Orderly and Humane?: World War II as the 'Good War'
... The 1939-45
conflict is still wreathed in delusions, delusions often employed to try to justify modern wars which are alleged to have
comparably 'good' aims. The belief in its goodness is in fact ludicrous. Our main ally (rejected at the beginning with
lofty scorn, embraced later with desperate, insincere enthusiasm) was one of the most murderous tyrants in human history
... During and immediately after the war, as I have discussed here, we employed methods which would have disgusted our
forebears and which ought to disgust us, but which were so frightful that we still lie to ourselves about them, or hide
them from our consciousness.
The Soviet Union Conspired to Foment World War II and Infiltrate
the U.S. Government
Click on this text to examine THE TRUTH ABOUT GERMANY AND THE WORLD WARS THAT THE JEWS DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW:
TELLS THE TRUTH
The Lies About World War II
Paul Craig Roberts
In the aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has
no one to speak for it. Historians on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that demonized the
enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors. People want to enjoy and feel good about their victory,
not learn that their side was responsible for the war or that the war could have been avoided except for the hidden agendas
of their own leaders. Historians are also constrained by the unavailability of information. To hide mistakes, corruption,
and crimes, governments lock up documents for decades. Memoirs of participants are not yet written. Diaries
are lost or withheld from fear of retribution. It is expensive and time consuming to locate witnesses, especially
those on the losing side, and to convince them to answer questions. Any account that challenges the “happy account”
requires a great deal of confirmation from official documents, interviews, letters, diaries, and memoirs, and even that
won’t be enough. For the history of World War II in Europe, these documents can be spread from New Zealand and
Australia across Canada and the US through Great Britain and Europe and into Russia. A historian on the track of the
truth faces long years of strenuous investigation and development of the acumen to judge and assimilate the evidence he
uncovers into a truthful picture of what transpired. The truth is always immensely different from the victor’s war
Truth is seldom welcomed. David Irving, without any
doubt the best historian of the European part of World War II, learned at his great expense that challenging myths does
not go unpunished. Nevertheless, Irving persevered. If you want to escape from the lies about World War II that still
direct our disastrous course, you only need to study two books by David Irving: Hitler’s War and
the first volume of his Churchill biography, Churchill’s War: The Struggle for Power .
the historian who spent decades tracking down diaries, survivors, and demanding release of official documents. He is the
historian who found the Rommel diary and Goebbles’ diaries, the historian who gained entry into the Soviet archives,
and so on. He is familiar with more actual facts about the second world war than the rest of the historians combined.
The famous British military historian, Sir John Keegan, wrote in the Times Literary Supplement: “Two
books stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War: Chester Wilmot’s The Struggle for Europe,
published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War.
Despite many such accolades, today Irving is demonized and has to publish his own books.
I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists. You simply
cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.
In what follows, I am going to present what is my impression from reading these two magisterial works. Irving himself
is very scant on opinions. He only provides the facts from official documents, recorded intercepts, diaries, letters
World War II was Churchill’s War, not
Hitler’s war. Irving provides documented facts from which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion. Churchill
got his war, for which he longed, because of the Versailles Treaty that stripped Germany of German territory and unjustly
and irresponsibly imposed humiliation on Germany.
Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party) are the most demonized entities
in history. Any person who finds any good in Hitler or Germany is instantly demonized. The person becomes an outcast
regardless of the facts. Irving is very much aware of this. Every time his factual account of Hitler starts to display a
person too much different from the demonized image, Irving throws in some negative language about Hitler.
Similarly for Winston Churchill. Every time Irving’s factual account displays
a person quite different from the worshiped icon, Irving throws in some appreciative language.
This is what a historian
has to do to survive telling the truth.
To be clear, in what follows,
I am merely reporting what seems to me to be the conclusion from the documented facts presented in these two works of scholarship.
I am merely reporting what I understand Irving’s research to have established. You read the books and arrive
at your own conclusion.
World War II was initiated by the British
and French declaration of war on Germany, not by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. The utter rout and collapse of the
British and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was unprepared to fight and of the
foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany’s
Germany’s mercy was substantial. Hitler left a large
part of France and the French colonies unoccupied and secure from war under a semi-independent government under Petain.
For his service in protecting a semblance of French independence, Petain was sentenced to death by Charles de Gaulle after
the war for collaboration with Germany, an unjust charge.
In Britain, Churchill was out of power. He figured a war would put him back in power. No Britisher could match
Churchill’s rhetoric and orations. Or determination. Churchill desired power, and he wanted to reproduce the
amazing military feats of his distinguished ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, whose biography Churchill was writing and
who defeated after years of military struggle France’s powerful Sun King, Louis XIV, the ruler of Europe.
In contrast to the British aristocrat, Hitler was a man of the people. He acted
for the German people. The Versailles Treaty had dismembered Germany. Parts of Germany were confiscated and given to
France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. As Germany had not actually lost the war, being the occupiers of foreign
territory when Germany agreed to a deceptive armistice, the loss of approximately 7 million German people to Poland and
Czechoslovakia, where Germans were abused, was not considered a fair outcome.
Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together again. He succeeded without war until it came to Poland.
Hitler’s demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure
on British prime minister Chamberlain that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British
guarantee to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German territory and populations.
The British had no way of making good on the guarantee, but the Polish military dictatorship
lacked the intelligence to realize that. Consequently, the Polish Dictatorship refused Germany’s request.
From this mistake of Chamberlain and the stupid Polish dictatorship, came the Ribbentrop/Molotov
agreement that Germany and the Soviet Union would split Poland between themselves. When Hitler attacked Poland, Britain
and the hapless French declared war on Germany because of the unenforceable British guarantee. But the British and
French were careful not to declare war on the Soviet Union for occupying the eastern half of Poland.
Thus Britain was responsible for World War II, first by stupidly interfering in German/Polish negotiations,
and second by declaring war on Germany.
Churchill was focused on
war with Germany, which he intended for years preceding the war. But Hitler didn’t want any war with Britain
or with France, and never intended to invade Britain. The invasion threat was a chimera conjured up by Churchill to unite
England behind him. Hitler expressed his view that the British Empire was essential for order in the world, and that in its
absence Europeans would lose their world supremacy. After Germany’s rout of the French and British armies, Hitler
offered an extraordinarily generous peace to Britain. He said he wanted nothing from Britain but the return of Germany’s
colonies. He committed the German military to the defense of the British Empire, and said he would reconstitute both
Polish and Czech states and leave them to their own discretion. He told his associates that defeat of the British
Empire would do nothing for Germany and everything for Bolshevik Russia and Japan.
Winston Churchill kept Hitler’s peace offers as secret as he could and succeeded in his efforts to
block any peace. Churchill wanted war, largely it appears, for his own glory.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt slyly encouraged Churchill in his war but without making any commitment
in Britain’s behalf. Roosevelt knew that the war would achieve his own aim of bankrupting Britain and destroying the
British Empire, and that the US dollar would inherit the powerful position from the British pound of being the world’s
reserve currency. Once Churchill had trapped Britain in a war she could not win on her own, FDR began doling out bits of
aid in exchange for extremely high prices—for example, 60 outdated and largely useless US destroyers for British naval
bases in the Atlantic. FDR delayed Lend-Lease until desperate Britain had turned over $22,000 million of British gold
plus $42 million in gold Britain had in South Africa. Then began the forced sell-off of British overseas investments.
For example, the British-owned Viscose Company, which was worth $125 million in 1940 dollars, had no debts and held $40 million
in government bonds, was sold to the House of Morgan for $37 million. It was such an act of thievery that the British eventually
got about two-thirds of the company’s value to hand over to Washington in payment for war munitions. American aid
was also “conditional on Britain dismantling the system of Imperial preference anchored in the Ottawa agreement of
1932.” For Cordell Hull, American aid was “a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire.”
Churchill saw it coming, but he was too far in to do anything but plead with FDR: It would be wrong, Churchill wrote to
Roosevelt, if “Great Britain were to be divested of all saleable assets so that after the victory was won with
our blood, civilization saved, and the time gained for the United States to be fully armed against all eventualities,
we should stand stripped to the bone.”
A long essay could be
written about how Roosevelt stripped Britain of her assets and world power. Irving writes that in an era of gangster statesmen,
Churchill was not in Roosevelt’s league. The survival of the British Empire was not a priority for FDR. He regarded
Churchill as a pushover—unreliable and drunk most of the time. Irving reports that FDR’s policy was to pay out
just enough to give Churchill “the kind of support a rope gives a hanging man.” Roosevelt pursued “his
subversion of the Empire throughout the war.” Eventually Churchill realized that Washington was at war with Britain
more fiercely than was Hitler. The great irony was that Hitler had offered Churchill peace and the survival of the
Empire. When it was too late, Churchill came to Hitler’s conclusion that the conflict with Germany was a “most
unnecessary” war. Pat Buchanan sees it that way also. https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/0307405168/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=Pat+Buchanan&qid=1557709100&s=books&sr=1-3
Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas of British cities.
It was Churchill who initiated this war crime, later emulated by the Americans. Churchill kept the British bombing
of German civilians secret from the British people and worked to prevent Red Cross monitoring of air raids so no one would
learn he was bombing civilian residential areas, not war production. The purpose of Churchill’s bombing—first
incendiary bombs to set everything afire and then high explosives to prevent firefighters from controlling the blazes—was
to provoke a German attack on London, which Churchill reckoned would bind the British people to him and create sympathy
in the US for Britain that would help Churchill pull America into the war. One British raid murdered 50,000 people
in Hamburg, and a subsequent attack on Hamburg netted 40,000 civilian deaths. Churchill also ordered that poison gas
be added to the firebombing of German civilian residential areas and that Rome be bombed into ashes. The British Air Force
refused both orders. At the very end of the war the British and Americans destroyed the beautiful baroque city of Dresden,
burning and suffocating 100,000 people in the attack. After months of firebombing attacks on Germany, including Berlin,
Hitler gave in to his generals and replied in kind. Churchill succeeded. The story became “the London Blitz,”
not the British blitz of Germany.
Like Hitler in Germany, Churchill
took over the direction of the war. He functioned more as a dictator who ignored the armed services than as a prime
minister advised by the country’s military leaders. Both leaders might have been correct in their assessment
of their commanding officers, but Hitler was a much better war strategist than Churchill, for whom nothing ever worked.
To Churchill’s WW I Gallipoli misadventure was now added the introduction of British troops into Norway, Greece, Crete,
Syria—all ridiculous decisions and failures—and the Dakar fiasco. Churchill also turned on the French,
destroying the French fleet and lives of 1,600 French sailors because of his personal fear, unfounded, that Hitler would
violate his treaty with the French and seize the fleet. Any one of these Churchillian mishaps could have resulted in a no
confidence vote, but with Chamberlain and Halifax out of the way there was no alternative leadership. Indeed, the
lack of leadership is the reason neither the cabinet nor the military could stand up to Churchill, a person of iron determination.
Hitler also was a person of iron determination, and he wore out both himself and Germany
with his determination. He never wanted war with England and France. This was Churchill’s doing, not Hitler’s.
Like Churchill, who had the British people behind him, Hitler had the German people behind him, because he stood for Germany
and had reconstructed Germany from the rape and ruin of the Versailles Treaty. But Hitler, not an aristocrat like
Churchill, but of low and ordinary origins, never had the loyalty of many of the aristocratic Prussian military officers,
those with “von” before their name. He was afflicted with traitors in the Abwehr, his military intelligence,
including its director, Adm. Canaris. On the Russian front in the final year, Hitler was betrayed by generals who
opened avenues for the Russians into undefended Berlin.
Hitler’s worst mistakes were his alliance with Italy and his decision to invade Russia. He was also mistaken
to let the British go at Dunkirk. He let them go because he did not want to ruin the chance for ending the war by humiliating
the British by the loss of their entire army. But with Churchill there was no chance for peace. By not destroying
the British army, Hitler boosted Churchill who turned the evacuation into British heroics that sustained the willingness
to fight on.
It is unclear why Hitler invaded Russia.
One possible reason is poor or intentionally deceptive information from the Abwehr on Russian military capability. Hitler
later said to his associates that he never would have invaded if he had known of the enormous size of the Russian army and
the extraordinary capability of the Soviets to produce tanks and aircraft. Some historians have concluded that the
reason Hitler invaded Russia was that he concluded that the British would not agree to end the war because they expected
Russia to enter the war on Britain’s side. Therefore, Hitler decided to foreclose that possibility by conquering
Russia. A Russian has written that Hitler attacked because Stalin was preparing to attack Germany. Stalin did have
considerable forces far forward, but It would make more sense for Stalin to wait until the West devoured itself in mutual
bloodletting, step in afterwards and scoop it all up if he wanted. Or perhaps Stalin was positioning to occupy part of Eastern
Europe in order to put more buffer between the Soviet Union and Germany.
Whatever the reason for the invasion, what defeated Hitler was the earliest Russian winter in 30 years. It stopped everything
in its tracks before the well planned and succeeding encirclement could be completed. The harsh winter that immobilized
the Germans gave Stalin time to recover.
Because of Hitler’s
alliance with Mussolini, who lacked an effective fighting force, resources needed on the Russian front were twice drained
off in order to rescue Italy. Because of Mussolini’s misadventures, Hitler had to drain troops, tanks, and air
planes from the Russian invasion to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa and to occupy Crete. Hitler made this mistake
out of loyalty to Mussolini. Later in the war when Russian counterattacks were pushing the Germans out of Russia, Hitler
had to divert precious military resources to rescue Mussolini from arrest and to occupy Italy to prevent her surrender.
Germany simply lacked the manpower and military resources to fight on a 1,000 mile front in Russia, and also in Greece and
North Africa, occupy part of France, and man defenses against a US/British invasion of Normandy and Italy.
The German Army was a magnificent fighting force, but it was overwhelmed by too many
fronts, too little equipment, and careless communications. The Germans never caught on despite much evidence that
the British could read their encryption. Thus, efforts to supply Rommel in North Africa were prevented by the British
Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust.
He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust
of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.
No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever been found for an organized holocaust
by gas and cremation of Jews. This is extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have
required massive organization, budgets and resources. What documents do show is Hitler’s plan to relocate European
Jews to Madagascar after the war’s end. With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed
to sending the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that Hitler was going to leave to Stalin.
There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews. Hitler said over and over that “the
Jewish problem” would be settled after the war.
It seems that most of the massacres of Jews were committed by German political administrators of occupied territories
in the east to whom Jews from Germany and France were sent for relocation. Instead of dealing with the inconvenience, some
of the administrators lined them up and shot them into open trenches. Other Jews fell victim to the anger of Russian
villagers who had long suffered under Jewish Bolshevik administrators.
The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of
Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force. A significant percentage
of German war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German lines on the Russian front. War
production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported
after war’s end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany desperately needed whatever work force it
Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to
exterminate populations but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases. Refugees
were from all over, and they brought diseases and germs with them. The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead
bodies that are said to be evidence of organized extermination of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and
starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of medicines and food for labor camps. The
great noble Western victors themselves bombed the labor camps and contributed to the deaths of inmates.
The two books on which I have reported total 1,663 pages, and there are two more
volumes of the Churchill biography. This massive, documented historical information seemed likely to pass into the
Memory Hole as it is inconsistent with both the self-righteousness of the West and the human capital of court historians.
The facts are too costly to be known. But historians have started adding to their own accounts the information uncovered
by Irving. It takes a brave historian to praise him, but they can cite him and plagiarize him.
It is amazing how much
power Zionists have gotten from the Holocaust. Norman Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry. There is
ample evidence that Jews along with many others suffered, but Zionists insist that it was an unique experience limited
In his Introduction to Hitler’s War Irving
reports that despite the widespread sales of his book, the initial praise from accomplished historians and the fact that
the book was required reading at military academies from Sandhurst to West Point, “I have had my home smashed into
by thugs, my family terrorized, my name smeared, my printers [publishers] firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by
tiny, democratic Austria—an illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were punished; at
the behest of disaffected academics and influential citizens [Zionists], in subsequent years, I was deported from Canada
(in 1992), and refused entry to Australia, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa and other civilized countries around he world.
Internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this book to be taken off their shelves.”
So much for free thought and truth in the Western world. Nothing is so little
regarded in the West as free thought, free expression, and truth. In the West explanations are controlled in order
to advance the agendas of the ruling interest groups. As David Irving has learned, woe to anyone who gets in the way.
The Eastern Front: The Soviet-German War
... In the United States, Britain, and other Western countries, there has been much self-congratulation
about how "we" won the Second World War. Yet, it was on the Eastern Front that the outcome of the war was decided.
Had the best of Hitler's forces not been fighting the Soviets, it is unlikely that there would have been any Allied victory
in 1945, or anytime foreseeable thereafter ... The Soviet Union proved to be a far more resilient opponent than predicted
... Even through the last weeks of the war, German regular troops and officers were, on average, superior to their opponents
in the East and the West. The Wehrmacht was simply overwhelmed by the forces of the Soviet Union and her Western Allies.
Front: Memoirs of a Waffen SS Volunteer
A gripping first-person memoir of soldierly sacrifice, heroism and fierce combat against numerically superior Soviet
forces during World War II, by a charismatic Belgian writer and politician turned front-line infantryman. New, revised
IHR edition, with index and photos. Here is the epic story of the Walloon Legion, a volunteer Belgian unit of the World
War II pan-European SS force, as told - in absorbing prose -- by the legendary Degrelle. Captures the grit, terror and glory
of Europe's crusade against Communism. (Also available from the IHR in both hardcover and paperback editions.)
Time to Face the Truth About World War II
... Stalin knew that Germany's invasion of Poland would cause Britain and France
to declare war on Germany. Stalin expected to pick up the pieces after Germany, Britain and France had exhausted themselves
and were ripe for invasion and Communist revolution ... Soviet propaganda later tried to cover up Stalin's plan to attack
Europe, claiming his forces were outmoded and unprepared, and generals incompetent ... But, contends Suvorov, had Hitler
not attacked first in 1941, Stalin's 30-million man army, backed by mammoth industrial production, would have overwhelmed
all of Europe in a 1941 surprise blitz. Suvorov's unstated conclusion: Hitler saved Western Europe from Stalin ... Hitler,
in his own warped thinking, believed he was actually doing good for mankind. Stalin had no such illusions. His only interest
was raw power.
Stalin's Plan to Conquer Europe
... Thus, when German forces struck [the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941], the bulk of Red ground and air forces
were concentrated along the Soviet western borders facing contiguous European countries, especially the German Reich and
Romania, in final readiness for an assault on Europe. In his second book on the origins of the war, "M Day" (for
"Mobilization Day"), Suvorov details how, between late 1939 and the summer of 1941, Stalin methodically and
systematically built up the best armed, most powerful military force in the world -- actually the world's first superpower
-- for his planned conquest of Europe. Suvorov explains how Stalin's drastic conversion of the country's economy for war
actually made war inevitable.
War II German 'Eastern Campaign' Song
Finland to the Black Sea" is a stirring wartime song that was commissioned for the military campaign by Germany and
allied nations against the Soviet Union. Also known as the "Russia Song" and "Forwards to the East,"
it was first broadcast in June 1941 a few days after the beginning of "Operation Barbarossa," the greatest military
strike in history. Composed by Norbert Schultze, it was commissioned by Reich Minister Goebbels. Color footage of combat
accompanies the music. Runtime: 4:12 mins.
A Straight Look at the Second World War
By Willis A. Carto.
WHAT FOLLOWS IS AN ATTEMPT to set the historical record
straight, without influence from the powers that be. By this phrase, I do not exclude the influence and power of organized
Jewry, which is heavily involved in the sad history of the Aryan West. Further, I believe that liberals who do not recognize
this influence are a part, knowing it or not, of the cosmopolitan array dedicated to exterminating our race forever.(1)
It is now 67 years after the holocaust known as World
War II. Perhaps it is time to look at it truthfully. America is in big trouble. The unpayable national debt is only a small
part of it. Fact is, the white world is in big trouble. Not only America, but Europe—the homeland of the white race—is
facing mortal danger. It’s life or death for the white race—the race that for all its faults created Western
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.”
At least 55 million
people were killed in Europe in this war, not counting at least 60 million who were killed by the Communists for political
or racial reasons in the Soviet Union before and during WWII. This number includes the gifted and handsome Russian aristocracy.
Of these martyrs, almost all were non-Jewish Aryan.(5)
The Allied supreme commander, Eisenhower, illegally crowded a million captured German soldiers into open fields
surrounded by barbwire in subfreezing weather. Without shelter, without food, without even toilet facilities, they died
in misery. Civilians who tried to feed them were shot, on direct orders from Ike.
Of course, Wehrmacht soldiers who surrendered to the Russians fared as badly—most
died in Siberia or were tortured. The Soviet Union never signed the Geneva Conventions. See Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago.
James Bacque, in his Other Losses, documents this horror with the appalling facts. 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
Edward L. van Roden served in World War II as chief of the Military
Justice Division for the European theater. Van Roden was appointed in 1948 to an extraordinary commission charged with investigating
the claims of abuse during U.S. trials in Germany. Here is an excerpt of what van Roden wrote:
American investigators at the U.S. court in Dachau, Germany used the following
methods to obtain confessions: Beatings and brutal kickings. Knocking out teeth and breaking jaws. Mock trials. Solitary
confinement. Posturing as priests. Very limited rations. Spiritual deprivation. Promises of acquittal…. We won the
war, but some of us want to go on killing. That seems to me wicked…. The American prohibition of hearsay evidence
had been suspended. Second-and third-hand testimony 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.
One of the most remarkable persons in European history was born in the small town of Linz, Austria, on April 20,
1889. From boyhood his friends knew that he was special. His closest friend was August Kubizek, whose book The Young Hitler I Knew is a fount
of information concerning this person, and it is highly recommended for interested parties.
Kubizek relates incidents where Hitler would—as if seeing visions—tell
his friend how he intended to rebuild Linz and his architectural plans for the entire area.
Art was Hitler’s chosen calling and he supported himself before World War
I in Vienna by selling his. A Texan, Billy Price, has published a book containing about a thousand of these interesting pencil
sketches and watercolors.
Many of Hitler’s
attributes are acknowledged, such as his incredible memory, his physical courage, his speaking ability, his ability to charm
persons on a one-on-one basis and his political acumen.
What writers who are unfriendly do not wish to recognize, however, are his profound and detailed knowledge of history
and historical personalities, his strong sense of fairness, his pronounced interest in art and architecture, his talent
as a first-class military strategist, his idealism and his justified determination to redress the punitive Versailles 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. 1916).
In contrast, neither Roosevelt nor Churchill ever served a day in combat. Churchill was a newspaper reporter and
was captured in South Africa in 1899 by Boers, but all he did was to hold up his arms and 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
Many German workingmen who had
been beguiled by the well-financed Communists gravitated to the NSDAP with its strong message of nationalism and patriotism.
Britain’s traditional policy regarding the continent was “balance
of power,” meaning that it would support the weaker nation or coalition on the mainland and play off the power combines
against each other, thus freeing Britain to further aggrandize itself on the 17/20ths of the globe it then controlled.
In spite of these facts, Hitler had no animus against Britain, and
he made it clear in his Mein Kampf as well as in many speeches and in his foreign policy that he wanted peace with this nation, whose Anglo-Saxon
and Keltic peoples were so closely related to Germans. Let the British rule their empire on which the Sun never set and
give him a free hand on the continent so that he could turn his attention to the vital job of keeping the Soviet Union at
bay. Hitler knew that Stalin’s strategy was to conquer Europe (including the British Isles) and add it to the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Hitler was far too smart to entertain any idea of “conquering the world.”
His motives, in other words, were good.
Hitler wanted peace, but his sin was that he recognized the corrosive, destructive influence of the Rothschild-Zionist-Jewish
presence in Europe and tried to do something about it. In their eyes, this was intolerable, and the British declaration
of war against Germany on Sept. 3, 1939 was the answer to the perceived problem.
Today there are few if any historians who do not agree that the Versailles 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 Don Heddesheimer.]
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,
Fort Wayne was 4,000 miles from
Germany, making a round trip of 8,000 miles—a feat impossible for any airplane of the day. But what citizen would
bother to dispute the facts reported in their daily paper? Would the “free press” lie so blatantly?
A NATION OF SUCKERS
Unfortunately, white Americans have a messianic complex and publicists can easily manipulate them into spending
billions for crusades for everlasting peace if they support an internationalist foreign policy, so profitable for the war
makers. Who wants to be called an isolationist? Thus, today we have troops in 135 countries around the globe interfering
in the domestic affairs of people who wish to be left alone. This is worse than useless; it sows seeds of mistrust and hatred
and manufactures terrorists and more war. But it also feeds the profits of corporations that manufacture tanks, guns, planes,
ships and other war materiel. Bankers love war and debt financing, and war pays the salaries of thousands of bureaucrats
who work in the Pentagon and offices around the globe.
There are at least 8,000 bureaucrats employed in the Pentagon. Many drive 200 miles each day to and from work.
While the rest of America wallows in unemployment and recession, the Washington, D.C. area is prosperous. War and debt mean
prosperity for millions, no matter that our bipartisan foreign policy is programmed for defeat and national bankruptcy.
ROOSEVELT’S MASTER PLAN
FDR wanted a third and then a fourth term, and he knew the only way this could be accomplished
would be to get America into war. As stated, with Churchill, he plotted exactly that.
Tyler Kent, an American citizen, was a code clerk stationed in London. He 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
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,
At this hour of crisis a dark and
mysterious figure entered Churchill’s life. He was Henry Strakosch, a multimillionaire Jew who had acquired a fortune
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 political career.
It must be said that hard thought was never Churchill’s forte
because he was always either drunk or nearly so. Alcoholism was not the only eccentric characteristic of this strange man,
who would often greet visitors stark naked. But Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin were the warlords of World War II, and to
them must go the primary responsibility for the results—the greatest disaster in the history of Europe and the white
Every time he was told that German
bombers were en route, and even though he initiated the policy of bombing civilians, a policy Hitler abhorred, Churchill
fled London. The two leaders were both manifestly unfit for
power. FDR was sick in body and mind, and Churchill was a sot.
British and American bombers carpeted German cities with millions of explosives and incendiary bombs. They made
little effort to target railheads, factories, docks or military installations. They deliberately killed millions of civilians.
The flames of a burning Hamburg were a mile high. According to David Irving, Dresden—an undefended art city—was
totally destroyed along with at least 18,375 inhabitants, mostly children, women, and cripples, 16,130 were injured and
350,000 people made homeless; 35,000 were missing. No one knows how many of these were killed.
Such mass murder (genocide) is supposedly outlawed by the 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
The war that followed—as was World War I—must be seen
as a civil war in the West; 8.5 million American, British and continental European troops were killed in WWI and 43 million
in WWII. The civilian count in WWI is about 13 million and 38 million in WWII. The dysgenic effect of these needless wars
is incalculable. Before birth control became feasible and popular, losses like this would be made up naturally by the high
birth rate. But 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 the norm.
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
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.
The 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 Press.
BACQUE, JAMES: Other Losses, 1999, Little Brown
BARNES, HARRY ELMER: In Quest of Truth and Justice, 1972,
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.
BEARSE, RAY & READ, ANTHONY: Conspirator, 1992, Papermac.
CHAMBERLIN, WILLIAM HENRY: America’s Second Crusade, 1950, Henry
COLBY, BENJAMIN: Twas a Famous Victory, 1974,
COLE, WAYNE S.: Charles Lindbergh and the Battle Against American
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.
EGGLESTON, GEORGE T.: Roosevelt, Churchill and the World War II Opposition, 1979 Devin-Adair.
EPSTEIN, JULIUS: Operation Keelhaul, 1973, Devin-Adair.
GANNON, MICHAEL: Pearl Harbor Betrayed, 2001, Henry Holt.
GREAVES, PERCY L.: Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy, 2010, Ludwig Mises Institute.
GRENFELL, CAPT. RUSSELL, R.N.: Unconditional Hatred, 1958, Devin-Adair.
HEDDESHEIMER, DON: The First Holocaust, TBR, 2011.
IRVING, DAVID: Destruction
of Dresden, 1963, Holt, Rinehart. The War Path, 1978 the Viking Press.
Churchill’s War 1987,
Hitler’s War, 1977, Macmillian.
The War Between the Generals, 1981, Penguin Books.
Hess, the Missing Years, 1987, Macmillian.
Apocalypse 1945, Parforce.
KEMP, ARTHUR: March of the Titans, 2000, Ostara Press.
KUBIZEK, AUGUST: The Young Hitler
I Knew, Greenhill Books, 2006.
LEESE, ARNOLD S.: The Jewish War
of Survival, 1945, Historical Review Press.
LINGE, HEINZ: With Hitler to the
End, 2009, Skyhorse.
MACDONOGH, GILES: After the Reich, 2007,
MARTIN JAMES J.: Revisionist Viewpoints, 1971, Ralph
MATTOGNO, CARLO and RUDOLF, GERMAR: Auschwitz Lies.
NEILSON, FRANCIS: The Makers of
War, 1950, C.C. Nelson.
How Diplomats Make War, 1952, Henry Regnery.
SNOW, JOHN H.: The Case of Tyler Kent, 1982, Long House.
STURDZA, PRINCE MICHEL: The Suicide of Europe, 1968, Western Islands.
TANSILL, CHARLES CALLAN: Back Door to War, 1952, Henry Holt.
THOMAS, W. HUGH: The Murder of
Rudolf Hess, 1979, by author.
WEDEMEYER REPORTS: Gen. Albert Wedemeyer, 1958, Henry Holt.
- In whatever civilization they have
lived for some 3,000 years, the Jews have always considered themselves separate and distinct from their host people. Their
Talmud, as well as the Old Testament, is authority enough for this. Thus, historians and 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.
Click on this text to listen to and watch Ernst Zundel on the Predictions of a German Dictator...
A great war leaves the country with
three armies - an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves.
Click on this text to hear Tom Goodrich (author of HELLSTORM) and Ryan Dawson discuss WWII...
According to our mainstream history books, “the Good Guys”
banded together to stop the worst scourge in global history.
There is just one problem with this official version of the history-changing
event known as World War II. It’s a lie!
So, how much do we really know about that crucial event and the
decades of complex European history preceding it?
Why, and for whom, were the 20th century’s worldwide wars actually
to Start World War II in Europe
We Elected Their Nemesis ... But He Was Ours
historians claim that U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt never wanted war and made every reasonable effort to prevent
war. This article will show that contrary to what establishment historians claim, Franklin Roosevelt and his
administration wanted war and made every effort to instigate World War II in Europe.
THE SECRET POLISH DOCUMENTS
The Germans seized a mass of documents from the Polish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs when they invaded Warsaw in late September 1939. The documents were seized when a German SS brigade led
by Freiherr von Kuensberg captured the center of Warsaw ahead of the regular German army. Von Kuensberg’s
men took control of the Polish Foreign Ministry just as Ministry officials were in the process of burning incriminating
documents. These documents clearly establish Roosevelt’s crucial role in planning and instigating World War
II. They also reveal the forces behind President Roosevelt that pushed for war.
Some of the secret Polish
documents were first published in the United States as The German White Paper. Probably the most-revealing
document in the collection is a secret report dated January 12, 1939 by Jerzy Potocki, the Polish ambassador to
the United States. This report discusses the domestic situation in the United States. I quote (a translation of)
Ambassador Potocki’s report in full:
There is a feeling now prevalent in the United States marked by growing hatred of Fascism, and
above all of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with National Socialism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands
of the Jews who control almost 100% [of the] radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda
is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible--above all religious persecution and concentration
camps are exploited--this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant
and knows nothing of the situation in Europe.
At the present moment most
Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and National Socialism as the greatest evil and greatest peril threatening
the world. The situation here provides an excellent platform for public speakers of all kinds, for emigrants from
Germany and Czechoslovakia who with a great many words and with most various calumnies incite the public. They
praise American liberty which they contrast with the totalitarian states.
is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National
Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely eliminated. Soviet Russia, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in
a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way that it would seem that the Soviet Union were cooperating
with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the clever propaganda the sympathies of the American public are
completely on the side of Red Spain.
This propaganda, this war psychosis
is being artificially created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging only by a thread and
that war is inevitable. At the same time the American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war,
America also must take an active part in order to defend the slogans of liberty and democracy in the world. President
Roosevelt was the first one to express hatred against Fascism. In doing so he was serving a double purpose; first
he wanted to divert the attention of the American people from difficult and intricate domestic problems, especially
from the problem of the struggle between capital and labor. Second, by creating a war psychosis and by spreading
rumors concerning dangers threatening Europe, he wanted to induce the American people to accept an enormous armament
program which far exceeds United States defense requirements.
the first point, it must be said that the internal situation on the labor market is growing worse constantly.
The unemployed today already number 12 million. Federal and state expenditures are increasing daily. Only the
huge sums, running into billions, which the treasury expends for emergency labor projects, are keeping a certain
amount of peace in the country. Thus far only the usual strikes and local unrest have taken place. But how long
this government aid can be kept up it is difficult to predict today. The excitement and indignation of public
opinion, and the serious conflict between private enterprises and enormous trusts on the one hand, and with labor
on the other, have made many enemies for Roosevelt and are causing him many sleepless nights.
As to point two, I can only say that President Roosevelt, as a clever player of politics and
a connoisseur of American mentality, speedily steered public attention away from the domestic situation in order
to fasten it on foreign policy. The way to achieve this was simple. One needed, on the one hand, to enhance the
war menace overhanging the world on account of Chancellor Hitler, and, on the other hand, to create a specter by talking
about the attack of the totalitarian states on the United States. The Munich pact came to President Roosevelt as
a godsend. He described it as the capitulation of France and England to bellicose German militarism. As was said
here: Hitler compelled Chamberlain at pistol-point. Hence, France and England had no choice and had to conclude
a shameful peace.
The prevalent hatred against everything which is in
any way connected with German National Socialism is further kindled by the brutal attitude against the Jews in
Germany and by the émigré problem. In this action Jewish intellectuals participated; for instance,
Bernard Baruch; the Governor of New York State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge of the Supreme Court, Felix
Frankfurter; Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau, and others who are personal friends of Roosevelt. They want
the President to become the champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, and the man who in the future
will punish trouble-mongers. These groups, people who want to pose as representatives of “Americanism”
and “defenders of democracy” in the last analysis, are connected by unbreakable ties with international
For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with
the interests of its race, to put the President of the United States at this “ideal” post of champion
of human rights, was a clever move. In this manner they created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in
this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile camps. The entire issue is worked out in a mysterious manner.
Roosevelt has been forcing the foundation for vitalizing American foreign policy, and simultaneously has been
procuring enormous stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving consciously. With regard to domestic
policy, it is extremely convenient to divert public attention from anti-Semitism which is ever growing in the
United States, by talking about the necessity of defending faith and individual liberty against the onslaught
On January 16, 1939,
Potocki reported to the Warsaw Foreign Ministry a conversation he had with American Ambassador to France William
Bullitt. Bullitt was in Washington on a leave of absence from Paris. Potocki reported that Bullitt stated the
main objectives of the Roosevelt administration were:
1. The vitalizing foreign policy, under the leadership of President
Roosevelt, severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian countries.
2. The United States preparation for war on sea, land and air which will be carried out at an accelerated speed
and will consume the colossal sum of $1,250 million.
3. It is
the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain must put [an] end to any sort of compromise with the
totalitarian countries. They must not let themselves in for any discussions aiming at any kind of territorial
4. They have the moral assurance that the United States
will leave the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the side of Britain and France in case
of war. America is ready to place its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.”
Juliusz (Jules) Łukasiewicz,
the Polish ambassador to France, sent a top-secret report from Paris to the Polish Foreign Ministry at the beginning
of February 1939. This report outlined the U.S. policy toward Europe as explained to him by William Bullitt:
A week ago, the Ambassador
of the United States, W. Bullitt, returned to Paris after having spent three months holiday in America. Meanwhile,
I had two conversations with him which enable me to inform Monsieur Minister on his views regarding the European
situation and to give a survey of Washington’s policy….
international situation is regarded by official quarters as extremely serious and being in danger of armed conflict.
Competent quarters are of the opinion that if war should break out between Britain and France on the one hand
and Germany and Italy on the other, and Britain and France should be defeated, the Germans would become dangerous
to the realistic interests of the United States on the American continent. For this reason, one can foresee right
from the beginning the participation of the United States in the war on the side of France and Britain, naturally
after some time had elapsed after the beginning of the war. Ambassador Bullitt expressed this as follows: “Should
war break out we shall certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall end it.”
On March 7, 1939,
Ambassador Potocki sent another remarkably perceptive report on Roosevelt’s foreign policy to the Polish
government. I quote Potocki’s report in full:
The foreign policy of the United States right now concerns not only
the government, but the entire American public as well. The most important elements are the public statements
of President Roosevelt. In almost every public speech he refers more or less explicitly to the necessity of activating
foreign policy against the chaos of views and ideologies in Europe. These statements are picked up by the press
and then cleverly filtered into the minds of average Americans in such a way as to strengthen their already formed
opinions. The same theme is constantly repeated, namely, the danger of war in Europe and saving the democracies
from inundation by enemy fascism. In all of these public statements there is normally only a single theme, that
is, the danger from Nazism and Nazi Germany to world peace.
As a result
of these speeches, the public is called upon to support rearmament and the spending of enormous sums for the navy
and the air force. The unmistakable idea behind this is that in case of an armed conflict the United States cannot stay
out but must take an active part in the maneuvers. As a result of the effective speeches of President Roosevelt,
which are supported by the press, the American public is today being conscientiously manipulated to hate everything
that smacks of totalitarianism and fascism. But it is interesting that the USSR is not included in all of this.
The American public considers Russia more in the camp of the democratic states. This was also the case during the
Spanish civil war when the so-called Loyalists were regarded as defenders of the democratic idea.
The State Department operates without attracting a great deal of attention, although it is
known that Secretary of State [Cordell] Hull and President Roosevelt swear allegiance to the same ideas. However,
Hull shows more reserve than Roosevelt, and he loves to make a distinction between Nazism and Chancellor Hitler
on the one hand, and the German people on the other. He considers this form of dictatorial government a temporary
“necessary evil.” In contrast, the State Department is unbelievably interested in the USSR and its
internal situation and openly worries itself over its weaknesses and decline. The main reason for the United States
interest in the Russians is the situation in the Far East. The current government would be glad to see the Red Army
emerge as the victor in a conflict with Japan. That’s why the sympathies of the government are clearly on the
side of China, which recently received considerable financial aid amounting to 25 million dollars.
Eager attention is given to all information from the diplomatic posts as well as to the special emissaries
of the President who serve as ambassadors of the United States. The President frequently calls his representatives
from abroad to Washington for personal exchanges of views and to give them special information and instructions.
The arrival of the envoys and ambassadors is always shrouded in secrecy and very little surfaces in the press
about the results of their visits. The State Department also takes care to avoid giving out any kind of information
about the course of these interviews. The practical way in which the President makes foreign policy is most effective.
He gives personal instructions to his representatives abroad, most of whom are his personal friends. In this way
the United States is led down a dangerous path in world politics with the explicit intention of abandoning the
comfortable policy of isolation. The President regards the foreign policy of his country as a means of satisfying
his own personal ambition. He listens carefully and happily to his echo in the other capitals of the world. In
domestic as well as foreign policy, the Congress of the United States is the only object that stands in the way
of the President and his government in carrying out his decisions quickly and ambitiously. One hundred and fifty
years ago, the Constitution of the United States gave the highest prerogatives to the American parliament which may
criticize or reject the law of the White House.
The foreign policy
of President Roosevelt has recently been the subject of intense discussion in the lower house and in the Senate,
and this has caused excitement. The so-called Isolationists, of whom there are many in both houses, have come
out strongly against the President. The representatives and the senators were especially upset over the remarks
of the President, which were published in the press, in which he said that the borders of the United States lie
on the Rhine. But President Roosevelt is a superb political player and understands completely the power of the
American parliament. He has his own people there, and he knows how to withdraw from an uncomfortable situation
at the right moment.
Very intelligently and cleverly he ties together
the question of foreign policy with the issues of American rearmament. He particularly stresses the necessity of spending
enormous sums in order to maintain a defensive peace. He says specifically that the United States is not arming
in order to intervene or to go to the aid of England or France in case of war, but because of the need to show
strength and military preparedness in case of an armed conflict in Europe. In his view this conflict is becoming
ever more acute and is completely unavoidable.
Since the issue is presented
this way, the houses of Congress have no cause to object. To the contrary, the houses accepted an armament program
of more than 1 billion dollars. (The normal budget is 550 million, the emergency 552 million dollars). However,
under the cloak of a rearmament policy, President Roosevelt continues to push forward his foreign policy, which
unofficially shows the world that in case of war the United States will come out on the side of the democratic
states with all military and financial power.
In conclusion it can be
said that the technical and moral preparation of the American people for participation in a war--if one should
break out in Europe--is proceeding rapidly. It appears that the United States will come to the aid of France and
Great Britain with all its resources right from the beginning. However, I know the American public and the representatives
and senators who all have the final word, and I am of the opinion that the possibility that America will enter
the war as in 1917 is not great. That’s because the majority of the states in the mid-West and West, where
the rural element predominates, want to avoid involvement in European disputes at all costs. They remember the
declaration of the Versailles Treaty and the well-known phrase that the war was to save the world for democracy.
Neither the Versailles Treaty nor that slogan have reconciled the United States to that war. For millions there
remains only a bitter aftertaste because of unpaid billions which the European states still owe America.
These secret Polish
reports were written by top-level Polish ambassadors who were not necessarily friendly to Germany. However, they
understood the realities of European politics far better than people who made foreign policy in the United States.
The Polish ambassadors realized that behind all of their rhetoric about democracy and human rights, the Jewish
leaders in the United States who agitated for war against Germany were deceptively advancing their own interests.
There is no question that the secret documents
taken from the Polish Foreign Ministry in Warsaw are authentic. Charles C. Tansill considered the documents genuine
and stated, “Some months ago I had a long conversation with M. Lipsky, the Polish ambassador in Berlin in
the prewar years, and he assured me that the documents in the German White Paper are authentic.”
William H. Chamberlain wrote,
“I have been privately informed by an extremely reliable source that Potocki, now residing in South America,
confirmed the accuracy of the documents, so far as he was concerned.” Historian Harry Elmer Barnes also stated, “Both Professor Tansill and myself have independently established the thorough
authenticity of these documents.”
Edward Raczyński, the
Polish ambassador to London from 1934 to 1945, confirmed in his diary the authenticity of the Polish documents.
He wrote in his entry on June 20, 1940: “The Germans published in April a White Book containing documents
from the archives of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, consisting of reports from Potocki from Washington, Łukasiewicz
in Paris and myself. I do not know where they found them, since we were told that the archives had been destroyed.
The documents are certainly genuine, and the facsimiles show that for the most part the Germans got hold of the
originals and not merely copies.”
The official papers and memoirs
of Juliusz Łukasiewicz published in 1970 in the book Diplomat in Paris 1936-1939 reconfirmed the authenticity
of the Polish documents. Łukasiewicz was the Polish ambassador to Paris, who authored several of the secret
Polish documents. The collection was edited by Wacław Jędrzejewicz, a former Polish diplomat and cabinet
member. Jędrzejewicz considered the documents made public by the Germans absolutely genuine, and quoted from
several of them.
Kent, who worked at the U.S. Embassy in London in 1939 and 1940, has also confirmed the authenticity of the secret
Polish documents. Kent says that he saw copies of U.S. diplomatic messages in the files which corresponded to
the Polish documents. 
The German Foreign Office
published the Polish documents on March 29, 1940. The Reich Ministry of Propaganda released the documents to strengthen
the case of the American isolationists and to prove the degree of America’s responsibility for the outbreak
of war. In Berlin, journalists from around the world were permitted to examine the original documents themselves,
along with a large number of other documents from the Polish Foreign Ministry. The release of the documents caused
an international media sensation. American newspapers published lengthy excerpts from the documents and gave the
story large front-page headline coverage.
However, the impact of the
released documents was far less than the German government had hoped for. Leading U.S. government officials emphatically
denounced the documents as not being authentic. William Bullitt, who was especially incriminated by
the documents, stated, “I have never made to anyone the statements attributed to me.” Secretary of
State Cordell Hull denounced the documents: “I may say most emphatically that neither I nor any of my associates
in the Department of State have ever heard of any such conversations as those alleged, nor do we give them the
slightest credence. The statements alleged have not represented in any way at any time the thought or the policy
of the American government.” American newspapers stressed these high-level denials in reporting the release of the Polish documents.
These categorical denials by high-level U.S. government officials almost
completely eliminated the effect of the secret Polish documents. The vast majority of the American people in 1940
trusted their elected political leaders to tell the truth. If the Polish documents were in fact authentic and
genuine, this would mean that President Roosevelt and his representatives had lied to the American public, while
the German government told the truth. In 1940, this was far more than the trusting American public could accept.
MORE EVIDENCE ROOSEVELT INSTIGATED WORLD
While the secret Polish documents
alone indicate that Roosevelt was preparing the American public for war against Germany, a large amount of complementary
evidence confirms the conspiracy reported by the Polish ambassadors. The diary of James V. Forrestal, the first
U.S. secretary of defense, also reveals that Roosevelt and his administration helped start World War II. Forrestal’s
entry on December 27, 1945 stated:
Played golf today with Joe Kennedy [Roosevelt’s Ambassador to Great Britain in the years
immediately before the war]. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938
on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she
could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any
later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that
the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war
if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the
Germans wouldn’t fight; Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says,
stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt
in the summer of 1939 the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside. Kennedy’s
response always was that putting iron up his backside did no good unless the British had some iron with which
to fight, and they did not….
What Kennedy told me in this conversation
jibes substantially with the remarks Clarence Dillon had made to me already, to the general effect that Roosevelt
had asked him in some manner to communicate privately with the British to the end that Chamberlain should have
greater firmness in his dealings with Germany. Dillon told me that at Roosevelt’s request he had talked
with Lord Lothian in the same general sense as Kennedy reported Roosevelt having urged him to do with Chamberlain.
Lothian presumably was to communicate to Chamberlain the gist of his conversation with Dillon.
Looking backward there is undoubtedly foundation for Kennedy’s belief that Hitler’s
attack could have been deflected to Russia….”
Joseph Kennedy is known
to have had a good memory, and it is highly likely that Kennedy’s statements to James Forrestal are accurate.
Forrestal died on May 22, 1949 under suspicious circumstances when he fell from his hospital window.
Sir Ronald Lindsay, the British ambassador
to Washington, confirmed Roosevelt’s secret policy to instigate war against Germany with the release of
a confidential diplomatic report after the war. The report described a secret meeting on September 18, 1938 between
Roosevelt and Ambassador Lindsay. Roosevelt said that if Britain and France were forced into a war against Germany,
the United States would ultimately join the war. Roosevelt’s idea to start a war was for Britain and France
to impose a blockade against Germany without actually declaring war. The important point was to call it a defensive
war based on lofty humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage hostilities with a minimum of suffering and
the least possible loss of life and property. The blockade would provoke some kind of German military response,
but would free Britain and France from having to declare war. Roosevelt believed he could then convince the American public
to support war against Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by insisting that the United
States was still neutral in a non-declared conflict.
President Roosevelt told
Ambassador Lindsay that if news of their conversation was ever made public, it could mean Roosevelt’s impeachment.
What Roosevelt proposed to Lindsay was in effect a scheme to violate the U.S. Constitution by illegally starting
a war. For this and other reasons, Ambassador Lindsay stated that during his three years of service in Washington
he developed little regard for America’s leaders.
Ambassador Lindsay in a series
of final reports also indicated that Roosevelt was delighted at the prospect of a new world war. Roosevelt promised
Lindsay that he would delay German ships under false pretenses in a feigned search for arms. This would allow the
German ships to be easily seized by the British under circumstances arranged with exactitude between the American
and British authorities. Lindsay reported that Roosevelt “spoke in a tone of almost impish glee and though
I may be wrong the whole business gave me the impression of resembling a school-boy prank.”
Ambassador Lindsay was personally perturbed that the president of the
United States could be gay and joyful about a pending tragedy which seemed so destructive of the hopes of all
mankind. It was unfortunate at this important juncture that the United States had a president whose emotions and
ideas were regarded by a friendly British ambassador as being childish.
to support France and England in a war against Germany is discussed in a letter from Verne Marshall, former editor
of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, to Charles C. Tansill. The letter stated:
President Roosevelt wrote a note to William Bullitt
[in the summer of 1939], then Ambassador to France, directing him to advise the French Government that if, in
the event of a Nazi attack upon Poland, France and England did not go to Poland’s aid, those countries could
expect no help from America if a general war developed. On the other hand, if France and England immediately declared
war on Germany, they could expect “all aid” from the United States.
F.D.R.’s instructions to Bullitt were to send this word along to “Joe” and “Tony,”
meaning Ambassadors Kennedy, in London, and Biddle, in Warsaw, respectively. F.D.R. wanted Daladier, Chamberlain
and Josef Beck to know of these instructions to Bullitt. Bullitt merely sent his note from F.D.R. to Kennedy in
the diplomatic pouch from Paris. Kennedy followed Bullitt’s idea and forwarded it to Biddle. When the Nazis
grabbed Warsaw and Beck disappeared, they must have come into possession of the F.D.R. note. The man who wrote
the report I sent you saw it in Berlin in October, 1939.
William Phillips, the
American ambassador to Italy, also stated in his postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration in late 1938
was committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France. Phillips wrote: “On this and many other
occasions, I would have liked to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister] frankly that in the
event of a European war, the United States would undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view
of my official position, I could not properly make such a statement without instructions from Washington, and
these I never received.”
When Anthony Eden returned
to England in December 1938, he carried with him an assurance from President Roosevelt that the United States
would enter as soon as practicable a European war against Hitler if the occasion arose. This information was obtained
by Senator William Borah of Idaho, who was contemplating how and when to give out this information, when he dropped
dead in his bathroom. The story was confirmed to historian Harry Elmer Barnes by some of Senator Borah’s
closest colleagues at the time.
ambassador to Poland, Anthony Drexel Biddle, was an ideological colleague of President Roosevelt and a good friend
of William Bullitt. Roosevelt used Biddle to influence the Polish government to refuse to enter into negotiations
with Germany. Carl J. Burckhardt, the League of Nations High Commissioner to Danzig, reported in his postwar memoirs
on a memorable conversation he had with Biddle. On December 2, 1938, Biddle told Burckhardt with remarkable satisfaction
that the Poles were ready to wage war over Danzig. Biddle predicted that in April a new crisis would develop,
and that moderate British and French leaders would be influenced by public opinion to support war. Biddle predicted
a holy war against Germany would break out.
Bernard Baruch, who was Roosevelt’s
chief advisor, scoffed at a statement made on March 10, 1939 by Neville Chamberlain that “the outlook in
international affairs is tranquil.” Baruch agreed passionately with Winston Churchill, who had told him:
“War is coming very soon. We will be in it and you [the United States] will be in it.”
Bonnet, the French foreign minister in 1939, also confirmed the role of William Bullitt as Roosevelt’s agent
in pushing France into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated March 26, 1971, Bonnet wrote, “One thing
is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did everything he could to make France enter the war.”
Dr. Edvard Beneš,
the former president of Czechoslovakia, wrote in his memoirs that he had a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde
Park with President Roosevelt on May 28, 1939. Roosevelt assured Beneš that the United States would actively
intervene on the side of Great Britain and France against Germany in the anticipated European war.
American newspaper columnist
Karl von Wiegand, who was the chief European newspaper columnist of the International News Service, met with Ambassador
William Bullitt at the U.S. embassy in Paris on April 25, 1939. More than four months before the outbreak of war,
Bullitt told Wiegand: “War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland has the assurance of the support of Britain
and France, and will yield to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after Britain and France
enter it.” When Wiegand said that in the end Germany would be driven into the arms of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, Ambassador Bullitt
replied: “What of it. There will not be enough Germans left when the war is over to be worth Bolshevizing.”
On March 14, 1939, Slovakia dissolved the state of Czechoslovakia by declaring itself an independent republic.
Czechoslovakian President Emil Hácha signed a formal agreement the next day with Hitler establishing a
German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia, which constituted the Czech portion of the previous entity. The British
government initially accepted the new situation, reasoning that Britain’s guarantee of Czechoslovakia given
after Munich was rendered void by the internal collapse of that state. It soon became evident after the proclamation
of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia that the new regime enjoyed considerable popularity among the people living
in it. Also, the danger of a war between the Czechs and the Slovaks had been averted.
response to the creation of the German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia was highly unfavorable. Bullitt telephoned
Roosevelt and, in an “almost hysterical” voice, Bullitt urged Roosevelt to make a dramatic denunciation
of Germany and to immediately ask Congress to repeal the Neutrality Act.
Washington journalists Drew
Pearson and Robert S. Allen reported in their nationally syndicated column that on March 16, 1939, President Roosevelt
“sent a virtual ultimatum to Chamberlain” demanding that the British government strongly oppose Germany.
Pearson and Allen reported that “the President warned that Britain could expect no more support, moral or
material through the sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued.”
Responding to Roosevelt’s
pressure, the next day Chamberlain ended Britain’s policy of cooperation with Germany when he made a speech
at Birmingham bitterly denouncing Hitler. Chamberlain also announced the end of the British “appeasement”
policy, stating that from now on Britain would oppose any further territorial moves by Hitler. Two weeks later
the British government formally committed itself to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.
Roosevelt also attempted to arm Poland so that Poland would be more willing
to go to war against Germany. Ambassador Bullitt reported from Paris in a confidential telegram to Washington
on April 9, 1939, his conversation with Polish Ambassador Łukasiewicz. Bullitt told Łukasiewicz that
although U.S. law prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, the Roosevelt administration might be able to supply
warplanes to Poland indirectly through Britain. Bullitt stated: “The Polish ambassador asked me if it might
not be possible for Poland to obtain financial help and airplanes from the United States. I replied that I believed
the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States to Poland, but added that it might be possible for
England to purchase planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to Poland.”
Bullitt also attempted to
bypass the Neutrality Act and supply France with airplanes. A secret conference of Ambassador Bullitt with French
Premier Daladier and the French minister of aviation, Guy La Chambre, discussed the procurement of airplanes from
America for France. Bullitt, who was in frequent telephonic conversation with Roosevelt, suggested a means by
which the Neutrality Act could be circumvented in the event of war. Bullitt’s suggestion was to set up assembly
plants in Canada, apparently on the assumption that Canada would not be a formal belligerent in the war. Bullitt
also arranged for a secret French mission to come to the United States and purchase airplanes in the winter of
1938-1939. The secret purchase of American airplanes by the French leaked out when a French aviator crashed on the
On August 23, 1939, Sir Horace
Wilson, Chamberlain’s closest advisor, went to American Ambassador Joseph Kennedy with an urgent appeal from
Chamberlain to President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally obligated itself to Poland in case
of war, Chamberlain now turned to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. Kennedy telephoned the State Department
and stated: “The British want one thing from us and one thing only, namely that we put pressure on the Poles.
They felt that they could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that we could.”
Presented with a possibility to
save the peace in Europe, President Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain’s desperate plea out of hand. With Roosevelt’s
rejection, Kennedy reported, British Prime Minister Chamberlain lost all hope. Chamberlain stated: “The futility
of it all is the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We can merely carry on a war of
revenge that will mean the destruction of all Europe.”
U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and his advisers played
a crucial role in planning and instigating World War II. This is proven by the secret Polish documents as well
as numerous statements from highly positioned, well-known and authoritative Allied leaders who corroborate the
contents of the Polish documents.
 Count Jerzy Potocki to Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, The German White Paper: Full Text of the Polish Documents Issued
by the Berlin Foreign Office; with a foreword by C. Hartley Grattan, New York: Howell, Soskin & Company,
1940, pp. 29-31.
 Juliusz Lukasiewicz to Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, The German White Paper: Full Text of the Polish Documents Issued
by the Berlin Foreign Office; with a foreword by C. Hartley Grattan, New York: Howell, Soskin & Company,
1940, pp. 43-44.
 Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten
der Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943. Translated into English by Weber, Mark, “President
Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical
Review, Summer 1983, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 150-152.
 Tansill, Charles C., “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual
War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 184 (footnote 292).
 Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, p. 60 (footnote 14).
 Barnes, Harry Elmer, The Court Historians versus Revisionism, N.p.: privately printed, 1952, p. 10.
 Raczynski, Edward, In Allied London, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963, p. 51.
 Weber, Mark, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The
Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 142.
 New York Times, March 30, 1940, p. 1.
 Forrestal, James V., The Forrestal Diaries, edited by Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield, New York: Vanguard Press,
1951, pp. 121-122.
 Dispatch No. 349 of Sept. 30, 1938, by Sir Ronald Lindsay, Documents on British Foreign Policy, (ed.). Ernest L.
Woodard, Third Series, Vol. VII, London, 1954, pp. 627-629. See also Lash, Joseph P., Roosevelt and Churchill
1939-1941, New York: Norton, 1976, pp. 25-27.
 Dallek, Robert, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy 1932-1945, New York: Oxford University Press,
1979, pp. 31, 164-165.
 Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review,
1989, pp. 518-519.
 Tansill, Charles C., “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual
War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 168.
 Phillips, William, Ventures in Diplomacy, North Beverly, Mass.: privately published, 1952, pp. 220-221.
 Barnes, Harry Elmer, Barnes against the Blackout, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1991, p. 208.
 Burckhardt, Carl, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939, Munich: Callwey, 1960, p. 225.
 Sherwood, Robert E., Roosevelt and Hopkins, an Intimate History, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948, p. 113.
 Fish, Hamilton, FDR The Other Side of the Coin: How We Were Tricked into World War II, New York: Vantage Press,
1976, p. 62.
 Beneš, Edvard, Memoirs of Dr. Edvard Beneš, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954, pp. 79-80.
 “Von Wiegand Says-,” Chicago-Herald American, Oct. 8, 1944, p. 2.
 Chicago-Herald American, April 23, 1944, p. 18.
 Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review,
1989, p. 250.
 Moffat, Jay P., The Moffat Papers 1919-1943, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956, p. 232.
 Pearson, Drew and Allen, Robert S., “Washington Daily Merry-Go-Round,” Washington Times-Herald, April
14, 1939, p. 16.
 U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I, Washington:
1956, p. 122.
 Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, pp. 101-102.
 Koskoff, David E., Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974, p. 207; see
also Taylor, A.J.P., The Origins of the Second World War, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005, p.
Behind the Powers
83% of Americans were against involvement in the European war prior to
the trickery at Pearl Harbor. And then...
Kasserine Pass: America's Most Humiliating
Defeat of World War II
... The GIs should have remembered what the British had learned the hard way: never
underestimate the Germans.
Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, admiringly dubbed the "Desert Fox" by the British, would teach the rookie Americans
a lesson on the art of war at a dusty defile called Kasserine
Pass ... Kasserine left a bitter residue that poisoned the
Allied cause for the rest of the war. It confirmed the British in their belief that the Americans
were baby soldiers,
soft and spoiled
amateurs who needed gentle but firm guidance from their wiser, more experienced English cousins.
German Soldiers of World War II:
Why They Were the Best, and Why They Still Lost
soldiers of World War II have often been portrayed, both during the war and in the decades since,
as simple-minded, unimaginative and brutish ... As specialists
of military history who have looked into the matter
agree, the men of Germany's armed forces -- the Wehrmacht -- performed with unmatched ability and resourcefulness
throughout the nearly six years of conflict ... High-ranking
British military figures were similarly impressed with the skill,
tenacity and daring of their adversaries. "Unfortunately we are fighting the best soldiers in
the world - what men!,"
Lt. Gen. Sir Harold Alexander, commander of the 15th Army Group in Italy, in a March 1944 report to London ...
It was the superiority of numbers that was ultimately decisive.
Second World War in Europe was a victory of quantity over quality.
Web of Deceit: The Jewish Puppet Masters Behind World War II
Edited by Lasha Darkmoon
CHURCHILL, ROOSEVELT, STALIN
It was these three powerful individuals, the winners of WWII, who decided
to carve up the world between them by manufacturing pretexts for a catastrophic world war that would claim 60-80 million
lives, roughly 3 per cent of the world’s population, and 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.
THE WORST DISASTER VISITED UPON CIVILISATION
SHARE NEWS CENSORED BY
MEDIA Donation dependent please share our stories and purchase from our bookstore. Русский:
В правой колонке главной
страницы есть опция
выбора языка. Deutsche Es gibt eine Sprachauswahloption
auf der rechten Seite der Homepage.
MASSIVE bombing raids by Allied forces during World War II sent shockwaves
to the edge of space, according to new research. Scientists at the University of Reading in the UK have revealed that shockwaves
from huge bombs travelled through the Earth’s atmosphere. The bombing even weakened the Earth’s electrified
upper atmosphere, the ionosphere, 1000 kilometres away.
DEATH OF A CITY by historian Michael Walsh discloses dreadful accounts of what it was like to live and perish in an RAF firestorm.
This information has been hidden from the public since Britain’s unelected war lord Winston Churchill rejected numerous
German peace offers.
Walsh says, victors’ spin claims the bombing campaign was initiated by the German side. However, J. M. Spaight, Principal
Secretary to the Air Ministry disagrees: “Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly
three months after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets.”
Another myth used to justify total destruction of great German cities was retaliation
for their bombing of Coventry. By the morning of August 3, 1943, over 6,000 square acres of Hamburg had been gutted compared
to just 100 acres in Coventry over the entire course of the war, a city essential to Churchill’s war campaign.
During just 10 days 100,000 citizens
of Hamburg were put to the flame. For every one of the 380 persons who died in Coventry, again during the entire course of
the war, no less than 300 Hamburg citizens died during that satanic week of senseless Allied carpet bombing.
Many are the accounts of the
RAF bombing campaigns from the Allied perpetrators anaesthetised by time and distance. But, what was it like to be in Hamburg
during the RAF raids?
German document states: “For weeks afterwards eyewitnesses were unable to report without succumbing to their nerves
and weeping hysterically. They would try to speak, then would break down and cry: ‘I can’t stand seeing it again;
I can’t stand it.”
weeks later, a woman who did survive was interviewed. She had still not recovered from the experience: “I saw people
killed by falling bricks and heard the screams of others dying in the fire. I dragged my best friend from a burning building
and she died in my arms. I saw others who went stark mad. The shock to the nerves and the soul, one can never erase.”
The Police President of Hamburg reported: “Its
horror is revealed in the howling and raging of the firestorms, the hellish noise of exploding bombs and the death cries
of martyred human beings as well as the big silence after the raids. Speech is impotent to portray the measure of the horror,
which shook the people for ten days and nights and the traces of which were written indelibly on the face of the city and
of imagination will ever succeed in measuring and describing the gruesome scenes of horror in the many buried air raid shelters.
Posterity can only bow its head in honour of the fate of these innocents, sacrificed by the murderous lust of a sadistic
Martin Caidin is
one of the world’s leading authorities on military science subjects. The high-ranking U.S. Government official was
an expert on bombing effects. He described the bombing of Hamburg as: “Standing out as the worst of the disasters
visited upon civilisation during the insanity of the Second World War.”
The air above Hamburg was the pure flame. Six
square miles of Hamburg was engulfed in the world’s greatest fire. Merely looking at the blinding heat and light could
terrorise and destroy the mind. There were no longer individual blazes.
The winds relentlessly fed the flames and were
sucked in at higher and higher speeds. Even out in the suburbs, it was like no ordinary wind. Such winds as we all experience
each day of our lives swirl in eddies and gusts. They blow this way at one corner and another way at the next corner. But
these winds showed no variation in direction or speed. The winds flowed into the city at a constant speed. During the early
stages, these winds had reached forty and then fifty miles per hour.
minutes after the first bombs were dropped trees on the outskirts of the city were beginning to lose their leaves. It was
as though some giant supernatural vacuum cleaner was plucking them. Small branches were snapped and street debris was vacuumed
up as though by some unseen hand. The rubbish swirled away and bounced off the shells of buildings but always sucked in
Outside the city’s perimeter, tens of thousands of people gathered to witness that
which no man had witnessed before them. A whole city had become a throbbing inferno of intense heat. Stunned onlookers gazed
with their eyes transfixed as a column of flame a mile wide reached the inner limits of space.
The winds reached supernatural
speeds and they were to soon exceed tornado or hurricane velocities. The shrieking gales flattened flames. The tornadoes
turned the city into one gigantic flame thrower or blow torch. Flames, many hundreds of feet long, were caught in
the blast of wind. It seared through streets where thousands of people still huddled in the open as they hid behind partly
demolished walls, cowering in alleys. These unfortunates were incinerated.
The martyr’s shrieks of terror and pain
mingled and were lost in the screaming winds and crackling firestorm. It will never be known how many such people simply
disappeared as though they had never walked the earth. Not even a few charred bones marked their presence on earth. It is
estimated that winds feeding the blazing city reached speeds as high as 150 miles per hour and perhaps more. Twice that
of hurricane force winds and at such speeds, some trees three feet in diameter, were sucked out of the ground and hurled
into the flames.
During the RAF’s firestorm
of Hamburg, temperatures reached 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit. At such temperatures, lead becomes a bubbling fluid as liquid
as water. Balks of wood simply explode without necessarily coming in contact with flame; metal, rubber, and glass melts.
Flames were hurled three miles into the sky and
its gases reached as high again and more. It was a sight so spectacular and horrifying that the well-known effect of an
atom-bomb explosion becomes relatively lesser. As the fire’s superheated gases boiled upwards, they passed through
a stratum of cold air high above the city. The debris in the soaring flames and smoke attracted moisture and caused a meteorological
reaction. The natural elements combined to reject the debris which was transformed and fell to the earth once more in big
greasy black rain blobs.
This again raises the question,
were the Allied atrocities committed during World War II so horrifyingly unique in world history that the myth of the Holocaust
was invented for the Allies to hide their crimes behind.
The Sinking of the 'Wilhelm Gustloff': A Little-Known World War
... Many, however, have never heard of the sinking of MV (Motor Vessel)
Wilhelm Gustloff, which was torpedoed in the Baltic Sea in 1945. Thousands more lives were lost than the Titanic -- including
thousands of women and children ... The S-13 fired three torpedoes, all of which struck the Gustloff. Panic ensued as
the ship started to list. Lifeboats were covered with ice and only a few were able to be launched. Many passengers were
trapped below or already dead from the explosions. Those who couldn't get in the few lifeboats and rafts took their chances
in the sea, where most died of exposure. The Wilhelm Gustloff slid beneath the surface less than 40 minutes after being
History's Little Known Naval Disasters
Many of those who view "Titanic," the blockbuster motion
picture, may leave the movie theater believing that the April 15, 1912, sinking of the great British liner, with the loss
of 1,523 men, women and children, was history's greatest maritime disaster ... But these disasters are dwarfed by the sinkings
of the Wilhelm Gustloff, the General Steuben and the Goya, three German ships crowded with evacuated
refugees and wounded soldiers that were struck by Soviet submarines during the final months of the Second World War.
History's Greatest Naval Disasters: The Wilhelm Gustloff, the General Steuben and the
For many people, the image of a great maritime disaster calls to mind
the well-known sinking of the Titanic, which went down in April 1912 after striking an iceberg, taking the lives
of 1,503 men, women and children ... Dwarfed by the little-known sinkings of the Wilhelm Gustloff, the General
Steuben and the Goya - converted German liners crowded with refugees and wounded soldiers that were sunk
by Soviet submarines during the final months of the Second World War. In each case, more lives were lost than in the sinkings
of either the Sultana, the Lusitania or the Titanic.
The Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff: Deadliest Sea Disaster
The sinking of the 'Wilhelm Gustloff' is not well known, but this was
one of the worst naval disasters in history. This 44-minute documentary tells the story of how this German vessel, packed
with women and children refugees, was sunk by a Soviet submarine on Jan. 30, 1945. Estimates of the number of drowning
victims run as high as 9,000 -- that is, more than the number of those who died in the Titantic and Lusitania sinkings combined.
Allied Attacks Killed Thousands of Camp Inmates: The 1945 'Cap Arcona' and 'Thielbek' Sinkings
All prisoners of German wartime concentration camps who perished while
in German custody are routinely regarded as "victims of Nazism" -- even if they lost their lives as direct or
indirect result of Allied policy ... Among the German concentration camp prisoners who perished at Allied hands were some
7,000 inmates who were killed during the war's final week as they were being evacuated in three large German ships that
were attacked by British war planes. This little-known tragedy is one of history's greatest maritime disasters.
The Hypocrisy of the Semitic WW2 Historical Narrative:
“Good War . . . Better Peace"
help create an awakening upon the upcoming 70th Anniversary of the end of the “Good War” and the beginning of
the “Good Peace,” Tom Goodrich personally offered the following from his book, Hellstorm—The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947, and details from his next book, he hopes it will make you inspired to stand against the historical lies made against our
so, with the once mighty German Army now disarmed and enslaved in May, 1945, and with their leaders either dead or awaiting
trial for so-called “war crimes,” the old men, with the others remaining in Eisenhowers death camps. Women and
children who remained in the dismembered Reich found themselves utterly at the mercy of the victors, motivated by the Jewish
racist broadcasts of Ilya Ehrenburg. Unfortunately for these survivors, never in the history of the world was mercy and humanity
in shorter supply and Semitic malice in over-supply.
Soon after the Allied victory in Europe, the purge of Nazi Party members
from government, business, industry, science, education, and all other walks of German life commenced (which also included
all ordinary folk, who were replaced with the types of proto-multiculturalists who now form todays European governments).
While a surprising number of Nazis were allowed—even compelled—to man their posts temporarily to enable a smooth
transition, all party members, high and low, the actual ordinary German folk, were sooner or later excised from German daily
life. In theory, “de-Nazification” was a simple transplanting of Nazi officials with those of democratic, socialist
or communist underpinnings. In practice, the purge became little more than a cloak for a vile, illegal enforcement of rape,
torture and death, executed almost exclusively by Jewish Commissars in the East and their relatives in the complicit Western
Because their knowledge of the language and culture was superb, most of the intelligence officers accompanying US
and British forces into the Reich were Jewish refugees who had fled Germany in the late 1930s, after failing to have corrupted
Germany in the 1930s, they now had their chance now that the allies had done the fratricidal fighting on their behalf, Jews
such as relatives of Ed Milibands family.
Although their American and English “aides” were hardly better, the fact that many of
these “39ers” became interrogators, examiners and the rscreeners, with old scores to settle, insured that Nazis—
or any German, for that matter—would be put within the malicious, genocidal reach of these fanatical racist Jews.
One man opposed to the vengeance-minded program was George Patton: “Evidently the virus started by Morgenthau
and [Bernard] Baruch of a Semitic revenge against all Germans is still working ... ,” wrote the general in private.
“I am frankly opposed to this war-criminal stuff. It is not cricket and it is Semitic....I can’t see how Americans
can sink so low.”
Soon after occupation, all adult Germans were compelled to register at the nearest Allied headquarters and complete
a lengthy questionnaire on their past activities. While many nervous citizens were detained then and there, most returned
home, convinced that at long last the terrible ordeal was over. For millions, however, the trial had but begun.
“Then it started,”
remembered Anna Fest, a woman who had registered with the Americans six weeks earlier.
Such a feeling of helplessness, when three or four heavily armed
military police stand in front of you. You just panic. I cried terribly. My mother was completely beside herself and said,
“You can’t do this. She registered just as she was supposed to.” Then she said, “If only you’d
gone somewhere else and had hidden.” But I consider that senseless, because I did not feel guilty. . . . That was
the way it went with everyone, with no reason given.
Few German adults, Nazi or not, escaped the dreaded knock on the door. Far from being
dangerous fascists, Freddy and Lali Horstmann were actually well-known anti-Nazis. Records Lali from the Russian Zone:
“I am sorry to bother
you,” he began, “but I am simply carrying out my orders. Until when did you work for the Foreign Office?”
“Till 1933,” my husband answered. “Then you need fear nothing,” Androff said....
“We accuse you of nothing, but we want you to accompany us to the headquarters of the NKVD, the secret police, so
that we can take down what you said in a protocol, and ask you a few questions about the working of the Foreign Office...
.” We were stunned for a moment; then I started forward, asking if I could come along with them. “Impossible,”
the interpreter smiled. My heart raced. Would Freddy answer satisfactorily? Could he stand the excitement? What sort of
accommodation would they give him? “Don’t worry, your husband has nothing to fear,” Androff continued.
“He will have a heated room. Give him a blanket for the night, but quickly, we must leave. .. .” There
was a feeling of sharp tension, putting the soldier on his guard, as though he were expecting an attack from one of us. I
took first the soldier, then the interpreter, by their hands and begged them to be kind to Freddy, repeating myself in the
bustle and scraping of feet that drowned my words. There was a banging of doors. A cold wind blew in. I felt Freddy kiss
me. I never saw him again.
“[W]e were wakened by the sound of tires screeching, engines stopping abruptly, orders yelled, general din,
and a hammering on the window shutters. Then the intruders broke through the door, and we saw Americans with rifles who
stood in front of our bed and shone lights at us. None of them spoke German, but their gestures said: ‘Get dressed,
come with us immediately.’ This was my fourth arrest.”
So wrote Leni Riefenstahl, a talented young woman who was perhaps
the world’s greatest film-maker. Because her epic documentaries— Triumph of the Will and Olympia—seemed
paeans to not only Germany, but National Socialism, and because of her close relationship with an admiring Adolf Hitler,
Leni was of more than passing interest to the Allies. Though false, rumors also hinted that the attractive, sometimes-actress
was also a “mistress of the devil”—that she and Hitler were lovers.
“Neither my husband nor my mother nor any of my three assistants
had ever joined the Nazi Party, nor had any of us been politically active,” said the confused young woman. “No
charges had ever been filed against us, yet we were at the mercy of the [Allies] and had no legal protection of any kind.”
Soon after Leni’s fourth arrest, came a fifth.
The jeep raced along the autobahns until,
a few hours later ...I was brought to the Salzburg Prison; there an elderly prison matron rudely pushed me into the cell,
kicking me so hard that I fell to the ground; then the door was locked. There were two other women in the dark, barren room,
and one of them, on her knees, slid about the floor, jabbering confusedly; then she began to scream, her limbs writhing hysterically.
She seemed to have lost her mind. The other woman crouched on her bunk, weeping to herself.
As Leni and others quickly discovered, the
“softening up” process began soon after arrival at an Allied prison. When Ernst von Salomon, his Jewish girl
friend and fellow prisoners reached an American holding pen near Munich, the men were promptly led into a room and brutally
beaten by military police. With his teeth knocked out and blood spurting from his mouth, von Salomon moaned to a gum-chewing
officer, “You are no gentlemen.” The remark brought only a roar of laughter from the attackers. “No, no,
no!” the GIs grinned. “We are Mississippi boys!” In another room, military policemen raped the women at
will while leering soldiers watched from windows. After such savage treatment, the feelings of despair only intensified
once the captives were crammed into cells.
“The people had been standing there for three days, waiting to be interrogated,” remembered
a German physician ordered to treat prisoners in the Soviet Zone. “At the sight of us a pandemonium broke out which
left me helpless.... As far as I could gather, the usual senseless questions were being reiterated: Why were they there,
and for how long? They had no water and hardly anything to eat. They wanted to be let out more often than once a day....
A great many of them have dysentery so badly that they can no longer get up.” “Young Poles made fun
of us,” said a woman from her cell in the same zone. “[They] threw bricks through the windows, paperbags with
sand, and skins of hares filled with excrement. We did not dare to move or offer resistance, but huddled together in the
farthest corner, in order not to be hit, which could not always be avoided. . . . [W]e were never free from torments.”
“For hours on end I rolled about on my bed, trying to forget my surroundings,” recalled Leni Riefenstahl,
“but it was impossible.”
The mentally disturbed woman kept screaming—all through the night; but even worse were the
yells and shrieks of men from the courtyard, men who were being beaten, screaming like animals. I subsequently found out
that a company of SS men was being interrogated.
They came for me the next morning, and I was taken to a padded cell where I had to
strip naked, and a woman examined every square inch of my body. Then I had to get dressed and go down to the courtyard, where
many men were standing, apparently prisoners, and I was the only woman. We had to line up before an American guard who spoke
German. The prisoners stood to attention, so I tried to do the same, and then an American came who spoke fluent German.
He pushed a few people together, then halted at the first in our line.
“Were you in the Party?” The prisoner hesitated
for a moment, then said: Yes.” He was slugged in the face and spat blood. The American went on to the next
in line. “Were you in the Party?” The man hesitated. “Yes or no?”
“Yes.” And he too got punched so hard in the face that the blood ran out of his mouth. However,
like the first man, he didn’t dare resist. They didn’t even instinctively raise their hands to protect themselves.
They did nothing. They put up with the blows like dogs. The next man was asked: “Were you in the Party?”
Silence. “Well?” “No,” he yelled, so no punch. From then on nobody admitted
that he had been in the Party and I was not even asked.
As the above case illustrated, there often was no rhyme or reason to the examinations;
all seemed designed to force from the victim what the inquisitor wanted to hear, whether true or false. Additionally, most
such “interrogations” were structured to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible. Explained one prisoner:
The purpose of these interrogations
is not to worm out of the people what they knew—which would be uninteresting anyway—but to extort from them
special statements. The methods resorted to are extremely primitive; people are beaten up until they confess to having been
members of the Nazi Party.... The authorities simply assume that, basically, everybody has belonged to the Party. Many people
die during and after these interrogations, while others, who admit at once their party membership, are treated more leniently.
“A young commissar,
who was a great hater of the Germans, cross-examined me... ,” said Gertrude Schulz. “When he put the question:
‘Frauenwerk [Women’s Labor Service]?’ I answered in the negative. Thereupon he became so enraged, that
he beat me with a stick, until I was black and blue. I received about 15 blows ... on my left upper arm, on my back and
on my thigh. I collapsed and, as in the case of the first cross-examination, I had to sign the questionnaire.”
American torture pen
“Both officers who took our testimony were former German Jews,” reminisced a member
of the women’s SS, Anna Fest. While vicious dogs snarled nearby, one of the officers screamed questions and accusations
at Anna. If the answers were not those desired, “he kicked me in the back and the other hit me.”
They kept saying we must
have been armed, have had pistols or so. But we had no weapons, none of us....I had no pistol. I couldn’t say, just
so they’d leave me in peace, yes, we had pistols. The same thing would happen to the next person to testify.... [T]he
terrible thing was, the German men had to watch. That was a horrible, horrible experience.... That must have been terrible
for them. When I went outside, several of them stood there with tears running down their cheeks. What could they have done?
They could do nothing.
Not surprisingly, with beatings, rape, torture, and death facing them, few victims failed to “confess”
and most gladly inked their name to any scrap of paper shown them. Some, like Anna, tried to resist. Such recalcitrance
was almost always of short duration, however. Generally, after enduring blackened eyes, broken bones, electric shock to
breasts—or, in the case of men, smashed testicles—only those who died during torture failed to sign confessions.
Alone, surrounded by sadistic hate, utterly bereft of law, many victims understandably escaped by taking their own
lives. Like tiny islands in a vast sea of evil, however, miracles did occur. As he limped painfully back to his prison cell,
one Wehrmacht officer reflected on the insults, beatings, and tortures he had endured and contemplated suicide.
I could not see properly
in the semi-darkness and missed my open cell door. A kick in the back and I was sprawling on the floor. As I raised myself
I said to myself I could not, should not accept this humiliation. I sat on my bunk. I had hidden a razor blade that would
serve to open my veins. Yes. You can mangle this poor body—I looked down
at the running sores on my legs—but myself, my honor, ...that is within me, you cannot touch. This body is only a
shell, not my real self... New strength seemed to rise in me.
I was pondering over what seemed to me a miracle when the heavy lock turned in the
cell door. A very young American soldier came in, put his finger to his lips to warn me not to speak. “I saw it,”
he said. “Here are baked potatoes.” He pulled the potatoes out of his pocket and gave them to me, and then went
out, locking the door behind him.
Horrific as de-Nazification was in the British, French and, especially the American Zone, it was nothing compared
to what took place in Poland, behind Soviet lines, much like the violation of Germans that occured in 1939 at the hands
of communist Polish Jews, which motivated Hitler to make the humanitarian intervention into Poland which was then used as
the excuse for war against Germany. In hundreds of concentration camps sponsored by an apparatus called the “Office
of State Security,” thousands of Germans—male and female, old and young, high and low, Nazi official and non–Nazi
official, SS, Wehrmacht, Volkssturm, Hitler Youth, all—were rounded up and imprisoned. Staffed and run by Jews, with
help from Poles, Czechs, Russians, and other concentration camp survivors (where radicals, degenerates and enemies of the
German people were held to prevent them from attacking German people, society at large and the war effort), the prisons
were little better than torture chambers where dying was a thing to be prolonged, not hastened. While those with blond hair,
blue eyes and handsome features were first to go, anyone who spoke German would do, these Communists enforced dysgenics of
the most Semitic form. Moments after arrival, prisoners were made horrifyingly aware of their fate. John Sack,
himself a Jew, reports on one camp run by twenty-six-year-old Shlomo Morel:
“I was at Auschwitz,” Shlomo proclaimed, lying to the
Germans but, even more, to himself, psyching himself like a fighter the night of the championship, filling himself with
hate for the Germans around him. “I was at Auschwitz for six long years, and I swore that if I got out, I’d
pay all you Nazis back.” His eyes sent spears, but the “Nazis” sent him a look of simple bewilderment.
. . . “Now sing the Horst Wessel Song!” No one did, and Shlomo, who carried a hard rubber club, hit it against
a bed like some judge’s gavel. “Sing it, I say!” “The flags held high . . . ,” some
Germans began. “Everyone!” Shlomo said. “The ranks closed tight. . . .”
“I said everyone!” “Blond!” Shlomo cried to the blondest, bluest-eyed person
there. “I said sing!” He swung his rubber club at the man’s golden head and hit it. The man staggered
back. “Our comrades, killed by the Reds and Reactionaries... .” “Sonofabitch!” Shlomo
cried, enraged that the man was defying him by not singing but staggering back. He hit him again, saying, “Sing!”
“Are marching in spirit with us...” “Louder!” “Clear the street
for the Brown Battalions... .” “Still louder!” cried Shlomo, hitting another shouting man....
“Millions of hopeful people... .” “Nazi pigs!” “Are looking to the swastika...
.” “Schweine!” Shlomo cried. He threw down his rubber club, grabbed a wooden stool, and, a leg
in his fist, started beating a German’s head. Without thinking, the man raised his arms, and Shlomo, enraged that
the man would try to evade his just punishment, cried, “Sonofawhore!” and slammed the stool against the man’s
chest. The man dropped his arms, and Shlomo started hitting his now undefended head when snap! the leg of the stool split
off, and, cursing the German birchwood, he grabbed another stool and hit the German with that. No one was singing now, but
Shlomo, shouting, didn’t notice. The other guards called out, “Blond!” “Black!” “Short!”
“Tall!” and as each of these terrified people came up, they wielded their clubs upon him. The brawl went on
till eleven o’clock, when the sweat-drenched invaders cried, “Pigs! We will fix you up!” and left the Germans
alone. Some were quite fixed.... Shlomo and his subordinates had killed them. (These are the
true war crimes, all committed by Jews)
The next night it was more of the same . . . and the next night and the next and the next. Those
who survived the “welcoming committees” at this and other camps were flung back into their pens.
“I was put with
30 women into a cell, which was intended to accommodate one person,” Gerlinde Winkler recalled. “The narrow space,
into which we were rammed, was unbearable and our legs were all entangled together. . . . The women, ill with dysentery,
were only allowed to go out once a day, in order to relieve themselves. A bucket without a cover was pushed into the cell
with the remark: ‘Here you have one, you German sows.’ The stink was insupportable, and we were not allowed to
open the little window.”
“The air in the cells became dense, the smell of the excrement filled it, the heat was like in Calcutta, and
the flies made the ceiling black,” wrote John Sack. “I’m choking, the Germans thought, and one even took
the community razor blade and, in despair, cut his throat open with it.”
When the wretched inmates were at last pried from their hellish
tombs, it was only for interrogation. Sack continues:
As many as eight interrogators, almost all Jews, stood around any one German saying,
“Were you in the Nazi Party?” Sometimes a German said, “Yes,” and the boys shouted, “Du schwein!
You pig!” and beat him and broke his arm, perhaps, before sending him to his cell. . . . But usually a German said,
“No,” and the boys ... told him, “You’re lying. You were a Nazi.” “No, I never
was.” “You’re lying! We know about you!” “No, I really wasn’t—”
“Du lugst! You’re lying!” they cried, hitting the obstinate man. “You better admit it! Or
you’ll get a longer sentence! Now! Were you in the Nazi Party?” “No!” the German often said,
and the boys had to beat him and beat him until he was really crying, “I was a Nazi! Yes!” But sometimes
a German wouldn’t confess. One such hard case was a fifty-year-old.... “Were you in the Party?”
“No, I wasn’t in it.” “How many people work for you?” “In
the high season, thirty-five.” “You must have been in the Party,” the boy deduced. He
asked for the German’s wallet, where he found a fishing license with the stamp of the German Anglers Association. Studying
it, he told the German, “It’s stamped by the Party.” “It’s not,” said the German.
He’d lost his left
arm in World War I and was using his right arm to gesture with, and, to the boy, he may have seemed to be Heiling Hitler.
The boy became violent. He grabbed the man’s collar, hit the man’s head against the wall, hit it against it
ten times more, threw the man’s body onto the floor, and, in his boots, jumped on the man’s cringing chest as
though jumping rope. A half dozen other interrogators, almost all Jews, pushed the man onto a couch, pulled off his trousers,
and hit him with hard rubber clubs and hard rubber hoses full of stones. The sweat started running down the Jews’
arms, and the blood down the man’s naked legs. “Warst du in der Partei?” “Nein!”
“Warst du in der Partei?” “Nein!” the German screamed—screamed, till the boys
had to go to Shlomo’s kitchen for a wooden spoon and to use it to cram some rags in the German’s mouth. Then
they resumed beating him. . . . The more the man contradicted them, the more they hated him for it.
one of thousands of Jewish psychopaths involved, many of whose descendants form the core of modern leftwing political parties
in Europe, such as relatives of the Milibands and Barbara Spectre's.
After undergoing similar sessions on a regular basis, the victim
was brought back for the eighth time.
By now, the man was half unconscious due to his many concussions, and he wasn’t thinking clearly.
The boys worked on him with rubber and oak-wood clubs and said, “Do you still say you weren’t in the Party?”
“No! I didn’t say I wasn’t in the Party!” “You didn’t?”
“No!” said the punch drunk man. “I never said it!” “You were in the Party?”
“Yes!” The boys stopped beating him. They practically sighed, as if their ordeal were over
now. They lit up cigarettes.... “Scram,” one said to the German. The man stood up, and he had his hand
on the doorknob when one of the boys impulsively hit the back of his head, and he fell to the floor, unconscious.
“Aufstehen, du Deutsches schwein. Stand up, you German pig,” the boys said, kicking him till he stood up and
collapsed again. Two boys carried him to his cell and dropped him in a corner.... Of course, the boys would beat
up the Germans for “Yes”es as well as “No”s. In Glatz, the Jewish commandant asked a German policeman,
“Were you in the Party?” “Of course! I was obliged to be!” “Lie down,”
the commandant said, and six weeks later the boys were still whipping the German’s feet.
Some torture sessions lacked even the pretense
of an examination. Remembered Eva Reimann:
My cell door opened. The guard, who, because of the foul smell, held a handkerchief
to his nose, cried, “Reimann Eva! Come!” I was led to a first-floor room. He shouted at me, “Take
off your shoes!” I took them off. “Lie down!” I lay down. He took a thick bamboo stick, and he beat the
soles of my feet. I screamed, since the pain was very great. . . . The stick whistled down on me. A blow on my mouth tore
my lower lip, and my teeth started bleeding violently. He beat my feet again. The pain was unbearable.... The
door opened suddenly, and, smiling obligingly, a cigarette in his mouth, in came the chief of the Office, named Sternnagel.
In faultless German he asked me, “What’s wrong here? Why do you let yourself be beaten? You just have to sign
this document. Or should we jam your fingers in the door, until the bones are broad. . . ?
A man picked me up by the ankles, raised
me eight inches above the floor, and let me fall. My hands were tied, and my head hit hard. . . . I lay in a bloody puddle.
Someone cried, “Stand up!” I tried to, and, with unspeakable pain, I succeeded. A man with a pistol came, held
it to my left temple, and said, “Will you now confess?” I told him, “Please shoot me.” Yes, I hoped
to be freed from all his tortures. I begged him, “Please pull the trigger.”
After barely surviving his “interrogation,” one fourteen-year-old
was taken to the camp infirmary. “My body was green, but my legs were fire red,” the boy said. “My wounds
were bound with toilet paper, and I had to change the toilet paper every day. I was in the perfect place to watch what went
on.... All the patients were beaten people, and they died everywhere: at their beds, in the washroom, on the toilet. At night,
I had to step over the dead as if that were normal to do.” When the supply of victims ran low, it was a simple
matter to find more.
John Sack: One day, a German in pitch-black pants, the SS’s color,
showed up in Lola’s prison. He’d been spotted near the city square by a Pole who’d said, “Fascist!
You’re wearing black!” At that, the German had bolted off, but the Pole chased him a mile to the Church of Saints
Peter and Paul, tackled him by a gold mosaic, hit him, kicked him, and took him to Lola’s prison. Some guards, all
girls, then seized the incriminating evidence: the man’s black pants, pulling them off so aggressively that one of
the tendons tore. The man screamed, but the girls said, “Shut up!” and they didn’t recognize that the pants
were part of a boy scout uniform. The “man” was fourteen years old. The girls decided to torture him
[with]. . . . fire. They held down the German boy, put out their cigarettes on him, and, using gasoline, set his curly black
the larger prison camps, Germans died by the hundreds daily. “You pigs!” the commandant then
cried, and he beat the Germans with their stools, often killing them. At dawn many days, a Jewish guard cried, “Eins!
Zwei! Drei! Vier!” and marched the Germans into the woods outside their camp. “Halt! Get your shovels! Dig!”
the guard cried, and, when the Germans had dug a big grave, he put a picture of Hitler in. “Now cry!” the guard
said. “And sing All the Dogs Are Barking!” and all the Germans moaned, All the dogs are barking,
All the dogs are barking, Just the little hot-dogs, Aren’t barking at all.
The guard then cried, “Get undressed!” and, when the Germans were naked, he beat them, poured liquid
manure on them, or, catching a toad, shoved the fat thing down a German’s throat, the German soon dying.
Utterly unhinged by years
of persecution, by the loss of homes and loved ones, for the camp operators, no torture, no sadism, no bestiality, seemed
too monstrous to inflict on those now in their power. Some Germans were forced to crawl on all fours and eat their own excrement
as well as that of others. Many were drowned in open latrines. Hundreds were herded into buildings and burned to death or
sealed in caskets and buried alive. Near Lamsdorf, German women were forced to disinter bodies from a Polish burial
site. According to John Sack:
The women did, and they started to suffer nausea as the bodies, black as the stuff in a gutter,
appeared. The faces were rotten, the flesh was glue, but the guards—who had often seemed psychopathic, making a German
woman drink urine, drink blood, and eat a man’s excrement, inserting an oily five-mark bill in a woman’s vagina,
putting a match to it—shouted at the women . . . “Lie down with them!” The women did, and the guards shouted,
“Hug them!” “Kiss them!” “Make love with them!” and, with their rifles, pushed on the
backs of the women’s heads until their eyes, noses and mouths were deep in the Polish faces’ slime. The women
who clamped their lips couldn’t scream, and the women who screamed had to taste something vile. Spitting, retching,
the women at last stood up, the wet tendrils still on their chins, fingers, clothes, the wet seeping into the fibers, the
stink like a mist around them as they marched back to Lamsdorf. There were no showers there, and the corpses had all had
typhus, apparently, and sixty-four women . . . died.
Not surprisingly, the mortality rate at the concentration camps was staggering and
relatively few survived. At one prison of eight thousand, a mere 1,500 lived to reach home. And of those “lucky”
individuals who did leave with their lives, few could any longer be called human.
When a smattering of accounts began to leak from Poland of the
unspeakable crimes being committed, many in the West were stunned. “One would expect that after the horrors in Nazi
concentration camps, nothing like that could ever happen again,” muttered one US senator, who then reported on beatings,
torture and “brains splashed on the ceiling.”
“Is this what our soldiers died for?” echoed a Briton in the House of
Commons. Added Winston Churchill: “Enormous numbers [of Germans] are utterly unaccounted for. It is not impossible
that tragedy on a prodigious scale is unfolding itself behind the Iron Curtain.”
While Churchill and others in the West were expressing shock and
surprise over the sadistic slaughter taking place in the Soviet Zone, precious little was said about the “tragedy
on a prodigious scale” that was transpiring in their own backyard.
Among the millions imprisoned by the Allies were thousands of Germans
accused of having a direct or indirect hand in war crimes. Because the victorious powers demanded swift and severe punishment,
Allied prosecutors were urged to get the most damning indictments in as little time as possible. Unfortunately for the accused,
their captors seemed determined to inflict as much pain as possible in the process.
“[W]e were thrown into small cells stark naked,” Hans
Schmidt later wrote. “The cells in which three or four persons were incarcerated were six and a half by ten feet in
size and had no windows or ventilation.”
When we went to the lavatory we had to run through a lane of Americans who struck
us with straps, brooms, cudgels, buckets, belts, and pistol holders to make us fall down. Our head, eyes, body, belly, and
genitals were violently injured. A man stood inside the lavatory to beat us and spit on us. We returned to our cells through
the same ordeal. The temperature in the cells was 140 Fahrenheit or more. During the first three days we were given only
one cup of water and a small slice of bread. During the first days we perspired all the time, then perspiration stopped.
We were kept standing chained back to back for hours. We suffered terribly from thirst, blood stagnation and mortification
of the hands. From time to time water was poured on the almost red-hot radiators, filling the cells with steam, so that we
could hardly breathe. During all this time the cells were in darkness, except when the American soldiers entered and switched
on electric bulbs ... which forced us to close our eyes.
Our thirst became more and more cruel, so that our lips cracked, our tongues were
stiff, and we eventually became apathetic, or raved, or collapsed. After enduring this torture for several days,
we were given a small blanket to cover our nakedness, and driven to the courtyard outside. The uneven soil was covered with
pebbles and slag and we were again beaten and finally driven back on our smashed and bleeding feet. While out of breath,
burning cigarettes were pushed into our mouths, and each of us was forced to eat three or four of them. Meanwhile the American
soldiers continued to hit us on eyes, head, and ears. Back in our cells we were pushed against burning radiators, so that
our skin was blistered.
For thirteen days and nights we received the same treatment, tortured by heat and thirst. When we begged for water,
our guards mocked us. When we fainted we were revived by being drenched with cold water. There was dirt everywhere and we
were never allowed to wash, our inflamed eyes gave us terrible pain, we fainted continuously.
Every twenty minutes or so our cell doors
were opened and the soldiers insulted and hit us. Whenever the doors were opened we had to stand still with our backs to
the door. Two plates of food, spiced with salt, pepper, and mustard to make us thirstier, were given us daily. We ate in
the dark on the floor. The thirst was the most terrible of all our tortures and we could not sleep. In this condition
I was brought to trial.
During the Nazi war crimes trials and hearings, almost any method that would obtain a “confession” was
employed. Eager to implicate high-ranking German officers in the Malmedy Massacre, American investigator Harry Thon ordered
Wehrmacht sergeant Willi Schafer to write out an incriminating affidavit:
Next morning Mr. Thon appeared in my cell, read my report, tore
it up, swore at me and hit me. After threatening to have me killed unless I wrote what he wanted, he left. A few minutes
later the door of my cell opened, a black hood encrusted with blood, was put over my head and face and I was led to another
room. In view of Mr. Thon’s threat the black cap had a crushing effect on my spirits.... Four men of my company ...
accused me, although later they admitted to having borne false testimony. Nevertheless I still refused to incriminate myself.
Thereupon Mr. Thon said that if I continued to refuse this would be taken as proof of my Nazi opinions, and . . . my death
was certain. He said I would have no chance against four witnesses, and advised me for my own good to make a statement after
which I would be set free. . . . I still refused. I told Mr. Thon that although my memory was good, I was unable to recall
any of the occurrences he wished me to write about and which to the best of my knowledge had never occurred. Mr.
Thon left but returned in a little while with Lieutenant [William] Perl who abused me, and told Mr. Thon that, should I not
write what was required within half an hour, I should be left to my fate. Lieutenant Perl made it clear to me that I had
the alternative of writing and going free or not writing and dying. I decided for life.
Another Landser unable to resist the pressure was Joachim Hoffman:
taken for a hearing a black hood was placed over my head. The guards who took me to my hearing often struck or kicked me.
I was twice thrown down the stairs and was hurt so much that blood ran out of my mouth and nose. At the hearing, when I
told the officers about the ill treatment I had suffered, they only laughed. I was beaten and the black cap pulled over
my face whenever I could not answer the questions put to me, or gave answers not pleasing to the officers....I was beaten
and several times kicked in the genitals.
Understandably, after several such sessions, even the strongest submitted and signed
papers incriminating themselves and others. “If you confess you will go free,” nineteen-year-old Siegfried
Jaenckel was told. “[Y]ou need only to say you had an order from your superiors. But if you won’t speak you
will be hung.”
Despite the mental and physical abuse, young Jaenckel held out as long as he could: “I was beaten and I heard
the cries of the men being tortured in adjoining cells, and whenever I was taken for a hearing I trembled with fear....
Subjected to such duress I eventually gave in, and signed the long statement dictated to me.”
from being isolated or extreme cases, such methods of extorting confessions were the rule rather than the exception. Wrote
author Freda Utley, who learned of the horror after speaking with American jurist Edward van Roden:
Beatings and brutal kickings; knocking-out
of teeth and breaking of jaws; mock trials; solitary confinement; torture with burning splinters; the use of investigators
pretending to be priests; starvation; and promises of acquittal. . . . Judge van Roden said: “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
our American investigators.” He told of one German who had had lighted matchsticks forced under his fingernails by
the American investigators to extort a confession, and had appeared at his trial with his fingers still bandaged from the
In addition to testimony given under torture, those who might have spoken in defense of the accused were prevented.
Moreover, hired “witnesses” were paid by the Americans to parrot the prosecution’s charges.
When criticism such as
Utley’s and van Roden’s surfaced, and even as victims were being hung by the hundreds, those responsible defended
“We couldn’t have made those birds talk otherwise... ,” laughed one Jewish “interrogator,”
Colonel A. H. Rosenfeld. “It was a trick, and it worked like a charm.”
is the true history of the war crimes of the “Good war” and the “Good peace” as Tom Goodrich describes
in order to draw emphasis to the sadistic hypocrisy of the Jewish controlled historical narrative. We must look at these
crimes and then as Germanic folk declare that we shall avenge them. We shall never again let our Germanic folk be subject
to such vile, Semitic malice, in accordance with this declaration we must prevent the worse ongoing Jewish Supremacist engineered
defilement of our nations through mass immigration, where our people are being made victims of African and Asian immigrant
criminality and demographic invasion, worse than even what these Germans faced at the hands of the likes of the Jewish Shlomo
Morel or the USSRs Genrich Yagoda. Statistically the victims of the likes of Ed Milibands “open the floodgates”
Hellstorm of an immigration policy would be far more damaging long-term. This is our calling to defiance, in remembrance
of the crimes against our people in the past, from the Semitic controlled Rome through to the Semitic controlled Charlemagne
and worser leaders since, culminating and worsening post 1945, we must retake control of every level of our civilization
to prevent this from continuing, dedicated defiance, politically, socially and logistically.
We must remember the real histories of our
people and use their memories, in their suffering of the hellstorms inflicted upon them, to inspire us to prevent the descendants
of these same Jewish Supremacists from taking or retaining electoral and wider socio-political power today, in each and
every area in this era we must defend our folk, we must reclaim the media, the schools, the universities, councils, police
forces, military forces, national services, judicial commissions and all our borders and each and every currently occupied
street and town, in order to safeguard our Germanic folk from the ongoing Semitic and non-European destruction, degradation
and demographic defilement against our sacred Germanic folk.
---Rise up in defiance---
Click on this text to watch an interview with a former Waffen SS soldier (1985)
Why Did America Bomb France in World War II?
... Rouen was not the only French victim of Allied bombs,
nor was it even the worst. Some 1,570 French cities and towns were bombed or hit by artillery fire by Anglo-American forces
between June 1940 and May 1945. As an example of the devastation, it is estimated that 95 percent of Saint-Lô was
destroyed; Carentan and Caen, too, were virtually flattened. Some figures show that 432,000 homes and apartments across
France were destroyed and another 890,000 homes were damaged. The number of French civilians killed and injured before,
during, and after their liberation has long been a matter of heated debate in France. One French historian estimates that
more than 50,000 men, women, and children died ... The total number of dead could be as high as 70,000; more than 100,000
Parisians Jeer, Harass
Allied Prisoners, 1944
footage of Parisians venting anger against Allied prisoners of war. Shortly after the Allied D-Day invasion of Normandy
in June 1944, British and American soldiers who had been captured by German forces are marched through Paris, under German
guard, apparently for transfer to a railroad station. Large crowds gather to watch. While most look on silently, some women
and men jeer, harass, assault and even spit at the prisoners. German soldiers and French police keep Parisians from even
more violent abuse of the PoWs. Silent footage. Runtime: 2:18 mins.
How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America
... American involvement in war with Germany was preceded by a long series of steps
[by FDR, including] ... the orders to American warships to shoot at sight at German submarines, 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.
Life 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.
Wartime Bombings of Neutral Switzerland
By Joachim Hoffmann
For some time now it has become common to beat up on prototypically democratic Switzerland
in a sometimes unfriendly and occasionally almost hateful way. Apparently this is being done for political motives.
To this end, certain regrettable events during the Second World War are strongly emphasized,
without in all fairness mentioning the difficult circumstances under which the Swiss Confederation had to maintain its neutrality
and sovereignty toward not only the Axis powers, and especially Germany, but also toward the western Allies.
Above all the United States, which is in the forefront of the accusatory critics, should
permit itself to be reminded of the great extent to which, for years, it violated Swiss neutrality. From 1943 onwards American
war planes flew at will over the neutral country, sometimes in flight formations, in attacks on targets in the German Reich.
Time and again they also carried out offensive operations against Swiss territory. Thus,
on April 1, 1944, Schaffhausen was the victim of an intense American air attack, with considerable human losses and heavy
destruction of property. Passenger and freight rail cars, viaducts and train stations were also repeatedly bombed or fired
upon, such as in Chiasso and Basel, resulting in numerous fatalities and extensive material damage. On February 22, 1945,
alone 18 Swiss lost their lives, and 50 were wounded, some severely, in American bombing attacks and air raids on the northern
part of the country.
In the aftermath of the American air
attacks on Basel and Zürich on March 5, 1945, which once again caused considerable human losses and material damage,
the government in Washington was notified in a strongly worded protest of the routine flouting of Swiss neutrality, and of
the steadily increasing number of border violations, and that such bombings were intolerable. The situation had become so
tense that Washington directed the supreme commander of the United States Army Air Force in Europe, General Spaatz, and
his chief of staff, to go to Bern [the Swiss capital] in person to apologize and promise reform.
Among the various US airplanes that came down on Swiss territory were no fewer than 160
large four-motor B-17 "flying fortress" bombers and B-24 "Liberators," either because the crews wanted
to avoid being taken prisoner in Germany, or were deserters who simply wanted to get out of military service, or because
they were forced to land or were shot down by Swiss flyers or air defense forces.
War planes of other countries also repeatedly carried out offensive operations against Switzerland,
including, on a large scale, by the British Royal Air Force, and also, not so seriously but still considerable, by the German
Luftwaffe, and even on occasion by French planes.
none of the nations at war so massively and continuously challenged Swiss neutrality, and caused such great loss of life
and destruction of property, as the bombers and fighter planes of the United States air force.
From The Journal of Historical Review, Nov.-Dec. 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 6),
This item originally appeared as a reader's letter
in the September 1997 issue of the Swiss magazine Schweizer Soldat.
About the Author
(1930- 2002), was an eminent German historian. He studied modern history, eastern European history and comparative ethnology
at the University of Hamburg and at the Free University in Berlin He received his doctorate (Dr. phil.) in history in 1959.
Between 1960 and 1995, he was a historian with the Militärgeschichtliche Forschungsamt (Military History Research
Center), a federal German government agency. For a time he served as the Center’s scholarly director. Hoffmann was
the author of several books and numerous articles, dealing especially with 19th century political, diplomatic and military
history, and the history of the German-Soviet War.
Adolf Hitler: My Political Testament (Berlin, 29 April 1945)
Since 1914, when as a volunteer,
I made my modest contribution in the World War 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.
THE GREAT DEBATE: CHURCHILL vs HITLER
(The "debate" is based
upon actual quotes arranged mostly in chronological order)
Compiled by Mike King
* A skeptical
reader might suspect that the quotes below were cherry-picked out of context and arranged for propaganda
purposes. This is an understandable, though mistaken suspicion. We therefore invite you, after 'the
debate', to also read 'The British Mad Dog' and 'The Bad War' . Both works will provide a full and truthful explanation of Hitler, Churchill and
World War II.
Minister Churchill. We begin with you...
We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon
the world another war in which civilization will irretrievably succumb... It is on this mystery of
the future that history will pronounce Hitler either a monster
or a hero.
I appeal to reason in international affairs. I want to show that the idea of eternal
enmity is wrong. We are not hereditary enemies.
There can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi
Power. Which cheers its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which vaunts the spirit of aggression
and conquest, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have
seen, with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force.
At no time and in no place have I ever acted contrary to British interests … I believe even today that there can only be real peace in Europe and
throughout the world if Germany and England come to an understanding.
say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have nothing to offer
but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We
have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering.
this hour I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense, in
Great Britain as much as elsewhere. ... I can see no reason why this war must go on.
We shall go on to the end. We shall fight on the seas, we shall
fight in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on
the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the
streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender...
and time again I have offered friendship, and if necessary closest cooperation, to England. But love cannot be
offered from one side only. It must be met with reciprocation by the other side.
Germany is not pursuing any interests in the West.
ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs. Victory in spite of all
terrors. Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no
All of my peace overtures
have been rejected and war was declared on us.... The German people has no hatred, no inimical feeling
toward the English or French people.
There is one thing
that will bring Hitler down, and that is an absolutely devastating exterminating attack
by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland.
Again and again I uttered these warnings against this specific
type of aerial warfare, and I did so for over three and a half months. That these warnings failed to impress Mr.
Churchill does not surprise me in the least. For what does this man care for the lives of others? What
does he care for culture or for architecture?
And even if this Island
or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded
by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World (United
States), with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
(Roosevelt) is resolved to take over,
as safely and securely as possible, the British Empire in the moment of its downfall. Since England
is no longer in the position to pay cash for all the American deliveries.
I have it in me to be a successful soldier. I can visualize
great movements and combinations.
Churchill is the most bloodthirsty of amateur strategists that history has ever known.
We never thought of peace, not even in that year when we were completely
isolated and could have made peace without serious detriment to the British Empire. Why should we think
of it now, when victory approaches for the three of us?
untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. ...
I have made too many offers for the limitation and control of armaments, which posterity will not
be cowardly enough always to disregard, for responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be placed
on me. Nor have I ever wished that, after the appalling First World War, there would ever
be a second against either England or America.
I want proposals for "basting the Germans on their
retreat from Breslau."
January, 1945 (3 weeks before the
genocidal firebombing of the civilians of Dresden)
will go by, but from the ruins of our towns and monuments the hatred of those ultimately responsible
will always grow anew against the people whom we have to thank for all this: international Jewry and
its henchmen (Churchill, FDR).
In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.
The gift Mr. Churchill possesses is the gift to lie with
a pious expression on his face and to distort the truth until finally glorious victories are made out
of the most terrible defeats.
I consider that it will be found much better by all Parties to leave the past
to history, especially as I propose to write that history.
...despite all setbacks, (this war) will one day go down
in history as the most glorious and heroic manifestation of the struggle for existence of a nation.
British Torture at Bad Nenndorf
By Johannes Heyne
is a bathing resort in the fringe of the uplands of the River Weser's watershed where people with joint ailments
are treated with mud baths and soaks in sulfurous waters. On the grounds of the spa suffused with sulfur fumes
stands a stately mud-bath house from the 19th Century. At the entrance, cure-seekers are greeted by the goddess
Hygeia. Late in the 1920s, the bathhouse was extended into a massive complex with innumerable bathing huts.
After the end of the
war, Bad Nenndorf wound up in the British Zone of occupation. In violation of the Hague Convention for Land Warfare,
the occupiers subjugated the civil order and persecuted civilians, in particular political leaders, of the conquered
land. In the Potsdam Protocol of August 2, 1945, the following is proclaimed:
War criminals and those who have participated in planning or carrying out
Nazi enterprises involving or resulting in atrocities or war crimes shall be arrested and brought to
judgment. Nazi leaders, influential Nazi supporters and high officials of Nazi organizations and institutions
and any other persons dangerous to the occupation or its objectives shall be arrested and interned.
In accordance therewith, the area surrounding
the mud-bath house was designated a Civil Internment Camp in early August 1945. 1200 residents of the area
had to vacate their houses. The area was fenced off with barbed wire. The mud-bath house received a new function:
registration center and prison for Germans who were to be charged as war criminals. In the bathing huts, the fixtures
were removed and the tubs in the floors cemented over. From this resulted functional prison cells with tiled walls.
NSDAP functionaries, members of the
SS, officers from every branch of the Wehrmacht, diplomats and industrialists were confined in the cells in order
to be "prepared" for the coming war-criminal trials. But here also were kept defecting Soviet officers
and mere illegal immigrants who were suspected of being spies for the Soviet Union-that same Soviet Union that
was still an ally of Great Britain in 1945 and 1946.
The guard staff consisted of members of a British punishment company,
who hoped by faithful performance in this assignment to recover the ranks that they had been stripped of.
Report of Victim Oswald Pohl
There are only two reports of conditions in
the mud-bath house at Bad Nenndorf. One report comes from the head of the Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungshauptamt of
the SS (Economic and Administrative Main Office), SS General Oswald Pohl, who was confined for a time at Camp Bad
Nenndorf at the end of May 1945. In the last communication before his execution, he wrote:
|The mud-bath house at Bad Nenndorf|
"Our treatment by
the English in Bad Nenndorf was inhuman. I was confined alone in a cell in which there were four plank beds. My
handcuffs were not removed in the locked and watched cell neither by day nor by night, neither when I ate nor when I attended
to bodily needs. Indeed, at night with my hands still tied, I was bound by yet another fetter to the posts of
the plank bed so that I could not move and for that reason was unable to sleep. I was hustled to my interviews
down a long corridor to the interrogation room, during which some of the warders pushed me from behind, and others
were to either side, who occasionally knocked me down with tripping and kicks. In front of the door of the interrogation
room, I was forced to run in place until the beginning of the interview, which the warders forced to an ever-higher
tempo by kicks in the ass and curses and threats. All this happened under the gaze of the sergeant posted at the
scene. The way back to my cell consisted of the same gauntlet, wherein I was often knocked down by tripping, and
ran headlong into the wall. On the second day, a chair was brought into my cell. I had to site down to be 'shaved.'
Even though I was shackled, two warders held me down on the chair while a third pulled my head back unmercifully
by the hair so that I fell backward several times....
A fourth warder smeared
my face with something that burned like acid while he slapped my face back and forth. After he had thoroughly
'lathered' me, he scraped my face with a dull razor so roughly that my blood dripped onto my jacket. During this
procedure, his helpers continually spewed violent threats and imprecations in my face.
though on command, everyone in the cell—there must have been eight or ten of them—set upon me, yanked
me up, and pummeled me blindly, bound and defenseless as I was. Blows of fists rained down on my head and kicks
hit me in every part of my body. Tottering on my legs, I careened from corner to corner until I collapsed unconscious
from a massive blow or kick to the area of the stomach.
When I came to, all was quiet in my
cell. I lay on a plank bed and I noticed that two doctors were attending me, one of whom took my pulse. My handcuffs
were off. I passed out again.
I was only able to guess how long all this had taken after night
had fallen. Since it was almost dark when I woke up, it must have been around eight o’clock; the beating
must have begun around five. Someone handed me a cup of strong coffee and then I was brought to my last interview,
this time without having to run a gauntlet. This interrogation lasted until long past midnight. The interrogating
officer, noting my condition, inquired as to how it had come about. I gave him a brief account of the above. He
stood up outraged and apologized in the name of the British Army. Then he left the room for a long while to—as
he assured me—arrange with the commandant for punishment of the perpetrators. The affray had caused me the
loss of an incisor and a molar.
The next morning at 7 o’clock I was transported, bound,
in a truck to Nuremberg.”
The second report
comes from the hand of the Nenndorfer Heinrich Steinmeyer and his wife Marie. The report was published in 1952
in in the magazine Quick and further circulates in Bad Nenndorf in various reproductions. Heinrich Steinmeyer was an inmate of the prison and died
in 1948 from the effects of his imprisonment.
“British Interrogation Camp
Bad Nenndorf 1945 – 1947
[…] the bathhouse [was] hermetically sealed away from
the rest of the world. Except for the British officers, who automatically had clearance, and those British warders
to whom clearance had been issued, no one knew of the existence of any such prison as this one. The Germans, of
course, least of all, since whoever was consigned to this inferno was immediately rendered mute, invisible, obliterated.
No reports ever came out to next of kin from Bad Nenndorf. The British authorities, who were situated in Herford,
gave information neither to next of kin, to the Red Cross which had been tipped off, nor even to the Quakers,
who wished mercifully to provide aid. They even denied, when specific identification of a prisoner was submitted,
that the man was even in Nenndorf…
[The tiled walls of the cells] became […]
a great source of fun for the British watchstanders, and a source of misery for the prisoners because the soldiers
systematically smeared the walls with feces and the prisoners then had to clean the walls spotlessly with their
fingers or a toothbrush. The individual cells were never heated and in the bitter cold winter of 1946-47, the
water faucet in the dayroom froze up. The floors and walls were icy cold. One plank bed. No sack of straw. Two sheets.
And all night long, the electric light was on, and every hour the guard noisily opened the door and two times every
night came officer’s rounds. The prisoners had to get up, stand still and give their number. For twenty
minutes, one had to hear the slamming of the doors, the tramping of the guards, the bellowing of the accompanying
This Is How They Passed Their Days …
The guard staff
were a hand-picked motley crew of thugs who probably possessed but little feeling, and certainly never any sympathy
whatsoever. They were all members of a penal company who had to atone for a criminal offense, and here worked
out their obligated tours of duty. And they made their remaining time as entertaining and pleasant for themselves
as they possibly could. Now and then they had wild disputes among themselves and the prisoners then heard some
of the grievances the boys nursed, and they realized in whose hands they lay. Sodomy, thievery, fraud, burglary,
attempted murder, desertion. The threat to the prisoners lay in the fact that for every one of these brigands,
a shining reward lay in the offing. A fierce struggle for survival drove them back and forth.
Each had earlier held a military rank. And each had a chance to win their honor back. But to the detriment of the inmates,
this opportunity lay in subjecting the inmates to the roughest and most-brutal treatment possible. For this reason,
the boys worked up the most-sadistic, private methods each of them could by which to torture the prisoners.
Every prisoner at Nenndorf reported that, after having fallen asleep with great effort, he was then awakened
in great disturbance. In between were days, one like the other.
Rising time was 4:30. If the
sergeant was in a bad mood, he came around at 3:30 or 4:00. The prisoners stumbled out of bed—that is, from
their plank beds. Five minutes later, both sheets were to be drawn drum-tight across the bed. During the day,
none was to sit, nor to lie. If any poor sod happened to sit or lie for a second or two—denial of food.
The day consisted of pacing back and forth in their cells from 4 in the morning to 9:30 at night, or standing
against the wall. They stood against the wall until they felt they would go crazy.
knew within minutes of his arrival at Nenndorf that he was lost here, since 5 minutes after his arrival he stood
in the intake room, where a sergeant tore the clothes from his body. It may be said of the Nenndorf garb that every
arrival looked like a clown—jacket too small, pants too wide or too narrow, and everything stiff with dirt.
Laundry was never done. In the issuance of shoes, the sergeant in charge was not satisfied unless the size of
shoes issued was at least four sizes too large. That sounds harmless enough, but it gave rise to unimaginable
torture. There were no shoelaces, our shoes just hung on our feet, and since every step we took outside our cells
had to be on the double, we constantly stumbled and fell, the while driven onward with screams and pokes with
rifle butts. After 3-4 hours: weak tea and perhaps a little porridge. After this, standing or pacing in the cell
until one again thought oneself driven to madness.
The Man with the Uppercut
Before the evening officer’s rounds, we had to take off our jackets, pants, and shoes and lay them in front
of our cells, standing behind them in shirt and underpants. The commandant of Nenndorf, whose name no one will
ever forget, Colonel Stevens, took pleasure in conducting the evening harangue. Rotund with broad shoulders and
a face that was always dark red and many campaign ribbons on his chest, he looked askance at the pitiable, half-frozen
forms in their underclothes with his small, cold eyes. Now and then he would randomly shout at one or another.
This inarticulate yelp contained a question, which the prisoner invariably could not understand. Colonel Stevens
would never wait for an answer, but rather immediately strike the man under the chin with his fist.
Then began a vicious ceremony under the gaze of the watchstanders. As soon as this tour was over, two or three
prisoners were fetched from their cells. They had to sluice water, that had been placed specifically for this
fiendish routine, down the long corridor and just so that the insensate bodies of the prisoners were soaked in
the filthy froth. So their clothes, if they could be called clothes, lay until dawn in the swill until they awoke
and had to clutch the totally besmirched and frozen rags against their bodies.
Of course there
were interviews and interrogations. A huge number of witnesses have testified that British officers punched and kicked
German army officers, officers of the Waffen SS and party functionaries mercilessly until they received the testimony
they desired. Every prisoner in his cell either held his ears shut or trembled in every fiber of his body or ran
uncontrollably back and forth in his narrow space whenever the deafening yelling, screaming, howling, crying and
babbling of the tortured prisoners inescapably echoed down the corridor from the interrogation rooms, punctuated
by the ferocious curses of the British interrogation officers.
Experiences in Hell
SS Obersturmbannführer Dr. Oebsger-Roeder was beaten unconscious by several British officers on Good
Friday 1946, such that he had to be carried back to his cell. It took months for his grave injuries to heal.
SS Sturmbannführer Dr. Hahnke, chief of legations in the cultural-political section of the foreign ministry
was so badly beaten up that for the rest of his life he had a game leg.
The last head of the
film department of the propaganda ministry, Parbel, not only was flogged upon his arrival, but was consigned by
a British major, a former German, to the feared and notorious Cell 12. In this place, buckets of water were continually
poured so that the prisoner, barefoot in only a shirt and pants, had to either stand or pace back and forth all
night in the wet. The poor soul spent fully eight days and nights in this hell and his condition even moved the
minimal pity of one of the warders, who secretly took him out, gave him shoes and let him rest for an hour on
the seat of the privy.
Captain Langham presided over most of the beating incidents. His name is unforgettable
to Nenndorfers. He made sure that the unconscious were taken to the shower, there to be revived so that the beatings
Most of the torturers were sergeants. It speaks for the gallows humor of the
prisoners that in the midst of this misery, they made up nicknames for one and another of these hangmen. One of
these was called Henry VIII because he was bursting at the seams and continually roaring with a purple face. Another
was called Red-eye for reasons that require no explanation. Another was called Smiley, and he was the worst of
the beasts since he would appear in their cells in the middle of the night wearing an ice-cold smile, sweep them
out of their bunks and make them do strenuous exercises until they were half-broken.
attempts were hopeless, but nonetheless two prisoners who lived in the day room tried it: one of them got away;
the other was caught near the camp in the search that ensued the detection of their absence, in which the entire
guard staff took part. The unfortunate was interrogated at length and was so beaten that he finally gave away who
had supplied him with civilian clothes. This was a miner who worked during the day in Barsinghausen, and on whose
door the fugitive knocked one night. As the miner hesitated, his wife said to him, 'Help him, for Christ’s
sake.' The miner was detained a few weeks and what this man, an old Social Democrat, had to undergo in that period was
cruel in the extreme. He had to throw up at every meal; by the time of his release he also was a complete wreck.
The escapee himself was beaten thoroughly and then his handcuffs were chained to the shackles on his legs so that
to get around, he had to walk or stagger completely bent over. Many saw him in this condition.
No Nenndorfer will ever forget the British 'military doctor' assigned to look after them, Captain Smith. A
haggard, grizzled, emaciated figure that personified resignation. He would glance into each cell, listen absent-mindedly
when anyone complained about this or that, and then growl, ‘No personal remark.’ (Nothing to report.)
Anyone who had a toothache was entirely neglected, and many had toothaches from being struck repeatedly in
the mouth. There was no dentist. The dentures of Dr. H. C. Winkler, that venerable Mayor Winkler, who had directed
the film industry and financed other major enterprises of the Third Reich, broke when he was thrown into jail at
the age of 72. He could no longer chew. Captain Smith listened to the old man, who finally said he would starve
to death. Smith responded drily, ‘Then you’ll starve to death.’
Anyone who spent Christmastime 1945 in Bad Nenndorf will never forget it
their whole life.
The prisoners employed in the kitchen had scrimped and expended the most strenuous
efforts to produce a little cheer on that evening. They had managed to produce ginger bread from their meager resources.
And on that Christmas Eve, a faint glimmer of light in the thick fog of mutual hostility appeared. One of the
guards, of Polish descent, visited each cell and to its occupant wished a 'Merry Christmas' in his heavily accented
His own people had received gross mistreatment in the war, perhaps he himself, maybe
even by some of those that night confined in this prison, but this night, he spoke from his heart.
He had no inkling what a wave of Hell was about to break over the heads of the prisoners in a few hours. The
entire British staff, falling-down drunk, wandered from cell to cell and beat, punched, and kicked anything that
came between their fists and their boots, the whole night through. A night of much
Certain Type Must Be Eliminated
Verbatim quotation from an interrogation: ‘We know very
well that you and your friends weren’t Nazis. But you’re out of luck. You’re of a type that we
want to eliminate even more than we do the Nazis.’
It was the mill of collective guilt
But there were also God’s mills, which grind slowly but surely what is cried to Heaven to spread it by
rumor throughout the rest of the world. Prisoners who were released, spoke. And it became clear that in Nenndorf,
things happened at the hands of the English that were as bad as, even worse than, since they were committed in
the name of liberation and democracy, things for which Germans at Nuremberg were hanged or sentenced to prison. Many
of the prisoners had been sworn to silence. But many were not silent.
The ball started rolling.
The Catholic camp chaplain of Civil Internment Camp III in Fallingbostel, Vicar Magar, heard the rumors and sought
particulars of another Nenndorfer, Mr. Parbel, which he immediately passed on to the bishop of Hildesheim. And
within a few weeks, this venerated dignitary came to Nenndorf and held mass in full regalia and delivered himself
of the most scathing condemnation of the torture huts operated by the Britons as described by several prisoners.
He swore to relay the information in full force to Cardinal Griffy in England.
On the first
Pentecost of 1947, the deputized member of Parliament Stokes stood at the door of Bad Nenndorf and demanded admittance.
The British officers, feigning all innocence, had to let him in. The deputy went from cell to cell and made report
of all. What he saw was enough: pitiful, beaten, half-starved, sick, intimidated, broken shells of persons.
On the same evening, the British guard staff, who had for more than a year plagued and tortured the defenseless,
came on the run with friendly but distracted faces from cell to cell and shared out their own rations of cigarettes,
chocolate and bon-bons. But the ball was still rolling…
Senior officers of the London
constabulary Scotland Yard appeared and gathered evidence as to the conditions theretofore. They made no secret
of the fact that they were preparing for a trial of the commandant and guard staff of the English interrogation
Acquittal for the Torturers: 'I Didn’t Know,' and 'I Followed Orders'
The trial in London went on and on. The defendants included the commandant of Camp Bad Nenndorf, Colonel Stevens,
one of the most-brutal interrogation officers, First Lieutenant Langham, the camp doctor Captain Smith and some
other offenders. It was embarrassing for Lieutenant Langham in that he was shown to be a former citizen of Germany.
But much more was amiss. The commandant of the camp Colonel Stevens was let off on the grounds that he didn’t
know about the brutality […] Even the sergeants Red-Eye, Henry VIII and Smiley were acquitted, and on no
less than the excuse that they were just carrying out orders [...] The only sentence arising from the trials was
that passed on Captain Smith. His sentence consisted of his being discharged from the British Army. It was no
punishment, since Captain Smith was an old man, long ready for departure, long since not an active military doctor,
and he fastened upon this basis for mitigation […]”
The Volkssturm: Last-Ditch Militia of the Third Reich
On October 18, 1944 - the
131st anniversary of the Battle of the Nations' victory over Napoleon in 1813 - Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler
stepped up to a microphone to make a national radio address announcing the formation of the Nazi Party-controlled Volkssturm
[VS], or People's Militia ... The average age of those who served (the national oath-taking was conducted on November
12, 1944) was between 45 and 52 ... Of those men who were called up, most were white-collar workers ... VS casualty rates
were sometimes as high as 70 to 80 percent, while other units panicked and fled. In the East, some 650,000 VS men saw
action ... In the West, some 150,000 VS men served and had helped to man the West Wall fortifications, as well as hold the
Upper Rhine ...
Defiant Resistance: Germany's WW2 Home Guard
During the final months of World War II in Europe, beleaguered Germany
adopted ever more desperate measures to resist the Soviet-American takeover of their nation and Europe. As this colorized
footage shows, that included the formation of a national militia or home guard - the "Volkssturm" - which called
up all still-available able-bodied men to defend the homeland. Civilians, including women and Hitler Youth teenagers, were
also trained and armed. Many fought with the anti-tank "Panzerfaust," an early RPG. Many Volkssturm men played
an important role in defending the German capital against the Soviets. Runtime: 4:52 mins. No narration.
Guard Called Up to Defend the Homeland
Wartime newsreel report on the German militia or home
guard ("Volkssturm"), which deployed all remaining able-bodied men to defend the homeland during the final months
of World World War II in Europe. Czech-language narration, with German subtitles. Runtime: 2:47 mins.
Germany, Japan and the Harvest of Hate by Thomas Goodrich.
“We Americans have the dangerous tendency in
our international thinking to take a holier-than-thou attitude toward other nations. We consider ourselves to be more noble
and decent than other peoples, and consequently in a better position to decide what is right and wrong in the world. What
kind of war do civilians suppose we fought, anyway? We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats,
killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in
the Pacific boiled the flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their bones into letter
openers…. [W]e mutilated the bodies of enemy dead, cutting off their ears and kicking out their gold teeth for souvenirs,
and buried them with their testicles in their mouths…. We topped off our saturation bombing and burning of enemy civilians
by dropping atomic bombs on two nearly defenseless cities, thereby setting an all-time record for instantaneous mass slaughter.
As victors we are privileged to try our defeated opponents for their crimes against humanity; but we should be realistic
enough to appreciate that if we were on trial for breaking international laws, we should be found guilty on a dozen counts.
We fought a dishonorable war, because morality had a low priority in battle. The tougher the fighting, the less room for
decency, and in Pacific contests we saw mankind reach the blackest depths of bestiality.” —- Edgar Jones, WWII
The Morgenthau Plan and the Problem
of Policy Perversion
The Morgenthau Diaries consist of 900 volumes located at Roosevelt Library
in Hyde Park, New York. As a consultant to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, I was assigned to examine all documents
dealing with Germany, particularly ones related to the Morgenthau Plan for the destruction of Germany following the Second
World War. The Subcommittee was interested in the role of Dr. Harry Dexter White, the main architect of the Plan ... The
objective of the Morgenthau Plan was to de-industrialize Germany and diminish its people to a pastoral existence once
the war was won ... Anyone who studies the Morgenthau Diaries can hardly fail to be deeply impressed by the tremendous
power which accumulated in the grasping hands of Dr. Harry Dexter White, who in 1953 was identified by Edgar Hoover as
a Soviet agent.
Why is Revisionism Important? / The Vengeful 'Morgenthau Plan'
historian and director of the IHR, speaks about the importance of historical revisionism, and Prof. Anthony Kubek speaks
about the `Morgenthau Plan' for a brutal and vindictive Allied occupation of Germany after the end of World War II. From
the Ninth IHR Conference (1989).
a Century of Chaos, Totalitarianism, and War, Versailles Treaty Still Haunts the World
A century ago, in July 1919, Germany began its journey to the lowest reaches of Hades
... The treaty signed on June 28 in the famous Hall of Mirrors at the Versailles palace, however, proved to be but a brief
interlude of peace ... Variously the Big Three or Four (U.S., United Kingdom, France, and sometimes Italy) sought to remake
the world. They battled each other over their respective shares of the plunder, such as dividing Germany's colonies and
one-time Ottoman possessions, and concocting a system to hinder Berlin's recovery ... Most wars are stupid, unnecessary,
and harmful to all sides. Some are the result of hubris ... The centennial of the Versailles Treaty should remind us of
the necessity of ending any conflict with a good peace - and, more importantly, of not starting a bad war.
The Treaty of Versailles: Eleven Facts About the 20th
Century's Most Controversial Peace Agreement
It was June
28, 1919. Envoys, statesmen and diplomats from the world's leading powers had gathered in Versailles Palaces' famous Hall
of Mirrors to ink the treaty that would formally end the First World War ... Millions were dead, ancient dynasties were
in ruins and political upheaval was sweeping the continent. The treaty, which was the result of six months of peace talks
in Paris, was intended to do more than just formally resolve hostilities between the Allies and Germany, it would lay
the foundation for a more peaceful and just world ... The settlement ultimately failed to live up to its more noble ambitions
and helped set the stage for a second even deadlier conflict 20 years later. To mark the 100th anniversary of the Treaty
of Versailles, here are 11 key facts about the agreement and its impact on history.
World War II: A Reading List
Compiled by David Gordon - Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute,
and editor of The Mises Review.
The dominant view of World War II is that it was the “good war.”
Hitler bears exclusive responsibility for the onset of war, because he aimed to conquer Europe, if not the entire world.
The United States tried to avoid entering the war but was forced into the fight by the surprise Japanese attack on the American
fleet at Pearl Harbor.
authors on this list dissent. For them, Responsibility for the war was mixed, and Roosevelt provoked Japan’s attack.
Allied conduct of the war, furthermore, was characterized by grave ethical misconduct.
Alperovitz, Gar. The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb Comprehensive study that shows dropping the atomic bombs was not needed to bring about Japanese surrender.
Baker, Nicholson Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization Stresses the violations of the norms of civilized war in World War II, with full attention to the role of Winston Churchill.
Barnes, Harry Elmer, ed. Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace A collection of essays by leading revisionist historians, concentrating on Franklin Roosevelt’s policies.
Beard, Charles A. President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941 Beard, one of the foremost twentieth-century American historians, argues that Roosevelt provoked the Japanese attack on
Buchanan, Patrick J.Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. Argues that the British guarantee to Poland in March 1939 was a mistake, because there was no feasible means of fulfilling
Chamberlin, William H., America’s Second Crusade A highly critical account of American policy during World War I. America failed to learn the lesson of intervention in
World War I.
Crocker, George, Roosevelt’s Road to Russia Emphasizes the extent to which American involvement in the war led to a pro-Soviet policy.
Cowling, Maurice, The Impact of Hitler A detailed study of British cabinet politics in the 1930s, countering the view that Chamberlain sought peace at any price
Doenecke, Justus Storm on the Horizon: The Challenge to American Intervention, 1939-1941. A detailed study of the American anti-war movement, showing the diversity of arguments used to oppose Roosevelt’s
Fussell, Paul. Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War Vivid portrayal of the deleterious effects of the war on human psychology and behavior. Refutes the romanticized picture
of the “good war.”
Garrett, Garet. [ed. Bruce Ramsey] Defend America First: The Antiwar Editorials of the Saturday Evening Post, 1939-1942. Garrett, a leading figure of the Old Right, argued that coming to the aid of the Allies would weaken America. We should
concentrate on home defense.
Glaser, Kurt, Czecho-Slovakia, A Critical History. A good account of the minorities problem in Czechoslovakia. Emphasizes the unrealistic policies of the Beneš
Greaves, Bettina, Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy. A detailed account of Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor, based on the research of Percy Greaves.
Hoover, Herbert. Freedom Betrayed. A very detailed account of Roosevelt’s foreign policy by his predecessor in the White House. Based on careful
Jaksch, Wenzel, Europe’s Road to Potsdam. An account of the Sudeten situation in the 1930s, critical of Czech policies under Beneš. The author was head
of the Sudeten Social Democrats.
Kirschbaum, Joseph M. Slovakia: Nation at the Crossroads of Central Europe. An informed account of Slovak policies in the 1930s. Good on the breakup of the Czech state after the Munich Conference.
Klein, Burton H. Germany’s Economic Preparations for War. Argues that Germany in the 1930s did not plan for a long war. The author is a leading Chicago School economist.
Kubek, Anthony, How the Far East Was Lost. The first chapter, based on pioneering work by Stephen H. Johnsson, shows the influence of pro-Communist officials in
pushing for US provocation of Japan before Pearl Harbor.
Mahl, Thomas E. Desperate Deception : British Cover Operations in the United States. 1939-1944 An account of British propaganda and intelligence activities aimed at involving America on the side of Britain in the
Morgenstern, George. Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War One of the first revisionist studies of Pearl Harbor and still one of the best. Highly detailed and very well written.
Neilson, Francis, The Churchill Legend. Includes a devastating analysis of Churchill’s multi-volume history of the war.
Newman, Simon March 1939: The British Guarantee to Poland British policy under Chamberlain was not based on weakness but on a long term strategy of confronting Hitler.
Raico, Ralph, Great Wars and Great Leaders. Written by a great classical liberal historian, the book includes a mordant account of Winston Churchill.
Russett, Bruce, No Clear and Present Danger. Argues that the prospect of an Axis dominated Europe failed to pose a sufficient threat to the United States to justify
Sanborn, Frederic, Design for War. Contains material on the US efforts to provoke a Japanese attack not readily available elsewhere. The author was
a distinguished international lawyer.
Sargent, Porter, Getting US Into War. Stresses the role of British propaganda in pushing America toward war.
Paul, Axis Alliance and Japanese-American Realtions 1941. Contends that America foreign policy toward Japan was unduly rigid.
Gerd. 1939–The War That Had Many Fathers. Detailed account of German foreign policy in the 1930’s, arguing that responsibility for the war does not rest
exclusively on Hitler. The author is a retired German general.
Sledge, E.B. With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa A searing personal memoir of the horrors of war.
Stinnett, Robert B. Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt deliberately sought war with Japan and denied information to the Army and Navy commanders at Pearl Harbor.
Suvorov, Viktor The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II. Contends that Stalin was preparing to launch an invasion of Germany, but Hitler beat him to the punch.
Tansill, Charles C. Back Door to War. A comprehensive survey by one of the leading twentieth-century American diplomatic historians. Shows how Roosevelt
succeeded in involving the US in war in Europe by provoking war with Japan. Contains valuable material on the
European diplomatic situation in the 1930s.
Taylor, A.J. P. The Origins of the Second World War. Argues that World War II came about through accident and miscalculation rather than by design.
Topitsch, Ernst, Stalin’s War. Topitisch, a philosopher sympathetic to the Vienna Circle logical positivists, contends that Stalin sought a European
war and that Hitler’s invasion of Russia in 1941 preempted a Soviet attack.
Marc The Craft of International History: A Guide to Method. The book contains a careful analysis supporting the “back door to war“ theory, i.e., that Roosevelt sought
war with Japan in order to secure American entry into the war in Europe.
F. J. P. Advance to Barbarism. Discusses the Allied responsibility for mass saturation bombing.
HOW FIELD-MARSHAL ERWIN ROMMEL REALLY DIED
The Ethnic European
REAL HISTORY survives on book royalties donated by author Michael Walsh and supporters of real history. OUR AIMS:
To replace victor’s spin with real history, to enlighten, inspire and to educate, with your help to share
our features as widely as possible.
Field-Marshall Erwin Rommel (1891
~ 1944) was a German general and military theorist. Popularly known as the Desert Fox, the career serviceman
served as field marshal in the Wehrmacht (Defense Force) of the Third Reich during World
War II, as well as earlier serving in the Reichswehr of the Weimar Republic, and the army of Imperial
Germany (1871 ~ 1918).
Rommel was a highly decorated officer in World War I and was awarded
the Pour le Mérite for his actions on the Italian Front. In 1937 he published his
classic book on military tactics, Infantry Attacks, drawing on his experiences from World War I.
In World War II, he distinguished himself as the commander of the 7th Panzer Division during
the 1940 invasion of France. His leadership of German and Italian forces in the North African campaign established
his reputation as one of the ablest tank commanders of the war and earned him the nickname der Wüstenfuchs,
the Desert Fox. Among his British adversaries, he earned a strong reputation for chivalry, and the North African
campaign has often been called a “War Without Hate”. He later commanded the German forces opposing
the Allied cross-channel invasion of Normandy in June 1944.
The propaganda of the victors falsely
claims that in 1944, Rommel was implicated in the 20 July plot to assassinate Germany’s twice-elected
President-Chancellor Adolf Hitler. The story goes that due to Rommel’s status as a national hero, Hitler
desired to eliminate him quietly instead of immediately executing him, as many other plotters were.
given a choice between committing suicide, in return for assurances that his reputation would remain intact
and that his family would not be persecuted following his death, or facing a trial that would result in his disgrace
and execution; he chose the former and committed suicide using a cyanide pill. Rommel was
given a state funeral, and it was announced that “he had succumbed to his injuries from the strafing
of his staff car in Normandy.” This last hyphenated account is the only correct account.
The victors’ story of
German General Erwin Rommel’s death was a fabricated one constructed by the Allies at the end of the war.
Rommel was arguably Germany’s best general of World War II, as well as a famously humane and kind man, and
a devout Christian, thus the need to fabricate the circumstances of what happened to him. In fact, the Field-Marshal
died as a result of major injuries from a lowly Allied assassination attempt, not due to his being made to commit
suicide by Adolf Hitler.
The bogus official story that’s gone down as history was the result of
the interrogation and torture (torture was a standard operating procedure with the Allies) of his captured 16-year-old
son, Manfred, by the French in one of their camps in April 1945. Strangely, the resulting type-written so-called
personal account was in English, which was also a language Manfred Rommel did not even speak.
General Rommel passed away on
the 14th October 1944 from a heart attack brought on by three skull fractures suffered when a Canadian Spitfire
strafed his car off the road three months earlier. He made no apologies for his service to the Reich: “I
served my Fatherland to the best of my ability and would do so again.” Credit The Hidden World.
'National Narcissism': Britons,
Americans and Russians All Think Their Country was Responsible for Winning WWII
People in Britain, America and Russia all greatly overestimate their country's contribution
to defeating Adolf Hitler, according to new research. A survey found people from each country think it was responsible
for contributing more than half to the victory - the UK (51%), the US (54%) and Russia (75%). Experts say that this is
vastly more than the proportion of credit afforded to them by the rest of the world in a phenomenon dubbed 'national narcissism.' For
the UK, the average plunges to 19 per cent in the eyes of those from seven other Allied countries - and Germany, Italy
and Japan, who fought against them. For Russia it crashes to 20 per cent while America enjoys a 27 per cent share of the
credit US - still way below the country's own self-belief in victory.
It Was Stalin's Soviet Union That Defeated the Axis
and Canadians like to believe they won the war in Europe and give insufficient recognition to the decisive Soviet role.
Most Europeans would rather not think about the matter ... Were it not for the USSR's victory, Nazi Germany might be alive
and well today. Let's do the numbers. The Soviet armed forces destroyed 507 German divisions and 100 allied Axis divisions
(according to Soviet figures) ... The Red Army accounted for 75-80 percent of Axis casualties in World War II ... No one
likes to admit it was Stalin who defeated Nazi Germany. Stalin killed far more people than Adolf Hitler ... At that time,
both Roosevelt and Churchill lavished praise and thanks on the Soviet Union, admitting its "gigantic effort"
in defeating Hitler's Germany. Today, however, we have chosen to forget who really won the war in Europe.
| || |