Click on this text to hear Tom Goodrich (author of HELLSTORM) and Ryan Dawson discuss WWII...
According to our mainstream history books, “the Good Guys”
banded together to stop the worst scourge in global history.
There is just one problem with this official version of the history-changing
event known as World War II. It’s a lie!
So, how much do we really know about that crucial event and the
decades of complex European history preceding it?
Why, and for whom, were the 20th century’s worldwide wars actually
Behind the Powers
83% of Americans were against involvement in the European war prior to
the trickery at Pearl Harbor. And then...
A Straight Look at the Second World War
By Willis A. Carto.
WHAT FOLLOWS IS AN ATTEMPT to set the historical record straight,
without influence from the powers that be. By this phrase, I do not exclude the influence and power of organized Jewry,
which is heavily involved in the sad history of the Aryan West. Further, I believe that liberals who do not recognize this
influence are a part, knowing it or not, of the cosmopolitan array dedicated to exterminating our race forever.(1)
It is now 67 years after the holocaust known as World War II. Perhaps
it is time to look at it truthfully. America is in big trouble. The unpayable national debt is only a small part of it.
Fact is, the white world is in big trouble. Not only America, but Europe—the homeland of the white race—is facing
mortal danger. It’s life or death for the white race—the race that for all its faults created Western civilization.(2)
The so-called victors of World War II won that costly struggle for
the survival of Stalinist Russia and killed the very movement in Europe that was specifically dedicated to—and was
accomplishing—the destruction of Communist Russia—the National Socialist movement created and led by Adolf Hitler.
Worse, the Allies—Roosevelt, Churchill
and Stalin then proceeded to perpetrate crimes upon the survivors unparalleled in Europe since Genghis Khan. Probably 3
million innocent Europeans perished from torture, murder, exposure and starvation after the hostilities ended.(3)
These atrocities were directed by the Allied supreme commander, Dwight Eisenhower,
a protégé of financier Bernard Baruch,(4) known at the time as “king of the Jews.” It was Baruch
who influenced Roosevelt to promote Eisenhower, a desk bureaucrat who had never seen combat, over the heads of 1,109 officers
superior to him in experience, competence and seniority to take supreme command of the hostilities. Ike’s superior
was in fact not FDR but the “king of the Jews.”
55 million people were killed in Europe in this war, not counting at least 60 million who were killed by the Communists for
political or racial reasons in the Soviet Union before and during WWII. This number includes the gifted and handsome Russian
aristocracy. Of these martyrs, almost all were non-Jewish Aryan.(5)
Allied supreme commander, Eisenhower, illegally crowded a million captured German soldiers into open fields surrounded by
barbwire in subfreezing weather. Without shelter, without food, without even toilet facilities, they died in misery. Civilians
who tried to feed them were shot, on direct orders from Ike.
Wehrmacht soldiers who surrendered to the Russians fared as badly—most died in Siberia or were tortured. The Soviet
Union never signed the Geneva Conventions. See Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago.
James Bacque, in his Other Losses, documents this horror with the appalling facts. Giles MacDonogh—heavily
prejudiced against Germans—cannot deny what happened in his After
the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation. Dr. Austin App has written more than one
short booklet about American atrocities visited upon helpless German civilians. (See bibliography at end of article.)
L. van Roden served in World War II as chief of the Military Justice Division for the European theater. Van Roden was appointed
in 1948 to an extraordinary commission charged with investigating the claims of abuse during U.S. trials in Germany. Here
is an excerpt of what van Roden wrote:
at the U.S. court in Dachau, Germany used the following methods to obtain confessions: Beatings and brutal kickings. Knocking
out teeth and breaking jaws. Mock trials. Solitary confinement. Posturing as priests. Very limited rations. Spiritual deprivation.
Promises of acquittal…. We won the war, but some of us want to go on killing. That seems to me wicked…. The
American prohibition of hearsay evidence had been suspended. Second-and third-hand testimony was admitted….
Lt. Perl of the prosecution pleaded that it was difficult to obtain complete
evidence. Perl told the court. “We had a tough case to crack, and we had to use persuasive methods.” He admitted
to the court that the persuasive methods included various “expedients including some violence and mock trials.”
He further told the court that the cases rested on statements obtained by such methods.
The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement
for three, four and five months. They were confined between four walls, with no windows and no opportunity of exercise.
Two meals a day were shoved in to them through a slot in the door. They were not allowed to talk to anyone. They had no
communication with their families or any minister or priest during that time….
Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused’s head and then punch him in the face with brass
knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses. Many of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws
broken. All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This
was standard operating procedure with American investigators. Perl admitted use of mock trials and persuasive methods including
violence and said the court was free to decide the weight to be attached to evidence thus received. But it all went in.
One 18-year-old defendant, after a series of beatings, was writing a statement
being dictated to him. When they reached the 16th page, the boy was locked up for the night. In the early morning, Germans
in nearby cells heard him muttering: “I will not utter another lie.” When the jailer came in later to get him
to finish his false statement, he found the German hanging from a cell bar, dead. However, the statement that the German
had hanged himself to escape signing was offered and received in evidence in the trial of the others.
of the most remarkable persons in European history was born in the small town of Linz, Austria, on April 20, 1889. From boyhood
his friends knew that he was special. His closest friend was August Kubizek, whose book The Young Hitler I Knew is a fount of information concerning this person,
and it is highly recommended for interested parties.
incidents where Hitler would—as if seeing visions—tell his friend how he intended to rebuild Linz and his architectural
plans for the entire area.
Art was Hitler’s chosen calling and
he supported himself before World War I in Vienna by selling his. A Texan, Billy Price, has published a book containing
about a thousand of these interesting pencil sketches and watercolors.
of Hitler’s attributes are acknowledged, such as his incredible memory, his physical courage, his speaking ability,
his ability to charm persons on a one-on-one basis and his political acumen.
writers who are unfriendly do not wish to recognize, however, are his profound and detailed knowledge of history and historical
personalities, his strong sense of fairness, his pronounced interest in art and architecture, his talent as a first-class
military strategist, his idealism and his justified determination to redress the punitive Versailles Treaty that had crippled
Germany after World War I.
In 1919, with the outbreak of war, Hitler
enlisted in the German army and by so doing made the political statement that he detested the Austrian royal leadership
and considered himself German.
Hitler’s military record is outstanding.
This was before tactical commanders could use telephone or radio to issue orders or otherwise communicate to coordinate
the army’s units. To get messages from commanders to commander required a soldier of uncommon dependability and courage.
Hitler volunteered for this job and went through every major battle during that harrowing period, repeatedly going through
the worst of the fighting. He was gassed in 1914 and wounded in the leg in 1916. These battles includeYpres (Oct. 14-17,
1914), Neure Chapelle (March 10-13, 1915), Arras (April 9 June 16, 1917), Passchendalle (July-Nov., 1917) and Somme (Oct.
In contrast, neither Roosevelt nor Churchill ever served
a day in combat. Churchill was a newspaper reporter and was captured in South Africa in 1899 by Boers, but all he did was
to hold up his arms and surrender.
After the war, the British
blockaded Germany in order to starve to death as many Germans as possible. Realizing that only leadership could meet this
mortal crisis, Hitler looked around for a political movement, a movement with capable leadership that he could support .After
considerable effort, he found a fledgling party, the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche
Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP). He joined as member No. 7. Meanwhile, at least 763,000 Germans were purposefully starved to death.
Soon, he discovered that he had a talent for public speaking and political leadership.
The subsequent story of the growth of the NSDAP is fantastic. Before long, meetings at which Hitler spoke were attended by
thousands. Communists—who were well organized—tried to break up the meetings and the outdoor rallies using brutal
violence but the NS membership was always ready for these tactics and, in defending their right to exist, developed their
own street army, the Sturmabteilung (SA).
Many German workingmen
who had been beguiled by the well-financed Communists gravitated to the NSDAP with its strong message of nationalism and
Britain’s traditional policy regarding the continent
was “balance of power,” meaning that it would support the weaker nation or coalition on the mainland and play
off the power combines against each other, thus freeing Britain to further aggrandize itself on the 17/20ths of the globe
it then controlled.
In spite of these facts, Hitler had no animus
against Britain, and he made it clear in his Mein Kampf as well as in many speeches and in his foreign policy that he wanted peace with this nation, whose Anglo-Saxon
and Keltic peoples were so closely related to Germans. Let the British rule their empire on which the Sun never set and
give him a free hand on the continent so that he could turn his attention to the vital job of keeping the Soviet Union at
bay. Hitler knew that Stalin’s strategy was to conquer Europe (including the British Isles) and add it to the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Hitler was far too smart to entertain any idea of “conquering the world.”
His motives, in other words, were good.
Hitler wanted peace,
but his sin was that he recognized the corrosive, destructive influence of the Rothschild-Zionist-Jewish presence in Europe
and tried to do something about it. In their eyes, this was intolerable, and the British declaration of war against Germany
on Sept. 3, 1939 was the answer to the perceived problem.
there are few if any historians who do not agree that the Versailles Treaty imposed on Germany after World War I was extremely
one-sided and practically guaranteed another war.
Following its traditional
policy, on Sept. 3, 1939, England allied itself with Communist Russia and declared war on a Germany that did everything
possible to avoid hostilities. Rothschild-Jewish pressure on England was irresistible. And while Roosevelt was promising
America over and over again in his fireside chats, “I say to you again and again and again that your boys will not
be sent to a foreign war,” he was scheming with Churchill to do precisely that.
Before the war, Jewish organizations—supported by the international press—screamed that Hitler was
exterminating Jews by the millions. This is exactly what the Jews claimed during World War I, and they used the same number
then: 6 million. [See The First Holocaust by
Of course, this was a blatant lie. True, Hitler
imprisoned some minorities who were opposed to his policies, including Communists and religious zealots, to avoid sabotage
of the German war effort, exactly as FDR imprisoned the Japanese in camps across the United States.
The Big Lie of the so-called “Holocaust” has netted Jews not only billions
of dollars in U.S. and German coin but additional billions in German goods, such as highly advanced submarines and weapons,
not to mention a very valuable piece of real estate in Palestine plus the tearful sympathy of American and European media
GERMAN WAR AIMS
Hitler’s war aims were to defend Germany from England’s (and later, America’s)
invasion and to exterminate Soviet Communism. He and the German foreign minister, von Ribbentrop, made every conceivable
diplomatic effort to placate England, Hitler finally resorting to sending his deputy Rudolf Hess as a last-ditch effort
for peace in the West. When Hess arrived in Britain in May 1941, Churchill refused to see him. Hess was locked up for the
rest of the war and the rest of his life. Failing to die naturally, he was murdered by a British assassin in his cell in
1987 at Spandau Prison at the age of 92.
FDR WANTED WAR
Why would America enter the European war when no interests of the country were
remotely threatened? The simple answer is that the Roosevelt administration was heavily laden with Jews, as has been documented
by Elizabeth Dilling in her books and newsletters of 1934 and later. And Roosevelt was guaranteed a third and fourth term.
Mrs. Dilling, a concert-level harpist, mother and socialite in Chicago, traveled
to Russia in 1931 to see the great Communist experiment for herself. Deeply shocked by what she saw, and the conditions the
people had to endure, she dedicated her life to exposing Communism, especially its influence in America. In 1936 she wrote The Roosevelt Red Record and Its Background, and in it listed
over 100 extreme liberals/Communists in the Roosevelt administration, most of them Jewish.
Numerous times Hitler warned Britain that entering the hostilities would bankrupt England and cost it its empire.
Hitler regarded the British Empire, like the Catholic Church, as an element of world stability. His words were lost in the
Jewish cacophony for war. The Britons Oswald Moseley, John Amery, Arnold Leese and others made similar arguments directly
to the British people.
Hitler’s far-seeing strategy was anathema
to the lords of England as well as to the powerful Rothschild-Jewish entity that ruled the Bank of England and its separate
enclave, the City of London, which most definitely is not that big metropolis on the Thames River but another entity entirely—the
financial hub of the Rothschild world empire.
Meanwhile, for the
most part, the American media was conditioning the public for war, to the extent of telling gullible taxpayers to draw their
window shades at night so as to not permit light from the lights inside their houses to be seen and so guide Nazi bombers
to them. Yes, we had blackouts in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Wayne was 4,000 miles from Germany, making a round trip of 8,000 miles—a feat impossible for any airplane of the day.
But what citizen would bother to dispute the facts reported in their daily paper? Would the “free press” lie
A NATION OF SUCKERS
Unfortunately, white Americans have a messianic complex and publicists can easily manipulate them into spending
billions for crusades for everlasting peace if they support an internationalist foreign policy, so profitable for the war
makers. Who wants to be called an isolationist? Thus, today we have troops in 135 countries around the globe interfering
in the domestic affairs of people who wish to be left alone. This is worse than useless; it sows seeds of mistrust and hatred
and manufactures terrorists and more war. But it also feeds the profits of corporations that manufacture tanks, guns, planes,
ships and other war materiel. Bankers love war and debt financing, and war pays the salaries of thousands of bureaucrats
who work in the Pentagon and offices around the globe.
are at least 8,000 bureaucrats employed in the Pentagon. Many drive 200 miles each day to and from work. While the rest of
America wallows in unemployment and recession, the Washington, D.C. area is prosperous. War and debt mean prosperity for
millions, no matter that our bipartisan foreign policy is programmed for defeat and national bankruptcy.
ROOSEVELT’S MASTER PLAN
wanted a third and then a fourth term, and he knew the only way this could be accomplished would be to get America into war.
As stated, with Churchill, he plotted exactly that.
Tyler Kent, an American
citizen, was a code clerk stationed in London. He transmitted communications between Churchill and Roosevelt and was very
alarmed, seeing that the two were plotting war. He kept copies, planning to give them to senators, such as Burton K. Wheeler,
who were leaders in the effort to keep America out of war. His plan was discovered, and he was arrested by Churchill’s
orders and illegally kept in a British jail without trial for the duration of the war. Nothing could be permitted to stand
in the way of war.
Knowing that Hitler had no intention of attacking
the U.S. or even England, Roosevelt adopted a devilish scheme: He would take “the back door to war” (the title
of Dr. Charles Callan Tansill’s magnum opus) and get the Japanese to attack the U.S.
Japan needed oil, and the closest was in the South Pacific. FDR knew that was the pressure
point to bend Japan to his will—to leave no other option to Japan but to attack the United States.
FDR’s scheme—with which Churchill was totally familiar—worked.
Roosevelt knew that the Japanese would do almost anything to avoid war with the U.S. because American code breakers were
monitoring all of Japan’s secret communications between Tokyo and their diplomats. Through its Ambassador Kichisaburo
Nomura, Prince Konoye and Minister of Foreign Affairs Yosuke Matsuoka, Japan made every effort to ensure friendly relations
with the U.S.
FDR knew well in advance that the Japanese would attack
Pearl Harbor, and he cheerfully sacrificed the lives of 3,000 men, four battleships and much more, including the reputations
of Adm. Husband Kimmel and Gen. Walter Short, who he criminally blamed for the attack, permitting his treason to go unknown
and unpunished. As Roosevelt said, Dec. 7, 1941 is indeed “a day which will live in infamy”—Franklin Delano
Roosevelt’s infamous treason.
Roosevelt knew that the
American people were overwhelmingly opposed to war. His plan was not merely a contemptuous repudiation of the electorate,
but done with full knowledge that the war would cost millions of American, German and other lives. But his unnatural lust
for a third term seized him.
His partner in this crime was Winston Churchill,
prime minister of Great Britain. In his sober moments, which were very few, Churchill was a master of words. Churchill loved
war and killing for the sport of it.
By 1938, when he was 64
years old, Churchill had so lived beyond his means that his creditors prepared to foreclose on him. He was faced with the
prospect of the forced sale of his luxurious country estate, Chartwell.
hour of crisis a dark and mysterious figure entered Churchill’s life. He was Henry Strakosch, a multimillionaire Jew
who had acquired a fortune speculating in South African mining ventures after his family had migrated to that country from
eastern Austria. Strakosch stepped forward and advanced Churchill a loan of 150,000 pounds sterling just in time to save
his estate from the auctioneer. In the years that followed, Strakosch served as Churchill’s adviser and confidant
but miraculously managed to avoid the spotlight of publicity, which thenceforth illuminated Churchill’s again-rising
It must be said that hard thought was never
Churchill’s forte because he was always either drunk or nearly so. Alcoholism was not the only eccentric characteristic
of this strange man, who would often greet visitors stark naked. But Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin were the warlords of
World War II, and to them must go the primary responsibility for the results—the greatest disaster in the history
of Europe and the white race.
Every time he was told that German bombers
were en route, and even though he initiated the policy of bombing civilians, a policy Hitler abhorred, Churchill fled London. The two leaders were both manifestly unfit for power. FDR was sick in body and mind,
and Churchill was a sot.
British and American bombers carpeted German
cities with millions of explosives and incendiary bombs. They made little effort to target railheads, factories, docks or
military installations. They deliberately killed millions of civilians. The flames of a burning Hamburg were a mile high.
According to David Irving, Dresden—an undefended art city—was totally destroyed along with at least 18,375 inhabitants,
mostly children, women, and cripples, 16,130 were injured and 350,000 people made homeless; 35,000 were missing. No one
knows how many of these were killed.
Such mass murder (genocide)
is supposedly outlawed by the Geneva Convention, but that meant nothing to Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. In one leaflet
headlined Kill, Soviet propagandist
Ilya Ehrenburg incited Soviet soldiers to treat Germans as subhuman. The final paragraph concludes:
The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to us the most terrible
oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak anymore. We shall not get excited. We shall
kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day…
If you cannot kill your German with a bullet kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front,
or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang
a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap
of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you.
Kill the German—that is your grandmother’s request. Kill the German—that
is your child’s prayer. Kill the German—that is your motherland’s loud request. Do not miss. Kill.
SUICIDE OF THE WEST
war that followed—as was World War I—must be seen as a civil war in the West; 8.5 million American, British and
continental European troops were killed in WWI and 43 million in WWII. The civilian count in WWI is about 13 million and
38 million in WWII. The dysgenic effect of these needless wars is incalculable. Before birth control became feasible and
popular, losses like this would be made up naturally by the high birth rate. But not today.
Many millions of white children of the dead have never been born. Their absence has
to a large extent been made up by non-white immigrants into America and Europe, both legal and illegal, and the influx of
nonwhites grows daily. No more is America a white, Aryan nation; in fact, today the dialog regarding immigration forbids
the factor of race from even being mentioned in our Jewish-controlled media. The Marxist rule of political correctness is
Lenin, Stalin and the other (mostly Jewish) leaders in
Communist Russia murdered some 60 million Russians, particularly the pro-Western Aryan aristocracy, symbolized by the Christian
royal family of Czar Nicholas. Regardless of persons like Tom Brokaw (who refers to WWII as “the good war,”
it was unnecessary, and all belligerents—Great Britain, America and Russia included lost. American Francis Yockey
pointed out that to win a war, a power must gain resources, strength and prosperity. Since 1939, all three major powers
who started and fought it have declined into a pit of escalating inflation, unpayable debt, national bankruptcy, loss of
national character, the immigration of millions of aliens and a highly questionable future.
The mass killing of Germans and other Europeans has paved the way for the legal and
illegal immigration of not only Muslims but black Africans, even to countries as far removed from Africa as Finland. This
has vastly increased the welfare budget and crime. European cities that once were clean and orderly today are ridden with
trash and derelicts. A former resident of London reports that the streets resemble those in Nairobi, Kenya. Manfred Roeder
reports that the EU plans to bring to Europe some 60 million more black Africans. Any plan to halt this torrent to Europe
of this plague is attacked by the media as “Hitlerism.”
To most Americans, war is an exciting game. They watch
the suffering and the action safely on television, radio, newspapers and magazines with the “Tom Brokaws” exulting.
But what do they profit? Death, debt and the ever-tightening yoke of Jewish political
and economic supremacy.
Any sensible white person, if aware at all
of what is happening, has to acknowledge the truth. His race, which is responsible for Western civilization, is on the defensive
and retreating before an army of racial and cultural aliens.
racial crisis cannot be ignored further. Whites must brave the Bronx cheers and profanity from liberals and Jews and face
the problem squarely or civilization is lost.
The future for the
U.S. seems clear: The McCarran-Walter immigration law has been repealed and no more are immigrants let into America mainly
from Europe. Today, America is taking in millions of non-whites from everywhere, legal and illegal. These invaders have
no cultural or racial compatibility with the Aryan whites who founded, civilized and developed this continent. Without racial
and cultural homogeneity, there can be no rational government in any country, only efforts to arbitrate among groups until
the inevitable anarchy.
Is the future therefore hopeless? Is the white
race doomed? Of course not, just the opposite. Today, whites are confronted with major difficulties, and that is good, not
bad. The problems we have are a trumpet call to awaken. At last we have a challenge. It is literally life or death for our
kind. Political liberalism is a thing of the past. Jewish influence is intolerable and must be quashed by whatever means.
We mean to survive and that means only this: Unconditional defeat for our enemies and unconditional victory for the next
phase of white aggrandizement.
APP, DR. AUSTIN: History’s
Most Terrifying Peace, 1946.
The Six Million Swindle 1973, Boniface Press.
A Straight Look at the Third Reich, 1975, Boniface
BACQUE, JAMES: Other Losses, 1999, Little Brown & Co.
BARNES, HARRY ELMER: In Quest of Truth and Justice, 1972, Ralph Myles.
Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, 1953, Caxton Printers.
Pearl Harbor: After a Quarter Century, 1968, Inst. for Historical Review.
BAUR, HANS: Hitler at My Side, 1968, Eichler Publ. Co. chief pilot
and friend to Adolf Hitler, was a WWI ace, pioneer mail pilot, Lufthansa flight captain, companion to the Fuehrer in the
Soviets after WWII. What a life. His autobiography is an adventure story.
RAY & READ, ANTHONY: Conspirator, 1992,
CHAMBERLIN, WILLIAM HENRY: America’s Second Crusade, 1950, Henry
COLBY, BENJAMIN: Twas a Famous Victory, 1974, Arlington House.
COLE, WAYNE S.: Charles
Lindbergh and the Battle Against American
Intervention in World War II, 1974, Harcourt Brace.
CROCKER, GEORGE N.: Roosevelt’s Road to Russia, 1959, Henry Regnery.
DOENECKE, JUSTUS D.: Not to the Swift, 1979, Associated University Presses
DUKE, DAVID: Jewish
Supremacism, 2003, Free Speech Press.
GEORGE T.: Roosevelt, Churchill and the World War II Opposition, 1979 Devin-Adair.
EPSTEIN, JULIUS: Operation Keelhaul, 1973, Devin-Adair.
GANNON, MICHAEL: Pearl Harbor Betrayed, 2001,
GREAVES, PERCY L.: Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy, 2010, Ludwig Mises Institute.
GRENFELL, CAPT. RUSSELL, R.N.: Unconditional Hatred, 1958, Devin-Adair.
DON: The First Holocaust, TBR, 2011.
IRVING, DAVID: Destruction
of Dresden, 1963, Holt, Rinehart. The War Path, 1978 the Viking Press.
Churchill’s War 1987,
War, 1977, Macmillian.
The War Between the Generals, 1981, Penguin Books.
Hess, the Missing Years, 1987, Macmillian.
Apocalypse 1945, Parforce.
KEMP, ARTHUR: March
of the Titans, 2000, Ostara Press.
AUGUST: The Young Hitler I Knew, Greenhill Books,
LEESE, ARNOLD S.: The Jewish War of Survival, 1945, Historical Review Press.
LINGE, HEINZ: With
Hitler to the End, 2009, Skyhorse.
GILES: After the Reich, 2007, Basic Books.
MARTIN JAMES J.: Revisionist
Viewpoints, 1971, Ralph Myles.
CARLO and RUDOLF, GERMAR: Auschwitz Lies.
NEILSON, FRANCIS: The
Makers of War, 1950, C.C. Nelson.
How Diplomats Make War, 1952, Henry Regnery.
SNOW, JOHN H.: The Case of Tyler
Kent, 1982, Long House.
MICHEL: The Suicide of Europe, 1968, Western
TANSILL, CHARLES CALLAN: Back Door to War, 1952, Henry Holt.
THOMAS, W. HUGH: The Murder of Rudolf Hess, 1979,
WEDEMEYER REPORTS: Gen. Albert Wedemeyer, 1958, Henry Holt.
- In whatever civilization
they have lived for some 3,000 years, the Jews have always considered themselves separate and distinct from their host people.
Their Talmud, as well as the Old Testament, is authority enough for this. Thus, historians and observers cannot logically
consider them as an integral part of the community.
- Arthur Kemp’s classic March
of the Titans: A History of the White Race is strongly recommended.
- Bibliography and see Dr. Austin App’s writings.
- According to
respected historian Eustace Mullins, Bernard Baruch was the force behind the creation of the atomic bomb. He lived in Manhattan.
Hence the name “Manhattan Project.”
- See the Sept./Oct. 2008 issue of THE BARNES REVIEW for “Russia & the Jews”
by Udo Walendy, “Nobel Prize Winner’s Writings Still Banned” which describes the prejudice against Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn, a Russian. Solzhenitsyn was imprisoned for a total of 11 years by Stalin for his anti-Communist writings including
his factual histories of the support that Jews gave to the system. His writings in the U.S. are difficult if not impossible
to be found.
Web of Deceit: The Jewish Puppet Masters Behind World War II
Edited by Lasha Darkmoon
CHURCHILL, ROOSEVELT, STALIN
It was these three powerful individuals, the winners of WWII, who decided
to carve up the world between them by manufacturing pretexts for a catastrophic world war that would claim 60-80 million
lives, roughly 3 per cent of the world’s population, and reduce Germany to a wasteland of rubble. Behind them, lurking
in the shadows, stood their Jewish Puppet Masters, egging them on and telling them exactly what they had to do.
Here are the highly toxic and politically incorrect views of four key diplomats who were close
to the events leading up to World War II. Ponder them carefully and ask yourselves: Could they all have been mistaken?
Joseph P. Kennedy,
US Ambassador to Britain during the years immediately preceding World War II, was the father of the famous American Kennedy
dynasty. James Forrestal, the first US Secretary of Defense (1947-1949), quotes him as saying “Chamberlain [the British
Prime Minister] stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.” (The Forrestal Diaries,
Cassell 1952, p.129).
Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office in January 1939,
is quoted approvingly by the highly respected British military historian Major-General JFC Fuller. Concerning public opinion
in America, Count Potocki says:
Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands. Their propaganda
is so effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe.
It is interesting to observe that in this carefully thought-out
campaign no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner
and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries.
Jewry was able not only to establish
a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world
into two warlike camps. President Roosevelt has been given the power to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war
which the Jews are deliberately heading for.”
JFC Fuller, The Decisive Battles of the Western World, vol 3, pp 372-374.
Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador
in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out, found anti-Semitism in Germany “understandable.” This
was because before the advent of the Nazis “the stage, the press, medicine and law were crowded with Jews. Among the
few with money to splurge, a high proportion were Jews. The leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia, a movement desperately
feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred.” — Hugh Wilson, American diplomat,
quoted in Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh, Hodder, 1976.
Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Berlin “said further that
the hostile attitude [toward Germany] in Great Britain was the work of Jews, which was what Hitler thought himself.”
(AJP Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, Penguin 1987, p. 324).
“One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred.” —
Hugh Wilson, American ambassador in Berlin, c.1938
Is this negative attitude toward international Jewry attributable
to a groundless antisemitism—to a hatred of Jews for no valid or justifiable reason? A knowledge of the economic
background to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding of this complex question.
At the end of the First World War, Germany was
essentially tricked into paying massive reparations to France and other economic competitors and former belligerent countries
by the terms of the iniquitous Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the meddling of liberal American President Woodrow Wilson,
himself acting under Jewish advice. [See Paul Johnson, A History of the Modern World (1983), p.24; and
H. Nicholson, Peacemaking, 1919 (1933), pp. 13-16]
Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the Great War of
1914-1918 in spite of the fact that “Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts,
though too belated, to avert one.” (Professor Sydney B. Fay, The Origins of the World War (Vol.
2, p. 552).
As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations made by the Versailles Treaty, by 1923 the situation
in Germany became desperate. Inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses
were engaged to print money around the clock. (See this picture). In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar; by 1924, it had become roughly 5 trillion marks
to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle classes, reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero. (See Arthur
Koestler, The God that Failed, p. 28).
According to distinguished British historian Sir Arthur Bryant:
It was the Jews with their international affiliations
and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities. They did so with such effect that,
even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the
Times correspondent in Berlin, something like A THIRD OF THE PROPERTY IN THE REICH. Most of it came into
their hands during the hyperinflation.
To those who had lost their all, this bewildering
transfer seemed a monstrous injustice.
After prolonged sufferings THEY HAD
NOW BEEN DEPRIVED OF THEIR LAST POSSESSIONS. THEY SAW THEM PASS INTO THE HANDS OF STRANGERS, many of whom had not
shared their sacrifices and WHO CARED LITTLE OR NOTHING FOR THEIR NATIONAL STANDARDS AND TRADITIONS.
The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions in spite of constituting
LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF THE POPULATION.
The banks, including the
Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the
theatres and a large part of the press—all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country
is formed. The largest newspaper combine in the country, with a daily circulation of four millions, was a Jewish monopoly.
EVERY YEAR IT BECAME HARDER AND HARDER FOR A GENTILE TO GAIN OR KEEP A FOOTHOLD IN ANY PRIVILEGED
At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised
racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a
majority. There was no persecution, only elimination. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed—and lavishly
displayed—by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism
so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe.
Beggars on horseback are seldom
popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.
Sir Arthur Bryant, Unfinished Victory, 1940 pp. 136-144, emphasis added.
The caption to a famous anti-Semitic German cartoon headed sarcastically “The
Land of Freedom”, referring to Germany under the Jewish heel, has a caption in German that translates as: “When
one is ruled by the Jews, freedom is only an empty dream.” (See the 1939 cartoon here).
— § —
Strangely enough, a book unexpectedly published
by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon’s Hitler, Germans and the “Jewish Question”,
essentially confirms what Sir Arthur Bryant says above. Sarah Gordon, incidentally, is Jewish, so this is a rare example
of a Jew actually admitting that anti-Semitism could have a rational basis:
“Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at
no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.
were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private service. They were especially visible in private banking
in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks. They owned 41% of
iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in
Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange.
1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were
dismissed because of their “race”. At least a quarter of full professors and instructors at German universities
had Jewish origins. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the law and medical students. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre
directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.
it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents.”
Arthur Koestler, also Jewish, confirms
the Jewish over-involvement in German publishing:
“Ullstein’s was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind in Europe, and probably
in the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these the venerable Vossische Zeitung, founded
in the eighteenth century, and the BZ am Mittag, an evening paper. Apart from these, Ullstein’s published more than
a dozen weekly and monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own travel agency, and were one of the leading
book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers Ullstein: they were five, like the original Rothschild brothers, and
like them also, they were Jews.”
— The God that Failed (1950),
ed. R.H.S. Crossman, p. 31.
Mowrer, Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, wrote an anti-German tract called “Germany Puts the
Clock Back”, published as a Penguin Special and reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938. He notes
the all-important administration of Prussia, any number of strategic positions came into the hands of Hebrews.
A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THREE
JEWS IN MINISTERIAL OFFICES COULD RESULT IN THE SUSPENSION OF ANY PERIODICAL OR NEWSPAPER IN THE STATE.
The Jews came in Germany to play in politics
and administration that same considerable part that they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking,
the Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual and cultural life of the country. And thereby the impression
was strengthened that Germany, a country with a mission of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners.
No one who lived through the period
from 1919 to 1926 is likely to forget the sexual promiscuity that prevailed. Throughout a town like Berlin, hotels and pensions
made vast fortunes by letting rooms by the hour or day to baggageless, unregistered guests. Hundreds of cabarets, pleasure
resorts and the like served for purposes of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper mood.”
(“Germany Puts The Clock Back”, pp. 153-4, emphasis added)
Bryant, already quote above, describes throngs of child prostitutes outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants.
He adds “Most of them—the night clubs and vice resorts—were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews
among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years.” (pp. 144-5).
† “Most of the night clubs and vice
resorts were owned and managed by Jews.” — St Arthur Bryant, British historian.
“It’s disgusting how the Jews are taking everything by storm. Even the Rome of Seutonius has never known such
orgies as the pervert balls of Berlin.” — Jewish German writer Stefan Zweig.
† “The decay
of moral values in all areas of life—the period of deepest German degradation—coincided exactly with the height
of Jewish power in Germany.” — Dr Friedrich Karl Wiehe, German historian, in Germany and
the Jewish Question.
(Quotes added by LD)
— § —
Douglas Reed, Chief Central European correspondent before WWII for
the London Times, was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported:
“I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots
and daubing on the window panes the word “Jew” in dripping red letters. The Kurfürstendamm was to me a revelation.
I knew that Jews were prominent in business life, but I did not know that they almost monopolized important branches of
Germany had one Jew to one hundred gentiles, said the statistics; but
the fashionable Kurfürstendamm, according to the dripping red legends, had about one gentile shop to ninety-nine Jewish
— Douglas Reed, Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3, emphasis
In Reed’s book Disgrace
Abounding (1939), he notes:
the Berlin (of the pre-Hitler years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and
stage actors were Jews, the plays performed were often by German, Austrian or Hungarian Jews and were staged by Jewish film
producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers…
Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling
of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it. It is not true
that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin papers because the proprietors and
editors were Jewish.”
(Douglas Reed, Disgrace Abounding, 1939, pp.
Jewish writer Edwin
Black gives a similar picture. “In Berlin alone,” he states, “about 75 percent of the attorneys and
nearly as many of the doctors were Jewish.” (The Transfer Agreement (1984), p. 58)
“I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing
on the window panes the word JEW in dripping red letters.” — Douglas Reed, 1938. Note that 99 out of 100
shops in the High Street were owned by Jews, and yet Jews made up less than one percent of the population.
To cap it all,
Jews were perceived as dangerous enemies of Germany after Samuel Untermeyer, the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation,
declared war on Germany on August 6, 1933. (See Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement: the Untold Story of the Secret
Pact between the Third Reich and Palestine (1984), pp. 272-277). According to Black, “The one man who most
embodied the potential death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermeyer” (p. 369).
This was the culmination of a worldwide boycott
of German goods led by international Jewish organizations.
The London Daily Express on March 24, 1933 carried
the headline “Judea Declares War on Germany”. The boycott was particularly motivated by the German imposition
of the Nuremberg Laws, which ironically were similar in intent and content to the Jewish cultural exclusivism practiced
so visibly in present-day Israel. At a single stroke, this headline disproves the lie that Germany initiated World
War II. International Jewry is here clearly seen declaring war on Germany as early as 1933. It would take the Jews another
six years to cajole their Anglo-American stooges to go to war on their behalf.
Next time you hear anyone claim falsely that
“Germany started World War Two”, send them a copy of this headline picture from The Daily Express, dated
March 24, 1933:
Hitler saw the tremendous danger posed to Germany by Communism. He
appreciated the desperate need to eliminate this threat, a fact that earned him the immense hatred and animosity of the
Jewish organisations and the media and politicians of the west which they could influence. After all, according to the Jewish
writer Chaim Bermant, although Jews formed less than five percent of Russia’s population, they formed more than fifty
percent of its revolutionaries. According to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant in his book The Jews (1977,
must be added that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last century and
the first decades of this one, stemmed from prosperous Jewish families.. They were perhaps typified by the father of revolution,
Karl Marx. Thus when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the
helm: Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia; Bela Kun in Hungary; Kurt Eisner in Bavaria; and, most improbable
of all, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin.
To many outside observers, the
Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks
in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a preponderance of Jews. Of the seven members of the
Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov,
authors agree with this assessment , including Jewish historian Sarah Gordon, already cited once above:
There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore
the significant role of Jewish intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine
and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War 1….
The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this was a very
serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years.
is clear then that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists led many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as
a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation.”
Sarah Gordon, Hitler, Germans and the ‘Jewish Question’, Princeton University Press (1984), p 23. (Emphasis added)
Martin Bernal in Back Athena (vol 1), pp.367-387
reinforces the above:
“The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism
and the Russian Revolution and during the economic crises of the 1920s and 30s. Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe
and North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution.. Such feelings were not
restricted to Germany, or to vulgar extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism
became the norm in ‘nice society’, and ‘nice society’ included the universities.”
Is it any wonder that Hitler, along with millions of others all over
Europe, should join the growing ranks of the anti-Semites?
It is clear that the Jews were almost universally hated, not because
they Jews, but because of their obnoxiously pushy behavior and the fact that they were in the forefront of dangerous revolutionaries
dedicated to the downfall of their host countries. You cannot move into someone else’s house and take it over and
expect to be loved by your victims.
— § —
Hitler came to power in Germany with two main aims, the rectification
of the unjust provisions of the Versailles Treaty and the destruction of the Soviet/ Communist threat to Germany. Strangely
enough, contrary to the mythology created by those who had an opposing ethnic agenda, he had no plans or desire for a larger
war of conquest. Professor AJP Taylor proved this in his book The Origins of the Second World War, much to
the annoyance of the professional court historians. Taylor says: “The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive
proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all” (p.267). And again: “Even
in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French
in everything except leadership” (p. 104-5).
British historian Basil Liddell Hart confirms this assessment. He writes: “Britain
and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler wanted peace with Britain, as the German generals admitted.
(Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill, 1948, Pan Books 1983).
David Irving wraps it all up in the foreword
to his book The Warpath (1978) where he refers to “the discovery that at no time did this man
(Hitler) pose or intend a real threat to Britain or the Empire.”
I think all this proves, beyond any shadow of
doubt, that the chief aggressors in World War II were the Anglo-Americans—as indeed they were arguably the chief aggressors
in World War I and most of the wars that have plagued the world during the 20th century and up to the present time. As for
the moneyed international Jews, these were demonstrably the Puppet Masters jerking the strings of the three great leaders
of the Western World—Churchhill, Roosevelt and Stalin—who went to war at their behest and on their behalf.
It is not without
significance that each of the legendary figures mentioned above has been accused at some time or other of enjoying exceptionally
strong Jewish connections.
Of one thing we can be reasonably sure: whenever there is a major new war or revolution being planned which requires
heavy financial backing—the Russian Revolution is a perfect example—the hidden hand of international Jewry is
almost certain to be behind it. Partout où il y a de l’argent, il y a des Juifs, said Montesquieu.
— “Wherever there is money, there you will find the Jew.”
And wherever there is war, the most profitable money
spinning activity known to man, there also you are likely to find the Eternal Jew—Der Ewige Jude—counting his gold coins over a mound of corpses.
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.
Adolf Hitler: My Political Testament (Berlin, 29 April 1945)
Since 1914, when as a volunteer,
I made my modest contribution in the World War which was forced upon the Reich, over thirty years have passed.
In these three
decades, only love for my people and loyalty to my people have guided me in all my thoughts, actions, and life.
They gave me the strength to make the most difficult decisions, such as no mortal has yet had to face. I have
exhausted my time, my working energy, and my health in these three decades.
It is untrue that I or anybody else
in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was desired and instigated exclusively by those international statesmen who
were either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests. I have made so many offers for the reduction and elimination
of armaments, which posterity cannot explain away for all eternity, that the responsibility for the outbreak of
this war cannot rest on me. Furthermore, I never desired that after the first terrible World War a second war
should arise against England or even against America. Centuries may pass, but out of the ruins of our cities and
monuments of art there will arise anew the hatred for the people who alone are ultimately responsible: International
Jewry and its helpers!
As late as three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish War, I proposed to the British Ambassador
in Berlin a solution for the German-Polish problem -- similar to the problem of the Saar area, under international
control. This offer cannot be explained away, either. It was only rejected because the responsible circles in English
politics wanted the war, partly in the expectation of business advantages, partly driven by propaganda promoted
by international Jewry.
But I left no doubt about the fact that
if the peoples of Europe were again only regarded as so many packages of stock shares by these international money
and finance conspirators, then that race, too, which is the truly guilty party in this murderous struggle would
also have to be held to account: the Jews! I further left no doubt that this time we would not permit millions
of European children of Aryan descent to die of hunger, nor millions of grown-up men to suffer death, nor hundreds
of thousands of women and children to be burned and bombed to death in their cities, without the truly guilty
party having to atone for its guilt, even if through more humane means.
After six years of struggle, which in spite of all reverses
will go down in history as the most glorious and most courageous manifestation of a people's will to live. I cannot
separate myself from the city which is the capital of this Reich. Because our forces are too few to permit any
further resistance against the enemy's assaults, and because individual resistance is rendered valueless by blinded
and characterless scoundrels, I desire to share the fate that millions of others have taken upon themselves, in
that I shall remain in this city. Furthermore, I do not want to fall into the hands of enemies who for the delectation
of the hate-riddled masses require a new spectacle promoted by the Jews.
I have therefore resolved to remain in Berlin
and there to choose death of my own will at the very moment when, as I believe, the seat of the Fuehrer and Chancellor
can no longer be defended. I die with a joyful heart in the awareness the immeasurable deeds and achievements of
our soldiers at the front, of our women at home, the achievements of our peasants and workers, and the contribution,
unique in history, of our youth, which bears my name.
It goes without saying that I thank them all from the bottom of my
heart and that it is also my desire that in spite of everything they should not give up the struggle, but continue
fighting wherever they may be, faithful to the great Clausewitz, against the enemies of the Fatherland. From the
sacrifices of our soldiers and from my own comradeship with them, there will come in one way or another into German
history the seed of a brilliant renaissance of the National Socialist movement and thus the realization of a true
Many very brave men and women have resolved to link their lives to mine to the very end. I have requested
them, and finally ordered them, not to do so, but instead to take part in the continuing struggle of the nation.
I ask the commanders of the army, navy, and air force to strengthen by all possible means the spirit of resistance
of our soldiers in the spirit of National Socialism, emphasizing especially that I too, as founder and creator of this
movement, have preferred death to cowardly flight or even capitulation.
May it be one day a part of the code of honor;
as it is already in the navy, that the surrender of an area or of a town is impossible, and above all in this
respect the leaders should give a shining example of faithful devotion to duty unto death.
Several brave men have joined me by their own
free will and do not wish to leave the capital of the Reich under any circumstances, but on the contrary are willing
to perish with me here. Yet I must ask them to obey my request, and in this instance place the interests of the
nation above their own feelings.
Through their work and loyalty they will remain just as close to me as companions
after my death, just as I hope that my spirit will remain amongst them and will always accompany them. Let them
be hard, but never unjust; above all, let them never allow fear to counsel their actions, but may they place the
honor of the nation above everything on this earth. Finally, may they be conscious of the fact that our task of
building a National Socialist state represents the labor of the coming centuries, and this places every single
person under an obligation always to serve the common interest and to subordinate his own interests. I demand
of all Germans, all National Socialists, men and women and all soldiers of the Armed Forces, that they remain faithful
and obedient to the new government and to their President unto death.
Above all, I charge the leadership of the nation
and their followers with the strict observance of the racial laws and with merciless resistance against the universal
poisoners of all peoples, international Jewry.
Given at Berlin, 29 April 1945, 4 AM.
Dr. JOSEPH GOEBBELS
WWII - EUROPA - The Last Battle
https://youtu.be/WqREtbt__O8 part 1
As featured on
National Radio and suddenly banned by Amazon... (after receiving
more than 300 5-star reviews!)
We all know the story about World War II.
The one about how "The Good Guys" banded together to stop Adolf Hitler and the
big bad Germans (and Japanese) from taking over the world.
There is just one problem with this official version of the history-changing
event known as World War II.
It's a LIE!
you handle the truth about what really happened?
Click on this text to watch a five minute trailer about "THE BAD WAR" on Youtube...
Click on this text to read "THE BAD WAR:THE TRUTH NEVER TAUGHT ABOUT WORLD WAR II" IN PDF FORMAT...
SUMMER MONTHS OF 1939
TO PEACEFULLY RESOLVE DISPUTE OVER DANZIG & THE ‘POLISH CORRIDOR’
(Stolen from Germany after World War I)
"BERLIN THINKS DOOR IS
LEFT OPEN TO PEACEFUL SOLUTION"
The August 28th headline of the Hitler-hating New
York Times confirmed that Hitler sought to avoid war with Britain & France.
The “free city” of Danzig is
95% German. Along with its surrounding German area of East Prussia, Danzig was isolated
from the German mainland by the harsh 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.
AUGUST 25, 1939
POLAND AGREE TO A MILITARY ALLIANCE
The Polish-British Common Defense Pact contains promises of British military assistance in the event that Poland is attacked
by another European country. This builds upon a previous agreement (March 1939) between the two countries,
and also France, by specifically committing to military action in the event of an attack.
this agreement, powerful Zionist-Globalist forces in the UK have now trapped the reluctant Prime
Minister Neville Chamberlain, as well as France and Poland. All that is left to do now is for Polish-Jewish
border thugs to deliberately provoke Germany into action and get the ball rolling.
The British-Polish Common
Defense past was forced upon Neville Chamberlain.
AUGUST 31, 1939
GLEIWITZ (and other) BORDER ATTACKS / JEWISH-POLISH GUERILLAS ATTACK GERMAN RADIO STATION
Overestimating their strength, underestimating German strength,
and knowing that France and the UK would now be forced to back them, Polish-Jewish terrorists
cross the border and attack a German radio station in Silesia, Germany. It is actually the
latest in a string of deliberate border instigations against Germany.
then broadcast a message (in Polish) urging others to take up arms and start attacking Germans.
German police quickly arrive and retake the station, killing one of the Red terrorists. Jewish Red
terrorists, their Polish government protectors, and their Globalist-Zionist masters have picked
a fight with Germany!
Modern historians claim that the Gleiwitz incident was staged by Germans dressed as
Polish terrorists. But as is the case with the Reichstag Fire conspiracy theory, they offer no evidence,
(beyond a forced “confession” obtained after the war) to support this theory – a theory
that ignores the outrageous and repeated pattern of provocations directed at Hitler's Germany ever
since 1933, the numerous border incidents, and also Hitler’s sincere attempts to negotiate
a fair resolution to the Corridor and Danzig controversies.
Soon after broadcasting a
call to kill Germans, Polish-Jewish partisans, with the blessing of the Polish government, kicked off
the war between Poland and Germany.
FORBIDDEN HISTORY - QUOTE
"I lived in Germany during the 1980's when many people who
lived during the war were still alive. I sought out anyone who lived near Poland in 1939 and was lucky
enough to meet several people. One was a customs official who said it was so bad on the border they
were armed and also had grenades in their office ready for attacks. Another told me his farm animals were often stolen
by Polish (Jewish?) terrorists. Another told of his niece being raped by a Pole (Jew?) who crossed
the border. He told me in 1940 they caught the man and showed me a copy of the death order signed by
Heydrich, in which he ordered the man put to death.
This is just one of many stories told to me by German
civilians who witnessed these border incursions just like had happened in 1919-1928. One thing many people fail to see is that Poland openly attacked Germany right after World
War I, which led to many border battles. Once Germany started pressing Poland to work out a solution to the corridor,
the attacks started again. .And one thing that is
clear to me is that Germany did not make up these attacks."
- G.H. Ohio, USA
SEPTEMBER 17, 1939
UNION INVADES POLAND FROM THE EAST / ALLIES SAY NOTHING!
With the Polish army being routed by the advancing Germans in the west, Stalin cleverly decides
to break the Soviet-Polish Non Aggression Pact of 1932. Poland is stabbed in the back as Soviet forces pour in from the east. The advancing Reds carry
out massacres, the most infamous being the Katyn Forest Massacre in which 10,000 Polish Army officers are shot in the head.
Other than the pre-Versailles
German areas which Germany will reclaim, the Soviets will take.all of Poland. In a shocking double-standard, the
anti-German Globo-Zio press, FDR, France & the UK remain oddly silent about this brutal Soviet
Poland appeals to Britain for help, citing the Poland-British
Defense Pact just signed a few weeks ago! The Polish ambassador in London
contacts the British Foreign Office pointing out that clause 1(b) of the agreement, which concerned
an "aggression by a European power" on Poland, should apply to the Soviet invasion. The UK
Foreign Secretary responds with hostility, stating that it was Britain's decision whether to declare war on the Soviet
The truth is, the Allies don't give a rat's ass about
Poland. They only used its foolish ultra-nationalist leaders to instigate Hitler so that they
could have their war. The horror that Poland will suffer under Soviet occupation is Poland's
problem, not Britain's!
The Soviets executed 10,000 Polish
Army officers at Katyn Forest. They would later try to blame it on the Germans.
SEPTEMBER 17, 1939
HAS DEFEATED POLAND / DANZIG AND WESTERN PRUSSIA REUNITED WITH GERMANY
Within a few weeks, the German-Polish War is already over.
Hitler receives a hero’s welcome upon his arrival in liberated Danzig. Hitler addresses the Danzig crowd:
“No power on earth would have borne this condition as long as Germany. I do not know
what England would have said about a similar peace solution (Versailles) at its expense or how America
or France would have accepted it.
I attempted to find a tolerable solution - even for this problem. I submitted
this attempt to the Polish rulers in the form of verbal proposals.
.You know these proposals. They were more than moderate.
I do not know what mental condition the Polish Government was in when it refused these proposals. …….As
an answer, Poland gave the order for the first mobilization. Thereupon wild terror was initiated,
and my request to the Polish Foreign Minister to visit me in Berlin once more to discuss these questions
was refused. Instead of going to Berlin, he went to London.”
Hitler receives a hero's
welsome in Danzig
OCTOBER 1939 - MAY 1940
PLEADS FOR PEACE WITH BRITAIN & FRANCE
The German-Polish War has ended quickly. There is nothing that the Allies can do help their Polish
puppet. The French actually invade Germany on September 7th, advancing 8 km before stopping.
The quiet period between the end of the Polish war until May 1940, is dubbed by a US Senator
as "The Phony War."
During this time, Hitler pleads for the Allies
to withdraw their war declarations. Towards France he declares:
."I have always expressed to France my desire to bury forever our
ancient enmity and bring together these two nations, both of which have such glorious pasts."
To the British,
Hitler says: “I have devoted no less effort to the achievement of Anglo-German
friendship. At no time and in no place have I ever acted contrary to British interests….Why should
this war in the West be fought?”
Hitler’s pleas for peace are ignored
as the allies amass 600,000 troops in Northern France! Plans are openly discussed to advance eastward upon Germany, via Belgium and Holland, as well
as establishing operations in neutral Norway and Denmark, with or without their consent.
As Hitler continues to plead for
peace, the British government deploys its army and frightens its people.
Stalin's War Against His Own Troops
The Tragic Fate of Soviet Prisoners of War in German Captivity
By Yuri Teplyakov
At dawn on June 22, 1941, began the mightiest military
offensive in history: the German-led Axis attack against the Soviet Union. During the first 18 months of the campaign, about
three million Soviet soldiers were taken prisoner. By the end of the conflict four years later, more than five million Soviet
troops are estimated to have fallen into German hands. Most of these unfortunate men died in German captivity.
A major reason for this was the unusual nature of the war on the eastern front, particularly during the
first year -- June 1941-June 1942 -- when vastly greater numbers of prisoners fell into German hands than could possibly
be accommodated adequately. However, and as Russian journalist Teplyakov explains in the following article, much of the
blame for the terrible fate of the Soviet soldiers in German captivity was due to the inflexibly cruel policy of Soviet dictator
During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries
and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the
USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly
refused to cooperate:
"When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden,
to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers
in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment.
If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better?
To judge by their treatment of other 'Slav submen' POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the  Warsaw Rising),
the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin's own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated
at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot]."
Another historian, Nikolai
Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:
"Hitler himself urged Red
Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners' postal services
received a reply that clinched the matter: 'There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death.
If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a
postal service only for Germans'."
Given this situation, the German leaders
resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can
be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh. Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into
Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity. Of the 91,000 German troops captured in the Battle of Stalingrad,
fewer than 6,000 ever returned to Germany.
As Teplyakov also explains here, Red
Army "liberation" of the surviving Soviet prisoners in German camps brought no end to the suffering of these hapless
men. It wasn't until recently, when long-suppressed Soviet wartime records began to come to light and long-silenced voices
could at last speak out, that the full story of Stalin's treatment of Soviet prisoners became known. It wasn't until 1989,
for example, that Stalin's grim Order No. 270 of August 16, 1941 -- cited below -- was first published.
-- Mark Weber
"What is the most horrible thing about war?"
Marshal Ivan Bagramyan, three-time Hero of the
Soviet Union Alexander Pokryshkin, and Private Nikolai Romanov, who has no battle orders or titles, all replied with just
one word: "Captivity."
"Is it more horrible than death?" I was asking soldier Nikolai Romanov a quarter
of a century ago when, on the sacred day of May 9 [anniversary of the end of the war against Germany in 1945], we were drinking
bitter vodka together to commemorate the souls of the Russian muzhiks who would never return to that orphaned village on
the bank of the Volga.
"It's more horrible," he replied. "Death is your own lot. But if it's captivity, it spells trouble
for many ..."
At that time, in 1965, I could not even vaguely imagine the extent of the tragedy which had befallen millions upon
millions, nor did I know that that tragedy had been triggered by just a few lines from the Interior Service Regulations
of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army: a Soviet soldier must not be taken prisoner against his will. And if he has been,
he is a traitor to the Motherland.
How many of them were there -- those "traitors"?
"During the war years," I was told
by Colonel Ivan Yaroshenko, Deputy Chief of the Central Archives of the USSR Ministry of Defense, in Podolsk near Moscow,
"as many as 32 million people were soldiers, and 5,734,528 of them were taken prisoner by the enemy."
Later I learned
where this happened and when. Thus, the Red Army suffered the most tragic losses in terms of prisoners of war in the following
battles: Belostok-Minsk, August 1941, 323,000; Uman, August 1941, 103,000; Smolensk-Roslavl, August 1941, 348,000; Gomel,
August 1941, 30,000; Demyansk, September 1941, 35,000; Kiev, September 1941, 665,000; Luga-Leningrad, September 1941, 20,000;
Melitopol, October 1941, 100,000; Vyazma, October 1941, 662,000; Kerch, November 1941, 100,000; Izyum-Kharkov, May 1942,
207,000. People were taken prisoner even in February 1945 (Hungary), 100,000.
The same archives in Podolsk hold another 2.5
million cards "missing in action" -- two and a half million who never returned home. Experts believe: two million
of them are still lying in Russia's forests and marshes. And about 200,000 must be added to the list of POWs. Proof? From
time to time the Podolsk archives receive a letter from somewhere in Australia or the United States: "I was taken prisoner.
Request confirmation that I took part in battles against fascism."
This person was lucky -- he survived. The majority, however, had a
different lot. German statistics put it on record: 280,000 person died at deportation camps and 1,030,157 were executed
when trying to escape or died at factories or mines in Germany.
Many of our officers and men were killed by famine before they reached
the camps. Nearly 400,000 men died in November-December 1941 alone. During the entire war there were 235,473 British and
American prisoners of war in Germany -- 8,348 of them died. Were our men weaker? Hardly. The reasons were different. In
the West it is believed that the millions of our POWs who died in captivity fell victim not only to fascism but also to
the Stalinist system itself. At least half of those who died from hunger could have been saved had Stalin not called them
traitors and refused to send food parcels to them via the International Red Cross.
It can be argued how many would have survived,
but it's a fact that we left our POWs to the mercy of fate. The Soviet Union did not sign the Geneva Convention concerning
the legal status of prisoners of war. Refusing to sign it was consistent with the Jesuitical nature of the "leader
of the peoples."
From Stalin's point of view, several provisions of the Convention were incompatible with the moral and economic
institutions which were inherent in the world's "freest country." The Convention, it turns out, did not guarantee
the right to POWs as working people: low wages, no days off, no fixed working hours. Exception was also taken to the privileges
fixed for some groups of POWs. In other words it should be more humane. But greater hypocrisy can hardly be imagined. What
privileges were enjoyed at that very same time by millions in [Soviet] GULAG prison camps? What guarantees existed there
and how many days off did they have?
In August 1941 Hitler permitted a Red Cross delegation to visit the camp for Soviet POWs in
Hammerstadt. It is these contacts that resulted in an appeal to the Soviet government, requesting that it should send food
parcels for our officers and men. We are prepared to fulfill and comply with the norms of the Geneva convention, Moscow said
in its reply, but sending food in the given situation and under fascist control is the same as making presents to the enemy.
reply came as a surprise. The Red Cross representatives had not read Stalin's Order of the Day -- Order No. 270, signed on
August 16, 1941. Otherwise they would have understood how naive their requests and offers were, and how great was Stalin's
hatred for those who had found themselves behind enemy lines.
It made no difference: who, where, how and why? Even the dead were
considered to be criminals. Lt.-Gen. Vladimir Kachalov, we read in the order, "being in encirclement together with
the headquarters of a body of troops, displayed cowardice and surrendered to the German fascists. The headquarters of Kachalov's
groups broke out of the encirclement, the units of Kachalov's group battled their way out of the encirclement, but Lt.-Gen.
Kachalov preferred to desert to the enemy."
General Vladimir Kachalov had been lying for 12 days in a burned out tank at
the Starinka village near Smolensk, and never managed to break out to reach friendly forces. Yet this was of no concern for
anyone. They were busy with something else -- looking for scapegoats whom they could dump all of their anger on, looking
for enemies of the people whose treachery and cowardice had again subverted the will of the great military leader.
We had to be "convinced"
again and again: the top echelons of authority, the leaders, have no relation whatsoever to any tragedy, to any failure
-- be it the collapse of the first Five-Year Plan or the death of hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the Dnieper. Moreover,
these misfortunes cannot have objective reasons either, being due solely to the intrigues of saboteurs and the enemies of
the progressive system. For decades, ever since the 1930s, we have been permanently looking for scapegoats in the wrong
place, but finding them nevertheless. At that time, in the first summer of the war, plenty of them were found. And the more
the better. On June 4, 1940, the rank of general was re-established in the Red Army. They were awarded to 966 persons. More
than 50 were taken prisoner in the very first year of the war. Very many of them would envy their colleagues -- those 150
generals who would later die on the battlefields. The torments of captivity proved to be darker than the grave. At any rate
the destinies of Generals Pavel Ponedelin and Nikolai Kirillov, mentioned in the same Order No. 270, prove that this is
so. They staunchly withstood their years in the German camps. In April 1945 the [western] Allies set them free and turned
them over to the Soviet side. It seemed that everything had been left behind, but they were not forgiven for August 1941.
They were arrested after a "state check-up": five years in the Lefortovo jail for political prisoners and execution
by a firing squad on August 25, 1950.
"Stalin's last tragic acts in his purging of the military were the accusations of betrayal
and treachery he advanced in the summer of 1941 against the Western Front commanders, Pavlov and Klimovskikh, and several
other generals among whom, as it became clear later, there were also people who behaved in an uncompromising way to the end
when in captivity." This assessment is by the famous chronicler of the war, Konstantin Simonov. It appeared in the
1960s, but during the wartime ordeals there was indomitable faith: the prisoners of war (both generals and soldiers) were
guilty. No other yardstick existed.
International law states that military captivity is not a crime, "a prisoner of war must
be as inviolable as the sovereignty of a people, and as sacred as a misfortune." This is for others, whereas for us
there was a different law -- Stalin's Order No. 270.
If ... "instead of organizing resistance to the enemy, some Red Army men prefer
to surrender, they shall be destroyed by all possible means, both ground-based and from the air, whereas the families of
the Red Army men who have been taken prisoner shall be deprived of the state allowance [that is, rations] and relief."
The commanders and political officers ... "who surrender to the enemy shall
be considered malicious deserters, whose families are liable to be arrested [just] as the families of deserters who have
violated the oath and betrayed their Motherland."
Just a few lines, but they stand for the hundreds of thousands of children and old folks who
died from hunger only because their father or son happened to be taken prisoner.
Just a few lines, but they amount to a verdict
on those who never even thought of a crime, who were only waiting for a letter from the front.
Having read these lines, I came to understand
the amount of grief they carried for absolutely innocent people, just as I understood the secret sorrow of the words Private
Nikolai Romanov told me a quarter of a century ago: "Your own captivity spells trouble for many."
I understood why
the most horrible thing for our soldiers was not to be killed, but to be reported "missing in action," and why
before each battle, especially before the assault crossing of rivers, they asked one another: "Buddy, if I get drowned,
say that you saw me die."
Setting their feet on a shaky pontoon and admitting, as it were, that they could be taken prisoner solely through
their own fault, they mentally glanced back not out of fear for their own lives -- they were tormented and worried over
the lives of those who had stayed back at home.
But what was the fault of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers encircled near
Vyazma when Hitler launched Operation Taifun -- his advance on Moscow? "The most important thing is not to
surrender your positions," the General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief ordered them. And the army was
feverishly digging trenches facing the west, when panzer wedges were already enveloping them from the east.
General Franz Halder,
Chief of Staff of the Wehrmacht's ground forces, made the following entry in his diary on this occasion: "October 4
-- 105 days of the war. The enemy has continued everywhere holding the unattacked sectors of the front, with the result that
deep envelopment of these enemy groups looms in the long term."
Who was supposed to see these wedges? A soldier from his tiny foxhole
or Stalin from the GHQ? And what was the result? Who was taken prisoner? Who betrayed the Motherland? The soldier did.
In May 1942, as
many as 207,047 officers and men (the latest figure) found themselves encircled at Kharkov. When Khrushchev held power, it
was Stalin that was considered to be guilty of this. When Brezhnev took over, the blame was again put on Khrushchev who,
incidentally, had been merely warned by Stalin for that defeat which opened the road for the Germans to the Volga. But who
then betrayed the Motherland, who was taken prisoner? The soldier.
May 19, 1942, is the date of our army's catastrophe in the Crimea.
"The Kerch Operation may be considered finished: 150,000 POWs and a large quantity of captured equipment." This
is a document from the German side. And here is a document from the Soviet side cited by Konstantin Simonov: "I happened
to be on the Kerch Peninsula in 1942. The reason for the humiliating defeat is clear to me. Complete mistrust of the army
and front commanders, Mekhlis' stupid willfulness and arbitrary actions. He ordered that no trenches be dug, so as not to
sap the soldiers' offensive spirit."
Stalin's closest aide and then Chief of the Main Political Administration (GPU), Lev Mekhlis,
the first Commissar of the Army and Navy, returned to Moscow after that defeat. And what did the soldier do? The soldier
stayed in captivity.
There is no denying that no war can do without treachery and traitors. They could also be found among POWs. But
if compared with the millions of their brothers in captivity, they amounted to no more than a drop in the ocean. Yet this
drop existed. There is no escaping this. Some were convinced by leaflets like this one:
The Murderous Balance of Bolshevism:
Killed during the years of the Revolution and Civil War -- 2,200,000 persons.
Died from famine and epidemics in 1918 -1921 and in 1932-1933 -- 14,500,000 persons.
Perished in forced labor camps -- 10,000,000 persons.
Some even put it this way: I am not going into action against my people, I am going into action
against Stalin. But the majority joined fascist armed formations with only one hope: as soon as the first fighting starts,
I'll cross the line to join friendly troops. Not everyone managed to do this, although the following fact is also well known.
On September 14, 1943, when the results of the Kursk Battle were summed up, Hitler explained the defeat by the "treachery
of auxiliary units": indeed, at that time 1,300 men -- practically a whole regiment -- deserted to the Red Army's side
on the southern sector. "But now I am fed up with this," Hitler said. "I order these units to be disarmed
immediately and this whole gang to be sent to the mines in France."
It has to be admitted that it was Hitler who rejected longer than
all others the proposals to form military units from among Soviet POWs, although as early as September 1941 Colonel von
Tresckow had drawn up a plan for building up a 200,000-strong Russian anti-Soviet army. It was only on the eve of the Stalingrad
Battle, when prisoners of war already numbered millions, that the Führer gave his consent at last.
All in all, it became possible to form more than
180 units. Among them the number of Russian formations was 75; those formed from among Kuban, Don and Terek Cossacks --
216; Turkistan and Tatar (from Tataria and the Crimean Tatars) -- 42; Georgian -- 11; peoples of the Northern Caucasus --
12; Azerbaijani -- 13; Armenian -- 8.
The numerical strength of these battalions by their national affiliation (data as of January
24, 1945) was the following: Latvians -- 104,000; Tatars (Tataria) -- 12,500, Crimean Tatars -- 10,000; Estonians -- 10,000;
Armenians -- 7,000; Kalmyks -- 5,000. And the Russians? According to the official figures of Admiral Karl Dünitz's
"government," as of May 20, 1945, there were the 599th Russian Brigade -- 13,000, the 600th -- 12,000, and the
650th -- 18,000 men.
If all of this is put together (as we are doing now), it would seem that there were many who served on the other
side. But if we remember that only 20 percent of these forces took part in hostilities, that they were recruited from among
millions of POWs, that thousands upon thousands crossedthe front line to return to friendly troops, the brilliance of the
figures will clearly fade.
One detail -- the Reich's special services displayed special concern over forming non-Russian battalions as if they
knew that they would be required, especially after the war when whole peoples, from babies to senile old men, came to be
accused of treachery. And it made no difference -- whether you were kept in a prison camp or served in the army -- all the
same you were an enemy.
But the POWs themselves were not yet aware of this -- everything still lay ahead. The hangover after liberation
would set in a little later. Both for those who themselves escaped from the camps (500,000 in 1944, according to the estimate
of Germany's Armaments Minister Speer) and for those who after liberation by Red Army units (more than a million officers
and men) again fought in its ranks.
For too long a time we used to judge the spring of 1945 solely by the humane instructions issued
by our formidable marshals -- allot milk for Berlin's children, feed women and old men. It was strange reading those documents,
and at the same time chewing steamed rye instead of bread, and eating soup made of dog meat (only shortly before her death
did my grandmother confess she had slaughtered dogs to save us from hunger). Reading those orders, I was prepared to cry
from tender emotions: how noble it was to think that way and to show such concern for the German people.
And who of us knew that at the same time the
marshals received different orders from the Kremlin with respect to their own people?
[To the] Commanders of the troops of the First and Second
Byelorussian Fronts [Army Groups], and the First, Second, Third and Fourth Ukrainian Fronts ...
The Military Councils of the Fronts shall form camps in [rear-zone] service areas for the accommodation
and maintenance of former prisoners of war and repatriated Soviet citizens -- each camp for 10,000 persons. All in all,
there shall be formed: at the Second Byelorussian Front -- 15 [camps]; at the First Byelorussian Front -- 30; at the First
Ukrainian Front -- 30; at the Fourth Ukrainian Front -- 5; at the Second Ukrainian Front -- 10; at the Third Ukrainian Front
-- 10 camps ...
The check-up [of the former prisoners of war and repatriated citizens]
shall be entrusted as follows: former Red Army servicemen -- to the bodies of SMERSH counter-intelligence; civilians -- to
the commissions of the NKVD, NKGB, SMERSH ...
I phoned Col.-Gen. Dmitri Volkogonov, Chief of
the Institute of Military History under the USSR Ministry of Defense [and author of Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy]:
"Where did you find that order? Both at the State Security Committee and at the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs they
told me that they had nothing of the kind."
"This one is from Stalin's personal archives. The camps existed, which
means that there are also papers from which it is possible to learn everything: who, where, what they were fed, what they
thought about. Most likely, the documents are in the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The convoy troops were
subordinate to this government department. It included the Administration for the Affairs of Former Prisoners of War. Make
And search I did. Maj.-Gen. Pyotr Mishchenkov, First Deputy Chief of the present-day Main Administration for Corrective
Affairs (GUID) at the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, was sincerely surprised: "This is the first I heard about
this. I would be glad to help, but there is nothing I can do about it. I know that there was a colony in the Chunsky district
of the Irkutsk Region. People got there after being checked up at the filtering camps mentioned in Stalin's order. They were
all convicted under Article 58 -- high treason."
One colony ... Where are the others, what happened to their inmates? After
all, as many as 100 camps were at work. The only thing I managed to find out -- by October 1, 1945, they had "filtered"
5,200,000 Soviet citizens; 2,034,000 were turned over by the Allies -- 98 percent of those who stayed in Germany's western
occupation zones, mostly POWs. How many of them returned home? And how many went, in accordance with Order No. 270, into
Soviet concentration camps? I don't yet have any authentic documents in my possession. Again only Western estimates and
some eyewitness accounts.
I spoke to one such eyewitness on the Kolyma. A former "traitor to the Motherland," but then the accountant
general of the Srednekan gold field, Viktor Masol, told me how in June 1942 in the Don steppes after the Kharkov catastrophe
they -- unarmed, hungry, ragged Red Army men -- were herded like sheep by German tanks into crowds of many thousands. Freight
cars took them to Germany, where he mixed concrete for the Reich, and three years later they were sent in freight cars from
Germany across the whole Soviet Union -- as far as the Pacific Ocean. In the port of Vanino they were loaded into the holds
of the Felix Dzerzhinsky steamship [named after the founder of the Soviet secret police], which had previously borne
the name of Nikolai Yezhov, [a former] People's Commissar of Internal Affairs [that is, the NKVD or secret police],
bound for Magadan. During the week they were on their way, they were given food only once -- barrels with gray flour, covered
with boiling water, were lowered through the hatch. And they, burning their hands and crushing one another, snatched this
mess and stuffed it, choking, into their mouths: most often people go crazy with hunger. Those who died on the way were
thrown overboard in the Nagayev Bay, the survivors marched into the taiga, again behind the barbed wire of -- now -- their
native prison camps.
Just a few survived and returned. But even they were like lepers. Outcasts. How many times they heard: "Better
a bullet through your head ..."
Many former POWs thought about a bullet in the 1940s-1950s. Both when they were reminded from
the militia office -- "you are two days overdue" (all the POWs were kept on a special register with mandatory
reports on strictly definite days), and when people told them: "Keep silent. You whiled away your time in captivity
on fascist grub ..."
And they did keep silent.
In 1956, after Khrushchev's report, it became possible to speak about Stalin. Former POWs were
no longer automatically enemies of the people, but not quite yet defenders of the Motherland. Something in between. On paper
it was one way, but in life everything was different.
Two years ago, on the eve of V-Day, I interviewed Col.-Gen. Alexei Zheltov,
Chairman of the Soviet War Veterans' Committee. As befits the occasion, he was telling me with tears in his eyes about the
holiday, about a Soviet soldier, an accordion in his hands, in the streets of spring-time Vienna. And I don't know what
made me ask him, well, and former prisoners of war, are they war veterans?
"No, they are not veterans. Don't you have anything else to write
about? Look how many real soldiers we have ..."
If Alexei Zheltov, the tried and tested veteran commissar, were the only one
to think that way, that wouldn't be so bad. The trouble is that this philosophy is preached by the majority of the top brass.
Both those who have long retired on pensions and who still hold command positions. For nearly 40 years we have been "orphaned,"
have lived without "the father of the peoples," but we sacredly revere his behests, sometimes not even noticing
Human blood is not water. But is has also proved to be a perfect conserving agent for Stalin's morality. It has
become even thicker. It has not disappeared even after several generations. It lives on. And not infrequently it triumphs.
Try and raise the problem of prisoners of war (even before me this theme was taken up on more than one occasion, so I'm
no discoverer here) -- the reaction is always the same: better talk about something else. And if you fail to heed a "piece
of good advice," they may even start to threaten: "Don't you dare!"
To whom should one address his requests? To the
government or the Supreme Soviet? What beautiful walls of the Kremlin should one knock on to demand that soldierly dignity
be returned to former POWs, that their good name be restored?
Suppose your knocking has been heard. They will ask: what are you
complaining about? What resolution do you take exception to? Oh, not a resolution. You are only worried over the past? How
But it's even more strange that we still have real soldiers, real heroes and real people, meaning that there are
also those who are not real. To this day our life is still like a battle front: by force of habit, we continue putting people
in slots -- these on this side, others over there. There seems to be neither law nor Order No. 270 any longer, like there
is no one and nothing to fight against, but all the same whatever was once called black may at best become only gray. But
by no means white.
... May 9: the whole country cries and rejoices. Veterans don their medals and pour out wine, remembering their
buddies. But even in this circle a former POW is the last to hold out his glass and the last to take the floor.
What then is to
be done? What should we do to squeeze the Stalinoid slave out of ourselves?
About the Author
Yuri Teplyakov, born in 1937, studied journalism
at Moscow State University. He worked as a journalist for the Moscow daily newspapers Izvestia and Komsomolskaya
Pravda, and for the APN information agency. From 1980 to 1993 he worked for the weekly Moscow News. In writing
this article, he expresses thanks to Mikhail Semiryaga, D.Sc. (History), "who provided me with considerable material,
which he found in German archives. As for the documents of Soviet filtering camps, I shall go on with my searches."
This article originally appeared in Moscow News, No. 19, 1990, and was reprinted by special arrangement in The
Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1994 (Vol. 14, No. 4), pages 4-10.
‘Second Crusade’ in Retrospect
Looking Back at the U.S. Role in World War Two
By William Henry Chamberlin
America's Second Crusade belongs to history. Was it a success? Over two hundred thousand Americans
perished in combat and almost six hundred thousand were wounded. There was the usual crop of postwar crimes attributable
to shock and maladjustment after combat experience. There was an enormous depletion of American natural resources in timber,
oil, iron ore, and other metals. The nation emerged from the war with a staggering and probably unredeemable debt in the
neighborhood of one quarter of a trillion dollars. Nothing comparable to this burden has ever been known in American
Were these human and
material losses justified or unavoidable? From the military standpoint, of course, the crusade was a victory. The three
Axis nations were completely crushed. American power on land and at sea, in the air and in the factory assembly line, was
an indispensable contribution to this defeat.
But war is not a sporting competition, in which victory is an end in itself. It can only be justified as a means
to achieve desirable positive ends or to ward off an intolerable and unmistakable threat to national security. When one
asks for the fruits of victory five years after the end of the war, the answers sound hollow and unconvincing.
Consider first the results of the war in
terms of America's professed war aims: the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms. Here surely the failure has been complete
and indisputable. Wilson failed to make his Fourteen Points prevail in the peace settlements after World War I. But his
failure might be considered a brilliant success when one surveys the abyss that yawns between the principles of the Atlantic
Charter and the Four Freedoms and the realities of the postwar world.
After World War I there were some reasonably honest plebiscites, along with some
arbitrary and unjust territorial arrangements. But the customary method of changing frontiers after World War II was to throw
the entire population out bag and baggage – and with very little baggage.
No war in history has killed so many people and left such a legacy of miserable,
uprooted, destitute, dispossessed human beings. Some fourteen million Germans and people of German stock were driven from
the part of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse line, from the Sudeten area of Czechoslovakia, and from smaller German settlements
in Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Rumania.
Millions of Poles were expelled from the territory east of the so-called Curzon Line and resettled in other parts
of Poland, including the provinces stolen from Germany. Several hundred thousand Finns fled from parts of Finland seized
by the Soviet Union in its two wars of aggression. At least a million East Europeans of various nationalities Poles, Russians,
Ukrainians, Yugoslavs, Letts, Lithuanians, Estonians – became refugees from Soviet territorial seizures and Soviet
Not one of the drastic
surgical operations on Europe's boundaries was carried out in free consultation with the people affected. There can be no
reasonable doubt that every one of these changes would have been rejected by an overwhelming majority in an honestly conducted
The majority of
the people in eastern Poland and the Baltic states did not wish to become Soviet citizens. Probably not one person in a
hundred in East Prussia, Silesia, and other ethnically German territories favored the substitution of Polish or Soviet for
German rule. What a mockery, then, has been made of the first three clauses of the Atlantic Charter: "no territorial
aggrandizement," "no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned,"
"the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live."
The other clauses have fared no better. The restrictions imposed on German
and Japanese industry, trade, and shipping cannot be reconciled with the promise "to further the enjoyment by all States,
great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world."
President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill sing "Onward Christian Soldiers"
during their August 10, 1941, meeting on board a British battleship anchored off of Newfoundland.
In the great conflict then raging between Germany and the other Axis nations, on one side, and the British Empire
and Soviet Russia, on the other, the United States was officially still neutral. Nevertheless, and violating both international
law and repeated pledges to the American people, Roosevelt had already plunged the United States into the war. At this meeting
he publicly committed the US to "the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny." Just weeks earlier, and on his order,
US forces had occupied Iceland.
At this meeting Roosevelt and Churchill announced the "Atlantic
Charter," which proclaimed "the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live."
The Allied leaders were never sincere about such pledges. Britain was already violating it in the case of India and other
imperial dominions, and later Roosevelt and Churchill would betray it in the case of Poland, Hungary and other European
The terrific war
destruction and the vindictive peace have certainly not helped to secure "for all, improved labor standards, economic
advancement and social security."
In the year 1950, five years after the end of the Second Crusade, "all men in all lands" are not living
"out their lives in freedom from fear and want." Nor are "all men traversing the high seas and oceans without
and last clause of the Atlantic Charter holds out the prospect of lightening "for peace-loving peoples the crushing
burden of armaments." But this burden has become more crushing than it was before the crusade took place. The "peace-loving
peoples" have been devoting ever larger shares of their national incomes to preparations for war.
All in all, the promises of the Charter seem to have evaporated in a wraith
of Atlantic mist.
Nor have the
Four Freedoms played any appreciable part in shaping the postwar world. These, it may be recalled, were freedom of speech
and expression, freedom of religion, and freedom from fear and want. But one of the main consequences of the war was a vast
expansion of Communist power in eastern Europe and in East Asia. It can hardly be argued that this has contributed to greater
freedom of speech, expression, and religion, or, for that matter, to freedom from want and fear.
The fate of Cardinal Mindzenty, of Archbishop Stepinac, of the Protestant
leaders in Hungary, of the many priests who have been arrested and murdered in Soviet satellite states, of independent political
leaders and dissident Communists in these states, offers eloquent testimony to the contrary.
In short, there is not the slightest visible relation between the Atlantic
Charter and the Four Freedoms and the kind of world that has emerged after the war. Woodrow Wilson put up a struggle for
his Fourteen Points. There is no evidence that Franklin D. Roosevelt offered any serious objection to the many violations
of his professed war aims.
may, of course, be argued that the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms were unessential window dressing, that the war
was not a crusade at all, but a matter of self-defense and national survival. However, there is no proof that Germany and
Japan had worked out, even on paper, any scheme for the invasion of the American continent.
In his alarmist broadcast of May 27, 1941, Roosevelt declared: “Your
Government knows what terms Hitler, if victorious, would impose. I am not speculating about all this... They plan to treat
the Latin American countries as they are now treating the Balkans. They plan then to strangle the United States of America
and the Dominion of Canada.”
this startling accusation was never backed up by concrete proof. No confirmation was found even when the Nazi archives were
at the disposal of the victorious powers. There has been gross exaggeration of the supposed close co-operation of the Axis
powers. General George C. Marshall points this out in his Report on the Winning of the War in Europe and the Pacific
[Simon & Schuster, pp. 1-3], published after the end of the war. This report, based on American intelligence reports
and on interrogation of captured German commanders, contains the following statements:
No evidence has yet been found that the German High Command
had any over-all strategic plan...
When Italy entered the war, Mussolini's strategic
aims contemplated the expansion of his empire under the cloak of German military success. Field Marshal Keitel reveals that
Italy's declaration of war was contrary to her agreement with Germany. Both Keitel and Jodl agree that it was undesired...
Nor is there evidence of close strategic coordination between Germany and Japan. The German General Staff
recognized that Japan was bound by the neutrality pact with Russia but hoped that the Japanese would tie down strong British
and American land, sea and air forces in the Far East.
In the absence of any evidence
so far to the contrary, it is believed that Japan also acted unilaterally and not in accordance with a unified strategic
Not only were the European partners of the Axis unable to coordinate their
plans and resources and agree within their own nations how best to proceed, but the eastern partner, Japan, was working in
even greater discord. The Axis as a matter of fact existed on paper only. [Italics supplied.]
So, in the judgment of General Marshall, the Axis
did not represent a close-knit league, with a clear-cut plan for achieving world domination, including the subjugation of
the American continent. It was a loose association of powers with expansionist aims in Europe and the Far East.
Of course the United States had no alternative
except to fight after Pearl Harbor and the German and Italian declarations of war. But the Pearl Harbor attack, in all probability,
would never have occurred if the United States had been less inflexible in upholding the cause of China. Whether this inflexibility
was justified, in the light of subsequent developments in China, is highly questionable, to say the least.
The diplomatic prelude to Pearl Harbor also
includes such fateful American decisions as the imposition of a virtual commercial blockade on Japan in July 1941, the cold-shouldering
of Prince Konoye's overtures, and the failure, at the critical moment, to make any more constructive contribution to avoidance
of war than Hull's bleak note of November 26.
The war with Germany was also very largely the result of the initiative of the Roosevelt Administration. The destroyer
deal, the lend-lease bill, the freezing of Axis assets, the injection of the American Navy, with much secrecy and double-talk,
into the Battle of the Atlantic: these and many similar actions were obvious departures from neutrality, even though a Neutrality
Act, which the President had sworn to uphold, was still on the statute books.
It is sometimes contended that the gradual edging of the United States
into undeclared war was justified because German and Japanese victory would have threatened the security and well-being of
the United States, even if no invasion of this hemisphere was contemplated. This argument would be easier to sustain if
the war had been fought, not as a crusade of "a free world against a slave world," but as a cold-blooded attempt
to restore and maintain a reasonable balance of power in Europe and in Asia.
Had America's prewar and war diplomacy kept this objective in mind, some
of the graver blunders of the Second Crusade would have been avoided. Had it been observed as a cardinal principle of policy
that Soviet totalitarianism was just as objectionable morally and more dangerous politically and psychologically than the
German and Japanese brands, the course of American policy would surely have been different. There would have been more favorable
consideration for the viewpoint artlessly expressed by Senator Truman when he suggested that we should support Russia when
Germany was winning and Germany when Russia was winning.
It was the great dilemma of the war that we could not count on winning the war without Russia
and certainly could not hope to win the peace with Russia. But there was at least a partial solution for this dilemma. One
of the ablest men associated with the American diplomatic service suggested this to me in a private conversation: "We
should have made peace with Germany and Japan when they were too weak to be a threat to us and still strong enough to be
useful partners in a coalition against the Soviet Union."
But such realism was at a hopeless discount in a crusading atmosphere. The effect of America's
policy was to create a huge power vacuum in Europe and in Asia, and to leave the Soviet Union the one strong military power
in both these continents. Then the United States belatedly began to offer resistance when the Soviet leaders acted precisely
as anyone might have expected them to act in view of their political record and philosophy.
An old friend whom I met in Paris in 1946, a shrewd and witty British journalist,
offered the following estimate of the situation which followed the Second Crusade: "You know, Hitler really won this
war – in the person of Stalin."
President Roosevelt declared in his speech of May 27, 1941: "We will accept only a world consecrated to freedom
from want and freedom from terrorism." The war into which he was steadily and purposefully steering his country was
apparently supposed to assure such a world.
The argument that "we cannot live in a totalitarian world" carried weight with many Americans who were
not impressed by lurid pictures of the Germans (who were never able to cross the narrow English Channel) suddenly frog-leaping
the Atlantic and overrunning the United States. Both in the hectic days of 1940-41 and in the cooler retrospect of 1950
it seems clear that a Nazi Germany, dominant in Europe, and a militarist Japan, extending its hegemony in Asia, would be
unpleasant neighbors and would impose disagreeable changes in the American way of life.
It could plausibly be argued that in such a world we should have to assume
a heavy permanent burden of armament, that we should have to keep a constant alert for subversive agents, that our trade
would be forced into distorted patterns. We would be exposed to moral corruption and to the erosion of our ideals of liberty
because the spectacle of armed might trampling on right would be contagious.
These dangers of totalitarianism were real enough. But it was a disastrous
fallacy to imagine that these dangers could be exorcised by waging war and making peace in such fashion that the power of
another totalitarian state, the Soviet Union, would be greatly enhanced.
Failure to foresee the aggressive and disintegrating role which a victorious Soviet
Union might be expected to play in a smashed and ruined Europe and Asia was the principal blunder of America's crusading
interventionists. Those who secretly or openly sympathized with communism were at least acting logically. But the majority
erred out of sheer ignorance and wishful thinking about Soviet motives and intentions. They were guilty of a colossal error
in judgment and perspective, and almost unpardonable error in view of the importance of the issues at stake.
After Pearl Harbor and the German declaration
of war, the United States, of course, had a stake in the success of the Red Army. This, however, does not justify the policy
of one-sided appeasement which was followed at Teheran and Yalta.
If one looks farther back, before America's hands were tied diplomatically by involvement in
the conflict, there was certainly no moral or political obligation for the United States and other western powers to defend
the Soviet Union against possible attacks from Germany and Japan. The most hopeful means of dealing with the totalitarian
threat would have been for the western powers to have maintained a hands-off policy in eastern Europe.
In this case the two totalitarian regimes might have been expected to shoot
it out to their hearts' content. But advocates of such an elementary common-sense policy were vilified as appeasers, fascist
sympathizers, and what not. The repeated indications that Hitler's ambitions were Continental, not overseas, that he desired
and intended to move toward the east, not toward the west, were overlooked.
Even after what General Deane called "the strange alliance" had been concluded,
there was room for maneuvering. We could have been as aloof toward Stalin as Stalin was toward us. There is adequate evidence
available that the chance of negotiating a reasonable peace with a non-Nazi German government would have justified an attempt,
but the "unconditional surrender" formula made anything of this sort impossible. With a blind optimism that now
seems amazing and fantastic, the men responsible for the conduct of American foreign policy staked everything on the improbable
assumption that the Soviet Government would be a cooperative do-gooder in an ideal postwar world.
The publicist Randolph Bourne, a caustic and penetrating critic of American
participation in its First Crusade, observed that war is like a wild elephant. It carries the rider where it wishes to go,
not where he may wish to go.
the crusade has ended. We have the perspective of five years of uneasy peace. And the slogan, "We are fighting so that
we will not have to live in a totalitarian world," stands exposed in all its tragic futility. For what kind of world
are we living in today? It is not very much like the world we could have faced if the crusade had never taken place, if
Hitler had been allowed to go eastward, if Germany had dominated eastern Europe and Japan eastern Asia? Is there not a "This
is where we came in" atmosphere, very reminiscent of the time when there was constant uneasy speculation as to where
the next expansionist move would take place. The difference is that Moscow has replaced Berlin and Tokyo. There is one center
of dynamic aggression instead of two, with the concentration of power in that one center surpassing by far that of the German-Japanese
combination. And for two reasons their difference is for the worse, not for the better.
First, one could probably have counted on rifts and conflicts of interest
between Germany and Japan which are less likely to arise in Stalin's centralized empire. Second, Soviet expansion is aided
by propaganda resources which were never matched by the Nazis and the Japanese.
How does it stand with those ideals which were often invoked by advocates
of the Second Crusade? What about "orderly processes in international relations," to borrow a phrase from Cordell
Hull, or international peace and security in general? Does the present size of our armaments appropriation suggest confidence
in an era of peace and good will? Is it not pretty much the kind of appropriation we would have found necessary if there
had been no effort to destroy Nazi and Japanese power?
Secret agents of foreign powers? We need not worry about Nazis or Japanese. But the exposure of a dangerously effective
Soviet spy ring in Canada, the proof that Soviet agents had the run of confidential State Department papers, the piecemeal
revelations of Soviet espionage in this country during the war – all these things show that the same danger exists
from another source.
We have acquiesced in and sometimes promoted some of the most outrageous injustices in history: the mutilation of Poland,
the uprooting of millions of human beings from their homes, the use of slave labor after the war. If we would have been
tainted by the mere existence of the evil features of the Nazi system, are we not now tainted by the widespread prevalence
of a very cruel form of slavery in the Soviet Union?
Regimentation of trade? But how much free trade is there in the postwar world? This conception has been ousted by
an orgy of exchange controls, bilateral commercial agreements, and other devices for damming and diverting the free stream
of international commerce.
for oppressed peoples? Almost every day there are news dispatches from eastern Europe indicating how conspicuously this ideal
was not realized.
regimes against which America fought have indeed been destroyed. But a new and more dangerous threat emerged in the very
process of winning the victory. The idea that we would eliminate the totalitarian menace to peace and freedom while extending
the dominion of the Hammer and Sickle has been proved a humbug, a hoax, and a pitiful delusion.
Looking back over the diplomatic history of the war, one can identify ten
major blunders which contributed very much to the unfavorable position in which the western powers find themselves today.
These may be listed as follows:
The guarantee of "all support in their power" which the British Government gave to Poland "in the event of
any action which clearly threatened Polish independence." This promise, hastily given on March 31, 1939, proved impossible
to keep. It was of no benefit to the Poles in their unequal struggle against the German invasion. It was not regarded as
applicable against Russia when the Soviet Union invaded and occupied eastern Poland, with the full understanding and complicity
All this ill-advised
guarantee accomplished was to put Great Britain and France into war against Germany, to the great satisfaction of Stalin,
for an objective which the western powers could not win. Poland was not freed even after the United States entered the war
and Hitler was crushed. It was only subjected to a new tyranny, organized and directed from Moscow.
There is no proof and little probability that Hitler would have attacked
the west if he had not been challenged on the Polish issue. The guarantee, more than any other single action, spoiled the
best political opportunity the western powers possessed in 1939. This was to canalize German expansion eastward and to keep
war out of the West.
failure of the American Government to accept Konoye's overtures for a negotiated settlement of differences in the Far East.
The futility of the crusade for China to which the American Government committed itself becomes constantly more clear.
(3) The "unconditional surrender"
slogan which Roosevelt tossed off at Casablanca in January 1943. This was a godsend to Goebbels and a tremendous blow to
the morale and effectiveness of the underground groups which were working against Hitler. It weakened the American and British
position in relation to Russia, since Stalin did not associate himself with the demand. It stiffened and prolonged German
Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin at the February 1945 Yalta Conference. At this meeting, the Allied coalition leaders
decided the fate of millions of people around the world.
(4) The policy of "getting along" with Stalin on a basis of all-out appeasement. The Soviet dictator was
given everything he wanted in the way of munitions and supplies and was asked for nothing in return, not even an honest
fulfillment of the Atlantic Charter, of which he was a cosignatory. The disastrous bankruptcy of this policy is evident from
one look at the geographical, political, and moral map of the world today.
(5) Failure to invade the Balkans, as Churchill repeatedly urged. This mistake was
the result partly of the policy of appeasing Stalin and partly of the narrowly military conception of the war which dominated
the thinking of the War Department. There was a tendency to regard the war as a kind of bigger football game, in which victory
was all that mattered.
The public endorsement by Roosevelt and Churchill in September 1944 of the preposterous Morgenthau Plan for the economic
destruction of Germany. To be sure, the full extravagance of this scheme was never put into practice, but enough of its
vindictive destructionist spirit got into the Potsdam Declaration and the regulations for Military Government to work very
great harm to American national interests and European recovery.
(7) The bribing of Stalin, at China's expense, to enter the Far Eastern war and the failure
to make clear, until the last moment, that unconditional sur render, for Japan, did not mean the elimination of the Emperor.
These were grave mistakes, fraught with fateful consequences for American political interests in the Orient. Had the danger
from Russia, the undependability of China, and the desirability of enlisting Japan as a satellite ally been intelligently
appreciated, a balance of power far more favorable to the United States would now exist in East Asia.
(8) The failure, for political reasons, to exploit the military opportunities
which opened up in the last weeks of the struggle in Europe, notably the failure to press on and seize Berlin and Prague.
Closely linked with this error was the failure to insist on direct land access to Berlin in the negotiations about the postwar
occupation of Germany.
The persistent tendency to disregard the advice of experts and specialists, and base American foreign policy on "hunches"
inspired by amateurs and dilettantes. Conspicuous examples of unfitness in high places were Harry Hopkins as adviser on
Russia, Edward R. Stettinius as Secretary of State, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., as policy framer on Germany, and Edwin W. Pauley
as Reparations Commissioner. A parallel mistake was the laxness which permitted American and foreign Communist sympathizers
to infiltrate the OWI, OSS, and other important strategic agencies.
(10) The hasty launching, amid much exaggerated ballyhoo, of the United
Nations. The new organization was not given either a definite peace settlement to sustain or the power which would have made
it an effective mediator and arbiter in disputes between great powers. It was as if an architect should create an elaborate
second story of a building, complete with balconies, while neglecting to lay a firm foundation.
These were unmistakable blunders which no future historical revelations
can justify or explain away. In these blunders one finds the answer to the question why complete military victory, in the
Second Crusade as in the First, was followed by such complete political frustration. Perhaps the supreme irony of the war's
aftermath is that the United States becomes increasingly dependent on the good will and co-operation of the peoples against
whom it waged a war of political and economic near extermination, the Germans and the Japanese, in order to maintain any
semblance of balance of power in Europe and in Asia.
Primary responsibility for the involvement of the United States in World War II and for the policies which characterized
our wartime diplomacy rests with Franklin D. Roosevelt. His motives were mixed and were probably not always clear, even
to himself. Frances Perkins, Secretary of labor in his Cabinet and a personal friend, described the President as "the
most complicated human being I ever knew."
Certainly Roosevelt was far from being a simple and straightforward character. In an age when Stalin, Hitler, and
Mussolini played the role of the popular tyrant, of the dictator whose grip on his people is maintained by a mixture of
mass enthusiasm and mass terrorism, Roosevelt showed what could be done in achieving very great personal power within the
framework of free institutions. His career after his election to the presidency stamps him as a man of vast ambition, capable,
according to Frances Perkins, of "almost childish vanity."
There were probably three principal motives that impelled Roosevelt to
set in motion the machinery that led America into its Second Crusade. First was this quality of ambition. What role could
be more tempting than that of leader of a wartime global coalition, of ultimate world arbiter? Second was the necessity
of finding some means of extricating the American economy from a difficult position. Third was a conviction that action
against the Axis was necessary. This conviction was greatly strengthened by the first two motives.
Roosevelt's first Administration, which began at the low point of a very
severe depression, was a brilliant political success. He was re-elected in 1936 by an enormous majority of popular and electoral
votes. But dark clouds hung over the last years of his second term of office. For all the varied and sometimes contradictory
devices of the New Deal failed to banish the specter of large-scale unemployment. There were at least ten million people
out of work in the United States in 1939.
The coming of the war in Europe accomplished what all the experimentation of the New Deal had failed to achieve.
It created the swollen demand for American munitions, equipment, supplies of all kinds, foodstuffs which started the national
economy on the road to full production and full employment.
There was the same economic phenomenon at the time of the First World War. The vast needs of
the Allies meant high profits, not only for munitions makers (later stigmatized as "merchants of death"), but for
all branches of business activity. It brought a high level of farm prices and industrial wages. As the Allies ran out of
ready cash, loans were floated on the American market. The United States, or at least some American financial interests,
acquired a direct stake in an Allied victory.
Now, the purely economic interpretation of our involvement in World War I can be pressed too far. There is neither
evidence nor probability that Wilson was directly influenced by bankers or munitions makers. He had given the German Government
a public and grave warning of the consequences of resorting to unlimited submarine warfare. When the German Government announced
the resumption of such warfare, Wilson, with the assent of Congress, made good his warning.
Yet the lure of war profits (not restricted, it should be noted, to any
single class of people) did exert a subtle but important influence on the evolution of American policy in the years 1914-17.
It worked against the success of the mediation efforts launched by House as Wilson's confidential emissary. The British
and French governments counted with confidence on the absence of any strong action to back up periodic protests against
the unprecedented severity of the blockade enforced against Germany. The American economy had become very dependent on the
flow of Allied war orders.
the end of the war, after depression and repudiation of the greater part of the war debts, the majority of the American people
reached the conclusion that a war boom was not worth the ultimate price. This feeling found expression in the Neutrality
Act. Roosevelt himself in 1936 described war profits as "fools' gold."
Yet the course of American economic development in World War II followed
closely the pattern set in World War I. First the Neutrality Act was amended to permit the sale of munitions. Then, as British
assets were exhausted, the lend-lease arrangement was substituted for the war loans of the earlier period. As an economic
student of the period [Broadus Mitchell in Depression Decade] says:
The nation did not emerge from the decade of the depression
until pulled out by war orders from abroad and the defense program at home. The rescue was timely and sweet and deserved
to be made as sure as possible. Whether the involvement of the United States in the war through progressive departure from
neutrality was prompted partly by the reflection that other means of extrication from economic trouble had disappeared,
nobody can say. No proponent did say so. Instead, advocates of "all-out aid to Britain," convoying of allied shipping
and lend-lease took high ground of patriotism and protection of civilization.
There can be no reasonable doubt that the opposition of business and labor
groups to involvement in the war was softened by the tremendous flood of government war orders. It is an American proverb
that the customer is always right. Under lend-lease and the immense program of domestic arms expansion the government became
the biggest customer.
certainly encouraged Roosevelt to assume an interventionist attitude. He unmistakably enjoyed his role as one of the "Big
Three," as a leading figure at international conferences, as a mediator between Stalin and Churchill. There is a marked
contrast between Roosevelt's psychology as a war leader and Lincoln's.
The Civil War President was often bowed down by sorrow over the tragic aspects of
the historic drama in which he was called to play a leading part. His grief for the men who were dying on both sides of the
fighting lines was deep and hearty and unaffected. One finds little trace of this mood in Roosevelt's war utterances. There
is no Gettysburg Address in Roosevelt's state papers. The President's familiar mood is one of jaunty, cocksure, sometimes
trait in Roosevelt's personality which may help to explain the casual, light-hearted scrapping of the Atlantic Charter and
the Four Freedoms is a strong histrionic streak. If he originated or borrowed a brilliant phrase, he felt that his work
was done. He felt no strong obligation to see that the phrase, once uttered, must be realized in action.
When did Roosevelt decide that America must enter the war? There was a
hint of bellicose action in his quarantine speech of October 5, 1937. Harold Ickes claims credit for suggesting the quarantine
phrase, which did not appear in earlier drafts of the speech which had been prepared in the State Department. It was like
Roosevelt to pick up and insert an image which appealed to him. However, the quarantine speech met such an unfavorable reception
that it led to no immediate action.
dates are suggested by other observers. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, who enjoyed substantial influence and many
contacts in Administration circles, asserted in a Roosevelt memorial address at Harvard University in April 1945: “There
came a moment when President Roosevelt was convinced that the utter defeat of Nazism was essential to the survival of our
institutions. That time certainly could not have been later than when Mr. Sumner Welles reported on his mission to Europe
may have been mentally committed to intervention even before the war broke out is indicated by the following dispatch from
Maurice Hindus in the New York Herald Tribune of January 4, 1948:
Prague – President Eduard Benes of Czechoslovakia told the
late President Franklin D. Roosevelt on May 29, 1939, that war would break out any day after July 15 of that year, with Poland
as the first victim, and Mr. Roosevelt, in reply to a question as to what the United States would do, said it would have
to participate because Europe alone could not defeat Adolf Hitler.
A suggestion by Assistant Secretary of State A. A. Berle that Roosevelt should have
become the leader of the free world against Hitler is believed to have influenced the President's psychology. [Davis and
Lindley, How War Came, p. 65.]
Admiral James O. Richardson, at that time Commander in Chief of the Pacific fleet, talked at length with Roosevelt
in the White House on October 8, 1940. He testified before the Congressional committee investigating Pearl Harbor [Report
of the Congressional Joint Committee, Part I, p. 266] that he had asked the President whether we would enter the war
and received the following answer:
He [Roosevelt] replied that if the Japanese attacked Thailand, or the Kra peninsula, or the Netherlands East Indies,
we would not enter the war, that if they even attacked the Philippines he doubted whether we would enter the war, but that
they could not always avoid making mistakes and that as the war continued and the area of operation expanded sooner or later
they would make a mistake and we would enter the war.
It is clear from these varied pieces of evidence that the thought of war was never far from
Roosevelt's mind, even while he was assuring so many audiences during the election campaign that "your government is
not going to war." During the year 1941, as has been shown in an earlier chapter [of America's Second Crusade],
he put the country into an undeclared naval war in the Atlantic by methods of stealth and secrecy. This point was made very
clear by Admiral Stark, then Chief of Naval Operations, in his reply to Representative Gearhart during the Pearl Harbor
or from an international standpoint we were not at war, inasmuch as we did not have the right of belligerents, because war
had not been declared. But actually, so far as the forces operating under Admiral King in certain areas were concerned, it
was against any German craft that came inside that area. They were attacking us and we were attacking them.
Stark also testified that, by direction of the
President, he ordered American warships in the Atlantic to fire on German submarines and surface ships. This order was issued
on October 8, 1941, two months before Hitler's declaration of war.
It is scarcely possible, in the light of this and many other known facts, to avoid
the conclusion that the Roosevelt Administration sought the war which began at Pearl Harbor. The steps which made armed conflict
inevitable were taken months before the conflict broke out.
Some of Roosevelt's apologists contend that, if he deceived the American people, it was for
their own good. But the argument that the end justified the means rests on the assumption that the end had been achieved.
Whether America's end in its Second Crusade was assurance of national security or the establishment of a world of peace and
order or the realization of the Four Freedoms "everywhere in the world," this end was most certainly not achieved.
America's Second Crusade was a product of
illusions which are already bankrupt. It was an illusion that the United States was at any time in danger of invasion by
Nazi Germany. It was an illusion that Hitler was bent on the destruction of the British Empire. It was an illusion that
China was capable of becoming a strong, friendly, western-oriented power in the Far East. It was an illusion that a powerful
Soviet Union in a weakened and impoverished Eurasia would be a force for peace, conciliation, stability, and international
co-operation. It was an illusion that the evils and dangers associated with totalitarianism could be eliminated by giving
unconditional support to one form of totalitarianism against another. It was an illusion that a combination of appeasement
and personal charm could melt away designs of conquest and domination which were deeply rooted in Russian history and Communist
The fruit harvested from seeds of illusion is always bitter.