December 1956.
In January 1957 he started to work for Porsche in Frankfurt. Syndicates
demanded his dismissal. Afterwards he worked for VW in Stuttgart, but there he was dismissed as well because of leftist
agitation. With this he realized that he could not remain any longer in Germany and moved with his family to France. During
the offensive in 1940 he had become acquainted with the region around the Langres Plateau and already at that time he loved
it as a beautiful and quiet place. He then helped a French POW, a German-friendly nationalist, who had to work in Reutlingen
for some relatives of Peiper like a forced labor convict in a garage. But there was a regulation between France and Germany,
enabling the release of two French POWs for every voluntary worker willing to work in Germany. On Peiper’s recommendation
that man, Gauthier, was allowed to return to his family. He had not forgotten Peiper and as he had to leave Germany in 1957,
it was Gauthier who helped him and sold him the watermill of Traves. That building was in bad condition and Peiper did not
have the necessary financial means to restore the mill. SS-Obersturmbannführer Erwin Ketelhut has afterwards taken
over the water mill and in 1960 Peiper made build a house in Spannplate, high up on the bank of the Saone, hidden by bushes,
not to see from the streets and like a military fortification. He had lived there – despite threats and anonymous
phone calls – quite peacefully for over sixteen years.
On July 11th 1976 he bought some wire for a kennel in a shop in Vesoul, the capitol
of that department. The salesman was an Alsatian: Paul Cacheux, member of the communist party, recognized through his accent
that he was German and asked him whether he had been in France during the war. Peiper paid with a check with his name and
address on it. Paul Cacheux looked up Peiper’s name in the “brown list” where all wanted Germans were registered.
He passed his data over to the Resistance. On June 22nd 1976 the French communist newspaper “L’Humanité”
wrote: „What does this Nazi do in France?”. It was demanded to force Peiper to leave France. Flyers showing Peiper
as a war criminal and Nazi were distributed to people in Traves. “Peiper, we’ll deliver you a 14 July!”
was smeared on walls. July 14th is of course the French national holiday.
The morning of July 13th Peiper sent his wife, suffering from cancer, back to Germany.
He himself did not want to leave his house because he expected it to be burned down. His neighbor Ketelhut had suggested
to pass the night in the water mill but Peiper rejected that offer. He did not want Ketelhut staying with him either, since
he would have shot any attackers. “No”, he said, “It’s been already killed enough.” Joachim
Peiper waited on the veranda of his house from where he could observe the Saone river. Erwin Ketelhut had lent him his rifle.
At 10:30 pm he heard a noise in the bushes and saw a dozen men climbing up the river bank. He shot in the air to intimidate
the drunk intruders. She called him to come outside. He did that and opened the door in order to talk to them.
What happened afterwards can only be told
by the culprits. Obersturmbannführer Joachim Peiper’s body was found charred and only one meter in size, he had
no hands and feet. He died at about 1:00 am. The house was burned down, the ceiling broken in. What happened between 11:30
pm and 1:00 am? Was the Obersturmbannführer alive when he was mutilated? Was he still alive when he was burned? The
culprits had poured gas on the floor, lit with a mixture of petrol and motor oil. Peiper lay in his bedroom, on the left
side with his back to the wall, one arm bowed before his chest. Nothing had fallen upon him. He died by the immense heat.
The body was not cremated but shrunken.
Erwin Ketelhut and the French having known and liked him shared the opinion that this knightly man, having defied
so many dangers, should not have died this way. The murderers had driven with their car over a meadow to the river bank where
two barges lay ready. With them they had crossed the Saone and afterwards had to climb up the steep bank through bushes.
After the murder they ran the other way back over the meadows, in front of the house, to the street. The firemen searched
the river for missing body parts. The French police’s investigation work took six months. The communists from Vesoul
and the Resistance members were questioned. Nobody knew anything! Then the case was shelved. Nobody was ever arrested or
punished! The area of Traves is not densely populated, there are only about ten inhabitants per square kilometer. Everybody
knows everyone there and the people know everything about each other.
The culprits are known to the inhabitants, but the people say nothing. In the night
from 13th to 14th July we have a protest vigil for Obersturmbannführer and bearer of the Knight’s Cross Joachim
Peiper. The injustice made to him will not remain unpunished! With this cruel death Joachim Peiper has paid his last respects
to his people and his homeland.
How Hitler Protected the Vimy Ridge
Memorial in France
armies were advancing across France in 1940, the Canadian government put out a story that German troops were damaging the
memorial at Vimy Ridge ... Canadians were thoroughly familiar with Vimy Ridge, and they were outraged. There was someone
else who was outraged by this story; his name was Adolf Hitler. The monument at Vimy Ridge was Hitler's favourite memorial
from World War I, because it is a monument to peace, not a celebration of war ... Hitler went to Vimy Ridge on June 2,
1940, called in the world's press as best he could and insisted they take his picture on the unscathed steps. He then assigned
special troops from the Waffen-SS to guard Vimy Ridge ... Hitler's plan was a great success ... The Vimy memorial is there
at all because it was saved by its most infamous fan, Adolf Hitler.
The (Jewish) Morgenthau Plan
Introduction to the Morgenthau Plan
[In 1986 David Irving published in the German language a file of Allied documents on the origins and history of the Morgenthau
Plan. This was his introduction to the documentation].
David Irving's facsimile record and commentary on the infamous American policy for Germany, Der Morgenthau Plan 1944/45:
a Free Download in German
VOLUME reproduces in full the 22-page Morgenthau Plan for the first time. [Not yet reproduced on this site. This is
just the editor's Introduction].
> It also prints a selection of key British and
American documents relating to the plan, although the story is still incomplete: many parts of the British foreign office
files relating to it are still closed to public inspection, an exception to the general thirty-year rule.
> The Morgenthau Plan, more formally known as the Treasury Plan for the Treatment of Germany,
was devised by Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White and Secretary Henry R. Morgenthau Jr. in the summer of 1944.
Morgenthau had just visited the battlefields of Normandy and spoken with General Dwight D Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied
Commander, then arrived in Britain for talks with Mr Winston Churchill, the British prime minister and his advisers.
> While important elements of the Plan, including the subtle re-education of the Germans
by their own refugees and the dismantling of German heavy
> industry to aid
British exports, were indeed put into effect, in the directive 1067 which the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff finally issued
to Eisenhower, the main parts of the Morgenthau Plan, including orders to liquidate entire classes of suspected Nazi war
criminals upon simple identification, and to leave the German nation to 'stew in its own juice,' were not formally implemented.
> The Morgenthau Plan would have led to the death by starvation and pestilence of ten
million Germans in the first two years after the war, in addition to the one million who had been killed in the saturation
bombing and the three million killed in the enforced expulsion from Germany's eastern territories.
> The Plan, enthusiastically adopted by German-born Lord Cherwell (Professor Friedrich A. Lindemann, Churchill's close
friend, economic, strategic and scientific adviser), was pushed through at the Quebec summit conference between Roosevelt
and Churchill on September 15, 1944.
> It was part of the price that Churchill and Cherwell
were willing to pay for a broad package of American concessions over which Morgenthau had political control including further
Lend-lease aid (Phase II) to the British Empire after the war; moreover Mr Churchill needed his support on military issues
including joint British strategic control of the atomic bomb (the Hyde Park agreement which was signed on September 18,
1944) and Britain's participation in the war in the Pacific. We can only speculate about Harry Dexter White's purpose in
canvassing a plan which would have ruined the largest country in Central Europe, the last bastion that would protect Western
Europe from the Red Army in post-war years.
> The memorandum endorsing the
plan's objectives was initialled (Okayed) by F.D.R. and W.C. on September 15, 1944.
> The Plan caused immediate controversy. Hearing that it had been initialled at Quebec, Henry L. Stimson, Secretary
of War (Kriegsminister), made bitter comments about the Semites in his unpublished private diary. Anthony Eden, British
foreign secretary (1940-1945).and later prime minister, dismissed Morgenthau's and Lord Cherwell's lobbying, in a hitherto
unpublished document, as a piece of gratuitous impertinence: 'These ex-Germans,' wrote Eden, 'seem to wish to wash away
their ancestry in a bath of hate. A.E. Nov 19.'
> When details of the Morgenthau Plan leaked to the press in America, angry British politicians demanded to know if
Churchill had indeed signed such a document.
> In 1953, after the F.B.I. levelled
Soviet spy charges against the plan's co-author, Herry Dexter White, Sir Winston Churchill sent to Lord Cherwell a letter
behind which was all the anxiety and guilt of a great man who realizes he has been duped.
* * * * *
> Much still remains to be revealed about the Morgenthau Plan. Dr Joseph
Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister, made enough capital from it to inflict tens of thousands of extra casualties on British
and American troops in the battles that followed its publication, and in the autumn 1944 U.S. presidential election campaign
Roosevelt's opponent Thomas Dewey lost no time in pointing this out. 'The publishing of this Plan,' claimed Dewey, 'was
as good as ten fresh German divisions.'
> Coming under increasing fire, Morgenthau wrote
around his fellow ministers, appealing for support. Telephoning Henry Stimson on November 4, 1944, to 'urge him to do something,'
he found the Kriegsminister too busy cooking the official records to cleanse Roosevelt of any implication in quite another
scandal. 'He sounded more tired than ever. Said he was tired out from working the last two weeks on Pearl Harbor report
to keep out anything that might hurt the Pres.'
> Clever forgeries, prettying-up
of official files after the event: this is why historians who rely only on printed volumes are likely to be misled. For
this reason, it is important that my full dossier on the infamous Morgenthau Plan should be published in facsimile, to enable
future generations of Germans to distinguish between the fantasies of Nazi propagan- dists and the total truth of 1944-1945.
David Irving, London, June 1985
personal adviser to Churchill from 1940; Paymaster General 1943-45, 1951-53. Had a knack of putting complicated matters
in terms intelligible to Winston. When Cherwell became Paymaster General on December 31, 1942 Oliver Harvey aptly summed
him up: 'He is a somewhat sinister figure who under the guise of scientific adviser puts up a lot of reactionary stuff.'
Henry Stimson, asked if he knew the Prof, acidly replied: 'I'm not sure whether that means the Professor or the Prophet.
We in the War Department know him only as an old fool who loudly proclaimed that we could never cross the Channel and also
that when the robots [V-weapons] came they could never do any damage!'
> In Admiral
Leahy's personal file on 'White, Harry D.' is a document entitled, 'Publicity in regard to Harry D. White, one time Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury,' November 1953. According to this the Attorney General had announced that on February 20, 1946
the F.B.I. gave to White House officials including Leahy a report of White's association with Soviet agents.
> Leahy noted, 'I have no recollection of having seen or heard of such a report at any time.'
His only contact with White, in connection with Britain's request for Lend Lease, had been at a meeting on November 18,
THE BITTER ATMOSPHERE
> In June and July 1944, Roosevelt and other leading Americans had begun dropping remarks about
their plans for Germany and the Germans. On June 7, entertaining the Polish
prime minister Mikolajczyk at the White House, Roosevelt had related with round eyes remarks made by Stalin about his plans
to 'liquidate 50,000 German officers.' In fact when Churchill tried to persuade Stalin to adopt such a plan, to his annoyance
Stalin insisted on fair and proper trials in every case.
> General Dwight
D. Eisenhower had similar views. He told British ambassador Lord Halifax on July 10, 1944, that he felt the enemy leaders
should be 'shot while trying to escape.' Imprisonment was not enough for the 3,500 officers of the German general staff.
Lieutenant-Commander Harry C. Butcher, Eisenhower's naval aide, noted in a secret diary: 'There was agreement that extermination
could be left to nature if the Russians had a free hand.' Why just the Russians?, inquired Eisenhowerthey could temporarily
assign zones in Germany to the smaller nations with old scores to settle.
Stimson felt that it would be wise to allow the British to occupy Northern Germany, because that was where much liquidation
would be effected. 'I felt,' recorded the Republican Kriegsminister obliquely in his diary, 'that repercussions would be
sure to arise which would mar the page of our history if we, whether rightly or wrongly, seemed to be responsible.' If the
Americans occupied southern Germany, it would keep them away from Russia during the occupation period: 'Let her do the dirty
work,' he suggested to the President, 'but don't father it.'
> After a discussion
with General George C Marshall on the punishment of Hitler, the Gestapo and the S.S., Stimson wrote in his diary, 'I found
around me, particularly Morgenthau, a very bitter atmosphere of personal resentment against the entire German people without
regard to individual guilt. of the Nazis.'
MORGENTHAU VISITS EUROPE
> In July 1944
General George C. Marshall had informed Eisenhower that Henry R. Morgenthau Jr., Secretary of the Treasury, and a party of
experts were planning a trip to investigate currency problems in France. Eisenhower replied that there was nothing to be
learned in the little strip of land which his armies then controlled'which is divided about equally between fighting fronts
and a solid line of depots, with two main lateral roads completely filled with double columns of motor transport.'
> Privately he added that these VIP trips were a pain in the neck. There just was not
the space for visitors: Bradley's only accommodation consisted of one trailer and a couple of Jeeps, while Montgomery 'usually
simply refuses to see unwelcome visitors.' He could hardly have made himself plainer. But Morgenthau had Roosevelt's ear,
so Eisenhower had no choice but to humor him.
> On the transatlantic flight Morgenthau's
chief assistant Harry Dexter White slipped to him a copy of the report by the Washington interdepartmental Foreign Economic
Policy Committee on postwar policy toward Germany. It shocked Morgenthau. As drafted, it would leave Germany more powerful
in five or ten years than she had been before the war. Colonel Bernard Bernstein, financial adviser (G-5) at Supreme Headquarters,
Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF), took Eisenhower's special train to meet Morgenthau's party in Scotland.
> Morgenthau's son was also there when Morgenthau stepped off the C-54 at Prestwick, Scotland,
on August 6 -- Eisenhower's chief of staff Bedell Smith had secured a comfortable
army appointment for him. (There was to be 'no mention whatsoever, at any time, about his son nor photographs including
his son,' Morgenthau's aide had stipulated.
> On the long train journey down
to London, Bernstein expressed concern to White and Morgenthau about SHAEF's proposed handbook for American officers in
the future military government of Germany: it was too soft, he said; little was being done to make Germany suffer. On the
contrary, SHAEF's experts seemed to be preparing for Germany's smooth return to the family of nations. Army directives were
being prepared to occupy, 'take over and control' Civil Affairs in Germany. Evidently, said Bernstein, the Allies were to
assume responsibility for Germany's welfare, and 'even [sic] ensure that the Germans received medical care and treatment.'
MORGENTHAU MEETS EISENHOWER
> They could not have picked a worse day for their visitHitler's counterattack
against Patton and Bradley began during the night. They lunched on August 7
at Ike's Portsmouth command post. According to Morgenthau's version, General Eisenhower also strongly opposed any soft line
on Germany: 'The whole German population is a synthetic paranoid,' he told the Treasury Secretary. 'And there is no reason
for treating a paranoid gently. The best cure is to let the Germans stew in their own juice.'
> Ike's female assistant Kay Summersby eavesdropped and wrote in her diary afterwards: 'Secretary Morgenthau and party
for lunch. Quite concerned about post war policies in Germany and particularly anxious that we do not establish rates of
exchange that might favour Germany.' (Morgenthau was proposing to inflict a punitive rate of exchange on Germany, which
would bankrupt her for all time, rendering her unable to rise again and make another war.)
> This prompted the Supreme Commander to enlarge on his own views about the enemy, which he himself later quoted as
follows: 'The German people must not be allowed to escape a personal sense of guilt.. Germany's war-making power should
be eliminated.. Certain groups should be specifically punished.. The German General Staff should be utterly eliminated.
All records destroyed and individuals scattered and rendered powerless to operate as body.'
> It was, claimed Morgenthau, Eisenhower who instilled in him the idea of a harsh treatment of the Germans. Eisenhower
would later deny this, or plead loss of memory, but reporting this to his own staff on August
12, Morgenthau said: 'General Eisenhower had stated, and given the Secretary permission to repeat to others,
that in his view we must take a tough line with Germany as we must see to it that Germany was never again in a position
to unleash war upon the world.' He added, 'The Prime Minister had indicated his general concurrence with General Eisenhower's
viewpoint.' And on August 19 he would tell President Roosevelt that Eisenhower
'is perfectly prepared to be tough with the Germans when he first goes in.' Morgenthau said that he had told the general,
'All the plans in G-5 are contrary to that view.'
> On August 10, Churchill's
diary showed a lunch appointment with Henry Morgenthau.
> Churchill had longer-term worries
than the future of Germany. He had at last woken up to the long term cost of the war to the Empire. Britain's indebtedness
would soon be $3,000m; her exports were less than one-third of their 1938 level; to maintain full employment she must increase
exports fivefold. So she must start rebuilding her export trade now which Americans might not understand. But Britain must
release labor to rebuild her export industries. So Lend-Lease must continue even after Hitler's defeat, though a reduction
of about twenty-seven percent would appear reasonable to the British. (, discussion FDR/WSC, September
14, in Morgenthau diary and copy in General Hap H. Arnold diary; and. W. D. Taylor, memo on meeting of Sir
John Anderson and Sir David Waley with Morgenthau, Harry Dexter White, August 11.)
> Over lunch on August 10, they sized
each other up. Churchill knew that Morgenthau was no friend of Britain. Morgenthau flattered Roosevelt a few days later that
it was interesting 'how popular he [Roosevelt] was with the soldiers and how unpopular Churchill was.' He described one
instance to Roosevelt: 'I told him [Roosevelt],' he wrote in his diary, 'about the difficulty of finding someone to take
me through the shelters [in the East End of London] because both Churchill and Sir Robert Morris [?Home Secretary Mr Herbert
Morrison] had been jeered when they went through them recently, and that finally they decided on Mrs Churchill and Lady Mountbatten.'
Morgenthau amused Roosevelt's Cabinet a week later with a description of how the prime minister 'kept referring to his age
> At the meeting between Churchill and Morgenthau the small-talk
was as frigid as only an interview between a penniless debtor and his banker can be. 'Churchill,' described Morgenthau to
Roosevelt, '.. started the conversation by saying that England was broke.. Churchill's attitude was that he was broke but
not depressed about England's future.. He is going to tell Parliament about their financial condition at the right time
after the Armistice, and that when he does that he is through.'
> Churchill said
that he had heard that Morgenthau was unfriendly towards Britain.
> Morgenthau denied
this, was brutally frank. Churchill must put his cards on the table. He must appoint a committee to consider financial questions,
and then tell Parliament the facts.
> When told of this, Churchill quailed at the idea.
Roosevelt retorted, 'Oh, he is taking those tactics now. More recently his attitude was that he wanted to see England through
> Still, the revelation that Churchill had bankrupted Britain startled
him. 'I had no idea,' he told Morgenthau. 'This is very interesting,' he sneered. 'I had no idea that England was broke.
I will go over there and make a couple of talks and take over the British Empire.'
> Morgenthau gave a similar version of their conversation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. 'The Prime Minister stated,'
he told Anderson on August 11, 'that he did not wish to bring this matter
into the open while our combined war effort in Europe was at its height.' Churchill was prepared to speak to Parliament
about the straitened financial outlook, but not just yet. Morgenthau's view was that, under the circumstances, Churchill
ought to take it up directly with the President.
> Reporting to Roosevelt a few
days later Morgenthau said, 'In England you can see the thing much clearer. There are two kinds of people there: One like
Eden who believes we must cooperate with Russia, and that we must trust Russia for the peace of the world,'at which point
FDR said he belonged to the same school as Eden' -- and there is the other school which is illustrated by the remark of
Mr Churchill who said, "What are we going to have between the white snows of Russia and the white cliffs of Dover?"'
> Churchill was beginning to hint at the need for a strong postwar Germany, and Morgenthau
did not like the sound of that at all. Roosevelt replied that he hoped to see Churchill soon, even though the Prime Minister
was 'not his own master in some important matters, being overridden frequently by the Foreign Office.' (Memo Robert A. Lovett
to Stimson, Aug 18, 1944: Stimson papers.)
> One other topic was discussed at No.10 Downing Street. Morgenthau shortly told Zionist leaders that the Prime Minister
had assured him that, as was well known, his sympathy was still for Zionism and Zionist aspirations: that 'it was simply
a matter of timing as to when he would give the Jews their State in Palestine.'*
OTHER MEETINGS IN ENGLAND
> Turning his back on the unpleasant truth of Britain's bankruptcy,
Mr Churchill had literally flown taking off late on August 10 to tour British
headquarters in the Mediterranean.
> Remaining in England, on August 12 and 13 Morgenthau tried to analyse Churchill's political attitude with U.S. Ambassador
John G. Winant and Anthony Eden. In England, he again said, he saw several groups: a pro-Soviet group around Eden, favoring
harsh treatment of Germany, including dismemberment. A second, dangerous group favoured Germany's economic restoration as
a bulwark against the Soviet Union; and a third group, mid-way, preferring a strong Europe as a whole, aligned with Britain.
Morgenthau inquired where Churchill lay, and Edenhesitatinglyadmitted that Churchill was probably in that third group. Winant
agreed: Churchill now had 'certain reservations' against the Soviet Union, but he could still be persuaded that it was desirable
to continue the grisly Three Power agreement reached at Teheran on the future of Germany. Anyway, Winant was confident that
Churchill would go along with Roosevelt in any program. Morgenthau expressed to Eden his personal concern that there were
Allied officials aiming to restore Germany's economy as quickly as possible. Eden expressed surprise as it ran counter to
the Teheran agreements. Stalin, he claimed, was determined to smash Germanyto dismember herso that she could never again
> * U.S. Dept of State record of visit by Dr Nahum Goldmann, September
13, 1944: US embassy files, London, 710 Arab-Jewish relations.)
> 'Eden,' noted Harry Dexter White, 'said Roosevelt had agreed with Stalin, but Churchill was at first
reluctant to accede. He (Churchill) was willing to make Austria independent and to take East Prussia away, but was doubtful
about going beyond that.' Eden added that after talking it over with him Churchill decided to go along with Roosevelt and
Stalin on this. Eden felt it important to pursue a tough policy on Germany, 'as nearly in accord with Russian policy toward
Germany as possible,' if only to reassure Stalin of Britain's good intentions. It was an interesting statement, and Morgenthau
asked him to repeat it. Eden obliged. 'He [Morgenthau] said [to Eden] that in his conversation with Churchill the question
of the program to be followed upon occupation of Germany had come up and that he had gathered from the Prime Minister's
comments that he was in agreement with the view expressed by Morgenthau, to the effect that during the early months Germany's
economy ought to be let pretty much alone and permitted to seek its own level.'
> This was the origin of what Morgenthau later called leaving the Germans to 'stew in their own juice.'
> Morgenthau now talked with Anderson alone. Until now the Chancellor had lifted the veil on
Britain's bankrupt future only slightly in Parliament, he admitted, in opening the talks with the U.S. Treasury officials
on August 11: so his coming budget message about Britain's bleak post-war
future was going to shock Parliament and people. 'Financially,' summarized one Treasury official, 'England has thrown everything
into the war effort regardless of consequences. It is well known throughout the country that England has gone into the war
on the basis of "unlimited liability"; the consequences of such financial action, however, have not been weighed
nor understood by the country. He stated that England would emerge from the war with high international and national prestige,
but in a deplorable financial position. The period of the war would have seen England's transition from a position of the
world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation.'
Morgenthau visited him on August 15 Eden read out to him selected extracts
of the Teheran conference between Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt. namely those extracts dealing with Germany. Roosevelt
said that he wanted to discuss the partition of GermanyGermany could be divided into three or fifteen parts, he said. Roosevelt
suggested they instruct the European Advisory Commission to report on the problem. Stalin agreed, and since they both evidently
felt strongly on it, Churchill agreed.
However, as Ambassador John G Winant explained, the European Advisory Commission (EAC) had not taken up the question of partition,
because the Russian representative had always stalled. Morgenthau pointed out that the Teheran directive to the EAC was
evidently not known to the State Department. 'Eden said,' according to Harry Dexter White's memo, 'there are some groups
in both the United States and in England who feared that Communism would grow in Germany if a tough policy were pursued
by the Allies. This group believed that it was important to have a strong Germany as protection against possible aggression
by Russia. He said it was a question whether there was a greater danger from a strong Germany or from a strong Russia. For
his part, he believed there was greater danger from a strong Germany.'
RETURNS TO WASHINGTON
> Morgenthau had been shocked by the confusion he found in London as to the treatment of postwar Germany.
He made no secret of this upon his return to Washington. When he visited Cordell Hull in Washington on August 18, the Secretary of State had to admit he had never been told what was in the minutes of
Teheran. On August 19, Roosevelt confidently assured Morgenthau, 'Give
me thirty minutes with Churchill and I can correct this.' He added, 'We have got to be tough with Germany and I mean the
German people, not just the Nazis. You either have to castrate the German people or you have got to treat them in such a
manner so they can't go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past.'
> Morgenthau now outlined in response what later became his infamous Plan'In his opinion serious consideration should
be given to the desirability and feasability of reducing Germany to an agrarian economy wherein Germany would be a land
of small farms, without large-scale industrial enterprises.' . Morgenthau complained, 'Well, Mr President, nobody is considering
the question along those lines in Europe. In England they want to build up Germany so that she can pay reparations.'
> On August 21, the Secretary of War
Henry L. Stimson dictated in his own diary (now in Yale University archives) a note that he had talked with Roosevelt's
special adviser Harry L. Hopkins on the telephone: 'He wants me to talk with Morgenthau on the subject of Germany.' At noon on August 23, Stimson
went to the White House to see the president: 'It is the first time I have seen him since June. I succeeded in getting through
to him my views of the importance of having a decision on what we are going to do to Germany. I came back to the Department
and Secretary Morgenthau came to lunch with me in my room. I had [John] McCloy in too. Morgenthau told me of how he had
learned in London that the division of Germany had been agreed upon at Teheran between the three chiefs. Although the discovery
of this thing has been a most tremendous surprise to all of us, I am not sure that the three chiefs regard it as a fait accompli
and in this talk with Morgenthau it developed that the so-called decision was of a more informal character than I had understood
from McCloy's first report to me of Morgenthau's news a day or two ago. In the afternoon I settled down and tried to dictate
my ideas in regard to the postwar settlement with Germany.'
> In this document,
'Brief for Conference with the President on August 25,' Stimson listed
'a number of urgent matters of American policy' including the zones of occupation, the partition of Germany, and in particular
the 'policy vs. liquidation of Hitler and his gang". His wording was very explicit.
> 'Present instructions seem inadequate beyond imprison-ment. Our officers must have the protection of definite instructions
if shooting required. If shooting required it must be immediate; not postwar.' He also asked the question, 'How far do U.S.
officers go towards preventing lynching in advance of Law and Order?'
Morgenthau got at Roosevelt first. Lunching at the White House on August 23,
he sketched out details of his plan for punishing and emasculating postwar Germany regardless of the effect which this running
sore would have on the rest of Europe. He visited Roosevelt again early on August 25
and handed him a memorandum on the German problem.
> Later that day, Stimson and Morgenthau
both lunched with the president. The Kriegsminister took up the question of the British and American zones of Germany and
urged Roosevelt to allow the British to occupy Northern Germany. 'I further urged the point,' he recorded in his diary,
'that by taking south-western Germany we were in a more congenial part of Germany and further away from the dirty work that
the Russians might be doing with the Prussians in Eastern Germany. I was inclined to think that I had made an impression
on him, but it was impossible to say. I either then or in my former meeting pressed on him the importance of not partitioning
Germany other than the allotment of East Prussia to Russia or Poland, and Alsace Lorraine to France and a possible allotment
to Silesia to Poland, namely trimming the outer edges of Germany. Other than those allotments I feared that a division of
Germany and a policy which would prevent her from being industrialized would starve her excess population of 30 million
people, giving again my description of how she had grown during the period between 1870 and 1914 by virtue of her industralization..'
ROOSEVELT APPOINTS A CABINET COMMITTEE ON GERMANY
> Stimson, worried that Allied troops would shortly enter Germany without
policy directives, suggested that Roosevelt appoint a Cabinet committee. The president accepted the point, and then they
went together into Cabinet. Navy secretary Forrestal wrote a diary on this date.
> So did the Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard.
> Both were struck
by Roosevelt's insistance that the Germans in future live off soup-kitchens as a punishment. Henry Stimson's diary is also
explicit: 'At the very beginning of Cabinet he brought up this last point and said that he would appoint Secretaries Hull,
Morgenthau and myself as the members of that committee..' Later Stimson joined Morgenthau at the airport. 'I had the opportunity
of a satisfactory talk with him on matters on which we were inclined to disagree, namely the use of over-punitive measures
on Germany principally economic. I have been trying to guard against that.'
In a subsequent 'Memorandum of Conversation with the President,' August 25,
Stimson felt that he had made his point that the penalties should be against individuals and 'not by destruction of the
economic structure of Germany which might have serious results in the future.' 'As to partition, the Secretary [Stimson]
argued for a lopping off of sections rather than a general partition and thought the President was inclined to agree that
Germany should be left as a self supporting state. The President showed some interest in radical treatment of the Gestapo.'
> For the last days in August Stimson remained on his farm, maintaining scrambler telephone
contact with McCloy in Washington. 'In particular,' wrote Stimson in his diary, 'I was working up and pressing for the point
I had initiated, namely that we should intern the entire Gestapo and perhaps the S.S. leaders and then vigorously investigate
and try them as the main instruments of Hitler's system of terrorism in Europe. By so doing I thought we would begin at
the right end, namely the Hitler machine, and punish the people who were directly responsible for that, carrying the line
of investigation and punishment as far as possible. I found around me, particularly Morgenthau, a very bitter atmosphere
of personal resentment against the entire German people without regard to individual guilt and I am very much afraid that
it will result in our taking mass vengeance on the part of our people in the shape of clumsy economic action.'
(JEWISH) HARRY DEXTER WHITE DRAFTS THE PLAN
> Harry Dexter White completed the first draft of the Plan on September
1. Almost immediately the British embassy learned what Morgenthau was up to.
> On September 2, Morgenthau retired to his country home for the Labor
Day weekend, an American public holiday. White sent the completed draft out to him there. President Roosevelt and his wife
motored over from Hyde Park to take tea with Morgenthau under the trees of his estate at nearby Fishkill and Morgenthau
showed the draft to him.
> Roosevelt's thinking on Germany was rather simplistic:
no aircraft, uniforms or marching. Morgenthau had said: 'That's very interesting, Mr President, but I don't think it goes
nearly far enough.' He wanted the Ruhr dismantled and its machinery given to the needy neighbors; 'I realize this would
put 18 or 20 million people out of work,' he conceded airily. But it ought to guarantee the prosperity of Britain and Belgium
for twenty years. Able bodied Germans could be transported to Central Africa as slave labor on 'some big TVA project.' TVA
was the Tennessee Valley Authority hydroelectric project which Roosevelt's new Deal had used to generate employment. He
went off at a tangent: he was thinking of re-education of the Germans. 'You will have to create entirely new textbooks,'
> That Monday, September 4,
Stimson flew back to Washington and had a conference with General Marshall that afternoon: 'Discussed with him my troubles
in regard to the treatment of Germany and the method in which we should investigate and punish the Gestapo.. It was very
interesting to find that army officers have a better respect for the law in those matters than civilians who talk about
them and are anxious to go ahead and chop everybody's head off without trial of hearing.'
> Invited to dine with Morgenthau that evening, Stimson found there McCloy and Harry White of the Treasury. 'We were
all aware of the feeling that a sharp issue is sure to arise over the question of the treatment of Germany. Morgenthau is,
not unnaturally, very bitter, and as he is not thoroughly trained in history or even economics it became very apparent that
he would plunge out for a treatment of Germany which I feel sure would be unwise. But we talked the matter over with temperateness
and goodwill during the evening and that was as much as could be hoped from the situation. We did succeed in settling with
perfect agreement the question of the currency which should be issued in Germany namely that we should issue Allied military
marks at a 10 cent value of the mark. Morgenthau had first struck for only 5 cents, wishing to use a low rate of the mark
to punish Germany.'
> The Cabinet Committee on Germany met for the first time
on September 5 in Hull's office. Hull was cautious. 'We must not lay plans
for partition of Germany,' he pointed out, 'until British and Russian views are known.' Stimson found himself in a minority.
'This proposal,' he said of Morgenthau's plan, 'will cause enormous evils. The Germans will be permanent paupers, and the
hatreds and tensions that will develop will obscure the guilt of the Nazis, and poison the springs of future peace.' 'My
plan,' retorted Morgenthau, unabashed, 'will stop the Germans from every trying to extend their domination by force again.
Don't worry. The rest of Europe can survive without them!'
> Stimson was unconvinced.
'This plan will breed war, not prevent it!'
> 'It's very singular,' he wrote
to Marshall. 'I'm the man in charge of the Department which does the killing in this way, and yet I am the only one who
seems to have any mercy for the other side.' Hull's ideas were no less extreme than Morgenthau's.
> Stimson returned to his office and dictated this note for his diary:
'As soon as I got into the meeting it became very evident that Morgenthau had been rooting around behind the scenes and had
greased the way for his own views by conference with the president and others. We did get through the question of the currency
alright on the lines which we had decided upon last evening. Then Hull brought up a draft of agenda.. and as soon as we
got into a discussion of these, I, to my tremendous surprise, found that Hull was as bitter as Morgenthau against the Germans
and was ready to jump all the principles that he had been laboring for in regard to trade for the past twelve years. He and
Morgenthau wished to wreck completely the immense Ruhr-Saar area of Germany into a second rate agricultural land regardless
of all that that area meant.. Hopkins went with them so far as to wish to prevent the manufacture of steel.. which would
pretty well sabotage everything else. I found myself a minority of one and I labored vigorously but entirely ineffectively
against my colleagues. In all the four years that I have been here I have not had such a difficult and unpleasant meeting
although of course there were no personalities. We all knew eachother too well for that. But we were irreconcilably divided.
At the end it was decided that Hull would send in his memorandum to the President while we should each of us send a memorandum
of views in respect to it.'
> Hull had submitted a paper with the title, 'Suggested Recommendations on Treatment
of Germany from the Cabinet Committee for the President.' In his reply dated September
5, Stimson utterly rejected it. 'I cannot treat as realistic the suggestion that such an area in the present
economic condition of the world can be turned into a non-productive 'ghost territory' when it has become the center of one
of the most industrialized continents in the world, populated by peoples of energy, vigor and progressiveness.' As for destroying
the coalmines, etc, he added: 'I cannot conceive of turning such a gift of nature into a dustheap.'
LISTS OF MEN TO LIQUIDATE
> The British ambassador Lord Halifax notified the Foreign Office on September
6, 1944, about all this, and asked the poignant question: 'Whom do we shoot or hang? The feeling is that we should not have
great state trials, but proceed quickly and with despatch. The English idea, once preferred but then withdrawn, was to give
the Army lists to liquidate on mere identification. What has happened to this idea? Besides individuals, what categories
should be shot?'.
> On the same day, September
6, Roosevelt called the Committee to a sudden conference at the White House.
> Stimson wrote,
> 'After what had happened yester- day I.. expected to be
steam-rollered by the whole bunch. But the meeting went off better than I had expected. The President.. then took up the
question of German economy, looking at me and reverting to his proposition made at Cabinet a week or two ago that Germany
could live happily and peacefully on soup from soup kitchens if she couldn't make money for herself. He said that our ancestors
had lived successfully and happily in the absence of many luxuries that we would now deem necessities.. As he addressed his
remarks to me, I took the chance and tried to drive in the fact that the one point that had been at issue in our yesterday's
preparatory meeting of the Committee had been the proposition that the Ruhr and the Saar a plot of non-industrial agricultural
land.. I said I was utterly opposed to the destruction of such a great gift of nature and that it should be used for the
reconsturction of the world which sorely needed it now.. Morgenthau had submitted through Hull a memorandum giving his program
towards Germany and it had reiterated what he had put forth verbally, namely a complete obliteration of the industrial powers
of the Ruhr.. I pointed this out and said that this was what I was opposed to. The President apparently took my side on
this but he mentioned the fact that Great Britain was going to be in sore straits after the war and he thought that the
products of the Ruhr might be used to furnish raw material for British steel industry. I said that I had no objection certainly
to assisting Britain every way that we could, but that this was very different from obliterating the Ruhr as had been proposed..
I wound up by using the analogy of Charles Lamb's dissertation on roast pig. I begged the President to remember that this
was a most complicated economic question and all that I was urging upon him was that he should not burn down his house of
the world for the purpose of getting a meal of roast pig. He apparently caught the point.'
> On September
7, Stimson showed to General Marshall the memorandum he had written about Germany. '[Marshall] thoroughly
approved the position I have taken of temperate treatment economically of the Saar-Ruhr area as being the only possible
thing for us to do. I also showed them the memorandum which I received from Morgenthau demanding that the leaders of the
Nazi party be shot without trial and on the basis of the general world appreciation of their guilt, and it met with the
reception that I expectedabsolute rejection of the notion that we should not give these men a fair trial.. But at 11:45 I heard from McCloy that Morgenthau still sticks to his guns and has been
to the president again and has demanded a re-hearing.'
> Stimson began looking for allies
too. 'Dinner with Mabel [Stimson] and [Felix] Frankfurter. Frankfurter was helpful as I knew he would be. Although a Jew
like Morgenthau, he approached this subject with perfect detachment and great helpfulness. I went over the whole matter with
him from the beginning with him, reading him Morgenthau's views on the subject of the Ruhr and also on the subject of the
trial of the Nazis, at both of which he snorted with astonishment and disdain. He fully backed up my views and those of
my fellows in the Army,.. these men the substance of a fair trial and that they cannot be railroaded to their death without
> Now, by September 9,
the full Morgenthau Plan was ready. At a meeting that day with FDR, Henry Stimson laid into it. 'Instead of having a two
hour conference with the President,' wrote Stimson, 'as Secretary Morgenthau had asked for, our conference boiled down to
about forty-five minutes and that was taken up mainly by the President's own discursive questions and remarks.. Morgenthau
appeared with a new diatribe on the subject of the Nazis and an enlargement of his previous papers as to how to deal with
them. Hull took no leading part as chairman but sat silent with very little to say. The President addressed most of his
remarks to me and about the only things that I can remember were (1) that he asserted his predilection for feeding the Germans
from soup kitchens instead of anything heavier, and (2) he wanted to be protected from the expected revolution in France.
Those are the two obsessions that he has had on his mind on this whole subject as far as I could see.'
> Morgenthau's record shows that Roosevelt said he wanted Germany partitioned into three parts.
He flipped through the pages of Morgenthau's memorandum, and kept prodding Morgenthau: 'Where is the ban on uniforms and
marching?' Morgenthau reassured him it was all there.
> At one point FDR exclaimed, 'Furthermore
I believe in an agricultural Germany,' he said. This conference behind him, Roosevelt, as Stimson later put it, 'pranced
up to the meeting at Quebec,' leaving Hull and Stimson behind. On September 12
he cabled to Morgenthau, 'Please be in Quebec by Thursday September 14th noon.'
In a looseleaf folder Morgenthau took his Plan up to Quebec with him.
BY SEMITIC GRIEVANCES'
> Stimson was astonished to hear that Roosevelt had asked Morgenthau up to Quebec. 'While he has the
papers we have written on the subject with him,' Stimson recorded on September 13,
'he has not invited any further discussion on the matter with us. Instead apparently today he has invited Morgenthau up,
or Morgenthau has got himself invited. I cannot believe that he will follow Morgenthau's views. If he does, it will certainly
be a disaster.' And on September 14, the Kriegsminister wrote, 'It is an
outrageous thing. Here the President appoints a Committee with Hull as its Chairman for the purpose of advising him in regard
to these questions in order that it may be done with full deliberation and, when he goes off to Quebec, he takes the man
who really represents the minority and is so biassed by his Semitic grievances that he is really a very dangerous adviser
to the President at this time. Hull.. is left behind.'
THE CONFERENCE AT QUEBEC, SEPTEMBER 1944
Quebec both Churchill and Roosevelt were ill men. Churchill was kept going only with M&B sulphona- mide-type drugs. Roosevelt's
great brain had already deteriorated so far that at one banquet in August he had proposed a toast to the same the Icelandic
prime minister twice in twenty minutes.
> Both were putty in the hands of evil men. Roosevelt camouflaged his withering brain with carefree bonhomie. On September 13, he would turn to his loathsome dog Falla and command, pointing at
Morgenthau, 'say hello to your Uncle Henry.'
> The two leaders reached Quebec
early on September 11. In fact Roosevelt's train had pulled into the railroad
station fifteen minutes before Churchill's train (10:15 AM), by design
rather than accident, as he confessed to the Canadian prime minister with a candour that left Mackenzie King gasping in his
diary, 'It seemed to me that the President was rather assuming that he was in his own country.' Roosevelt was much thinner
in his body and face, had lost around thirty pounds in weight, his eyes were drawn, his haggard face had sunless pallor,
and to his shocked host Mackenzie King he looked distinctly older and worn. The electioneering abuse on him as 'a senile
old man' had etched deeply into him.* Churchill told Mackenzie King that it was wonderful what Canada was doing in the war,
and he particularly praised the latest financial aid given by Canada to Britain, and that he recognized that Canada had
had to cover up in a way in order to give what she had. (Mackenzie Kiary, Sept 11, 1944).
> As he told Mackenzie King at the end of his stay, Britain would never forget how Canada had helped: 'Really,' he said,
'we are the one debtor nation that will come out of the war.' Now Britain had to expand her export trade and build up her
industries. 'I understand that it has to be kept secret for the present,' Churchill said, referring to Canada's financial
aid to Britain. They lunched in the Citadel and talked about the war's personalities, about de Gaulle and Chiang-Kai-shek;
Churchill flattered F.D.R. that he was head of the strongest military power on earth, both in the air, at sea and on the
> Churchill looked better, and was getting to grips with some Scotch
as well as a couple of brandies. It was hard for even the Canadian hosts to find out about Churchill's and Roosevelt's intentions.
Mackenzie King himself was tired and his eyes and body were aching with old age. After luncheon, Mrs Roosevelt wheeled the
president over in his wheelchair to see the models Churchill had brought from England of the D-day invasion equipmenta gift
for the Hyde Park library. As Roosevelt leaned forward to see them there were beads of perspiration on his forehead. Then
he was wheeled away for an afternoon rest. Sir John Dill took Mackenzie King aside and told him he believed that Churchill
'enjoyed' this war. 'It is clear,' agreed Mackenzie King, 'that it is the very breath of life to him.'
> On the following day, September 13, it began
raining around noon. Morgenthau arrived at Quebec. The problem looming
over the conference was of financing the war effort. Canada was now being asked to commit her forces for the South Pacific,
but Mackenzie King saw immense political difficulties in further Imperial wars Canadians would never agree that their taxes
should be spent fighting to protect India or recover Burma and Singapore. Roosevelt sneered to Morgenthau that he 'knew
now' why the British wanted to join in the war in the Pacific. 'All they want is Singapore back.'
The Diaries of Mackenzie King
> That evening, September 13, FDR and Churchill stayed at the dinner
table at the Citadel. At 8 pm on September
13, Churchill dined with FDR, Morgenthau, Cherwell, and other members of their staff. Mackenzie King left at
9 pm and he found them still sitting there, talking at 11:30 pm. 'Churchill was immediately opposite the President,' Mackenzie King described in his
diary, 'and both of them seemed to be speaking to the numbers assembled which included Morgenthau, Lord Cherwell, Lord Leathers,
Lord Moran and two or three others. Morgenthau arrived this afternoon. Anthony Eden is to arrive in the morning.'
> Morgenthau's papers show that they talked about Germany. Churchill irritably said,
'What are my Cabinet members doing discussing plans for Germany without first discussing them with me?' FDR explained that
this was why Morgenthau had come up from Washington. Tomorrow Morgenthau
would talk privately with Cherwell about it. Churchill challenged FDR: 'Why don't we discuss Germany now?' so Roosevelt asked
Morgenthau to outline his plan. Remarkably, Churchill's first reaction was hostile. When the Treasury Secretary embarked
on the details of dismantling the Ruhr, Churchill was shocked and interrupted him. He was flatly opposedall that was necessary
was to eliminate German arms production. Doing what Morgenthau proposed, Churchill waspishly told Roosevelt's Treasury Secretary,
who was a Jew, would 'unnatural, un-Christian and unnecessary.' He doubted it would help even if all Germany's former steel
markets went to Britain. 'I regard the Morgenthau Plan,' he said with heavy sarcasm, 'with as much enthusiasm as I would
handcuffing myself to a dead German.' He was truculent, even offensive, rasping at one point to Roosevelt in particular,
'Is this what you asked me to come all the way over here to discuss?' And at another, to the American representatives in
general: 'If you do not do something for Britain then the British simply will have to destroy gold and do business largely
within the Empire.' The Prof glowered at his prime minister, but Admiral Leahy, the president's chief of staff, sided with
Churchill. F.D.R. kept quiet. That was his way. He had done his footwork behind the scenes. Once, the conversation switched
to India and stayed there for an hour. Churchill was angry at FDR's refusal to understand the administration problems faced
by the British in a subcontinent where the birth and death rates were high, and the people were careless of poverty and
ignorant of disease. 'I'll give the United States half of India to admi- nister,' Churchill flung at F.D.R., 'and we will
take the other half. And then we'll see who does better.'
> Surprised at Churchill's
hostility to the Plan, Lord Cherwell suspected that WSC had not wholly grasped what Morgenthau was driving at. In a private
tête-à-tête the next morning (September 14) he apologized
profusely for Winston's behaviour over dinner, promised Morgenthau that he would try to dress up the Plan in a way more
attractive to the Prime Minister.
> Churchill got the message, wrote later: 'We had
much to ask from Mr Morgenthau.' When FDR and Churchill discussed policy toward Germany later that day Churchill now declared
himself in favour of the Plan, as outlined to him by Lord Cherwell. Cherwell was instructed to draft a memorandum for signature
and give it to Churchill.
> At one point Mackenzie King asked how long the
war was going to last. Churchill said he feared that it might drag on -- the Germans might hold out in the Alps or elsewhere.
'Hitler and his crowd know that their lives are at stake,' he said, 'so they will fight to the bitter end. This may mean
that at some time we have to take the position that the war is really won, and that what is still going on anew is just
mopping up groups here and there.' On the question of what to do with Germany, Churchill said that there would not be any
attempt to control the country immediately by Allied forces. The Germans would have to police their own people. 'They are
a race that loves that sort of thing,' he said. 'To be given any little authority, once they are beaten, and to wield it
over others.' He envisaged something like centralized stations (FLAKTURME?) on towers around the different cities. If there
was any difficulty from the Germans they could be threatened with a local bombardment. If the difficulty kept up they could
be given a very effective bombardment from the skies. 'He did not contemplate continued active fighting,' recorded Mackenzie
King after this discussion.
> Churchill took a nap at the Citadel, dreaming
deeply, and arrived late for dinner. 'I have been thousands of miles away,' he apologized. He sat opposite Roosevelt and
Morgenthau. A few hours earlier Anthony Eden, summoned by Churchill from London, had arrived at Quebec. He sat to Roosevelt's
left, worn out by the eighteen-hour flight in a Liberator bomber. Churchill was in good spirit, the Canadian premier was
pleased to see how well he was looking, and surmised it was because of the scarcity of alcohol.
> Out of earshot of Churchill and Eden, at 11:00 a.m. on September 15, Morgenthau invited Lord Cherwell and Harry Dexter White to his room, read the Prof's
draft and disliked it. It represented 'two steps backwards,' he said. Since the last discussion, he said, Churchill had
seemed to accept the Plan, and had himself spoken promisingly of turning Germany into an agricultural state as she had been
in the last quarter of the 19th century. Morgenthau urged them to scrap this draft, and return to the two leaders for fresh
> When Churchill met Roosevelt, in the presence of Henry Morgenthau
and Harry Dexter White, an hour later at noon September
15, Britain's financial problems were clearly uppermost in his own mind, rather than the future of Germany.
Roosevelt read through the draft Lend-Lease Agreement for Phase II, and approved it with a minor change.
> But each time he seemed about to sign it, he kept interrupting with a fresh anecdote -- he
was in one of his talky moods, as Morgenthau described them. Churchill was unable to contain himself. 'What do you want
me to do,' he exclaimed nervously. 'Get on my hind legs and beg like Falla?'.
FDR enjoyed every moment of Churchill's -- Britain's -- humiliating plight. But eventually he signed: OK, FDR. Churchill
added: WC, 15.9. (A copy of the document is also in the Forrestal papers; and cf Leahy diary, October 19, 1944.)
> It was a load off Churchill's mind. He became quite emotional and Morgenthau saw tears
in the old man's eyes. After the signing he thanked Roosevelt effusively, and said that it was something they were doing
for both countries.
CHURCHILL, ROOSEVELT INITIAL THE MORGENTHAU PLAN
at this noon conference on September 15, 1944, and feeling in generous
mood, Churchill turned to Lord Cherwell. 'Where are the minutes on this matter of the Ruhr?' he asked the Prof. The Prof
and Morgenthau had agreed to say they did not have them -- because the American, on reading Cherwell's draft, had felt the
text was too milk-and-water. ('I thought we could get Churchill to go much further,' he noted afterwards.)
> Churchill was annoyed at this lapse. Roosevelt humorously observed that the document was not
ready because Morgenthau had 'interspersed the previous discussion with too many dirty stories.'
> 'Well,' Churchill interrupted impatiently, 'I'll restate it.' He did so forcefully. Then he invited the Prof and Morgenthau
to leave the room and dictate the memorandum anew.
> When the two men walked back
in, the new draft still did not suit Churchill's new temperament. 'No,' he said, 'that won't do at all.' Morgenthau's heart
sank, but then he heard Churchill add, 'It's not drastic enough. Let me show you what I want.' He asked for his stenographer,
then himself dictatedrather well, as Morgenthau thought.
> 'At a conference between the
President and the Prime Minister upon the best measures to prevent renewed rearmament by Germany, it was felt that an essential
feature was the future disposition of the Ruhr and the Saar.'
> Among those listening
was Eden. Eden was going white about the gills. He was hearing this for the first time.
> 'The ease,' continued Churchill, 'with which the metallurgical, chemical and electric industries..'
> 'In Germany,' interposed Roosevelt, because he had in mind the whole of Germany, and not just the Ruhr and Saar industries.
> 'The ease with which the metallurgical, chemical and electric industries in Germany
can be converted from peace to war has already been impressed upon us by bitter experience. It must also be remembered tha