Click on this text to visit the GERMAN VICTIMS - DEUTSCHE OPFER website...



Click on this text to examine THE MYTH OF GERMAN VILLAINY (Paperback Book) by Benton L. Bradberry (Author)

Click on this text to hear an interview with Benton Bradberry - The Myth of German Villainy - Hour 1



Hundred Years of War against Germany

1895 to 1995

By Steffen Werner

In August 1895, a series of articles began in the British weekly The Saturday Review, which called for the annihilation of Germany and whose disastrous greed for German plunder still reverberates to the present day.


With the Second Reich, a German state came into being which was rapidly creating a modern economy which imperiled the economic predominance of Great Britain. Coal and steel were the two indicators by which national economies were measured prior to the First World War. The production of raw materials in Germany grew by 334% in the quarter-century before the First World War, from 4 million to 17.8 million tons, while the figures for Great Britain rose from 7.7 to 9 million, therefore an increase of 17%. During the same period the mining of coal in Germany increased from 76.2 to 255.8 million tons (240%) but in Britain only 60%, to 240 million tons. Germany's foreign trade was reaching proportions alarming to Great Britain. An investigation by the English Parliament in 1885 noted that the Germans produced more cheaply and their products were geared to the preferences of their buyers. Knowledge of languages, tirelessness and flexibility were considered to be the merits of the German commercial travelers. A trademark law was passed in England as a counter-measure, which prescribed that German products be marked "Made in Germany," yet the British middlemen and consumers nevertheless still often preferred the German goods, on which account the obligatory mark was modified to "Foreign made."[1]


That this new development was no accident was discovered by Paul Valéry in a British commissioned work from the year 1896, in which the reasons for this new development would be raised to a dogma:[2]


"One learns that the military victories through which this [German] nation established itself are small when compared with the economic triumphs which it has already wrested; already their many markets in the world are more tightly held than the territories which it owes to its army [...] one grasps that Germany has turned to industry and trade as it once did to its military: with level-headedness and resolve. One senses that it is omitting no means. If one wishes to explain this new [...] greatness, then one should call to mind: constant hard work, most precise investigation of the sources of wealth and unrelenting manufacturing of the means for producing it; exact topography of the favorable sites and most convenient connecting routes; and above all, perfect obedience, a subordination of all motives under a sort of simple, exclusive, powerful thought - which is strategic in form, economic in purpose, scientific in its profound design and its realm of authority. Thus does the totality of the German enterprises have its impact upon us."



The European upper classes saw their indolent life imperiled by this upswing of the German economy. They were living, according to Max Scheler, in a Paradise:[3]

"For our Eastern neighbors there was more dreaming, plotting, feeling, praying, and quiet submission to the yoke of fate, but also the drinking of schnapps, strolling romantically through life, careless and illicit coarse enjoyment [...] For the English, it was easy to buy and sell, according to the old way, accustomed to winning, and in the manner of old grand merchants, proud of the old proven types of goods, without adapting to the needs of customers in the world market [...] it was also, however, to enjoy life in sports, wagering, gaming, country life, traveling, to end the week's work on Friday evening and to go to the sports stadium [...] - but to do all this with a matter-of-fact feeling, grounded in the situation and geography of the island, of having been divinely chosen to be Lord of the Sea [...] not as a member of Europe, but as a power equal to all of Europe, indeed, a power which was a match for the entire world, equal to guiding the nations outside of Europe, of leading them and of being their political arbiter. And the same paradise meant for France: increasing financial wealth with few children, pensions after 20-30 years of work, great colonial empire, time and idle leisure for luxury, intellect, outward appearances, adventures full of sensuality with beautiful women."


The terror which the German power of achievement set loose in these European upper classes, was captured by Max Scheler in the parable:


"There [...] appeared on their every horizon [...] the image of a new, strange archangel, the face [...] as severe and iron-like as the old one of the myth, but otherwise quite different [...] He bore the stamp of a plain workman, with good, tough fists, he was a man who labored and kept working, on and on, according to the inner testimonial of his own convictions, not in order to outdo or for the sake of some sort of renown, and not for enjoyment apart from or after the work, nor in order to contemplate and admire the beauty of the world in that spare time following work, but quietly and slowly, immersed in his labor, yet with a terror-exciting steadiness, exactitude and punctuality when seen from the outside, and wholly lost within himself and his task, he worked, worked on and kept working - and this the world was least able to grasp - out of pure joy in boundless work in itself - without goal, without purpose, without end. What will become of us, what shall happen to us - felt the nations [...] How shall we exist, faced by these new masses? Shall we change ourselves, seeking to emulate him? No and again no! We cannot obey this new demand! But we do not want it and shall not do it!"


In 1895 these upper classes, beginning with Great Britain, formed a War Party against Germany which is still at work today and which will be documented by citations from the years 1895 to 1994.


Delendam, Delendam, Delendam!


The Saturday Review of 24 August 1895:[4]




[...] As we have before pointed out, the dominant fact of the situation with regard to our foreign policy is the steadfast enmity of France. We can call this enmity unreasonable or untimely, but its existence is not to be doubted. Some papers, therefore, recommend that England should at once join the Triple Alliance; that Lord Salisbury should promise the German Emperor assistance and support in case of any attack made upon the estates or interests of the Allies in Europe, on condition that the Allies should support England in case of any aggression upon her territories in other parts of the world. For various reasons this policy, although eminently safe, does not altogether please us. First of all, we English have always made war hitherto upon our rivals in trade and commerce; and our chief rival in trade and commerce to-day is not France but Germany. In case of a war with Germany, we should stand to win much and lose nothing; whereas, in case of a war with France, no matter what the issue might be, we stand to lose heavily."


The Saturday Review of 1 February 1896:[5]


"A Biological View of our Foreign Policy by a Biologist.


The record of the past history of life upon the catch has made us familiar with one phase in the drama of evolution. For countless generations a number of species may have been struggling on tolerably equal terms, now one, now the other, securing some little advantage, when suddenly a turn in the kaleidoscope of the world gives one of them an advantage of real moment. The lucky species multiplies rapidly; it spreads over the land and the seas, its rivals perishing before it or being driven into the most inhospitable corners; [...]


The great nations of the earth are local varieties, species in the making. It is not necessary that there should be anatomical distinctions among them; although, indeed, the English, Germans, French, Russians and Americans, Chinese and Japanese, have each their distinct groups of average characters. [...]


The world is rapidly approaching the epoch of these last wars, of wars which cannot end in peace with honour, of wars whose spectre cannot be laid by the pale ghost of arbitration. The facts are patent. Feeble races are being wiped off the earth, and the few great, incipient species arm themselves against each other. England, as the greatest of these - greatest in geographical distribution, greatest to expansive force, greatest in race-pride - has avoided for centuries the only dangerous kind of war. Now, with the whole earth occupied and the movements of expansion continuing, she will have to fight to the death against successive rivals. [...]


Of European nations, Germany is most alike to England. In racial characters, in religious and scientific thought, in sentiments and aptitudes, the Germans, by their resemblances to the English, are marked out as our natural rivals. In all parts of the earth, in every pursuit, in commerce, in manufacturing, in exploiting other races, the English and the Germans jostle each other. Germany is a growing nation; expanding far beyond her territorial limit, she is bound to secure new foothold or to perish in the attempt. [...] Were every German to be wiped out to-morrow, there is no English trade, no English pursuit that would not immediately expand. Were every Englishman to be wiped out tomorrow, the Germans would gain in proportion. Here is the first great racial struggle of the future: here are two growing nations pressing against each other, man to man all over the world. One or the other has to go; one or the other will go. [...]


The biological view of foreign policy is plain. First, federate our colonies and prevent geographical isolation turning the Anglo-Saxon race against itself. Second, be ready to fight Germany, as Germania est delenda [Germany must be destroyed]; third, be ready to fight America when the time comes. Lastly, engage in no wasting tears against peoples from whom we have nothing to fear."


The Saturday Review of 11 September 1897:[6]


"England and Germany


Prince Bismarck has long recognised what at length the people of England are beginning to understand - that in Europe there are two great, irreconcilable, opposing forces, two great nations who would make the whole world their province, and who would levy from it the tribute of commerce. England, with her long history of successful aggression, with her marvellous conviction that in pursuing her own interests she is spreading light among nations dwelling in darkness, and Germany, bone of the same bone, blood of the same blood, with a lesser will-force, but, perhaps, with a keener intelligence, compete in every, corner of the globe. In the Transvaal, at the Cape, in Central Africa, in India and the East, in the islands of the Southern sea, and in the fair North-West, wherever - and where has it not ? - the flag has followed the Bible and trade has followed the flag, there the German bagman is struggling with he English peddler. Is there a mine to exploit, a railway to build, a native to convert from breadfruit to tinned meat, from temperance to trade gin, the German and the Englishman are struggling to be first. [That's in the mind of these Englishmen -cy] A million petty disputes build up the greatest cause of war the world has ever seen. If Germany were extinguished to-morrow, the day after to-morrow there is not an Englishman in the world who would not be the richer. Nations have fought for years over a city or a right of succession; must they not fight for two hundred million pounds of commerce?


Secret speech of Winston S. Churchill in March 1936 in the Lower House:[8]


"For four hundred years the foreign policy of England has been to oppose the strongest, most aggressive, most dominating Power on the Continent [...]. Faced by Philip II of Spain, against Louis XIV under William III and Marlborough, against Napoleon, against William II of Germany, it would have been easy and must have been very tempting to join with the stronger and share the fruits of his conquest. However, we always took the harder course, joined with the less strong Powers, made a combination among them, and thus defeated and frustrated the Continental military tyrant whoever he was, whatever nation he led. Thus we preserved the liberties of Europe [...].


Observe that the policy of England takes no account of which nation it is that seeks the overlordship of Europe. The question is not whether it is Spain, or the French Monarchy, or the French Empire, or the German Empire, or the Hitler régime. It has nothing to do with rulers or nations; it is concerned solely with whoever is the strongest or the potentially dominating tyrant. Therefore, we should not be afraid of being accused of being pro-French or anti-German. If the circumstances were reversed, we could equally be pro-German and anti-French. It is a law of public policy which we are following, and not a mere expedient dictated by accidental circumstances, or likes and dislikes, or any other sentiment.


The question, therefore, arises which is today the Power in Europe which is the strongest, and which seeks in a dangerous and oppressive sense to dominate. Today, for this year, probably for part of 1937, the French Army is the strongest in Europe. But no one is afraid of France. Everyone knows that France wants to be let alone, and that with her it is only a case of self-preservation. Everyone knows that the French are peaceful and overhung by fear. [...]


Germany, on the other hand, fears no one. She is arming in a manner which has never been seen in German history. She is led by a handful of triumphant desperadoes. The money is running short, discontents are arising beneath these despotic rulers. Very soon they will have to choose, on the one hand, between economic and financial collapse or internal upheaval, and on the other, a war which could have no other object, and which, if successful, can have no other result, than a Germanised Europe under Nazi control. Therefore, it seems to me that all the old conditions present themselves again, and that our national salvation depends upon our gathering once again all the forces of Europe to contain, to restrain, and if necessary to frustrate, German domination. For, believe me, if any of those other Powers, Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm II, had with our aid become the absolute masters of Europe, they could have despoiled us, reduced us to insignificance and penury on the morrow of their victory."


Report of Carl J. Burkhardt [Swiss diplomat] of a conversation on 15 August 1938 with the Polish foreign minister [Jozef] Beck:[9]


"The Poles are waiting in apparent calm. Beck, during our nocturnal journey, made me privy to his plans to some extent. Furthermore, he is playing his double-game. It is no German game, as many French and the Polish opposition believe. It is a game in which the greatest profit is hoped for Poland, a profit which is supposed to come out of a final and unavoidable German catastrophe. For this reason, the Germans are being encouraged in their wrong actions, and in Danzig they are enjoying letting the extremists triumph while at the same time they repeatedly stress adherence to the outer form of the treaties. One day there will be a reckoning, interest and compound interest will be demanded. Already now, by collaborating in this way with the National Socialists, they have succeeded in creating a solidarity of aversion toward any revision of the treaties in the whole West, in France, England and America. [...] That was entirely different in 1932. At that time Western opinion in the great democracies for the most part supported the German minorities. People got excited over badly drawn borders, over isolated provinces. Thanks to the excessive methods of Nazism, all of that has ended, and now in Warsaw they are hoping not only for the unconditional integration of Danzig into the Polish state territory, but for much more, for all of East Prussia, for Silesia, even for Pomerania. In the year 1933 they still spoke in Warsaw of Polish Pomerania, but now they say 'our Pomerania.' Beck makes a purely Polish policy, ultimately an anti-German policy, a policy of only a seeming Polish-German détente, since the occupation of the Rhineland and the French passivity at the occasion of this event. But they are making efforts to encourage the Germans quite methodically in their errors."


Note of Eduard Benesch [Czechoslovakia President] of August 23/24, 1939, in London:[10]


"It was a properly tough tactic, to drive Hitler to war."


Report of Friedrich Grimm [German constitutional lawyer] concerning a visit in May 1945:[11]


"In May 1945, a few days after the collapse, I had a memorable discussion with an important representative of the opposing side. He introduced himself to me as a university professor of his nation who wished to talk with me about the historical foundations of the war. It was a conversation on an elevated level that we were having. Suddenly, he broke off and pointed to the leaflets which were lying on the table in front of me, with which we were flooded in the first days after the surrender and which were mainly concerned with the concentration camp atrocities. 'What do you say to that?' he asked me. I replied: 'Oradour and Buchenwald? You're beating a dead horse with me. I am an attorney and condemn injustice wherever I meet it, but most of all when it occurs on our side. Nonetheless, I know how to make a distinction between facts and the political usage made of them. I know what atrocity propaganda is. After the First World War, I read all publications of your experts concerning these questions, the writings of the Northcliff bureau, the book 'From War to Peace' of the French finance minister Klotz, in which he describes how the fairy tales about the hacked-off children's hands were invented, and what use was made of them, the enlightening writings of the magazine Crapouillot, which compares the atrocity propaganda of 1870 with that of 1914/1918, and finally the classic book by Ponsonby: 'Falsehood in Wartime.' In it, it is revealed that in the previous war they already had magazines in which artificial mountains of corpses were arranged by means of a photo montage with dolls. These pictures were distributed. In doing so, the captions were left blank. They were later inserted telephonically by propaganda headquarters according to need.' My visitor exploded: 'I see I've come across an expert. Now I also want to say who I am. I am no university professor. I am from the headquarters of which you have spoken. For months I have been conducting what you have correctly described: atrocity propaganda - and with it we have won the total victory.' I replied: 'I know and now you must stop!' He responded: 'No, now we are just properly beginning! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will increase it until no one will have a good word to say about the Germans any longer, until any of the sympathy you have had in other countries will have been destroyed, and until the Germans themselves will have fallen into such confusion that they no longer know what they are doing!' I ended the conversation: 'Then you will be taking a great responsibility upon yourself!'"


The British magazine Sunday Correspondent on September 17, 1989, for the fiftieth anniversary of the start of the Second World War and of the reunification marking it:[12]


"We must now be honest about the German question, as uncomfortable as it may be for the Germans, for our international partners and even ourselves [...] The question remains, in essence, the same. Not how do we prevent German tanks from rolling over the Oder or the Marne, but how Europe will deal with a people whose number, talent, and efficiency is allowing it to become our regional super-power. We did not enter the war in 1939 in order to save Germany from Hitler or the Jews from Auschwitz or the Continent from Fascism. As in 1914, we entered the war for the no less noble reason that we were not able to accept a German predominance in Europe."


Lech Walesa [Polish President] in an interview with the Dutch newspaper Elsevier of April 7, 1990:[13]


"I do not shrink even from making a declaration which makes me unpopular in Germany. If the Germans destabilize Europe anew in one way or another, one should no longer resort to a division, but rather simply eradicate the nation from the map. The East and the West possess the necessary advanced technologies to carry out this sentence."


Henry Kissinger in the Welt am Sonntag of November 13, 1994:


"President Clinton's idea of the USA and Germany as Partners in Leadership was not exactly very wise [...] Actually, this notion drives everyone to the barricades, for in the final analysis two world wars were waged in order to prevent just that, a dominant role of Germany."

* * *


The citations imply that all the wars, revolutions, persecutions and expulsions of the 20th century were matter-of-factly initiated by rationally planning nations or were tolerated, for the sake of power and money. In view of the apocalyptic terror and horror resulting from these undertakings, a clear analysis appears more practical than moral accusations.


For the British upper class - and their international partners - war is an entirely normal activity. The British pragmatically ask: How did our forebears hold it? What was their advantage? Did they not, for four hundred years, wage war against their main rival or the strongest continental power? One weighs, like a merchant: is it advantageous to wage war against France, can Austria hurt us? What will war against Germany bring us? 250 million pounds = 5 million marks per year? The security of our predominance? Must we fight against the USA later?


The thought of whether a war is morally defensible does not even occur! For it is, in any case, "tough" to drive someone to war. For war becomes a game, a double-game. For one places snares by quite methodically encouraging the opponent in his errors. In this 'game,' the 'greatest profit' entices. "Take inside Germany whatever you like": that's how one buys allies; for oneself, one takes money. Is it not better that the other, the enemy, totally disappears? Does he not destabilize the situation, imperil the loot, if he has recovered? Is it not better to exterminate the Germans at once? Is it not smarter to eradicate Germany from the map? Germania esse delendam! One has the advanced technologies - by which the neutron bomb is probably meant: the Germans would be dead and the loot intact.


For there is no honorable peace permitted. For the atrocity propaganda is to be continued and increased until no one will any longer have a good word to say about the enemy. The enemy becomes Evil in himself. The objection of Friedrich Grimm, which generally applies to such actions: "Then they will take a great responsibility upon themselves" - fails here. Responsibility toward the enemy does not exist and guilt not at all. Guilt, in this system, is merely a question of power. God isn't needed here, there is no God permitted! "Thou shalt not kill" devolved into meaningless chatter. Man puts himself in God's place.


The sponsors embracing such ideas are: a high British politician, Navy Minister of the First World War and Prime Minister of the Second World War; a former Czech state President; a Polish foreign minister of the year 1938; a Polish President of 1990; and a former American Secretary of State.


The continuity with which these ideas are pursued from 1895 to 1994 is alarming, and the matter-of-fact attitude with which not only the ideas, but also their acceptance, are still presumed in 1989 by a probably broad public of a British weekly paper. Baffled, with Kissinger, that here it is no longer preventing a German predominance, which is discussed, since even the thought of a Germany as partner of the USA is pronounced dangerous.


The Tough Kernel


The authors of the three anonymous articles quoted in the beginning are partly known. Concerning the author of the first article of August 24, 1895: "The Proper Foreign Policy for Us English," Hans Grimm, who in 1895 was in Great Britain as a young businessman, learned this about his host:[67]


"And it happened by chance that my boss, who himself belonged to the English Conservative Party, had been unexpectedly informed that that essay of August 24, 1895, on English foreign policy had originated from a quite definite faction in the English Foreign Office, directed by the half-German, Sir Eyre Crowe." (Shown right)


Behind the biologist, the author of the article of February 1, 1896: "A Biological Perspective on our English Foreign Policy by a Biologist," is concealed Sir P. Chalmers Mitchell, Professor of Astronomy and Biology at Oxford, as Hans Grimm likewise discovered.[68] According to Grimm, Mitchell was a Captain in the British General Staff from 1916 to 1919 and had connections to Crowe.


Information about the group around Crowe is given in a diary note of October 12, 1918, of First Lieutenant C. Repinton, in which he writes that Crowe, Mallet, and Tyrell will be going as negotiators from the Foreign Office to the planned peace conference. Moreover, he maintains:[69]



"They joined the F.O. between 1885 and 1893, and, with Carnock and Bertie, were the head and front of the anti-German party all along, vexed at our surrenders to Germany and persuaded that Germany planed our ruin. Between them they made the German peril the central feature of our foreign policy."


There is still one more to be counted as belonging to this circle of the F.O., whose significance for the outbreak of the First World War can hardly be overestimated: Sir Edward Grey.


In 1892, Edward Grey became parliamentary Under-Secretary under Lord Rosebery, who took over the Foreign Office. In 1895 Rosebery is voted out and Grey loses his office. Grey writes that these years were "very important" for his life.[70]



To these experiences clearly belongs also the world-view that England must oppose Germany and turn to France. In his memoirs, couched in a very vague diplomatic language, we read:[71]

"In light of after-events, the whole policy of these years from 1896 to 1904 may be criticized as having played into the hands of Germany."


Concrete criticism is expressed by Grey in this manner:[72]


"We relied on German support i and we received it; but we never could be sure when some price for that support might not be extracted."


The England of Grey wanted to remain the sole master of the world and not share the power with anyone, most certainly not Germany. This is the basic thought, which runs through Grey's memoirs, and his joy when the British policy of 1904 draws closer to France expresses itself effusively in comparison with his otherwise dry text:[73]


"The real cause for satisfaction was that the exasperating friction with France was to end, and that the menace of war with France had disappeared. The gloomy clouds were gone, the sky was clear, and the sun shone warmly. Ill-will, dislike, hate, whether the object of them be a person or a nation, are a perpetual discomfort; they come between us and all that is beautiful and happy; they put out the sun. If the object be a nation with whom our interests are in contact, they poison the atmosphere of international affairs. This had been so between Great Britain and France. [...] That was all to be changed; it was to become positively pleasant, where we had seen before only what was repellant; to understand and to be understood where before there had been misrepresentation and misconstruction; to have friends instead of enemies - this, when it happens, is one of the great pleasures of life."


Of course, the price for this was "perpetual discomfort," "poison," "misrepresentation," and "misconstruction" in the relationship to Germany, but that did apparently not let anything come between Grey and "all that is beautiful and happy." In Grey's eyes, France was no longer a match for England, whereas Germany was about to outperform England economically. In 1905, Grey took over the Foreign Office and subsequently surrounded himself with the gentlemen from the anti-German circle of the Foreign Office. Crowe, Mallet, Tyrell, and Bertie all reached key positions and collaborated closely with Grey. Carnock is the only one about whom I did not find anything. Bertie had already previously been ambassador in Paris and in future formed one of the pillars of the new British policy.[74] According to Margaret Bovari, the ambassadors of the most important European nations were exchanged under Grey, but the Parisian embassy, with Sir F. Bertie, remained unchanged, and "it emerges from the private letters between him and Grey that close relations and an excellent accord must have prevailed between the two men." From 1905 to 1906, Louis Mallet was Private Secretary to Grey, and from 1906 to 1907, he was Senior Clerk in the Foreign Office. From 1907-1913, he was Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and diplomat in Constantinople between 1913 and 1914. Margaret Boveri sees the influence of Mallet upon Grey as having been "considerable" and numbers him "amongst the most zealous advocates of English-Russian friendship. Still more pronounced with him than this tendency is the anti-German attitude." William Tyrell was Senior Clerk in the Foreign Office from 1907 to 1918 and from 1907 to 1915 he was Private Secretary to Edward Grey.[75]


In his memoirs, Grey especially emphasized Tyrell and writes in reference to him:[76]


"The public little or no means of knowing how much it owes in public service to special gifts and qualities in individual civil servants in high positions in the Department of State. In each case, where such qualities exist, a man renders service peculiarly his own, besides taking an able part in the conduct of business in the Department. [...] I had the occasion, in office to know the great value of Tyrell's public service; but the thing that is prize is our friendship, that began in the Foreign Office, and has continued uninterrupted and intimate after official ties ceased."


Eyre Crowe finally became Senior Clerk in the Foreign Office in 1906 and was Assistant Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from 1912 to 1920.[77] His role in the British policy toward Germany cannot be overestimated. For Hermann Lutz, expert in the investigatory committee of the Reichstag for the war-guilt question, Eyre Crowe is "the Evil Spirit of the Foreign Office.",[78] and Margaret Boveri confirms this:[79]


"Although we [...] must assess his direct influence upon the daily decisions in the Foreign Office as small [because of his relatively low position; due to his German mother he presumably climbed only slowly], his fixed stance was however surely of enormous effect upon the shaping of the atmosphere which prevailed in the Western Department and from which policy was made."


It should be briefly remarked - this will be developed later - that from a subordinate position, as expert on Germany, Crowe decisively influenced official policy several times. Edward Grey himself gives Crowe prominent mention in his memoirs:[80]


"It has been a great satisfaction since I left office to see great knowledge, ability and unsurpassed devotion to the public service recognized in the promotion of Sir Eyre Crowe to be head of the Foreign Office."


And he added as a footnote:


"Since these words were written the public service of the country has suffered an irreparable loss in the death of Sir Eyre Crowe."



Under Grey, the anti-German circles which were behind the Saturday Review article of 1895, thereby ascended to key positions.


Grey knew portions of the pattern of thinking there and approved indirectly. Thus, Grey recorded a conversation of 28 April 1908 with Clemenceau and considered it to be so important that he included it as one of the few documents in his memoirs. There we read:[81]


"M. Clemenceau had some conversation with me at the Foreign Office this morning.

He dwelt with great emphasis upon the certainty that we should have to intervene on the continent of Europe against any power which attained a position of domination there, just as we had had to do in the time of Napoleon.

He said we ought to be prepared for this. [...] He felt this to be most important. The fate of Napoleon had been decided not at Trafalgar but at Waterloo. And so it would have to be again, in the case of any Power which attempted to dominate the continent."


Clemenceau is consciously making use of those modes of thought from the Saturday Review articles in order to drive England into war against Germany, and Grey responds in such a way that not only are these modes of thought familiar to him, but he is also influenced by them. This is also shown by a quotation from Grey, which is found in Margaret Boveri:[82]


"The Germans are not clear about the fact that England always has gotten into opposition to or has intentionally proceeded against any power which establishes a hegemony in Europe."


By his conduct, Grey deceived many Germans about his anti-German attitude, and not only diplomats but also scientists, to the extent that caused Hans Rothfels to derisively refer to the remark of a Prussian artillery lieutenant concerning Napoleon:[83]


"A kindhearted fellow, but stupid, stupid."


As a contributor to The Saturday Review in the years from 1895 to 1897, G.B. Shaw was of course familiar with the anti-German development and surely knew the authors of the articles agitating against Germany. He tried to warn the German ambassador Lichnowsky in London about Grey and his policy. He laid out a proposal to Lichnowsky. Shaw:[84]


"He rejected it without reflecting for a moment. It was inappropriate [he said], because Sir Edward Grey was one of the greatest living statesmen, moreover the most sincere friend of Germany. I could [...] not raise my hands to heaven and, with Huss, cry out: Sancta simplicitas [holy simpleton]! Besides, it was of course Lichnowsky, not I, who was going to the stake. [...] It was not my task to enlighten the Duke about the fact that he was walking straight into a trap."


A trap so thorough in construction that Shaw writes concerning the British wire-pullers on the occasion of the outbreak of the First World War:[85]


"They felt in this important hour, as though England was lost if but a single traitor in their midst let out into the world a tiny kernel of truth about anything."


From 1905 onward, the Foreign Office begins systematically to construct a front with Russia and France against Germany. This development is proven on the basis of the public documents from the German side after the lost war. Crowe, but not only he, worked systematically against Germany through numerous papers, but above all through his memorandum of January 1, 1907,[86] in which he claimed that Germany was striving for world rule and wanted to secretly attack England. In a counter-expert opinion, Sanderson, Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from 1894 to 1906, dismissed the worst distortions in Crowe's memorandum. Grey passed the paper on only to his like-minded comrades; otherwise it went nowhere.[87]


It would lead us too far afield to present all the lies, distortions, misrepresentations and ploys with which Grey, Crowe, and Company prepared the way for a war against Germany. They have been thoroughly explored to the last detail in many investigations in Germany.[88]


G.B. Shaw has reduced the First World War to this nullity:


"The present destruction of the German military power is [...] a completely regular operation of British foreign policy, which was executed according to plan with all the resolve, patience, cunning and power which we in England are accustomed to use, and with overwhelming success. But likewise also, however, with the amazing English talent of veiling from oneself what one is doing. The Englishman never knows what the 'Foreign Office' is up to; [...] An instinct tells him that it is better for him [...] not to know."


The whole text is rife with such quotations and others, which describe the techniques and partly the motive of British imperialism. Concerning the key role of Grey and his methods, one more citation:


"Grey was not ruined over his mistakes; rather, for him the fact became fatal that the necessity of feeding the British public a children's fairy-tale about the nature and causes of the war made it impossible for him to highlight his triumph; for this was of a kind which he himself had described as machiavellian."


There is also a solid fact, which proves that Shaw knew exactly what he was talking about, that he knew the fundamental ideas of Grey. In 1912, he made a public proposal for how the peace could be kept; that is what he had also laid out to Lichnowsky:[89]


"In order to avoid war, England would have to strengthen its army as guardian over the balance of powers and officially and unambiguously declare that in the event of a German attack on France, it will throw its sword onto the scales in favor of the latter. But on the other hand, it would have to give its assurance that it will defend Germany in the event the latter is attacked by Russia or France or by both."



According to all that is known today, the First World War of 1914 would not have happened. Germany would have been able to calmly put up with the parade from Russia toward its borders!


False Parallels


As is well known, Rome and Carthage fought three wars, Great Britain and Germany, so far, only two! Since Germany has been reunified and Communism has collapsed, as a result of which German assistance against the Soviet Union is no longer needed, this Carthage Syndrome surfaced again. Kissinger and Walesa, whose greed for loot is immeasurable, were cited. But there are still other texts without aggressive background, which give reason for hope.


On March 12, 1948, a few days after the downfall in the CSR and the subsequent suicide of Jan Masaryk, the Chief Prosecutor for Great Britain at the Nuremberg war crime trials, Sir Hartley Shawcross, stated according to the London Times:[94]


"Believe me, three years ago, two years ago, I was violently pro-Russian, on the extreme left of my party." [...]

"Step by step I have been forced more and more to the conclusion that the aims of Communism in Europe are sinister and deadly aims.

I prosecuted the Nazis in Nuremberg. With my Russian colleagues I condemned Nazi aggression and Nazi terror.[[95]]I feel shame and humiliation now to see under a different name the same aims pursued, the same technique followed, without check."


The international edition of the U.S. magazine Newsweek wrote on May 8, 1995, the 50th anniversary of the unconditional surrender of the German Armed Forces:[96]


"The chiefs of state who are assembling this week for the solemn remembrance of the end of the Second World War, will formally dedicate themselves to the theme of reconciliation. The winners of the year 1945 showed toward the losers an unusual degree of generosity, as they had not done after the First World War - with disastrous consequences. However, the state which first brought about this reconciliation will not be taking part in the gathering. It is the Soviet Union, whose ideological menace caused the victorious Western powers to put Germany and Japan on their feet again in the framework of a free-market economy and political democracy. More closely considered, this war did not end even in 1945. Those who were waging war merely found themselves in new systems of alliances, and with modified tactics. The end did not come until 1990-91, when Germany was reunified and the Soviet Union imploded. According to this general view of the chronology, it can be said that the war lasted seventy-five years. The Kaiser and Hitler lost and Germany has won."


And the German government? A small episode proves that those who govern there know much better than the governed what is going on globally. When then British Prime Minister John Major, in his address in Berlin for the 50th anniversary of the war's end, spoke of the second Thirty Years War from 1914-1945:


"Fifty years ago Europe saw the end of the 30 Years War, 1914 to 1945. The slaughter in the trenches, the destruction of cities and the oppression of citizens: all these left a Europe in ruins just as the other 30 Years War did three centuries before."


The Bulletin of the German government (No. 38, May 12, 1995) falsified the text of the speech into:


"Vor fünfzig Jahren erlebte Europa das Ende der dreißig Jahre, die nicht einen, sondern zwei Weltkriege beeinhaltet hatten. Das Gemetzel in den Schützengräben, die Zerstörung der Städte und die Unterdrückung der Bürger hinterließen ein Europa in Trümmern, gerade, wie es einige Jahrhunderte zuvor der Dreißigjährige Krieg getan hatten."


In English:

"Fifty years ago, Europe experienced the end of the thirty years which encompassed not one, but two world wars. The slaughter in the trenches, the destruction of cities and the oppression of citizens left behind a Europe in ruins, just as the Thirty Years War had done some centuries before."


But still weeks after the speech, the British embassy sent the upper text with the clear formulation "the other 30 Years War"! By the will of the German Federal Government, the fact that Major sees the First and Second World War as parts of a single event, was not allowed to become publicly known in Germany.


Berthold Brecht once wrote warningly, with an eye on Germany:[97]


"Great Carthage waged three wars. It was still powerful after the first, still inhabitable after the second. After the third, it could no longer be found."


After the First World War, a foreign diplomat expressed to Churchill:[98]


"In the twenty years of my residency there, I was witness to a profound and total revolution in England, even as the French Revolution was. The ruling classes in your country have been almost completely robbed of their political power and, to a large extent, their prosperity and property as well; and all this [...] without the loss of a single human life."


The European upper classes, the idle ones of Scheler and Shaw, who wanted to be "clever" as they went out of their way to start a war, they have paid! Anastasia, the wife of the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevitch - who, in 1914 after a murder in Sarajevo, is supposed to have called out triumphantly to Poincaré: "War will break out. Nothing more will remain of Austria [...] Germany will be destroyed!"[99] - lost everything!


In 1947, after the Second World War, India, the Crown of the British Empire, became independent. Egypt freed itself from Great Britain and subsequently Great Britain had to cede the Suez Canal. In 1957 the Gold Coast became the first independent state of Black Africa, after which a large number of colonies followed. Churchill had yet to learn what Shaw knew: that the world for which one exchanged one's soul, had its own way of melting in one's hands. Not even the First, and most certainly not the Second World War, Great Britain was able to win by its own resources! From a position as master of the world, Great Britain was relegated to insignificance, and the descent seems not to have come to an end yet. New powers are arising. Their influence, by means of the modern terrorist techniques of war and the unhesitating way with which they are used, can easily grow to extreme proportions. They are staking claims and creating new centers of conflict. They threaten to unite the Islamic powers and Fundamentalism. A new war against Germany would propel their power into the stratosphere. It is to be feared that powerful groups will continue not to see that the world of today is much larger than the White man's world.


In any case, the analogy of Rome = Great Britain and Carthage = Germany is false. For Carthage was the commercial and sea power and Rome the land power of antiquity! Brecht was a master of language, but had no head for politics. His history would tell a different story today: Great Britain won two wars. It was still powerful after the first, still inhabitable after the second. Does anyone seriously believe that Great Britain could dare to wage yet a third war against Germany?


Source: The Revisionist 1(4) (2003), pp. 373-385.

Click on this text to hear Hitler's Prophecy...



                               If Hitler Had Won World War II We’d Have A Better, More Just World Today

LEGENDARY U.S. General George S. Patton realized late in the war that the United States fought the wrong country. Patton felt the U.S. should have sided with Germany to destroy Jewish Bolshevik/Communist USSR. This information comes from Patton’s diary entries, letters he wrote to his wife, and comments he made to military officers and staff.


World War II was incredibly complex. However, in the final analysis, WWII was essentially a war between two competing ideologies: Nationalism vs. Jewish internationalism/globalism. Adolf Hitler and his allies fought to preserve the concept of nationalism, not just for Germans but for all peoples the world over. Nationalism really just means the sovereignty of an ethnic people and the right of such ethnic people/nationalists — within their own bordered country — to self-determination.  What is meant by self-determination?  Self-determination just means an ethnic people preserving their unique culture and heritage and pursuing their collective goals as a unique people.  This applies to any ethnic peoples: Nigerians, Germans, Swedes, Vietnamese, Mexicans, Tibetans, etc.


On the other side of WWII was Jewish (Bolshevik) internationalism (today we simply call this ‘globalism’). In the 1920’s, 1930’s, and of course during WWII, powerful Jewish internationalists were fervently advancing the Jewish worldview of eventually eliminating all nations… except for a Jewish homeland… (what was later to be — after WWII — the nation of Israel in 1948). Today we see that nothing has changed; Jewish internationalism/globalism still works toward gradually “merging” all peoples of the world (particularly in the Western World) into one globalist system with a global government, global laws, consistent global culture, global bank, global currency, etc. In short, Jewish globalism (i.e., the weakening and eventual elimination of all nations) is the exact opposite of nationalism (i.e., a world composed of nations … specifically, ethnically homogenous and bordered nations). The Allied powers of WWII (led by Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, et al) were tools of International Jewry and thus de facto fighting for the Jewish globalist worldview. After the (Jewish-run) Allies won WWII in 1945, international Jewish forces were then free to exercise a Jewish ‘Sphere of Influence’ over the greater Western World (and as we see today, increasingly over the rest of the world).


Alternatively, if Hitler had won World War II and then exercised a Nationalist ‘Sphere of Influence’ over the greater Western World, we’d have a more just, fair, and moral Western World today. The rest of the world would have similarly benefited had the Germans been victorious since German influence would have surely spread elsewhere (ideas such as non-usurious banking and strong family oriented culture would likely have spread globally).


Had Hitler won World War II, what would be different in the post-war world? Here are a few examples:


1 – No USSR (the Soviet government murdered millions of its own people during its 70 year reign — to study this topic read the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; Hitler would have liberated the USSR, though taking large parts of its Western region for lebensraum, “living space”)


2 – No cold war (because there would be no USSR)


3 – No Communist Eastern Europe/Iron Curtain (when WWII ended, Eastern Europe fell to Communism — this was part of Stalin’s spoils of war)


4 – No Red China and Mao’s subsequent killing of 40 – 60 million Chinese (the USSR created favorable conditions for Mao’s Communists which ultimately led to Mao’s victory over Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalists in 1949, thus if no USSR, no Mao victory)


5 – No Communist North Vietnam (both the Soviet Union and Red China aided Ho Chi Minh)


6 – No Communist Cambodia and Pol Pot’s slaughter of 2 million Cambodians (Red China aided Pol Pot)


7 – No dividing Korea into North Korea and South Korea (the Allies split Korea after WWII ended, with North Korea becoming Communist… another of Stalin’s spoils of war)


8 – No Communist Cuba (given the previous, what support would Castro have had in the 1950’s?)


9 – No Communism anywhere (Hitler was the world’s most fervent anti-Communist)


10 – Liberalism and multiculturalism wouldn’t dominate Western ethos (both are Jewish creations and both have always been heavily promoted/advanced by Jews; thus if no Jewish influence, then no liberalism and no multiculturalism… at least certainly nowhere near the degree we see today)


11 – No Cultural Marxism and no political correctness (these are social engineering “tools” which came out of the Jewish think tank known as the Frankfurt School)


12 – No third world immigration into Western nations (Jews wouldn’t be in power positions to craft and force through liberal immigration laws; Jews are responsible for each and every Western nation’s liberal immigration policy/laws, as all were orchestrated by a consortium consisting of the World Jewish Congress, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and B’nai B’rith)



13 – No depraved filth on TV, in movies, etc. (because Jews wouldn’t run Hollywood)



14 – No widespread pornography (Jewish lawyers and Jewish activists were the main challengers of anti-obscenity laws, under the guise of “Freedom of Speech”)


15 – There would still be prayer in public schools (Jewish lawyers were instrumental in banning prayer in public schools under the guise of so-called “separation of church and state,” something that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution)


16 – No man-hating radical feminist movement (Jews such as Betty Friedan, Sonia Pressman, and Gloria Steinem, among others, were the key drivers of radical feminism)


17 – No Israel and all the problems it has brought the USA and the immeasurable misery it has wrought on the Palestinians


18 – Jews would be living in Madagascar (perhaps) and would be carefully monitored (Madagascar was one place Hitler considered as a Jewish homeland)


Many reading this will ask, “But what about the Holocaust?” The Holocaust has been grossly exaggerated by organized Jewry in order to create sympathy for Jews worldwide and thus help advance the Jewish agenda (i.e., people seen as victims tend to get their way). It is also used as a political weapon to justify Israeli militarism against the Palestinians. Hitler’s Final Solution (rebranded in the early 1970’s as the “Holocaust”) was a plan to remove Jews from Europe, not to kill them. During WWII, just as the U.S. couldn’t trust Japanese Americans, thus causing FDR to round many of them up and place them in concentration camps, Hitler couldn’t trust Jews since many were partisans sympathetic to the USSR and hence they aided the USSR in various subversive, anti-German activities. Therefore the National Socialists rounded up Jews and placed them in concentration camps.


Somewhere around one million Jews died during WWII (not six million) mostly due to disease and starvation in the final months of the war. Heavy Allied bombing of Germany and parts of German occupied Europe destroyed many roads, rail lines, and bridges making it impossible for Germany to adequately supply the camps with food and medicine. The result is that many Jews died of starvation and disease; and of course many non-Jews also died of starvation and disease (again, due to a massive Allied bombing campaign and its destruction of German transportation infrastructure). Lastly, there were no “gas chambers.” Much has been written about this. To study the “gas chamber” subject, read the research papers published by Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno (there are many others as well). To get a broad overview of the Holocaust, read my article, What Was The Holocaust… What Actually Happened?


It should also be noted that Hitler never wanted to “conquer the world.” He simply wanted to safeguard Europe and the greater Western World from all manner of nefarious Jewish influence and, more broadly, safeguard the world-at-large specifically from, 1) usurious Jewish banking and, 2) Jewish-driven cultural degradation.


As previously stated, the Allied heads-of-State (Roosevelt, Churchill, et al) were puppets of International Jewry; each sold his soul for power and prestige. Again, as earlier stated, World War II was a war between two competing ideologies: Nationalism -vs- Jewish Bolshevik internationalism/globalism — unfortunately International Jewry won.


Was World War II “the good war” as is often claimed? No, it was exactly the opposite. The Allied victory marked the beginning of the end of Western Civilization.




Why Hitler Declared War on the United States 
Institute for Historical Review
Here is the complete text of Hitler's historic address of Dec. 11, 1941, in which the German leader recounts the reasons for the outbreak of war in September 1939, explains why he decided to strike against the Soviet Union in June 1941, reviews the dramatic course of the war thus far, and deals at length with US President Roosevelt's hostile policies toward Germany. Hitler details the US government's increasingly belligerent actions against Germany and Italy, and concludes by announcing that Germany was now joining Japan in war against the United States.




Click on this text to watch: The Unspoken Victims - German Expulsion from Prussia - Schwiebus and Meseritz today...

Click on this text to view: Adolf Hitler The greatest story Never told Full 6 hours Documentary .......

Click on this text to see New Evidence on 'Barbarossa': Why Hitler Attacked Soviet Russia...



Click on this text to see video: Viktor Suvorov shows that Stalin should be considered the "chief culprit" of World War II. In his much-discussed book "Icebreaker," and in several follow-up works, the Russian historian presents extensive evidence to show that the German attack against the Soviet Union in June 1941 was a preventive strike because Stalin was preparing to launch a massive Soviet assault against Germany and Europe. This lecture by Suvorov was given at the US Naval Academy in Oct. 2009. This video presentation is in four parts. Runtime of this first part: 13 mins.



Click on this text to see: A Program FOR THE JEWS, An Answer TO ALL ANTI-SEMITES, A PROGRAM FOR HUMANITY BY Rabbi HARRY WATON....



Click on this text to visit German Victims Deutsche Opfer website...



Click on this text to examine "Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947" by Thomas Goodrich...





Click on this text to visit: TRUTH AND JUSTICE FOR GERMANS SOCIETY....

Eine Aussöhnung mit der Geschichte kann es nur mit der Wahrheit geben und nicht auf der Basis von Lügen!

Click on this text to see: Leon Degrelle - The Epic Story of the Waffen SS ...

I have been asked that question a thousand times since 1945, and nothing is more difficult to answer.


Approximately 2000 books have dealt with the Second World War and with its central figure, Adolf Hitler. But has the real Hitler been discovered by any of them? "The enigma of Hitler is beyond all human comprehension" the left-wing German weekly 'Die Zeit' once put it.


Salvador Dali, art's unique genius, sought to penetrate the mystery in one of his most intensely dramatic paintings. Towering mountain landscapes all but fill the canvas, leaving ony a few luminous meters of seashore dotted with delicately miniaturized human figures: the last witness to a dying peace. A huge telephone receiver dripping tears of blood hangs from the branch of a dead tree; and here and there hang umbrellas and bats whose portent is visibly the same. As Dali tells it, "Chamberlain's umbrella appeared in this painting in a sinister light, made evident by the bat, and it struck me when I painted it as a thing of enormous anguish."


He then confided: "I felt this painting to be deeply prophetic. But I confess that I haven't yet figured out the Hitler enigma either. He attracted me only as an object of my mad imaginings and because I saw him as a man uniquely capable of turning things completely upside down."


What a lesson in humility for the braying critics who have rushed into print since 1945 with their thousands of 'definitive' books, most of them scornful, about this man who so troubled the introspective Dali that forty years later he still felt anguished and uncertain in the presence of his own hallucinatory painting. Apart from Dali, who else has ever tried to present an objective portrayal of this extraordinary man who Dali labeled the most explosive figure in human history?




The mountains of Hitler books based on blink hatred and ignorance do little to describe or explain the most powerful man the world has ever seen. How, I ponder, do these thousands of disparate portraits of Hitler in any way resemble the man I knew? The Hitler seated beside me, standing up, talking, listening. It has become impossible to explain to people fed fantastic tales for decades that what they have read or heard on television just does not correspond to the truth.

People have come to accept fiction, repeated a thousand times over, as reality. Yet they have never seen Hitler, never spoken to him, never heard a word from his mouth. The very name of Hitler immediately conjures up a grimacing devil, the fount of all of one's negative emotions. Like Pavlov's bell, the mention of Hitler is meant to dispense with substance and reality. In time, however, history will demand more than these summary judgements.





Hitler is always present before my eyes: as a man of peace in 1936, as a man of war in 1944. It is not possible to have been a personal witness to the life of such an extraordinary man without being marked by it forever. Not a day goes by but Hitler rises again in my memory, not as a man long dead, but as a real being who paces his office floor, seats himself in his chair, pokes the burning logs in the fireplace.


The first thing anyone noticed when he came into view was his small mustache. Countless times he had been advised to shave it off, but he always refused: people were used to him the way he was.


He was not tall -- no more than was Napoleon or Alexander the Great.


Hitler had deep blue eyes that many found bewitching, although I did not find them so. Nor did I detect the electric current his hands were said to give off. I gripped them quite a few times and was never struck by his lightening.


His face showed emotion or indifference according to the passion or apathy of the moment. At times he was as though benumbed, saying not a word, while his jaws moved in the meanwhile as if they were grinding an obstacle to smithereens in the void. Then he would come suddenly alive and launch into a speech directed at you alone, as though he were addressing a crowd of hundreds of thousands at Berlin's Tempelhof airfield. Then he became as if transfigured. Even his complexion, otherwise dull, lit up as he spoke. And at such times, to be sure, Hitler was strangely attractive and as if possessed of magic powers.




Anything that might have seemed too solemn in his remarks, he quickly tempered with a touch of humour. The picturesque world, the biting phrase were at his command. In a flash he would paint a word-picture that brought a smile, or come up with an unexpected and disarming comparison. He could be harsh and even implacable in his judgements and yet almost at the same time be surprisingly conciliatory, sensitive and warm.


After 1945 Hitler was accused of every cruelty, but it was not in his nature to be cruel. He loved children. It was an entirely natural thing for him to stop his car and share his food with young cyclists along the road. Once he gave his raincoat to a derelict plodding in the rain. At midnight he would interrupt his work and prepare the food for his dog Blondi.


He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living creature. He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed to provide his food. He would allow only eggs on his table, because egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed.


Hitler's eating habits were a constant source of amazement to me. How could someone on such a rigorous schedule, who had taken part in tens of thousands of exhausting mass meetings from which he emerged bathed with sweat, often losing two to four pounds in the process; who slept only three to four hours a night; and who, from 1940 to 1945, carried the whole world on his shoulders while ruling over 380 million Europeans: how, I wondered, could he physically survive on just a boiled egg, a few tomatoes, two or three pancakes, and a plate of noodles? But he actually gained weight!


He drank only water. He did not smoke and would not tolerate smoking in his presence. At one or two o'clock in the morning he would still be talking, untroubled, close to his fireplace, lively, often amusing. He never showed any sign of weariness. Dead tired his audience might be, but not Hitler.


He was depicted as a tired old man. Nothing was further from the truth. In September 1944, when he was reported to be fairly doddering, I spent a week with him. His mental and physical vigor were still exceptional. The attempt made on his life on July 20th had, if anything, recharged him. He took tea in his quarters as tranquilly as if we had been in his small private apartment at the chancellery before the war, or enjoying the view of snow and bright blue sky through his great bay window at Berchtesgaden.




At the very end of his life, to be sure, his back had become bent, but his mind remained as clear as a flash of lightening. The testament he dictated with extraordinary composure on the eve of his death, at three in the morning of April 29, 1945, provides us a lasting testimony. Napoleon at Fontainebleau was not without his moments of panic before his abdication. Hitler simply shook hands with his associates in silence, breakfasted as on any other day, then went to his death as if he were going on a stroll. When has history ever witnessed so enormous a tragedy brought to its end with such iron self control?


Hitler's most notable characteristic was ever his simplicity. The most complex of problems resolved itself in his mind into a few basic principles. His actions were geared to ideas and decisions that could be understood by anyone. The laborer from Essen, the isolated farmer, the Ruhr industrialist, and the university professor could all easily follow his line of thought. The very clarity of his reasoning made everything obvious.


His behaviour and his life style never changed even when he became the ruler of Germany. He dressed and lived frugally. During his early days in Munich, he spent no more than a mark per day for food. At no stage in his life did he spend anything on himself. Throughout his 13 years in the chancellery he never carried a wallet or ever had money of his own.




Hitler was self-taught and made not attempt to hide the fact. The smug conceit of intellectuals, their shiny ideas packaged like so many flashlight batteries, irritated him at times. His own knowledge he had acquired through selective and unremitting study, and he knew far more than thousands of diploma-decorated academics.


I don't think anyone ever read as much as he did. He normally read one book every day, always first reading the conclusion and the index in order to gauge the work's interest for him. He had the power to extract the essence of each book and then store it in his computer-like mind. I have heard him talk about complicated scientific books with faultless precision, even at the height of the war.


His intellectual curiosity was limitless. He was readily familiar with the writings of the most diverse authors, and nothing was too complex for his comprehension. He had a deep knowledge and understanding of Buddha, Confucius and Jesus Christ, as well as Luther, Calvin, and Savonarola; of literary giants such as Dante, Schiller, Shakespeare and Goethe; and analytical writers such as Renan and Gobineau, Chamberlain and Sorel.

He had trained himself in philosophy by studying Aristotle and Plato. He could quote entire paragraphs of Schopenhauer from memory, and for a long time carried a pocked edition of Schopenhauer with him. Nietzsche taught him much about the willpower.


His thirst for knowledge was unquenchable. He spend hundreds of hours studying the works of Tacitus and Mommsen, military strategists such as Clausewitz, and empire builders such as Bismark. Nothing escaped him: world history or the history of civilizations, the study of the Bible and the Talmud, Thomistic philosophy and all the masterpieces of Homer, Sophocles, Horace, Ovid, Titus Livius and Cicero. He knew Julian the Apostate as if he had been his contemporary.


His knowledge also extended to mechanics. He knew how engines worked; he understood the ballistics of various weapons; and he astonished the best medical scientists with his knowledge of medicine and biology.


The universality of Hitler's knowledge may surprise or displease those unaware of it, but it is nonetheless a historical fact: Hitler was one of the most cultivated men of this century. Many times more so than Churchill, an intellectual mediocrity; or than Pierre Lavaal, with him mere cursory knowledge of history; of than Roosevelt; or Eisenhower, who never got beyond detective novels.




Even during his earliest years, Hitler was different than other children. He had an inner strength and was guided by his spirit and his instincts.


He could draw skillfully when he was only eleven years old. His sketches made at that age show a remarkable firmness and liveliness. He first paintings and watercolors, created at age 15, are full of poetry and sensitivity. One of his most striking early works, 'Fortress Utopia,' also shows him to have been an artist of rare imagination. His artistic orientation took many forms. He wrote poetry from the time he was a lad. He dictated a complete play to his sister Paula who was amazed at his presumption. At the age of 16, in Vienna, he launched into the creation of an opera. He even designed the stage settings, as well as all the costumes; and, of course, the characters were Wagnerian heroes.


More than just an artist, Hitler was above all an architect. Hundreds of his works were notable as much for the architecture as for the painting. From memory alone he could reproduce in every detail the onion dome of a church or the intricate curves of wrought iron. Indeed, it was to fulfill his dream of becoming an architect that Hitler went to Vienna at the beginning of the century.


When one sees the hundreds of paintings, sketches and drawings he created at the time, which reveal his mastery of three dimensional figures, it is astounding that his examiners at the Fine Arts Academy failed him in two successive examinations. German historian Werner Maser, no friend of Hitler, castigated these examiners: "All of his works revealed extraordinary architectural gifts and knowledge. The builder of the Third Reich gives the former Fine Arts Academy of Vienna cause for shame."


In his room, Hitler always displayed an old photograph of his mother. The memory of the mother he loved was with him until the day he died. Before leaving this earth, on April 30, 1945, he placed his mother's photograph in front of him. She had blue eyes like his and a similar face. Her maternal intuition told her that her son was different from other children. She acted almost as if she knew her son's destiny. When she died, she felt anguished by the immense mystery surrounding her son.




Throughout the years of his youth, Hitler lived the life of a virtual recluse. He greatest wish was to withdraw from the world. At heart a loner, he wandered about, ate meager meals, but devoured the books of three public libraries. He abstained from conversations and had few friends.


It is almost impossible to imagine another such destiny where a man started with so little and reached such heights. Alexander the great was the son of a king. Napoleon, from a well-to-do family, was a general at 24. Fifteen years after Vienna, Hitler would still be an unknown corporal. Thousands of others had a thousand times more opportunity to leave their mark on the world.


Hitler was not much concerned with his private life. In Vienna he had lived in shabby, cramped lodgings. But for all that he rented a piano that took up half his room, and concentrated on composing his opera. He lived on bread, milk, and vegetable soup. His poverty was real. He did not even own an over-coat. He shoveled streets on snowy days. He carried luggage at the railway station. He spent many weeks in shelters for the homeless. But he never stopped painting or reading.


Despite his dire poverty, Hitler somehow managed to maintain a clean appearance. Landlords and landladies in Vienna and Munich all remembered him for his civility and pleasant disposition. His behavior was impeccable. His room was always spotless, his meager belongings meticulously arranged, and his clothes neatly hung or folded. He washed and ironed his own clothes, something which in those days few men did. He needed almost nothing to survive, and money from the sale of a few paintings was sufficient to provide for all his needs.




Impressed by the beauty of the church in a Benedictine monastery where he was part of the choir and served as an altar boy, Hitler dreamt fleetingly of becoming a Benedictine monk. And it was at that time, too, interestingly enough, that whenever he attended mass, he always had to pass beneath the first swastika he had ever seen: it was graven in the stone escutcheon of the abbey portal.


Hitler's father, a customs officer, hoped the boy would follow in his footsteps and become a civil servant. His tutor encouraged him to become a monk. Instead the young Hitler went, or rather fled, to Vienna. And there, thwarted in his artistic aspirations by the bureaucratic mediocrities of academia, he turned to isolation and meditation. Lost in the great capital of Austria-Hungary, he searched for his destiny.


During the first 30 years of Hitler's life, the date April 20, 1889, meant nothing to anyone. He was born on that day in Braunau, a small town in the Inn valley. During his exile in Vienna, he often thought of his modest home, and particularly of his mother. When she fell ill, he returned home from Vienna to look after her. For weeks he nursed her, did all the household chores, and supported her as the most loving of sons. When she finally died, on Christmas eve, his pain was immense. Wracked with grief, he buried his mother in the little country cemetery. "I have never seen anyone so prostrate with grief," said his mother's doctor, who happened to be Jewish.




Hitler had not yet focused on politics, but without his rightly knowing, that was the career to which he was most strongly called. Politics would ultimately blend with his passion for art. People, the masses, would be the clay the sculptor shapes into an immortal form. The human clay would become for him a beautiful work of art like one of Myron's marble sculptures, a Hans Makart painting, or Wagner's Ring Trilogy.


His love of music, art and architecture had not removed him from the political life and social concerns of Vienna. In order to survive, he worked as a common laborer sided by side with other workers. He was a silent spectator, but nothing escaped him: not the vanity and egoism of the bourgeoisie, not the moral and material misery of the people, nor yet the hundreds of thousands of workers who surged down the wide avenues of Vienna with anger in their hearts.


He had also been taken aback by the growing presence in Vienna of bearded Jews wearing caftans, a sight unknown in Linz. "How can they be Germans?" he asked himself. He read the statistics: in 1860 there were 69 Jewish families in Vienna; 40 years later there were 200,000. They were everywhere. He observed their invasion of the universities and the legal and medical professions, and their takeover of the newspapers.


Hitler was exposed to the passionate reactions of the workers to this influx, but the workers were not alone in their unhappiness. There were many prominent persons in Austria and Hungary who did not hide their resentment at what they believed was an alien invasion of their country. The mayor of Vienna, a Christian-Democrat and a powerful orator, was eagerly listened to by Hitler.


Hitler was also concerned with the fate of the eight million Austrian Germans kept apart from Germany, and thus deprived of their rightful German nationhood. He saw Emperor Franz Josef as a bitter and petty old man unable to cope with the problems of the day and the aspirations of the future.


Quietly, the young Hitler was summing things up in his mind.


First: Austrians were part of Germany, the common fatherland.


Second: The Jews were aliens within the German community.


Third: Patriotism was only valid if it was shared by all classes. The common people with whom Hitler had shared grief and humiliation were just as much a part of the fatherland as the millionaires of high society.


Fourth: Class war would sooner or later condemn both workers and bosses to ruin in any country. No country could survive class war; only cooperation between workers and bosses can benefit the country. Workers must be respected and live with decency and honor. Creativity must never be stifled.


When Hitler later said that he had formed his social and political doctrine in Vienna, he told the truth. Ten years later his observations made in Vienna would become the order of the day.


Thus Hitler was to live for several years in the crowded city of Vienna as a virtual outcast, yet quietly observing everything around him. His strength came from within. He did not rely on anyone to do his thinking for him. Exceptional human beings always feel lonely amid the vast human throng. Hitler saw his solitude as a wonderful opportunity to meditate and not to be submerged in a mindless sea. In order not to be lost in the wastes of a sterile desert, a strong soul seeks refuge within himself. Hitler was such a soul.




The lightning in Hitler's life would come from the word.


All his artistic talent would be channeled into his mastery of communication and eloquence. Hitler would never conceive of popular conquests without the power of the word. He would enchant and be enchanted by it. He would find total fulfillment when the magic of his words inspired the hearts and minds of the masses with whom he communed.


He would feel reborn each time he conveyed with mystical beauty the knowledge he had acquired in his lifetime.


Hitler's incantory eloquence will remain, for a very long time, a vast field of study for the psychoanalyst. The power of Hitler's word is the key. Without it, there would never have been a Hitler era.




Did Hitler believe in God? He believed deeply in God. He called God the Almighty, master of all that is known and unknown.


Propagandists portrayed Hitler as an atheist. He was not. He had contempt for hypocritical and materialistic clerics, but he was not alone in that. He believed in the necessity of standards and theological dogmas, without which, he repeatedly said, the great institution of the Christian church would collapse. These dogmas clashed with his intelligence, but he also recognized that it was hard for the human mind to encompass all the problems of creation, its limitless scope and breathtaking beauty. He acknowledged that every human being has spiritual needs.


The song of the nightingale, the pattern and color of a flower, continually brought him back to the great problems of creation. No one in the world has spoken to me so eloquently about the existence of God. He held this view not because he was brought up as a Christian, but because his analytical mind bound him to the concept of God.


Hitler's faith transcended formulas and contingencies. God was for him the basis of everything, the ordainer of all things, of his Destiny and that of all others.



To deal with the massive unemployment and economic paralysis of the Great Depression, both the US and German governments launched innovative and ambitious programs.


Although President Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” measures helped only marginally, the Third Reich’s much more focused and comprehensive policies proved remarkably effective. Within three years unemployment was banished and Germany’s economy was flourishing.


 While Roosevelt’s record in dealing with the Depression is pretty well known, the remarkable story of how Hitler tackled the crisis is not widely understood or appreciated.


Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. A few weeks later, on March 4, Franklin Roosevelt took office as President of the United States. Each man remained his country’s chief executive for the next twelve years -- until April 1945, shortly before the end of World War II in Europe. In early 1933 industrial production in each country had fallen to about half of what it had been in 1929. Each leader quickly launched bold new initiatives to tackle the terrible economic crisis, above all the scourge of mass unemployment. And although there are some striking similarities between the efforts of the two governments, the results were very different.

One of the most influential and widely read American economists of the twentieth century was John Kenneth Galbraith. He was an advisor to several presidents, and for a time served as US ambassador to India. He was the author of several dozen books, and for years taught economics at Harvard University. With regard to Germany’s record, Galbraith wrote: “… The elimination of unemployment in Germany during the Great Depression without inflation -- and with initial reliance on essential civilian activities -- was a signal accomplishment. It has rarely been praised and not much remarked. The notion that Hitler could do no good extends to his economics as it does, more plausibly, to all else.”


The Hitler regime’s economic policy, Galbraith goes on, involved “large scale borrowing for public expenditures, and at first this was principally for civilian work -- railroads, canals and the Autobahnen [highway network]. The result was a far more effective attack on unemployment than in any other industrial country.” / 1 “By late 1935,” he also wrote, “unemployment was at an end in Germany. By 1936 high income was pulling up prices or making it possible to raise them … Germany, by the late thirties, had full employment at stable prices. It was, in the industrial world, an absolutely unique achievement.” / 2 “Hitler also anticipated modern economic policy,” the economist noted, “by recognizing that a rapid approach to full employment was only possible if it was combined with wage and price controls. That a nation oppressed by economic fears would respond to Hitler as Americans did to F.D.R. is not surprising.”


Other countries, Galbraith wrote, failed to understand or to learn from the German experience: “The German example was instructive but not persuasive. British and American conservatives looked at the Nazi financial heresies -- the borrowing and spending -- and uniformly predicted a breakdown … And American liberals and British socialists looked at the repression, the destruction of the unions, the Brownshirts, the Blackshirts, the concentration camps, and screaming oratory, and ignored the economics. Nothing good [they believed], not even full employment, could come from Hitler.”


Two days after taking office as Chancellor, Hitler addressed the nation by radio. Although he and other leaders of his movement had made clear their intention to reorganize the nation’s social, political, cultural and educational life in accord with National Socialist principles, everyone knew that, with some six million jobless and the national economy in paralysis, the great priority of the moment was to restore the nation’s economic life, above all by tackling unemployment and providing productive work.


“The misery of our people is horrible to behold!,” said Hitler in this inaugural address. / 5 “Along with the hungry unemployed millions of industrial workers there is the impoverishment of the whole middle class and the artisans. If this collapse finally also finishes off the German farmers we will face a catastrophe of incalculable dimension. For that would be not just the collapse of a nation, but of a two-thousand-year-old inheritance of some of the greatest achievements of human culture and civilization …”


The new government, Hitler said, would “achieve the great task of reorganizing our nation’s economy by means of two great four-year plans. The German farmer must be rescued to maintain the nation’s food supply and, in consequence, the nation’s vital foundation. The German worker will be saved from ruin with a concerted and all-embracing attack against unemployment.”


“Within four years,” he pledged, “unemployment must be decisively overcome … The Marxist parties and their allies have had 14 years to show what they can do. The result is a heap of ruins. Now, people of Germany, give us four years and then pass judgment upon us!”


Rejecting the cloudy and impractical economic views of some radical activists in his Party, Hitler turned to men of proven ability and competence. Most notably, he enlisted the help of Hjalmar Schacht, a prominent banker and financier with an impressive record in both private business and public service. Even though Schacht was certainly no National Socialist, Hitler appointed him President of Germany’s central bank, the Reichsbank, and then as Minister of Economics.


After taking power, writes Prof. John Garraty, a prominent American historian, Hitler and his new government “immediately launched an all-out assault on unemployment … They stimulated private industry through subsidies and tax rebates, encouraged consumer spending by such means as marriage loans, and plunged into the massive public-works program that produced the autobahn [highway system], and housing, railroad and navigation projects.”


The regime’s new leaders also succeeded in persuading formerly skeptical and even hostile Germans of their sincerity, resolve and ability. This fostered trust and confidence, which in turn encouraged businessmen to hire and invest, and consumers to spend with an eye to the future.


As he had promised, Hitler and his National Socialist government banished unemployment within four years. The number of jobless was cut from six million at the beginning of 1933, when he took power, to one million by 1936. / 7 So rapidly was the jobless rate reduced that by 1937-38 there was a national labor shortage.


For the great mass of Germans, wages and working conditions improved steadily. From 1932 to 1938 gross real weekly earnings increased by 21 percent. After taking into account tax and insurance deductions and adjustments to the cost of living, the increase in real weekly earnings during this period was 14 percent. At the same time, rents remained stable, and there was a relative decline in the costs of heating and light. Prices actually declined for some consumer goods, such as electrical appliances, clocks and watches, as well as for some foods. "Consumer prices rose at an average annual rate of just 1.2 percent between 1933 and 1939," notes British historian Niall Ferguson. "This meant that Germans workers were better off in real as well as nominal terms: between 1933 and 1938, weekly net earnings (after tax) rose by 22 percent, while the cost of living rose by just seven percent." Even after the outbreak of war in September 1939, workers’ income continued to rise. By 1943 average hourly earnings of German workers had risen by 25 percent, and weekly earnings by 41 percent.


The “normal” work day for most Germans was eight hours, and pay for overtime work was generous. / 10 In addition to higher wages, benefits included markedly improved working conditions, such as better health and safety conditions, canteens with subsidized hot meals, athletic fields, parks, subsidized theater performances and concerts, exhibitions, sports and hiking groups, dances, adult education courses, and subsidized tourism. / 11 An already extensive network of social welfare programs, including old age insurance and a national health care program, was expanded.


Hitler wanted Germans to have “the highest possible standard of living,” he said in an interview with an American journalist in early 1934. “In my opinion, the Americans are right in not wanting to make everyone the same but rather in upholding the principle of the ladder. However, every single person must be granted the opportunity to climb up the ladder.” / 12 In keeping with this outlook, Hitler’s government promoted social mobility, with wide opportunities to improve and advance. As Prof. Garraty notes: “It is beyond argument that the Nazis encouraged working-class social and economic mobility.” To encourage acquisition of new skills, the government greatly expanded vocational training programs, and offered generous incentives for further advancement of efficient workers.


Both National Socialist ideology and Hitler’s basic outlook, writes historian John Garraty, “inclined the regime to favor the ordinary German over any elite group. Workers … had an honored place in the system.” In accord with this, the regime provided substantive fringe benefits for workers that included subsidized housing, low-cost excursions, sports programs, and more pleasing factory facilities.


In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, historian Joachim Fest acknowledged: “The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact demonstrated class neutrality … These measures did indeed break through the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved the material condition of much of the population.”


A few figures give an idea of how the quality of life improved. Between 1932, the last year of the pre-Hitler era, and 1938, the last full year before the outbreak of war, food consumption increased by one sixth, while clothing and textile turnover increased by more than a quarter, and of furniture and household goods by 50 percent. / 16 During the Third Reich’s peacetime years, wine consumption rose by 50 percent, and champagne consumption increased five-fold. / 17 Between 1932 and 1938, the volume of tourism more than doubled, while automobile ownership during the 1930s tripled. / 18 German motor vehicle production, which included cars made by the US-owned Ford and General Motors (Opel) works, doubled in the five years of 1932 to 1937, while Germany’s motor vehicle exports increased eight-fold. Air passenger traffic in Germany more than tripled from 1933 to 1937.


German business revived and prospered. During the first four years of the National Socialist era, net profits of large corporations quadrupled, and managerial and entrepreneurial income rose by nearly 50 percent. / 20 Between 1933 and 1938, notes historian Niall Ferguson, Germany's "gross domestic product grew, on average, by a remarkable eleven percent a year," with no significant increase in the rate of inflation. / 21 “Things were to get even better,” writes Jewish historian Richard Grunberger in his detailed study, The Twelve-Year Reich. “In the three years between 1939 and 1942 German industry expanded as much as it had during the preceding fifty years.”


Although German businesses flourished, profits were controlled and by law were kept within moderate limits. / 21 Beginning in 1934, dividends for stockholders of German corporations were limited to six percent annually. Undistributed profits were invested in Reich government bonds, which had an annual interest yield of six percent, and then, after 1935, of four and a half percent. This policy had the predictable effect of encouraging corporate reinvestment and self-financing, and thereby of reducing borrowing from banks and, more generally, of diminishing the influence of commercial capital.


Corporation tax rates were steadily raised, from 20 percent in 1934 to 25 percent in 1936, and to 40 percent in 1939-40. Directors of German companies could grant bonuses to managers, but only if these were directly proportionate to profits and they also authorized corresponding bonuses or “voluntary social contributions” to employees.


Between 1934 and 1938, the gross taxable income of German businessmen increased by 148 percent, and overall tax volume increased during this period by 232 percent. The number of taxpayers in the highest income tax bracket -- those earning more than 100,000 marks annually -- increased during this period by 445 percent. (By contrast, the number of taxpayers in the lowest income bracket -- those earning less than 1500 marks yearly -- increased by only five percent.)


Taxation in National Socialist Germany was sharply “progressive,” with those of higher income paying proportionately more than those in the lower income brackets. Between 1934 and 1938, the average tax rate on incomes of more than 100,000 marks rose from 37.4 percent to 38.2 percent. In 1938 Germans in the lowest tax brackets were 49 percent of the population and had 14 percent of the national income, but paid only 4.7 percent of the tax burden. Those in the highest income category, who were just one percent of the population but with 21 percent of the income, paid 45 percent of the tax burden.


Jews made up about one percent of Germany’s total population when Hitler came to power. While the new government moved quickly to remove them from the nation’s political and cultural life, Jews were permitted to carry on in economic life, at least for several years. In fact, many Jews benefited from the regime’s recovery measures and the general economic revival. In June 1933, for example, Hitler approved a large-scale government investment of 14.5 million marks in the Jewish-owned firm Hertie, a Berlin department store chain. This “bail out” was done to prevent the ruin of the large firm’s suppliers, financiers, and, above all, its 14,000 employees.


Prof. Gordon Craig, who for years taught history at Stanford University, points out: “In the clothing and retail trades, Jewish firms continued to operate profitably until 1938, and in Berlin and Hamburg, in particular, establishments of known reputation and taste continued to attract their old customers despite their ownership by Jews. In the world of finance, no restrictions were placed upon the activities of Jewish firms in the Berlin Bourse [stock market], and until 1937 the banking houses of Mendelssohn, Bleichröder, Arnhold, Dreyfuss, Straus, Warburg, Aufhäuser, and Behrens were still active.” / 27 Five years after Hitler had come to power, the Jewish role in business life was still a significant one, and Jews still held considerable real estate holdings, especially in Berlin. This changed markedly in 1938, however, and by the end of 1939 Jews had been largely removed from German economic life.


Germany’s crime rate fell during the Hitler years, with significant drops in the rates of murder, robbery, theft, embezzlement and petty larceny. / 28 Improvement in the health and outlook of Germans impressed many foreigners. “Infant mortality has been greatly reduced and is considerably inferior to that in Great Britain,” wrote Sir Arnold Wilson, a British M.P. who visited Germany seven times after Hitler had come to power. “Tuberculosis and other diseases have noticeably diminished. The criminal courts have never had so little to do and the prisons have never had so few occupants. It is a pleasure to observe the physical aptitude of the German youth. Even the poorest persons are better clothed than was formerly the case, and their cheerful faces testify to the psychological improvement that has been wrought within them.”


The improved psychological-emotional well-being of Germans during this period has also been noted by social historian Richard Grunberger. “There can be little doubt,” he wrote, “that the [National Socialist] seizure of power engendered a wide-spread improvement in emotional health; this was not only a result of the economic upswing, but of many Germans’ heightened sense of identification with the national purpose.”


Austria experienced a dramatic upswing after it joined the German Reich in March 1938. Immediately following the Anschluss (“union”), officials moved quickly to relieve social distress and revitalize the moribund economy. Investment, industrial production, housing construction, consumer spending, tourism and the standard of living rose rapidly. Between June and December 1938 alone, the weekly income of Austria’s industrial workers rose by nine percent. The National Socialist regime’s success in banishing unemployment was so rapid that American historian Evan Burr Bukey was moved to call it “one of the most remarkable economic achievements in modern history.” The jobless rate in Austria dropped from 21.7 percent in 1937 to 3.2 percent in 1939. The Austrian GNP rose 12.8 percent in 1938, and an astonishing 13.3 percent in 1939.


An important expression of national confidence was a sharp increase in the birth rate. Within a year after Hitler came to power, the German birth rate jumped by 22 percent, rising to a high point in 1938. It remained high even in 1944 -- the last full year of World War II. / 32 In the view of historian John Lukacs, this jump in the birth rate was an expression of “the optimism and the confidence” of Germans during the Hitler years. “For every two children born in Germany in 1932, three were born four years later,” he notes. “In 1938 and 1939, the highest marriage rates in all of Europe were registered in Germany, superseding even those among the prolific peoples of Eastern Europe. The phenomenal rise of the German birthrate in the thirties was even steeper than the rise of the marriage rate.” / 33 “National Socialist Germany, alone among countries peopled by whites, succeeded in attaining some increase in fertility,” notes the outstanding Scottish-born American historian Gordon A. Craig, with a sharp rise in the birth rate after Hitler came to power, and a steady increase in the years that followed.


In a lengthy address to the Reichstag in early 1937, Hitler recalled the pledges he had made when his government assumed power. He also explained the principles on which his policies were based, and looked back at what had been accomplished in four years. / 35 “… Those who talk about `democracies’ and ‘dictatorships’,” he said, “simply do not understand that a revolution has been carried out in this country, the results of which can be considered democratic in the highest sense of the term, if democracy has any real meaning … The National Socialist Revolution has not aimed at turning a privileged class into a class that will have no rights in the future. Its aim has been to give equal rights to those who had no rights … Our objective has been to make it possible for the whole German people to be active, not only in the economic but also in the political field, and to secure this by organizationally involving the masses … During the past four years we have increased German production in all areas to an extraordinary degree. And this increase in production has been to the benefit of all Germans.”


In another address two years later, Hitler spoke briefly about his regime’s economic achievement: / 36 “I overcame chaos in Germany, restored order, enormously raised production in all fields of our national economy, by strenuous efforts produced substitutes for numerous materials that we lack, encouraged new inventions, developed traffic, caused mighty roads to be built and canals to be dug, called into being gigantic factories, and at the same time endeavored to further the education and culture of our people for the development of our social community. I succeeded in finding useful work once more for the whole of the seven million unemployed, who so touched all our hearts, in keeping the German farmer on his soil in spite of all difficulties, and in saving the land itself for him, in restoring a prosperous German trade, and in promoting traffic to the utmost.”


It’s often been claimed, even by some supposedly reputable scholars, that Hitler’s success in reviving his nation’s economic life was based largely on government spending for rearmament and preparation for war. This is a myth. As the renowned British historian A. J. P. Taylor noted: / 37 “Germany’s economic recovery, which was complete by 1936, did not rest on rearmamnent; it was caused mainly by lavish expenditure on public works, particularly on motor roads, and this public spending stimulated private spending also, as [British economist John Maynard] Keynes had said it would. Hitler actually skimped on armaments, despite his boasting, partly because he wished to avoid the unpopularitiy which a reduction of the German standard of living would cause, but more from the confident belief that he would always succeed in bluff. Thus, paradoxidcally, while nearly eveeryone else in Europe expected a great war, Hitler was the one man who neither expected nor planned for it.”


American historian John Garraty compared the American and German responses to the Great Depression in a much-discussed article published in the American Historical Review. He wrote: / 38 “The two movements [that is, in the US and in Germany] nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations. Of the two the Nazis were the more successful in curing the economic ills of the 1930s. They reduced unemployment and stimulated industrial production faster than the Americans did and, considering their resources, handled their monetary and trade problems more successfully, certainly more imaginatively. This was partly because the Nazis employed deficit financing on a larger scale and partly because their totalitarian system better lent itself to the mobilization of society, both by force and by persuasion. By 1936 the depression was substantially over in Germany, far from finished in the United States.”


In fact, the jobless rate in the United States remained high until the stimulation of large-scale war production took hold. Even as late as March 1940, the US unemployment rate was still almost 15 percent of the work force. It was production for war, not Roosevelt’s “New Deal’ programs, that finally brought full employment.


Prof. William Leuchtenburg, a prominent American historian known best for his books on the life and career of Franklin Roosevelt, summed up the President’s mixed record in a highly acclaimed study. “The New Deal left many problems unsolved and even created some perplexing new ones,” concluded Leuchtenburg. “It never demonstrated that it could achieve prosperity in peacetime. As late as 1941, the unemployed still numbered six million, and not until the war year of 1943 did the army of jobless finally disappear.”


The contrast between the German and American economic records during the 1930s is all the more striking when one takes into account that the US had vastly greater natural resource wealth, including large petroleum reserves, as well as a lower population density, and no hostile, well-armed neighbors.


In an address given in December 1941, Hitler himself compared the record of his government and that of President Roosevelt in dealing with the challenge of the world economic crisis.


“Whereas the German Reich experienced an enormous improvement in social, economic, cultural and artistic life in just a few years under National Socialist leadership,” he said, “President Roosevelt was not able to bring about even limited improvements in his own country. This task should have been much easier in the United States, with barely 15 people per square kilometer, as compared to 140 in Germany. If economic prosperity is not possible in that country, it must be the result of either a lack of will by the ruling leadership or the complete incompetence of the men in charge. In just five years, the economic problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was eliminated. During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously increased his country's national debt, devalued the dollar, further disrupted the economy, and maintained the same number of unemployed.”


In another major address given that same year, Hitler compared the social-political-economic systems of the United States, the Soviet Union, and Germany. / 42 “We’ve now gotten to know two [social-political] extremes,” he said. “One is that of the Capitalist states, which use lies, fraud and swindling to deny their peoples the most basic vital rights, and which are concerned entirely with their own financial interests, for which they are ready to sacrifice millions of people. On the other hand we’ve seen [in the Soviet Union] the Communist extreme: a state that’s brought unspeakable misery to millions and millions, and which, following its doctrine, sacrifices the happiness of others. From this [awareness], in my view, there is for all of us only one obligation, namely, to strive more than ever toward our national and socialist ideal … In this [German] state the prevailing principle is not, as in Soviet Russia, the principle of so-called equality, but rather only the principle of justice.”


Could Hitler’s economic policies work in the United States? These policies are probably most workable in countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands, with a well-educated, self-disciplined and ethnically-culturally cohesive population, and a traditionally strong “communitarian” ethos with a correspondingly high level of social trust. Hitler’s economic policies are less applicable in the United States and other societies with an ethnically-culturally diverse population, a markedly individualistic, “laissez-faire” tradition, and a correspondingly weaker “communitarian” spirit.


David Lloyd George — who had been Britain’s prime minister during the First World War -- made an extensive tour of Germany in late 1936. In an article published afterwards in a leading London newspaper, the British statesman recounted what he had seen and experienced.


“Whatever one may think of his [Hitler’s] methods,” wrote Lloyd George, “and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook.


“He rightly claimed at Nuremberg that in four years his movement had made a new Germany. It is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war — broken, dejected and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers.


“There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere, and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change.”


“This great people,” the seasoned statesman went on to warn, “will work better, sacrifice more, and, if necessary, fight with greater resolution because Hitler asks them to do so. Those who do not comprehend this central fact cannot judge the present possibilities of modern Germany.”


Although prejudice and ignorance have hindered a wider awareness and understanding of Hitler’s economic policies and their impact, his success in economic policy has been acknowledged by historians, including scholars who are generally very critical of the German leader and his regime’s policies.


John Lukacs, a Hungarian-born American historian whose books have generated much comment and praise, has written: “Hitler’s achievements, domestic rather than foreign, during the six [peacetime] years of his leadership of Germany were extraordinary … He brought prosperity and confidence to the Germans, the kind of prosperity that is the result of confidence. The thirties, after 1933, were sunny years for most Germans; something that remained in the memories of an entire generation among them.”


Sebastian Haffner, an influential German journalist and historian who was also a fierce critic of the Third Reich and its ideology, reviewed Hitler’s life and legacy in a much-discussed book. Although his portrayal of the German leader in The Meaning of Hitler is a harsh one, the author all the same writes:


“Among these positive achievements of Hitler the one outshining all others was his economic miracle.” While the rest of the world was still mired in the economic paralysis, Hitler had made “Germany an island of prosperity.” Within three years, Haffner goes on, “crying need and mass hardship had generally turned into modest but comfortable prosperity. Almost equally important: helplessness and hopelessness had given way to confidence and self-assurance. Even more miraculous was the fact that the transition from depression to economic boom had been accomplished without inflation, at totally stable wages and prices … It is difficult to picture adequately the grateful amazement with which the Germans reacted to that miracle, which, more particularly, made vast numbers of German workers switch from the Social Democrats and the Communists to Hitler after 1933. This grateful amazement entirely dominated the mood of the German masses during the 1936 to 1938 period …”


"The scale of the Nazi economic achievement should not be underestimated," concludes Niall Ferguson, a Harvard University professor of history. "It was real and impressive. No other European economy achieved such a rapid recovery ... To most people in 1930s Germany it seemed there had been an economic miracle. The Volksgemeinschaft [national community] was more than mere rhetoric; it meant full employment, higher wages, stable prices, reduced poverty, cheap radios (the Volksempfänger) and budget holidays. It is too easily forgotten that there were more holiday camps than concentration camps in Germany between 1935 and 1939. Workers became better trained, farmers saw their incomes rise. Nor were foreigners unimpressed by what was happening. American corporations including Standard Oil, General Motors and IBM all rushed to invest directly in the German economy."


Joachim Fest, another prominent German journalist and historian, reviewed Hitler’s life in an acclaimed and comprehensive biography. “If Hitler had succumbed to an assassination or an accident at the end of 1938,” he wrote, “few would hesitate to call him one of the greatest of German statesmen, the consummator of Germany’s history.” “No objective observer of the German scene could deny Hitler’s considerable exploits,” noted American historian John Toland. “If Hitler had died in 1937 on the fourth anniversary of his coming to power … he undoubtedly would have gone down as one of the greatest figures in German history. Throughout Europe he had millions of admirers.”


Mark Weber (Institute for Historical Review)

Click on this text to see WW2 From the Germans Point of View...





King Edward VIII Wanted to Ally with Hitler and Blamed “Jews and Reds” for WWII

The research, carried out by UK-based German historian Karina Urbach, delved into the historical archives of 30 nations, including Germany, Spain and Russia, revealing the fascist sympathies of many European aristocrats.

Writing for The Conversation website ahead of the release of her new book, Go-Betweens for Hitler, Urbach said Edward VIII, who abdicated the throne in 1936 and became the Duke of Windsor, “has always been known for his pro-Nazi sympathies.”

She added: “However, the extent of his betrayal could never be fully verified due to the secrecy of the Royal Archives.”

“The Royal Archives have always ensured that letters from German relatives of the royal family in the run up to World War II remain closed.

“Naturally, such censorship has led to endless conspiracy theories.”

However, over nearly a decade of painstaking research in European archives, Urbach turned up vital evidence into the secret political lives of pro-fascist aristocrats.

“I have accumulated damning evidence by sifting through 30 archives all over the world that are open,” Urbach wrote.

“Intelligence reports and German, Spanish and Russian documents show members of the British royal family were indeed far closer to Nazi Germany than has previously been recognized.”

A key portion of the research deals with the relationship between the Duke of Windsor and a trusted German relative, Charles Edward Duke of Coburg – a bitterly anti-Semitic minor German aristocrat who acted as a messenger, it is claimed, between privileged fascists around Europe.

Meetings between Coburg and British royals are even listed in the Court Circular, a record of the British monarchy’s meetings and appointments.

Further evidence was found in the Spanish archives.

“In June 1940 Don Javier Bermejillo, a Spanish diplomat and old friend of Windsor – he had known him since the 1920s – reported a conversation he had had with the Duke to his superiors,” Urbach said.

The diplomat says he had heard the embittered duke blame “the Jews, the Reds and the Foreign Office” for the approaching war, long before it began.

Windsor wanted to put politicians, including Anthony Eden, “up against a wall,” Urbach claims.

Perhaps most troublingly, the records hint at a possible correlation between the Duke’s fascist leanings and the start of the German bombing campaign against Britain.

“In another conversation on June 25, 1940,” Urbach writes, “Bermejillo reported that Windsor stressed if one bombed England effectively this could bring peace.

“Bermejillo concluded that the Duke of Windsor seemed very much to hope that this would occur: ‘He wants peace at any price.’”

The report found its way into the hands of Spain’s own fascist dictator, General Franco, according to Urbach. It was “then passed on to the Germans.”

“The bombing of Britain started on 10 July,” she added.

Germany's enemies maintain today (1940) that Adolf Hitler is the greatest disturber of peace known to history, that he threatens every nation with sudden attack and oppression. 


That he has created a terrible war machine in order to cause trouble and devastation all around him. At the same time they intentionally conceal an all-important fact: they themselves drove the Leader of the German people finally to draw the sword. 


They themselves compelled him to seek to obtain at last by the use of force that which he had been striving to gain by persuasion from the beginning: the security of his country.


They did this not only by declaring war on him on September 3, 1939, but also by blocking step for step for seven years the path to any peaceful discussion.


The attempts repeatedly made by Adolf Hitler to induce the governments of other states to collaborate with him in a reconstruction of Europe resemble an ever-recurring pattern in his conduct since the commencement of his labors for the German Reich. But these attempts were wrecked every time by reason of the fact that nowhere was there any willingness to give them due consideration, because the evil spirit of the Great War still prevailed everywhere, because in London and Paris and in the capitals of the Western Powers' vassal states there was only one fixed intention: to perpetuate the power of Versailles.

A rapid glance at the most important events will furnish incontrovertible proof for this statement.

When Adolf Hitler came to the fore, Germany was as gagged and as helpless as the victors of 1918 wanted her to be. Completely disarmed, with an army of only 100,000 men intended solely for police duties within the country, she found herself within a tightly closed ring of neighbors all armed to the teeth and leagued together. To the old enemies in the West, Britain, Belgium and France, new ones were artificially created and added in the East and the South: above all Poland and Czechoslovakia. A quarter of the population of Germany were forcibly torn away from their mother country and handed over to foreign powers. The Reich, mutilated on all sides and robbed of every means of defense, at any moment could become the helpless victim of some rapacious neighbor.

Then it was that Adolf Hitler for the first time made his appeal to the common sense of the other powers. On May 17, 1933, a few months after his appointment to the office of Reichskanzler, he delivered a speech in the German Reichstag, from which we extract the following passages:

    "Germany will be perfectly ready to disband her entire military establishment and destroy the small amount of arms remaining to her, if the neighboring countries will do the same thing with equal thoroughness.

    ... Germany is entirely ready to renounce aggressive weapons of every sort if the armed nations, on their part, will destroy their aggressive weapons within a specified period, and if their use is forbidden by an international convention.

    ... Germany is at all times prepared to renounce offensive weapons if the rest of the world does the same. Germany is prepared to agree to any solemn pact of non-aggression because she does not think of attacking anybody but only of acquiring security."

No answer was received.

Without paying any heed the others continued to fill their arsenals with weapons, to pile up their stores of explosives, to increase the numbers of their troops. At the same time the League of Nations, the instrument of the victorious powers, declared that Germany must first pass through a period of "probation" before it would be possible to discuss with her the question of the disarmament of the other countries. On October 14, 1933, Hitler broke away from this League of Nations with which it was impossible to come to any agreement. Shortly afterwards, however, on December 18, 1933, he came forward with a new proposal for the improvement of international relations. This proposal included the following six points:

    "1. Germany receives full equality of rights.

    2. The fully armed States undertake amongst themselves not to increase their armaments beyond their present level.

    3. Germany adheres to this agreement, freely undertaking to make only so much actual moderate use of the equality of rights granted to her as will not represent a threat to the security of any other European power.

    4. All States recognize certain obligations in regard to conducting war on humane principles, or to the elimination of certain weapons for use against the civilian population.

    5. All States accept a uniform general control which will watch over and ensure the observance of these obligations.

    6. The European nations guarantee one another the unconditional maintenance of peace by the conclusion of non-aggression pacts, to be renewed after ten years."

Following upon this a proposal was made to increase the strength of the German army to 300,000 men, corresponding to the strength required by Germany "having regard to the length of her frontiers and the size of the armies of her neighbors", in order to protect her threatened territory against attacks. The defender of the principle of peaceable agreement was thus trying to accommodate himself to the unwillingness of the others to disarm by expressing a desire for a limited increase of armaments for his own country. An exchange of notes, starting from this and continuing for years, finally came to a sudden end with an unequivocal "no" from France. This "no" was moreover accompanied by tremendous increases in the armed forces of France, Britain and Russia.

In this way Germany's position became still worse than before. The danger to the Reich was so great that Adolf Hitler felt himself compelled to act. On March 16, 1935, he reintroduced conscription. But in direct connection with this measure he once more announced an offer of agreements of an extensive nature, the purpose of which was to ensure that any future war would be conducted on humane principles, in fact to make such a war practically impossible by eliminating destructive armaments. In his speech of May 21, 1935, he declared:

    "The German Government is ready to take an active part in all efforts which may lead to a practical limitation of armaments. It regards a return to the former idea of the Geneva Red Cross Convention as the only possible way to achieve this. It believes that at first there will be only the possibility of a gradual abolition and outlawry of weapons and methods of warfare which are essentially contrary to the Geneva Red Cross Convention which is still valid.

    Just as the use of dumdum bullets was once forbidden and, on the whole, thereby prevented in practice, so the use of other definite arms should be forbidden and prevented. Here the German Govern- [4] ment has in mind all those arms which bring death and destruction not so much to the fighting soldiers as to non-combatant women and children.

    The German Government considers as erroneous and ineffective the idea to do away with aeroplanes while leaving the question of bombing open. But it believes it possible to proscribe the use of certain arms as contrary to international law and to excommunicate those nations which still use them from the community of mankind, its rights and its laws.

    It also believes that gradual progress is the best way to success. For example, there might be prohibition of the dropping of gas, incendiary and explosive bombs outside the real battle zone. This limitation could then be extended to complete international outlawry of all bombing. But so long as bombing as such is permitted, any limitation of the number of bombing planes is questionable in view of the possibility of rapid substitution.

    Should bombing as such be branded as a barbarity contrary to international law, the construction of bombing aeroplanes will soon be abandoned as superfluous and of no purpose. If, through the Geneva Red Cross Convention, it turned out possible as a matter of fact to prevent the killing of a defenseless wounded man or prisoner, it ought to be equally possible to forbid, by an analogous convention, and finally to stop, the bombing of equally defenseless civilian populations.

    In such a fundamental way of dealing with the problem, Germany sees a greater reassurance and security for the nations than in all pacts of assistance and military conventions.

    The German Government is ready to agree to any limitation which leads to abolition of the heaviest arms, especially suited for aggression. Such are, first, the heaviest artillery, and, secondly, the heaviest tanks. In view of the enormous fortifications on the French frontier such international abolition of the heaviest weapons of attack would ipso facto give France 100 per cent security.

    Germany declares herself ready to agree to any limitation whatsoever of the calibre-strength of artillery, battleships, cruisers and torpedo boats. In like manner the German Government is ready to accept any international limitation of the size of warships. And finally it is ready to agree to limitation of tonnage for submarines, or to their complete abolition in case of international agreement.

    [5] And it gives the further assurance that it will agree to any international limitation or abolition of arms whatsoever for a uniform space of time."

This time again Hitler's declarations did not find the slightest response. On the contrary, France made an alliance with Russia in order to increase her preponderating influence on the Continent still further, and to augment to a gigantic degree the pressure on Germany from the East.

In view of the evident destructive intentions of his opponents, Adolf Hitler was therefore obliged to take new measures to ensure the safety of the German Reich. On March 3, 1936, he occupied the Rhineland, which had been without military protection since Versailles, and thus closed the wide gate through which the Western neighbor could carry out an invasion. Once again he followed the defensive step which he had been obliged to take with a liberal appeal for general reconciliation and for the settlement of all differences. On March 31, 1936, he formulated the following peace plan:

    "1. In order to give to future agreements securing the peace of Europe the character of inviolable treaties, those nations participating in the negotiations do so only on an entirely equal footing and as equally esteemed members. The sole compelling reason for signing these treaties can only lie in the generally recognized and obvious practicability of these agreements for the peace of Europe, and thus for the social happiness and economic prosperity of the nations.

    2. In order to shorten in the economic interest of the European nations the period of uncertainty, the German Government proposes a limit of four months for the first period up to the signing of the pacts of non-aggression guaranteeing the peace of Europe.

    3. The German Government gives the assurance not to add any reinforcements whatsoever to the troops in the Rhineland during this period, always provided that the Belgian and French Governments act in the same way.

    4. The German Government gives the assurance not to move during this period closer to the Belgian and French frontiers the troops at present stationed in the Rhineland.

    5. The German Government proposes the setting up of a commission composed of the two guarantor Powers, Britain and Italy, and a disinterested third neutral power, to guarantee this assurance to be given by both parties.

 6. Germany, Belgium and France are each entitled to send a representative to this Commission. If Germany, France or Belgium think that for any particular reason they can point to a change in the military situation having taken place within this period of four months, they have the right to inform the Guarantee Commission of their observations.

    7. Germany, Belgium and France declare their willingness in such a case to permit this Commission to make the necessary investigations through the British and Italian military attaches, and to report thereon to the Powers participating.

    8. Germany, Belgium and France give the assurance that they will bestow the fullest consideration to the objections arising therefrom.

    9. Moreover the German Government is willing on a basis of complete reciprocity with Germany's two western neighbors to agree to any military limitations on the German western frontier.

    10. Germany, Belgium and France and the two guarantor Powers agree to enter into negotiations under the leadership of the British Government at once or, at the latest, after the French elections, for the conclusion of a 25-years non-aggression or security pact between France and Belgium on the one hand, and Germany on the other.

    11. Germany agrees that Britain and Italy shall sign this security pact as guarantor Powers once more.

    12. Should special engagements to render military assistance arise as a result of these security agreements, Germany on her part declares her willingness to enter into such engagements.

    13. The German Government hereby repeats its proposal for the conclusion of an air-pact to supplement and consolidate these security agreements.

    14. The German Government repeats that should the Netherlands so desire it is willing to include that country too in this West-European security agreement.

    15. In order to stamp this peace-pact, voluntarily entered into between Germany and France, as the reconciliatory conclusion of a centuries-old dispute, Germany and France pledge themselves to take steps to see that in the education of the young, as well as in the press and publications of both nations, everything shall be avoided which might be calculated to poison the relationship between the two [7] peoples, whether it be a derogatory or contemptuous attitude, or improper interference in the internal affairs of the other country. They agree to set up at the headquarters of the League of Nations at Geneva, a joint commission whose function it shall be to lay all complaints received before the two Governments for information and investigation.

    16. In pursuance of their intention to give this agreement the character of a sacred pledge, Germany and France undertake to ratify it by means of a plebiscite of the two nations.

    17. Germany expresses her willingness, on her part, to establish contact with the states on her south-eastern and north-eastern frontiers, in order to invite them directly to conclude the pacts of non-aggression already proposed.

    18. Germany expresses her willingness to re-enter the League of Nations, either at once, or after the conclusion of these agreements. At the same time, the German Government again expresses as its expectation that, after a reasonable time and by the method of friendly negotiations, the question of colonial equality of rights and that of the separation of the Covenant of the League of Nations from its foundations in the Versailles Treaty will be cleared up.

    19. Germany proposes the setting up of an International Court of Arbitration, which shall be responsible for the observance of the various agreements concluded, and whose decisions shall be binding on all parties.

    After the conclusion of this great work of securing European peace, the German Government considers it urgently necessary to endeavor by practical measures to put a stop to the unlimited competition in armaments. In her opinion this would mean not merely an improvement in the financial and economic position of the nations, but above all a diminution of the psychological tension.

    The German Government, however, has no faith in the attempt to bring about universal settlements, as this would be doomed to failure from the outset, and can therefore be proposed only by those who have no interest in achieving practical results. On the other hand it is of the opinion that the negotiations held and the results achieved in limiting naval armaments should have an instructive and stimulating effect.

    The German Government therefore proposes that future conferences shall have one clearly defined objective.

 For the present, it believes the most important task is to bring aerial warfare into the moral and humane atmosphere of the protection afforded to non-combatants or the wounded by the Geneva Convention. Just as the killing of defenseless wounded, or prisoners, or the use of dumdum bullets, or the waging of submarine warfare without warning, have been either forbidden or regulated by international conventions, so it must be possible for civilized humanity to prevent the senseless abuse of any new type of weapon, without running counter to the object of warfare.

    The German Government therefore puts forward the proposal that the immediate practical tasks of this conference shall be:

    1. Prohibition of dropping gas, poison, or incendiary bombs.

    2. Prohibition of dropping bombs of any kind whatsoever on open towns and villages outside the range of the medium-heavy artillery of the fighting fronts.

    3. Prohibition of the bombarding with long-range guns of towns more than 20 km. distant from the battle zone.

    4. Abolition and prohibition of the construction of tanks of the heaviest type.

    5. Abolition and prohibition of artillery of the heaviest calibre.

    As soon as possibilities for further limitation of armaments emerge from such discussions and agreements, they should be utilized.

    The German Government hereby declares itself prepared to join in every such settlement, in so far as it is valid internationally.

    The German Government believes that if even a first step is made on the road to disarmament, this will be of enormous importance to the relationship between the nations, and to the recovery of confidence, trade and prosperity.

    In accordance with the general desire for the restoration of favorable economic conditions, the German Government is prepared immediately after the conclusion of the political treaties to enter into an exchange of opinions on economic problems with the other nations concerned, in the spirit of the proposals made, and to do all that lies in its power to improve the economic situation in Europe, and the world economic situation which is closely bound up with it.

The German Government believes that with the peace plan proposed above it has made its contribution to the reconstruction of a new Europe on the basis of reciprocal respect and confidence between sovereign states. Many opportunities for such a pacification of Europe, for which Germany has so often in the last few years made her proposals, have been neglected. May this attempt to achieve European understanding succeed at last!

    The German Government confidently believes that it has opened the way in this direction by submitting the above peace plan."

Anyone who today reads this comprehensive peace plan will realize in what direction the development of Europe, according to the wishes of Adolf Hitler, should really have proceeded. Here was the possibility of truly constructive work, this could have been a real turning-point for the welfare of all nations. But once more he who alone called for peace was not heard. Only Britain replied with a rather scornful questionnaire which avoided any serious consideration of the essential points involved. Incidentally, however, she disclosed her actual intentions by setting herself up as the protector of France and by instituting and commencing regular military staff conversations with the French Republic just as in the period before the Great War.

There could no longer be any doubt now that the Western Powers were following the old path towards an armed conflict and were steadily preparing a new blow against Germany, although Adolf Hitler's whole thoughts and endeavors were directed towards proving to them that he wanted to remain on the best possible terms with them. In the course of the years he had undertaken numerous steps in this direction, of which a few more shall be referred to here. He negotiated the Naval Agreement of June 18, 1935 with Great Britain, which provided that the German Navy should only have a strength of 35% of that of the British Navy. By this he wanted to demonstrate that the Reich, to use his own words, had "neither the intention nor the means, nor was it necessary" to enter into any rivalry as regards naval power, such as had had so fateful an influence on its relations to Great Britain in the well-remembered days before the Great War.

He assured France on every possible occasion of his desire to live at peace with her. He repeatedly renounced in plain terms any claim to Alsace-Lorraine. On the return to the Reich of the Saar territory as the result of the plebiscite, he declared on March 1, 1935:

 "It is our hope that through this act of just compensation, in which we see a return to natural reason, relations between Germany and France have permanently improved. Therefore as we desire peace, we must hope that our great neighbor is ready and willing to seek peace with us. It must be possible for two great people to join together and collaborate in opposing the difficulties which threaten to overwhelm Europe."

He even endeavored to arrive at a better understanding with Poland, the eastern ally of the Western Powers, although this country had unlawfully incorporated millions of Germans in 1919 and had subjected them to the worst oppression ever since. On January 26, 1934, he concluded a non-aggression pact with her in which the two Governments agreed "to settle directly all questions of whatever sort which concern their mutual relations."

Thus on all sides he opposed to the enemy plans his determination to preserve peace and strove to protect Germany in this way. When however he saw that London and Paris were arming for attack, he was once more obliged to undertake fresh measures of defense. The enemy camp, as we have seen above, had been enormously extended through the alliance between France and Russia. In addition to this the two powers had secured a line of communication to the south of the Reich through Czechoslovakia having concluded a treaty with Russia which put her in the position of a bridge between east and west. Czechoslovakia, however, was in control of the high-lying country of Bohemia and Moravia, which Bismarck had called the citadel of Europe, and this citadel projected far into German territory. The threat to Germany thus assumed truly overpowering proportions.



The genius of Adolf Hitler found a way of meeting this danger. The conditions in German Austria, which under the terror of the Schuschnigg Government were tending towards civil war, offered him the opportunity of stepping in to save the situation, and to lead back into the Reich the sister nation to the south-east that had been sentenced by the victorious powers to lead the life of a hopelessly decaying "Free State". After he had thus established himself near the line of communication between France and Russia mentioned above, a process of dissolution set in in the mixed State of Czechoslovakia, which had been artificially put together from the most diverse national elements, until after the liberation of the Sudetenland and the secession of Slovakia, the Czechs themselves asked for the protection of the German Reich. With this the enemy's bridge came into Adolf Hitler's possession; and at the same time direct connection was made possible with Italy, whose friendship had been secured some time previously.

While he was gaining this strategical success for the security of his country, Adolf Hitler was again endeavoring with great eagerness to reach a peaceable understanding with the Western Powers. In Munich directly after liberation of the Sudeten Germans, approved by Britain, France and Italy, he made an agreement with the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, the text of which was a follows:

    "We have had a further meeting to-day and have agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for the two countries and for Europe.

    We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.

    We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

                September 30, 1938. Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain."

Two months later, on Hitler's instructions, the German Foreign Minister, von Ribbentrop, made the following agreement with France:

    "Herr Joachim von Ribbentrop, Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs,
          and M. Georges Bonnet, French Minister of Foreign Affairs,
          acting in the name and by order of their Governments, are, at their meeting in Paris, on December 6, 1938, agreed as follows:

    1. The German Government and the French Government fully share the conviction that peaceful and good-neighborly relations between Germany and France constitute one of the most essential elements for the consolidation of the situation in Europe and the maintenance of general peace. The two Governments will in consequence use all their efforts to ensure the development of the relations between their countries in this direction.

    [12] 2. The two Governments recognize that between the two countries there is no territorial question outstanding, and they solemnly recognize as final the frontiers between their countries as they now exist.

    3. The two Governments are resolved, while leaving unaffected their particular relations with other Powers, to remain in contact with regard to all questions concerning their two countries, and mutually to consult should the later evolution of those questions lead to international difficulties.

    In token whereof the representatives of the two Governments have signed the present Declaration, which comes into immediate effect.

    Done in two original Documents in the French and German language respectively, in Paris, December 6, 1938.

                Joachim von Ribbentrop,
                Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs

                Georges Bonnet,
                Minister for Foreign Affairs"

According to all calculations one should have been able to assume that the way was clear for collaborative reconstruction in which all leading powers would participate, and that the Fuehrer's endeavors to secure peace would at last meet with success. But the contrary was true. Scarcely had Chamberlain reached home when he called for rearmament on a considerable scale and laid plans for a new and tremendous encirclement of Germany. Britain now took over from France the leadership of this further encirclement of the Reich, in order to obtain a substitute for the lost Czechoslovakia many times its value. She opened negotiations with Russia, granted Poland a guarantee and also Rumania, Greece and Turkey. These were alarm signals of the greatest urgency.

Just at this time Adolf Hitler was occupied with the task of finally eliminating sources of friction with Poland. For this purpose he had made an uncommonly generous proposal by which the purely German Free City of Danzig would return to the Reich, and a narrow passage through the Polish Corridor, which since 1919 had torn asunder the north-eastern part of Germany to an unbearable extent, would provide communication with the separated area. This proposal, which moreover afforded Poland the prospect of a 25-year non-aggression pact and other advantages, was nevertheless rejected in Warsaw, because there it was believed, conscious as the authorities were of forming one of the principal members of the common [13] front set up by London against Germany, that any concession, however minor, could be refused. This was not all! With the same consciousness Poland then started to be aggressive, threatened Danzig, and prepared to take up arms against Germany.

Thus the moment was close at hand for the attack on the Reich by the countries which had been brought together for the purpose. Adolf Hitler, making a final extreme effort in the interests of peace, saved what he could. On August 23rd, Ribbentrop succeeded in reaching an agreement in Moscow for a non-aggression pact with Russia. Two days later the German Fuehrer himself made a final and truly remarkable offer to Britain, declaring himself ready "to enter into agreements with Great Britain", "which... would not only, on the German side, in any case safeguard the existence of the British Empire, but if necessary would guarantee German assistance for the British Empire, irrespective of where such assistance might be required". At the same time he was prepared "to accept a reasonable limitation of armaments, in accordance with the new political situation and economic requirements". And finally he assured once again that he had no interest in the issues in the west and that "a correction of the borders in the west are out of any consideration."

The reply to this was a pact of assistance signed the same day between Britain and Poland, which rendered the outbreak of war inevitable. Then a decision was made in Warsaw to mobilize at once against Germany, and the Poles began with violent attacks not only on the Germans in Poland, who for some time had been the victims of frightful massacres, but on Germans in German territory.

But even when Britain and France had already declared the war they desired, and Germany had overcome the Polish danger in the east by a glorious campaign without a parallel, even then Adolf Hitler raised his voice once more in the name of peace. He did so although his hands were now free to act against the enemy in the west. He did so, although the fight against him personally was proclaimed in London and Paris, in immeasurable hate, as a crusade. At this moment he possessed the supreme self-control to proclaim in his speech of October 6, 1939, a new plan for the pacification of Europe to public opinion throughout the world. This plan was as follows:

    "By far the most important task, in my opinion, is the creation of not only a belief in, but also a sense of, European security.

 1. For this it is necessary that the aims of the foreign policy of each European State should be made perfectly clear. As far as Germany is concerned, the Reich Government is ready to give a thorough and exhaustive exposition of the aims of its foreign policy. In so doing, it begins by stating that the Treaty of Versailles is now regarded by it as obsolete, in other words, that the Government of the German Reich and with it the whole German people no longer see cause or reason for any further revision of the Treaty, apart from the demand for adequate colonial possessions justly due to the Reich, involving in the first place a return of the German colonies. This demand for colonies is based not only on Germany's historical claim to her colonies, but above all on her elementary right to a share of the world's resources of raw materials. This demand does not take the form of an ultimatum, nor is it a demand which is backed by force, but a demand based on political justice and sane economic principles.

    2. The demand for a real revival of international economic life coupled with an extension of trade and commerce presupposes a reorganization of the international economic system, in other words, of production in the individual states. In order to facilitate the exchange of the goods thus produced, however, a new system of markets must be found and a final settlement of currencies arrived at, so that the obstacles in the way of unrestricted trade can be gradually removed.

    3. The most important condition, however, for a real revival of economic life in and outside of Europe is the establishment of an unconditionally guaranteed peace and of a sense of security on the part of the individual nations. This security will not only be rendered possible by the final sanctioning of the European status, but above all by the reduction of armaments to a reasonable and economically tolerable level. An essential part of this necessary sense of security, however, is a clear definition of the legitimate use and application of certain modern armaments which can at any given moment strike straight at the heart of every nation and hence create a permanent sense of insecurity. In my previous speeches in the Reichstag I made proposals with this end in view. At that time they were rejected - presumably for the simple reason that they were made by me.

    I believe, however, that a sense of national security will not return to Europe until clear and binding international agreements  have provided a comprehensive definition of the extent to which the use of certain weapons is permitted or forbidden.

    The Geneva Convention once succeeded in prohibiting, in civilized countries at least, the killing of wounded, the ill-treatment of prisoners, war against non-combatants, etc., and just as it was possible gradually to achieve the universal observance of this statute, a way ought surely to be found to regulate aerial warfare, the use of poison gas, of submarines etc., and also so to define contraband that war will lose its terrible character of a conflict waged against women and children and against non-combatants in general. The growing horror of certain methods of modern warfare will of its own accord lead to their abolition, and thus they will become obsolete.

    In the war with Poland, I endeavored to restrict aerial warfare to objectives of military importance, or only to employ it to combat resistance at a given point. But it must surely be possible to emulate the Red Cross in drawing up some universally valid international regulation. It is only when this is achieved that peace can reign, particularly on our densely populated continent a peace which, un-contaminated by suspicion and fear, will provide the only possible condition for real economic prosperity. I do not believe that there is any responsible statesman in Europe who does not in his heart desire prosperity for his people. But such a desire can only be realized if all the nations inhabiting this continent decide to work together. To assist in ensuring this co-operation must be the aim of every man who is sincerely struggling for the future of his own people.

    To achieve this great end, the leading nations on this continent will one day have to come together in order to draw up, accept and guarantee a statute on a comprehensive basis which will ensure for them a sense of security, of calm, - in short, of peace.

    Such a conference could not possibly be held without the most thorough preparation, i. e. without exact elucidation of every point at issue. It is equally impossible that such a conference, which would determine the fate of this continent for many years to come, could carry on its deliberations while cannons are thundering, or mobilized armies bringing pressure to bear upon it. Since, however, these problems must be solved sooner or later, it would surely be more sensible to tackle the solution before millions of men are first uselessly sent to their death, and billions of dollars' worth of property destroyed.

    The continuation of the present state of affairs in the west is unthinkable. Each day will soon demand increasing sacrifices. Perhaps the day will come when France will begin to bombard and demolish Saarbrücken. The German artillery will in turn lay Mühlhausen in ruins. France will retaliate by bombarding Karlsruhe, and [16] Germany in her turn shell Strassburg. Then the French artillery will fire at Freiburg, and the Germans at Kolmar or Schlettstadt. Long-range artillery will then be set up, and from both sides destruction will strike deeper and deeper, and whatever cannot be reached by the long-range artillery will be destroyed from the air. And that will be very interesting for certain international journalists, and very profitable for the aeroplane, arms, and munition manufacturers, etc., but appalling for the victims. And this battle of destruction will not be confined to the land. No, it will reach far out over the sea. To-day there are no longer any islands.

    And the national wealth of Europe will be scattered in the form of shells, and the vigor of every nation will be sapped on the battlefields. One day, however, there will again be a frontier between Germany and France, but instead of flourishing towns there will be ruins and endless graveyards."

The fate of this plan was the same as that of all the previous appeals made by Adolf Hitler in the name of reason, in the interests of a true renascence of Europe. His enemies paid him no heed. On this occasion also no response was forthcoming from them. They rigidly adhered to the attitude which they had taken up in the beginning.

In the face of this series of historical facts is there any need for further details as to the question of why they did so? They had created Versailles, and when Versailles threatened to collapse they wanted the war, in order to follow it with an even worse Versailles. The reproaches which they make today to Adolf Hitler and Germany, recoil one and all on those who make them, and characterize their actions. They are the disturbers of peace, they are the ones who meditate the forcible oppression of other peoples and seek to plunge Europe in devastation and disaster. If if were not so, they would long ago have taken the hand that was stretched out to them or at least have made a gesture of honestly wishing to cooperate in a new order, and thus spare the nations "blood, tears and sweat" in excess.

World history is the world court; and in this case as always when it reaches its decision it will pronounce a just verdict.

Dr. Friedrich Stieve


Published in 1940 by the Washington Journal under the auspices of the Deutsche Informationsstelle.



Click on this text to see what Hitler attempted to dismantle...The Murderously Evil Jewish Oligarchy

Click on this text to see the NSDAP Transfer Agreement or HAAVARA designed to empty Jews out of Germany and transfer them to Palestine...




Once anyone fully realizes that they have been incessantly lied to and have been played the fool by Jews, they think it all through and then realize that EVERYTHING we were told about Adolf Hitler, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) and Germany leading up to and during WWII are the biggest lies of all, and...

                            The only thing worse than being played the fool is remaining a fool.

Fraudulent "Nazi" Quotations ...By Mark Weber

Fraudulent quotations attributed to Hitler and other Third Reich leaders have been widely circulated for years. Such quotes are often used by polemicists — of both the left and the right — to discredit their ideological adversaries by showing that Nazis held similar views. This tactic works because people have been educated to believe that anything Hitler and other Nazi leaders thought or said was malevolent, wrong-headed or evil, and that no reasonable or ethical person could hold similar views.

Here's a look at a few of the many remarks falsely attributed to Hitler and other top Nazis.

Goebbels: 'Truth is the Enemy of the State'

Hitler's propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, supposedly said:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

Rush Limbaugh, the popular American radio commentator, is just one of the many influential Americans who has cited this quotation. During a May 2007 radio broadcast he claimed that these remarks are "from Hitler's war room, the Nazi spinmeister-in-chief, Joseph Goebbels," who was "speaking for his cronies in the Nazi party." Limbaugh went on to claim that American "Democrat Party" leaders were using "a version" of Goebbels' technique to try to "repress dissent." And in January 2011 US Congressman Steve Cohen, a Democratic party politician of Tennessee, accused Republicans of propagating "a big lie, just like Goebbels" about a proposed national health care plan.

In fact, Goebbels' views were quite different than what this fraudulent quote suggests. He consistently held that propaganda should be accurate and truthful.

In an address given in September 1934 in Nuremberg, he said: "Good propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that people cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannot be successful in the long run."

In an article written in 1941, he cited examples of false British wartime claims, and went on to charge that British propagandists had adopted the "big lie" technique that Hitler had identified and condemned in his book Mein Kampf. Goebbels wrote: "The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."

Hitler and Gun Control

In a speech, sometimes said to have been delivered in 1935, Hitler is supposed to have exclaimed: "This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

This quote has been popular with Americans who defend the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." It's cited to discredit those who support restrictions on firearms ownership and use. It's also cited to support the often-made charge that Hitler and his government curtailed gun ownership in Germany, and confiscated weapons held by private citizens.

The truth is rather different. When Hitler and his National Socialist Party took power in early 1933, they inherited a somewhat restrictive firearms law that the liberal-democratic "Weimar" government had enacted five years earlier. In 1938 Hitler's government revised the earlier law by loosening those restrictions, thereby enhancing the rights of Germans to own weapons. The most thorough confiscation of firearms ever imposed on Germans was carried out at the end of the Second World War by the occupation forces of the United States and other victorious Allied powers.

Hitler on 'Law and Order'

Hitler is supposed to have said during a speech in 1932, shortly before he became Chancellor:

"The streets of our cities are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might and the Republic is in danger. Yes, danger from within and without. We need law and order! Yes, without law and order our nation cannot survive ... Elect us and we shall restore law and order. We shall, by law and order, be respected among the nations of the world. Without law and order our Republic shall fail."

This quotation, which is meant to embarrass and discredit those who support "law and order," was especially popular with younger Americans during the late 1960s and early 1970s. It appeared on posters and in the 1971 movie "Billy Jack."

In his many election campaign speeches in 1932 Hitler stressed the themes of justice, freedom, jobs and national unity — not "law and order." German universities in 1932 were not "filled with students rebelling and rioting." In fact, German students were among the most fervent supporters of Hitler and his National Socialist movement.

Goering on Culture

Hermann Goering, a high-ranking Third Reich official, is often quoted as having said: "Whenever I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver." Reichsmarschall Goering (Göring), who was commander of Germany's air force, would never have said anything like this. Along with other high-level Third Reich leaders, he esteemed the arts, and prided himself on his appreciation of culture.

This quote is a distortion of a line by a character in the play Schlageter by German writer Hanns Johst. The original line (translated) is "When I hear [the word] culture ... I release the safety on my Browning!" A version of this quote is presented in a staged scene in "Why We Fight," a US government wartime propaganda film, to suggest that the typical "Nazi" was an uncultured thug.

Hitler and Conscience

"I am liberating man from the degrading chimera known as conscience," Hitler is supposed to have said. This widely repeated quote appears, for example, in The Great Quotations, a supposedly authoritative collection compiled by Jewish American journalist and author George Seldes. It's a version of a remark attributed to Hitler by Hermann Rauschning in his book, The Voice of Destruction (Conversations with Hitler), which is a source of many fraudulent quotations supposedly based on private talks with Hitler that, in fact, never took place.

The "original" text of this quote, as presented by Rauschning, is: "Providence has ordained that I should be the greatest liberator of humanity. I am freeing men from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge; from the dirty and degrading self-mortifications of a chimera called conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and personal independence which only a very few can bear."

In fact, Hitler repeatedly emphasized the importance of acting conscientiously. For example, in at least three different public statements or speeches 1941 alone, he spoke about acting in accord with his conscience. Rudolf Hess, a close friend and trusted colleague, once said that his devotion to Hitler was based in large measure on his regard for Hitler's resolute conscience. In a 1934 speech Hess said: "The conscience of a moral personality is a far greater protection against the misuse of an office than is the supervision of parliament or the separation of powers. I know no one who has a stronger conscience, or is more true to his people, than Adolf Hitler ... The Führer's highest court is his conscience and his responsibility to his people and to history."

Hitler: 'Destroy By All Means'

The US government propaganda film, "Why We Fight," quotes Hitler as having said: "My motto is 'Destroy by all and any means. National Socialism will reshape the world'." This is a version of a remark attributed to Hitler by Hermann Rauschning in his influential book. The "original" text, as presented by Rauschning, is: "I want war. To me all means will be right ... My motto is not 'Don't, whatever you do, annoy the enemy!' My motto is 'Destroy him by all and any means.' I am the one who will wage the war!" Another version of this invented remark appears in the book Hitler and Nazism (1961), by historian Louis Leo Snyder, who was a professor at City College of New York.

Hitler on Terrorism

Hitler has often been quoted as saying: "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." This quote is based on two invented remarks in Hermann Rauschning's mendacious book, The Voice of Destruction.

Hitler: 'We Are Barbarians'

Hitler has often been quoted as saying: "They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end."

This is another fraudulent Hitler quote from the fanciful work of Hermann Rauschning.

Hitler and 'Brutal Youth'

"A violently active, dominating, intrepid, brutal youth — that is what I am after ... I want to see in its eyes the gleam of pride and independence, of prey. I will have no intellectual training. Knowledge is the ruin of my young men." This widely cited remark is included, for example, in George Seldes' The Great Quotations. The source cited by Seldes is an item in The Nation by the popular American journalist and author John Gunther (1901-1970).

In fact, this is a version of a remark attributed to Hitler by Hermann Rauschning, whose imaginative work is a source of many phony "quotes." Another fraudulent Hitler remark in this same spirit and from this same source, likewise cited by the supposedly authoritative Seldes, is this: "Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism ever invented for its own destruction."

These remarks misrepresent Hitler's real views. In fact, National Socialist Germany was a world leader in science, learning, technology and medicine. Hitler was admired by some of the leading intellectuals of the age, including Knut Hamsun, Ezra Pound, Louis-Ferdinand Celine and Martin Heidegger.

References / For Further Reading

Randall Bytwerk, "False Nazi Quotations" (http://bytwerk.com/gpa/falsenaziquotations.htm)

Paul F. Boller, Jr. and John George, They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions (New York: Oxford, 1989).

Joseph Goebbels, "From Churchill's Factory of Lies," ("Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik"), January 1941. Reprinted in Zeit ohne Beispiel (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb29.htm) (1941)

Joseph Goebbels, "Propaganda" (Nuremberg: 1934)

William L. Pierce, Gun Control in Germany 1928-1945 (1994)

John Toland, Adolf Hitler (1976)

Mark Weber, "Goebbels and World War II Propaganda," 2011

Mark Weber, "Goebbels' Place in History," The Journal of Historical Review, 1995.

Mark Weber, "Hitler as 'Enlightenment Intellectual': The Enduring Allure of Hitlerism," 1997

Mark Weber, "Rauschning's Phony 'Conversations With Hitler': An Update," 1985


Click on this text to Learn the Truth about WW2 - Living in Hitler's Germany.....


The big bad baby Hitler hadn't even born yet when the lyric "Deutschland uber alles" was coined. In fact, Hitler's mom, Klara, hadn't been born either!

Additionally, the phrase "Deutschland uber alles" - (Germany above all things), is always, and I mean always, presented out-of-context, as if to suggest that the Germans were boasting of their superiority to all other peoples. The following line of the song clarifies and confirms that the anthem, far from being a song about conquest, was actually about the unified defense of the small German states which, historically, have been relentlessly attacked by Romans, Huns, Mongols and, most relevant to the song, the French. Here is the full translation of the harmless and beautiful song of national defense and brotherhood:

1. Germany, Germany above all * (Deutschland uber alles)
Above everything in the world * (in terms of love for Germany)
When, always, for protection and defense
Brothers stand together.
From the Maas to the Memel
From the Etsch to the Belt,
Germany, Germany above all
Above all in the world.

2. German women, German fidelity,
German wine and German song,
Shall retain, throughout the world,
Their old respected fame,
To inspire us to noble deeds
For the length of our lives.
German women, German fidelity,
German wine and German song.

3. Unity and right and freedom
For the German Fatherland;
Let us all strive to this goal
Brotherly, with heart and hand.
Unity and rights and freedom
Are the pledge of fortune grand.
Prosper in this fortune's glory,
Prosper German fatherland.

These lyrics transcend ideology and political systems. Indeed, it was the ultra-liberal, western puppet, Jewish-owned Wiemar Republic, not "the Nazis," who declared the Deutschlandlied the National Anthem in 1922! But that won't stop the Marxist-Jewish propagandists from continuing to dupe good men with never-ending disinformation about "the Nazis" and the phrase "Deutschland uber alles."


Stop using the word "NAZI".... using the word is a reflection of your having been thoroughly brain-washed and conditioned by the sinister Jews who have absolutely subjugated, and continue to ruin, many countries.


There was never any such organisation as Nazi’s or a Nazi Party


The National Socialists (N.S.D.A.P. - Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) never referred to themselves as Nazi’s.
It was, as it still is today, a political slogan used as a repressive weapon for the purposes of stifling dissent – hypocritically, the very social condition the National Socialists’ enemies have accused purported “evil Nazi’s” of having inflicted upon the German populace of the 1930’s.

The term “Nazi” is nothing more than an epithet and after 90 years, it is high time we learned where it came from, who invented it and why.


The term “Nazi” was actually created by the Communist-Marxist enemies of the National Socialists (the NSDAP). It was/is a pejorative connotation; a belittling insult and a slur. The Germans, not Hitler, nor any other high ranking party officials ever referred to themselves as “Nazis”! They called themselves ‘National Socialists’ and nothing more.

Those who can read German and have studied any of the original documents and speeches, should know this already, but most do not. Yet the world and countless generations continue to echo this epithet as if it was as certain as the sun rising. This should give some insight into the mind manipulating power of media and propaganda. It should then, also give a clear indication of who is actually in control of the worlds media and propaganda – the Communist-Marxist enemies!


The term ‘Nazi’ (along with ‘Nazism’) is little more than a political epithet invented by Konrad Heiden during the 1920’s, as a means of disparaging the NSDAP and the political and financial ideals of National Socialism in general. Heiden was a member of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and conveniently, also an influential Jewish journalist for both the Frankfurter Zeitung and the Vossische Zeitung German newspapers. Heiden’s SDP was renowned for its internal conflict created by its elements of Marxist members and progressively during the 1920’s and early 1930’s, ultimately lost the majority of its seats in the Reichstag to the National Socialists. By 1933, of the 647 seats in the Reichstag, the NSDAP held 288, the SDP held only 120 and the Communist Party, a mere 81 seats.


The slang term Nazi is a variation of the nickname Sozi (short for Sozialisten), which, at the time, was used in reference to members of Heidens’ SDP. “Nazi” was a political pun, based upon the Austro-Bavarian slang word for “simpleton” or “country bumpkin” and derived from the fairly common name, Ignatz (German form of Ignatius), colloquially meaning, a foolish, clumsy or awkward person. It would be the equivalent of calling someone “nutsy.”


So, if for no other reason than it being an insult, it should be easily understood why the term was regarded as derogatory by the National Socialists and why they would never use it to describe themselves as such.

One should also see why it would be made popular by the Communist-Marxist agitating propagandists and understood how it was seized upon by various other political opponents and subversive political movements – both within Germany and abroad – including the political leaders of the western powers, who clearly had been infiltrated by the same Communist-Marxist elements as well.


It should immediately become apparent that, if there is no such thing as a “Nazi” – except in the propaganda which was invented and spewed by this man – then it follows logically, that there is also no such thing as a “Neo-Nazi” either. Those who would describe themselves as such are as ignorant as those who say they “hate Nazi’s” – they are equally deceived.

Further, again, if there was never any such thing as a “Nazi” (which includes the conspiratorial suggestion that there is purported magical etymology of ‘Na-Zi’) then there was never any political party merger between the National Socialists (Na-) and the Zionist Organisations (-Zi), as gatekeeping and co-intelligence operations, even disseminated by the likes of Eustace Mullins, would suggest.


Those who believe and are led by such clever nonsense, are also equally deceived. This clever nonsense (along with much more) is used purely to misdirect people away from ever discovering the core truth of the Third Reich’s simple, however extraordinary achievements and more importantly, WHY and HOW they were achieved, which was in complete defiance of the well coordinated network of international politics and finance… the easy and simple truth of prosperity that can be obtained by all, which the international Communist propagandists fear the people of the world would ever discover, as it would see their monumental, parasitic power, disintegrate virtually overnight.


It is therefore, also highly likely, that those who promote ‘Neo-Nazism’ are also just agents whose job it is to keep the spectre of ‘evil Nazis’ alive in the minds of the divided and oppressed ethnic populations (as we also continually see with countless movies and allusions from all media), in order to continually effect the demonisation of all those who would dare question the whole history about Hitler, the National Socialists and WWII… which we have all, naively, been sold.





BACK DOOR TO WAR-The Roosevelt Foreign Policy 1933 to 1941...... https://archive.org/stream/CharlesCallanTansillBackDoorToWarRooseveltForeignPolicy19331941/Charles_Callan_Tansill_Back_door_to_war_Roosevelt_foreign_policy_1933_1941#page/n0/mode/1up



Benton Bradberry - The Myth of German Villainy ... https://youtu.be/LkMrCHaSi0M



Full documentary The Faking of Adolf Hitler for History https://youtu.be/Dn_cKvrGuLM

FREE BOOK READ: Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufman Newark, N.J., Argyle press Copyright 1941... http://web.archive.org/web/20150906065803/http://hailtosatansvictory666.angelfire.com/Germany_Must_Perish_1941.pdf


Judea Declares War on Germany - Dr Fredrick Toben ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe6npWo7Wug


           "Judea Declares War on Germany!" - Daily Express headline, March 24, 1933. 

          "Judea Declares War on Germany! Jews of all the World Unite! Boycott of German Goods!  Mass Demonstrations!"
 - These were all headlines in the Daily Express on March 24, 1933.
   "The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany.  
Fourteen million Jews stand together as one man, to declare war against Germany. 
         Jewish  wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his commerce and 
 the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war against Hitler's people."
- Daily  Express, March 24, 1933. 
  "Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike,
         who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so  now and here. 
         is not sufficient that you should buy no goods made in Germany. 
You must
          refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any 
         goods or who  patronises German ships or shipping.... 
we will undermine the
         Hitler regime and bring the  
German people to their senses by destroying
         their export trade on which their very existence  depends." 
- Samuel
         Undermeyer, in a Radio Broadcast on WABC, New York, August 6, 1933.  

         (Reported in the New York Times, August 7, 1933.   Joining with Samuel Untermeyer in calling for a war against Germany,
 Bernard Baruch, at the  same time, was promoting preparations for war against Germany)
         emphasised that the defeat  of Germany and Japan and their elimination from world trade would give Britain a tremendous 
 opportunity to swell her foreign commerce in both volume and profit."
 - Baruch, The Public  Years, by Bernard M. Baruch, p. 347 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
  Samuel Untermeyer was a Jewish leader and close friend
         of presidents Wilson and Roosevelt.  
Bernard Baruch was a presidential adviser
         to Wilson, Roosevelt and Truman.  
 "This declaration called the war against Germany, which was now determined on, a 'holy war'.
This war was to be carried out against Germany to its conclusion,
         to her destruction" 
(Diese  Erklarung nannte den Krieg gegen Deutschland,
         der nun beschlossen sei, einen heiligen Krieg.    
 Dieser Krieg miisse gegen
         Deutschland bis zu dessen Ende, bis zu dessen Vernichtung, gefiihrt  werden).

         - Dr. Franz J. Scheidl, Geschichte der Verfemung Deutschlands. 
  "War in Europe in 1934 was inevitable."
         - H. Morgenthau, Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Hearst  Press, September, 1933

         (also quoted in "The Palestine Plot" by B. Jenson, p. 1 1 (printed by John  McKinley, 11-15 King Street, Perth,
 "For months now the struggle against Germany is waged by each Jewish community, 
at each  conference, in all our syndicates, and by each Jew all over the world. 
There is reason to believe  that our part in this struggle has general value.
 We will trigger a spiritual and material war of all  the world against Germany's ambitions to become
         once again a great nation, 
to recover lost  territories and colonies. 
But our Jewish interests demand the complete destruction of Germany. 
 Collectively and individually, the German nation is a threat to us Jews."
 - Vladimir Jabotinsky  (founder of the Jewish terrorist group, Irgun Zvai Leumi) in Mascha Rjetsch, January,
(also  quoted in "Histoire de l'Armee Allemande" by Jacques
         Benoist-Mechin, Vol. IV, p. 303).
  "Hitler will have no war (does not want war), but we will force it on him, not this year,
         but  soon." 
- Emil Ludwig Cohn in Les Annales, June, 1934 (also quoted
         in his book "The New Holy  Alliance").  
 "We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany."
         - David A. Brown, National Chairman, United  Jewish Campaign, 1934 
         in "I Testify Against The Jews" by Robert Edward Edmondson,  
         188 and "The Jewish War of Survival" by Arnold Leese, page 52).  
 "We want to bring about a deep hatred
         for the Germans, for German soldiers, sailors, and  airmen. 
We must hate
         until we win." 
- Lord Beaverbrook, quoted in Niemals! by Heinrich  Goitsch.
  "There is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. 
We Jews are the  most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply
 -  Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 27, 1935. 

          "Before the end of the year, an economic bloc of England, Russia, France and the U.S. A 
will be  formed to bring the German and Italian economic systems to their knees." 
- Paul Dreyfus, "La  Vie de Tanger" May 15, 1938. 
  On the 3rd of June, 1938, the American Hebrew
         boasted that they had Jews in the foremost  positions of influence in Britain, 
         and France, and that these "three sons of Israel will be  sending the Nazi dictator to hell."
 - Joseph Trimble, the American Hebrew. 
  "Germany is our public enemy number
         one. It is our object to declare war without mercy against  her. 
One may
         be sure of this: We will lead that war!" 
- Bernard Lecache, the president
         of the  "International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism,"

         in its newspaper "Droit de Vivre"  (Right to Life), 9 November, 1938.  
 "The war now proposed is for the purpose
         of establishing Jewish hegemony throughout the  world." 
- Brigadier
         General George Van Horn Mosely, The New York Tribune, March 29, 1939. 
  "I wish to confirm in the most explicit
         manner, the declaration which I and my colleagues made
  during the last months,
         and especially in the last week: 
that the Jews "stand by Great Britain
         and  will fight on the side of the democracies." 
Our urgent desire is
         to give effect to these  declarations. 
We wish to do so in a way entirely
         consonant with the general scheme of British  action, 
and therefore would
         place ourselves, in matters big and small, under the co-ordinating  direction of His Majesty's Government.
 The Jewish Agency is ready to enter into immediate  arrangements for utilizing Jewish manpower,
         technical ability, resources, etc." 
- Chaim  Weizmann, President of
         the World Jewish Congress, Head of the Jewish Agency and later  President of Israel, 
         London Times, September 5, 1939, and the London Jewish Chronicle,  September 8, 1939. 
  "The millions of Jews who live in America,
         England and France, North and South Africa, and,  
not to forget those in
         Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany  to its final end." 
- Central Blad Voor Israeliten in Nederland, September 13, 1939.
   "Stop talking about peace conditions!
         Break Germany in pieces!" - The Daily Herald, No.7426, 9  December, 1939.
   "The Jews, taken collectively, view
         this war as a holy war." - The Daily Herald, No. 7450, 1939,  
         in "Reichstagsbrand, Aufklarung einer historischen Legende," 
         U. Backes, K.H.  JanBen, E. Jesse, H. Kohler, H. Mommsen, E Tobias.
   "Even if we Jews are not physically
         at your side in the trenches, we are morally with you. 
This  war is our war
         and you fight it with us." 
- Schalom Asch, Les Nouvelles Litterairres,
         February  10, 1940.
   "In losing Germany, Jewry lost a territory from which it exerted power. 
Therefore it was  determined to re-conquer it." 
         Louis Marschalko, "The World Conquerors : The Real War  Criminals." 
  "The World Jewish Congress has been
         at war with Germany for seven years." 
- Rabbi M.  Perlzweig (head of
         the British Section of the World Jewish Congress), 
Toronto Evening  Telegram,
         February 26, 1940. 
  "The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism."
-  Rabbi Felix Mendlesohn, Chicago Sentinel, October 8, 1942. 

          "We are not denying and are not afraid to confess that this war is our war and that it is waged for  the liberation
         of Jewry... 
Stronger than all fronts together is our front, that of Jewry.
We are not  only giving this war our financial support on which the entire
         war production is based, 
we are not  only providing our full propaganda power
         which is the moral energy that keeps this war going.
  The guarantee of victory
         is predominantly based on weakening the enemy forces, on destroying  them in their own country, 
within the resistance. And we are the Trojan horses in the enemy's  fortress.
 Thousands of Jews living in Europe constitute the principal factor in the destruction of our enemy. T
here, our front is a fact and the most valuable aid for victory." 
- Chaim Weizmann,  President of the World Jewish Congress, Head of the Jewish Agency and later President of
in a Speech on December 3, 1942, in New York. 

          "Played golf with Joe Kennedy (U.S. Ambassador to Britain). 
He says
         that Chamberlain stated  that America and world Jewry forced England into World War II." 
- James Forrestal, Secretary  of the Navy (later Secretary of Defense), Diary, December 27, 1945 entry. 

          "It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked 
 solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests. 
Nor had  I ever wished that after the appalling first World War, there would ever be a second against
          either England or America." 
- Adolf Hitler, April, 1945. 

          The joke doing the rounds of the British Union of Fascists at this time, was that the Jewish  national anthem was, 
'Onward Christian Soldiers.'

 World Jewish Congress Declared War on Germany
Long Before Germany Took Any Action Against Jews

The following article is composed of excerpts taken from "The White Man's Bible" written by Ben Klassen:


The war against the German people as such dates back hundreds of years. We have shown this further in our previous chapter on the unrelenting warfare between the parasitic Jews and their unfortunate victims.


Total War against Germany.

They went all out in one of the most frantic, malicious wars of propaganda a gullible and uncomprehending world has ever witnessed. In short, Judea declared Total War on Germany and Hitler— financially, propagandawise, militarily, economically, racially, and in every other aspect that was in their power— and that power as we shall see, was formidable. Before Hitler would, or could, even lift a finger against them, the Jews were ready and wasted no time in launching a massive world-wide campaign against him. To illustrate this obvious fact we are again going to quote the Jews themselves, and their press in a limited sampling. There are volumes of evidence, but these few quotes should illustrate the point conclusively.



Plans laid before Hitler came to power.

As early as August 1933, Samuel Untermeyer, president of the World Jewish Economic Federation called together a large congress of Jewish leaders from all over the world to declare war on Germany in the name of the Jews. The meeting was held in Amsterdam, Holland. Upon returning to the United States from that meeting, Untermeyer made a speech on Radio Station WABC (N.Y.) on August 6, 1933 in which he announced that the Jews of the world had declared war on Germany and would starve them to death. This was long before any action of any kind had been taken against any Jew, and six years before military action was initiated in 1939.


“We have been at war with him (Hitler) from the day that he gained power” stated the London Jewish Chronicle May 8, 1942 in its “Sermon of the Week.”


Rabbi M. Perlzweig, head of the British Section of the World Jewish Congress, speaking in Canada, stated: “The World Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years.” (Toronto Evening Telegram, February 26, 1940.)


The Dutch-Jewish paper, Centraal-Blaad Voor Israeliten in Nederland declared on September 13, 1939: “The millions of Jews who live in America, England and France, North and South Africa, and, not to forget, those in Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany to its final end.”


We must remember that at this time (September 13, 1939) the war was less than two weeks old, no concentration camps, no gas chambers, etc., for Jews or anybody else had been set up, or even alleged to be in existence. (The whole “gas chamber” story was nothing but another Jewish lie, as we will see in another chapter.)


The Chicago Jewish Sentinel, on October 8, 1942 declared: “The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism.” Indeed it was. To be more specific, in behalf of the Jews themselves. They knew it, they instigated it, they perpetrated it, they stagemanaged it, The naive and gullible goyim, meanwhile, slaughtered each other with a vengeance, not knowing, or not wanting to know, who the real perpetrators, the real war criminals were.


Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jew-communist and founder of the Irgun terrorist organization wrote in the January 1934 issue of Natcha Retch: “The fight against Germany has been carried on for months by every Jewish community, conference, congress, trade organization, by every Jew in the world. There is reason to believe that our part in the struggle will be of general value. We shall let loose a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany’s ambition is to become a great nation again, to reconquer her lost territories and colonies. Our Jewish interests on the other hand demand the complete destruction of Germany. The German nation is collectively and individually a danger to us Jews.”



Hitler offered Hand of Friendship to England.

Hitler, whose concern was not only for the Germans, understood the deadly program of the parasitic Jew. He pleaded in vain with England not to play the Jewish game. Speaking in September of 1939, he said:


“On numerous occasions I have offered the friendship of the German people to England and the English people. My entire policy was built upon the idea of this understanding. I was always rebuffed… We know that the British people as a whole cannot be made responsible. It is that Jewish plutocratic and democratic ruling class which hates our Reich.”



English Traitors fronted for Jews.

On behalf of the non-Jewish ruling class it must be pointed out that those who went along with the Jews were by and large chabez-goi, people like Winston Churchill, traitors who were in the pay of the Jews, or under their control and coercion. So firm was this Jewish control over the British people (as well as the French, Americans, Poles and others) that the Jews were in fact successful in plunging the world into a fratricidal war of destruction on a scale such as the world has never witnessed before.



Plans to Exterminate German People.

Some of the Jews wanted to exterminate those Germans surviving the destructions of war by sterilization. Theodore N. Kaufman, spelling out the program in the book entitled Germany Must Perish, said: By Sterilization. “To achieve the purpose of German extinction it would be necessary to only sterilize some 48,000,000— a figure which excludes, because of their limited power to procreate, males over 60, and females over 45…”


By Starvation. Other groups of Jews wanted to exterminate the Germans by starvation. A notorious advocate of the method was Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury in the Roosevelt Administration. The following quotation is from the memoirs of Cordell Hull, who was Secretary of State in the same administration.


“Morgenthau’s plan, I added, would wipe out everything in Germany except land, and the Germans would have to live on the land. This meant that only 60% of the German population could support themselves on the German land, and the other 40% would die.”


Germans Looted and Starved. A version of the evil Jewish plan was in fact implemented for a period immediately after the war. Huge amounts of all kinds of machinery, factories, and rolling stock that survived the war were shipped to communist Russia. Viewing all this, Mr. R. R. Stokes, a Labor M.P. in Britain declared at the time:


“Today in Germany, 6 months after our victory, graves are being dug for people not yet dead, people who will die of starvation in the next few months.”


Morgenthau Plan.

U.S. Senator William Langer of North Dakota said of the Morgenthau plan, and his remarks are entered in the Congressional Record, April 18, 1946: “Mr. Morgenthau now stands convicted before the conscience of the world as an instigator of systematic annihilation of the German speaking people. The record further proves beyond any question of doubt, that these fanatical and reactionary high priests of hate and vengeance will never be able to defend their conspiracy before the bar of human reason and human decency.” Six Million Swindle Invented. It was only through the opposition of people like Senator Langer who could not stomach the vicious murder conspiracy of the Jewish network that the Jewish program of sterilization of the German people, or the program of starving them to death, or a combination of both, was not carried through. By whipping up hatred about the mythical “six million” to a near frenzy the Jews almost, but not quite, succeeded in their goal of mass murder of the German race.




The “free city” of Danzig is 95% German. Along with its surrounding German area of East Prussia, Danzig was isolated from the German mainland by the harsh post-World War I treaties. Formerly German territory now belongs to Poland, cutting right through the Prussian/Pomeranian region of Germany. As had been the case with Germans stranded in Czechoslovakia, the Germans in Poland (those not expelled in 1919) are a persecuted minority.

Hitler tries to solve the problem of the "Polish Corridor” peacefully. He proposes that the people living in Danzig, and the “corridor” be permitted to vote in a referendum to decide their status. If the region returns to German sovereignty, Poland will be given a 1 mile wide path, running through Germany to the Baltic Sea so that it would not be landlocked.  

The Poles consider Hitler’s solution, but behind the scenes, Poland is urged by FDR to not make any deals with Germany. When it becomes apparent to Hitler that Poland will not allow a referendum, he then proposes another solution – international control of the formerly German regions. This sensible offer is also ignored. The Globalists intend to use foolish Poland as the match which ignites World War II.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Polish_Corridor.PNG http://group17.finaldispatch.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/3/files/danzig/danzig.jpg

Germans stranded in the stolen 'corridor' and the "free city" of Danzig were abused and denied the right to self-determination.

The Polish-British Common Defense Pact contains promises of British military assistance in the event that Poland is attacked by another European country. This builds upon a previous agreement (March 1939) between the two countries, and also France, by specifically committing to military action in the event of an attack.

With this agreement, powerful Zionist-Globalist forces in the UK have now trapped the reluctant Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, as well as France and Poland. All that is left to do now is for Polish-Jewish border thugs to deliberately provoke Germany into action and get the ball rolling.



The British-Polish Common Defense past was forced upon Neville Chamberlain.

Unjustly labeled by historians as an "appeaser", Chamberlain had to be maneuvered into war by powerful factions above and around him.



"Chamberlain (speaking off the record to Ambassador Joseph Kennedy while playing golf) stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war".

-The Forrestal Diaries ed. Millis, Cassell 1952  p129

AUGUST 31, 1939




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.

The "Poles" then broadcast a message (in Polish) urging others to take up arms and start attacking Germans. German police quickly arrive and retake the station, killing one of the Red terrorists. Jewish Red terrorists, their Polish government protectors, and their Globalist-Zionist masters have picked a fight with Germany! 

Modern historians claim that the Gleiwitz incident was staged by Germans dressed as Polish terrorists. But as is the case with the Reichstag Fire conspiracy theory, they offer no evidence, (beyond a forced “confession” obtained after the war) to support this theory – a theory that ignores the outrageous and repeated pattern of provocations directed at Hitler's Germany ever since 1933, the numerous border incidents, and also Hitler’s sincere attempts to negotiate a fair resolution to the Corridor and Danzig controversies.



Soon after broadcasting a call to kill Germans, Polish-Jewish partisans, with the blessing of the Polish government, kicked off the war between Poland and Germany.


SEPTEMBER 17, 1939


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 aggression.

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 Union!

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


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



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.




Germany is in total control of the European war situation. The French have signed an armistice with Germany and are out of the war. The British army has been forced to evacuate the continent at Dunkirk (Hitler had graciously allowed them to escape). The Soviets and Americans are not in the war, and Hitler has a very generous peace offer on the table for Britain.


As they had during their losing days of World War I, British politicians reach out to international Jewry for help in inducing America into the war. During World War I, Britain's 'Balfour Declaration' promised Palestine to the Jews in exchange for bringing about U.S. entry. Now, 'Lord Arthur Greenwood's Declaration' is offering them THE WORLD!


Note one of Greenwood's amazingly prophetic statements contained in the article below, 'When we have achieved victory, and we assuredly shall..."


But there is absolutely no chance of British victory unless the U.S. can be dragged into the conflict. Therefore, Greenwood must already know that the U.S. will enter the war (which it does 14 months later). This official promise of a 'New World Order' is clearly intended to further encourage American Jewish support for entering the war.


Greenwood promises: "In the rebuilding of civilized society after the war, there should and will be a real opportunity for Jews everywhere to make a distinctive and constructive contribution." 


In other words, Lord Greenwood is saying: "Get America in and we'll give you all of Europe after the war!"  Greenwood's imperialist 'dance with the Devil' will prove fatal. After the war, Britain would end up broke and lose control of her own Empire to the Marxist Jews as well.



 Joseph Kennedy: Hardcore Antisemite, Hitler Lover


Arriving at London in early 1938, newly-appointed U.S. Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy took up quickly with another transplanted American.


Viscountess Nancy Witcher Langhorne Astor assured Kennedy early in their friendship that he should not be put off by her pronounced and proud anti-Catholicism. “I’m glad you are smart enough not to take my [views] personally,” she wrote. Astor pointed out that she had a number of Roman Catholic friends – G.K. Chesterton among them – with whom she shared, if nothing else, a profound hatred for the Jewish race.


Joe Kennedy, in turn, had always detested Jews generally, although he claimed several as friends individually. Indeed, Kennedy seems to have tolerated the occasional Jew in the same way Astor tolerated the occasional Catholic.


As fiercely anti-Communist as they were anti-Semitic, Kennedy and Astor looked upon Adolf Hitler as a welcome solution to both of these “world problems” (Nancy’s phrase). No member of the so-called “Cliveden Set” (the informal cabal of appeasers who met frequently at Nancy Astor’s palatial home) seemed much concerned with the dilemma faced by Jews under the Reich. Astor wrote Kennedy that Hitler would have to do more than just “give a rough time” to “the killers of Christ” before she’d be in favor of launching  ”Armageddon to save them. The wheel of history swings round as the Lord would have it. Who are we to stand in the way of the future?” Kennedy replied that he expected the “Jew media” in the United States to become a problem, that “Jewish pundits in New York and Los Angeles” were already making noises contrived to “set a match to the fuse of the world.”


During May of 1938, Kennedy engaged in extensive discussions with the new German Ambassador to the Court of St. James’s, Herbert von Dirksen. In the midst of these conversations (held without approval from the U.S. State Department), Kennedy advised von Dirksen that President Roosevelt was the victim of “Jewish influence” and was poorly informed as to the philosophy, ambitions and ideals of Hitler’s regime. (The Nazi ambassador subsequently told his bosses that Kennedy was “Germany’s best friend” in London.)


Columnists back in the states condemned Kennedy’s fraternizing. Kennedy later claimed that 75% of the attacks made on him during his Ambassadorship emanated from “a number of Jewish publishers and writers. … Some of them in their zeal did not hesitate to resort to slander and falsehood to achieve their aims.” He told his eldest son, Joe Jr., that he disliked having to put up with “Jewish columnists” who criticized him with no good reason.


Like his father, Joe Jr. admired Adolf Hitler. Young Joe had come away impressed by Nazi rhetoric after traveling in Germany as a student in 1934. Writing at the time, Joe applauded Hitler’s insight in realizing the German people’s “need of a common enemy, someone of whom to make the goat. Someone, by whose riddance the Germans would feel they had cast out the cause of their predicament. It was excellent psychology,  and it was too bad that it had to be done to the Jews. The dislike of the Jews, however, was well-founded. They were at the heads of all big business, in law etc. It is all to their credit for them to get so far, but their methods had been quite unscrupulous … the lawyers and prominent judges were Jews, and if you had a case against a Jew, you were nearly always sure to lose it. … As far as the brutality is concerned, it must have been necessary to use some ….”


Brutality was in the eye of the beholder. Writing to Charles Lindbergh shortly after Kristallnacht in November of 1938,  Joe Kennedy Sr. seemed more concerned about the political ramifications stemming from high-profile, riotous anti-Semitism than he was about the actual violence done to the Jews.  ”… Isn’t there some way,” he asked, “to persuade [the Nazis] it is on a situation like this that the whole program of saving western civilization might hinge? It is more and more difficult for those seeking peaceful solutions to advocate any plan when the papers are filled with such horror.” Clearly, Kennedy’s chief concern about Kristallnacht was that it might serve to harden anti-fascist sentiment at home in the United States.


Like his friend Charles Coughlin (an anti-Semitic broadcaster and Roman Catholic priest), Kennedy always remained convinced of what he believed to be the Jews’ corrupt, malignant, and profound influence in American culture and politics. “The Democratic [party] policy of the United States is a Jewish production,” Kennedy told a British reporter near the end of 1939, adding confidently that Roosevelt would “fall” in 1940.


But it wasn’t Roosevelt who fell. Kennedy resigned his ambassadorship just weeks after FDR’s overwhelming triumph at the polls. He then retreated to his home in Florida: a bitter, resentful man nurturing religious and racial bigotries that put him out-of-step with his country, and out-of-touch with history.

Adolf Hitler Art Presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBwo9mLN5zk

And now I understand what you tried to say to me
How you suffered for your sanity
How you tried to set them free.
They would not listen
They did not know how
Perhaps they’ll listen now.

Hitler Library: http://www.hitler-library.org

"They used Poland as a dummy"...Adolf Hitler https://youtu.be/W4nTsIl0Xkk

DECEMBER 11, 1941 (4 Days after Pearl Harbor)

Why is there now another American president determined to incite wars and, above all, to stir up hostility against Germany to the point of war? National Socialism came to power in Germany in the same year [1933] that Roosevelt came to power in the United States. At this point it is important to examine the factors behind current developments. 


First of all, the personal side of things: I understand very well that there is a world of difference between my own outlook on life and attitude, and that of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt came from an extremely wealthy family. By birth and origin he belonged to that class of people that is privileged in a democracy and assured of advancement. I myself was only the child of a small and poor family, and I had to struggle through life by work and effort in spite of immense hardships.


As a member of the privileged class, Roosevelt experienced the [First] World War in a position under Wilson's shadow [as assistant secretary of the Navy]. As a result, he only knew the agreeable consequences of a conflict between nations from which some profited while others lost their lives.


During this same period, I lived very differently. I was not one of those who made history or profits, but rather one of those who carried out orders. As an ordinary soldier during those four years, I tried to do my duty in the face of the enemy. Of course, I returned from the war just as poor as when I entered in the fall of 1914. I thus shared my fate with millions of others, while Mr. Roosevelt shared his with the so-called upper ten thousand. 


After the war, while Mr. Roosevelt tested his skills in financial speculation in order to profit personally from the inflation, that is, from the misfortune of others, I still lay in a military hospital along with many hundreds of thousands of others. Experienced in business, financially secure and enjoying the patronage of his class, Roosevelt then finally chose a career in politics. During this same period, I struggled as a nameless and unknown man for the rebirth of my nation, which was the victim of the greatest injustice in its entire history. 


Two different paths in life! Franklin Roosevelt took power in the United States as the candidate of a thoroughly capitalistic party, which helps those who serve it. When I became the Chancellor of the German Reich, I was the leader of a popular national movement, which I had created myself. The powers that supported Mr. Roosevelt were the same powers I fought against, out of concern for the fate of my people, and out of deepest inner conviction. The "brain trust" that served the new American president was made up of members of the same national group that we fought against in Germany as a parasitical expression of humanity, and which we began to remove from public life. 


And yet, we also had something in common: Franklin Roosevelt took control of a country with an economy that had been ruined as a result of democratic influences, and I assumed the leadership of a Reich that was also on the edge of complete ruin, thanks to democracy. There were 13 million unemployed in the United States, while Germany had seven million unemployed and another seven million part-time workers. In both countries, public finances were in chaos, and it seemed that the spreading economic depression could not be stopped. 


From then on, things developed in the United States and in the German Reich in such a way that future generations will have no difficulty in making a definitive evaluation of the two different socio-political theories. Whereas the German Reich experienced an enormous improvement in social, economic, cultural and artistic life in just a few years under National Socialist leadership, President Roosevelt was not able to bring about even limited improvements in his own country.


This task should have been much easier in the United States, with barely 15 people per square kilometer, as compared to 140 in Germany. If economic prosperity is not possible in that country, it must be the result of either a lack of will by the ruling leadership or the complete incompetence of the men in charge. In just five years, the economic problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was eliminated. During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously increased his country's national debt, devalued the dollar, further disrupted the economy and maintained the same number of unemployed. 


But this is hardly remarkable when one realizes that the intellects appointed by this man, or more accurately, who appointed him, are members of that same group who, as Jews, are interested only in disruption and never in order. While we in National Socialist Germany took measures against financial speculation, it flourished tremendously under Roosevelt. The New Deal legislation of this man was spurious, and consequently the greatest error ever experienced by anyone. If his economic policies had continued indefinitely during peace time, there is no doubt that sooner or later they would have brought down this president, in spite of all his dialectical cleverness. In a European country his career would certainly have ended in front of a national court for recklessly squandering the nation's wealth. And he would hardly have avoided a prison sentence by a civil court for criminally incompetent business management.


                                                                                     Reichstag Speech Pt.2 (excerpts)


Many respected Americans also shared this view. A threatening opposition was growing all around this man, which led him to think that he could save himself only by diverting public attention from his domestic policies to foreign affairs. In this regard it is interesting to study the reports of Polish Ambassador Potocki from Washington, which repeatedly point out that Roosevelt was fully aware of the danger that his entire economic house of cards could collapse, and that therefore he absolutely had to divert attention to foreign policy. 


The circle of Jews around Roosevelt encouraged him in this. With Old Testament vindictiveness they regarded the United States as the instrument that they and he could use to prepare a second Purim [slaughter of enemies] against the nations of Europe, which were increasingly anti-Jewish. So it was that the Jews, in all of their satanic baseness, gathered around this man, and he relied on them. 


The American president increasingly used his influence to create conflicts, intensify existing conflicts, and, above all, to keep conflicts from being resolved peacefully. For years this man looked for a dispute anywhere in the world, but preferably in Europe, that he could use to create political entanglements with American economic obligations to one of the contending sides, which would then steadily involve America in the conflict and thus divert attention from his own confused domestic economic policies. 


His actions against the German Reich in this regard have been particularly blunt. Starting in 1937, he began a series of speeches, including a particularly contemptible one on October 5, 1937, in Chicago, with which this man systematically incited the American public against Germany . He threatened to establish a kind of quarantine against the so-called authoritarian countries. As part of this steady and growing campaign of hate and incitement, President Roosevelt made another insulting statement [on Nov. 15, 1938] and then called the American ambassador in Berlin back to Washington for consultations. 


Starting in November 1938, he began systematically and consciously to sabotage every possibility of a European peace policy. In public he hypocritically claimed to be interested in peace while at the same time he threatened every country that was ready to pursue a policy of peaceful understanding by blocking credits, economic reprisals, calling in loans, and so forth. In this regard, the reports of the Polish ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels provide a shocking insight. 


This man increased his campaign of incitement in January 1939. In a message to the U.S. Congress he threatened to take every measure short of war against the authoritarian countries. 


He repeatedly claimed that other countries were trying to interfere in American affairs, and he talked a lot about upholding the Monroe Doctrine. Starting in March 1939 he began lecturing about internal European affairs that were of no concern of the President of the United States. In the first place, he doesn't understand these problems, and secondly, even if he did understand them and appreciated the historical circumstances, he has no more right to concern himself with central European affairs than the German head of state has to take positions on or make judgments about conditions in the United States. 


Mr. Roosevelt went even beyond that. Contrary to the rules of international law, he refused to recognize governments he didn't like, would not accept new ones, refused to dismiss ambassadors of non-existent countries, and even recognized them as legal governments. He went so far as to conclude treaties with these ambassadors, which then gave him the right to simply occupy foreign territories [Greenland and Iceland ]. 


On April 15, 1939, Roosevelt made his famous appeal to me and the Duce [Mussolini], which was a mixture of geographical and political ignorance combined with the arrogance of a member of the millionaire class. We were called upon to make declarations and to conclude non-aggression pacts with a number of countries, many of which were not even independent because they had either been annexed or turned into subordinate protectorates by countries [Britain and France] allied with Mr. Roosevelt.


You will recall, my Deputies, that then [on April 28, 1939] I gave a polite but straightforward answer to this obtrusive gentleman, which succeeded in stopping, at least for a few months, the storm of chatter from this unsophisticated warmonger. 


But now the honorable wife [Eleanor] took his place. She and her sons [she said] refused to live in a world such as ours. That is at least understandable, for ours is world of work and not one of deceit and racketeering. After a short rest, though, he was back at it.


                                                                          Reichstag Speech Pt. 3 (excerpts)


On November 4, 1939, the Neutrality Act was revised and the arms embargo was repealed in favor of a one-sided supply [of weapons] to Germany's adversaries. In the same way, he pushed in eastern Asia for economic entanglements with China that would eventually lead to effective common interests.


On April 9 [1940] he froze all Norwegian and Danish assets [in the U.S.] on the lying pretext of wanting to keep them from falling into German hands, even though he knew full well, for example, that Germany has not interfered with, much less taken control of, the Danish government's administration of its financial affairs. Along with the other governments in exile, Roosevelt now recognized one for Norway.


On May 15, 1940, Dutch and Belgian governments in exile were also recognized, and at the same time Dutch and Belgian assets [in the USA ] were frozen. 


And now he feared that if peace were to come about in Europe, the billions he had squandered on military spending would soon be recognized as an obvious case of fraud, because no one would attack America unless America itself provoked the attack.


On June 17, 1940, the President of the United States froze French assets [in the USA] in order, so he said, to keep them from being seized by Germany, but in reality to get hold of the gold that was being brought from Casablanca on an American cruiser. 


In July 1940 Roosevelt began to take many new measures toward war, such as permitting the service of American citizens in the British air force and the training of British air force personnel in the United States.


In August 1940 a joint military policy for the United States and Canada was established. In order to make the establishment of a joint American-Canadian defense committee plausible to at least the stupidest people, Roosevelt periodically invented crises and acted as if America was threatened by immediate attack. He would suddenly cancel trips and quickly return to Washington and do similar things in order to emphasize the seriousness of the situation to his followers, who really deserve pity. 


He moved still closer to war in September 1940 when he transferred fifty American naval destroyers to the British fleet, and in return took control of military bases on British possessions in North and Central America. Future generations will determine the extent to which, along with all this hatred against socialist Germany, the desire to easily and safely take control of the British empire in its hour of disintegration may have also played a role. 


After Britain was no longer able to pay cash for American deliveries he imposed the Lend-Lease Act on the American people. As President, he thereby obtained the authority to furnish lend-lease military aid to countries that he, Roosevelt, decided it was in America's vital interests to defend. After it became clear that Germany would not respond under any circumstances to his continued boorish behavior, this man took another step forward in March 1941. 


As early as December 19, 1939, an American cruiser [the Tuscaloosa] that was inside the security zone maneuvered the [German] passenger liner Columbus into the hands of British warships. As a result, it had to be scuttled. On that same day, US military forces helped in an effort to capture the German merchant ship Arauca.


On January 27, 1940, and once again contrary to international law, the US cruiser Trenton reported the movements of the German merchant ships Arauca, La Plata and Wangoni to enemy naval forces. 


On June 27, 1940, he announced a limitation on the free movement of foreign merchant ships in US ports, completely contrary to international law.


In November 1940 he permitted US warships to pursue the German merchant ships Phrygia, Idarwald and Rhein until they finally had to scuttle themselves to keep from falling into enemy hands.


On April 13, 1941, American ships were permitted to pass freely through the Red Sea in order to supply British armies in the Middle East. 


In the meantime, in March [1941] all German ships were confiscated by the American authorities. In the process, German Reich citizens were treated in the most degrading way, ordered to certain locations in violation of international law, put under travel restrictions, and so forth. Two German officers who had escaped from Canadian captivity [to the United States] were shackled and returned to the Canadian authorities, likewise completely contrary to international law. 


On March 27 [1941] the same president who is [supposedly] against all aggression announced support for [General] Simovic and his clique of usurpers [in Yugoslavia], who had come to power in Belgrade after the overthrow of the legal government. Several months earlier, President Roosevelt had sent [OSS chief] Colonel Donovan, a very inferior character, to the Balkans with orders to help organize an uprising against Germany and Italy in Sofia [Bulgaria] and Belgrade.


In April he [Roosevelt] promised lend-lease aid to Yugoslavia and Greece. At the end of April he recognized Yugoslav and Greek emigrants as governments in exile. And once again, in violation of international law, he froze Yugoslav and Greek assets. 


Starting in mid-April [1941] US naval patrols began expanded operations in the western Atlantic, reporting their observations to the British


On April 26, Roosevelt delivered twenty high speed patrol boats to Britain. At the same time, British naval ships were routinely being repaired in US ports.


On May 12, Norwegian ships operating for Britain were armed and repaired [in the USA], contrary to international law. On June 4, American troop transports arrived in Greenland to build air fields.


And on June 9 came the first British report that a US war ship, acting on orders of President Roosevelt, had attacked a German submarine near Greenland with depth charges. 


On June 14, German assets in the United States were frozen, again in violation of international law.


On June 17, on the basis of a lying pretext, President Roosevelt demanded the recall of the German consuls and the closing of the German consulates. He also demanded the shutting down of the German "Transocean" press agency, the German Library of Information [in New York] and the German Reichsbahn [national railway] office. 


On July 6 and 7 [1941], American armed forces acting on orders from Roosevelt occupied Iceland, which was in the area of German military operations. He hoped that this action would certainly, first, finally force Germany into war [against the USA] and, second, also neutralize the effectiveness of the German submarines. At the same time, he promised military aid to the Soviet Union.


On July 10 Navy Secretary Knox suddenly announced that the US Navy was under orders to fire against Axis warships.


On September 4 the US destroyer Greer, acting on his orders, operated together with British airplanes against German submarines in the Atlantic.


Five days later, a German submarine identified US destroyers as escort vessels with a British convoy. 


In a speech delivered on September 11 [1941], Roosevelt at last personally confirmed that he had given the order to fire against all Axis ships, and he repeated the order.


On September 29, US patrols attacked a German submarine east of Greenland with depth charges.


On October 17 the US destroyer Kearny, operating as an escort for the British, attacked a German submarine with depth charges.


And on November 6 US armed forces seized the German ship Odenwald in violation of international law, took it to an American port, and imprisoned its crew.


                                                                         Reichstag Speech Pt.4 (excerpts)


I will overlook as meaningless the insulting attacks and rude statements by this so-called President against me personally. That he calls me a gangster is particularly meaningless, since this term did not originate in Europe, where such characters are uncommon, but in America. And aside from that, I simply cannot feel insulted by Mr. Roosevelt because I regard him, like his predecessor Woodrow Wilson, as mentally unsound. 


We know that this man, with his Jewish supporters, has operated against Japan in the same way. I don't need to go into that here. The same methods were used in that case as well. This man first incites to war, and then he lies about its causes and makes baseless allegations. He repugnantly wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy, while at the same time slowly but very steadily leading humanity into war. And finally, as an old Freemason, he calls upon God to witness that his actions are honorable. His shameless misrepresentations of truth and violations of law are unparalleled in history. 


I am sure that all of you have regarded it as an act of deliverance that a country [Japan] has finally acted to protest against all this in the very way that this man had actually hoped for, and which should not surprise him now [the attack on Pearl Harbor]. After years of negotiating with this deceiver, the Japanese government finally had its fill of being treated in such a humiliating way. All of us, the German people and, I believe, all other decent people around the world as well, regard this with deep appreciation. 


We know the power behind Roosevelt. It is the same eternal Jew that believes that his hour has come to impose the same fate on us that we have all seen and experienced with horror in Soviet Russia. We have gotten to know first hand the Jewish paradise on earth. Millions of German soldiers have personally seen the land where this international Jewry has destroyed and annihilated people and property. Perhaps the President of the United States does not understand this. If so, that only speaks for his intellectual narrow-mindedness. 


And we know that his entire effort is aimed at this goal: Even if we were not allied with Japan, we would still realize that the Jews and their Franklin Roosevelt intend to destroy one state after another. The German Reich of today has nothing in common with the Germany of the past. For our part, we will now do what this provocateur has been trying to achieve for years. And not just because we are allied with Japan, but rather because Germany and Italy with their present leaderships have the insight and strength to realize that in this historic period the existence or non-existence of nations is being determined, perhaps for all time. What this other world has in store for us is clear. They were able to bring the democratic Germany of the past to starvation, and they seek to destroy the National Socialist Germany of today. 


When Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt declare that they want to one day build a new social order, that's about the same as a bald-headed barber recommending a tonic guaranteed to make hair grow. Rather than incite war, these gentlemen, who live in the most socially backward countries, should have concerned themselves with their own unemployed people. They have enough misery and poverty in their own countries to keep themselves busy insuring a just distribution of food there. As far as the German nation is concerned, it doesn't need charity, either from Mr. Churchill or Mr. Roosevelt  -- but it does demand its rights. And it will do what it must to insure its right to life, even if a thousand Churchills and Roosevelts conspire together to prevent it. 


Our nation has a history of nearly two thousand years. Never in this long period has it been so united and determined as it is today, and thanks to the National Socialist movement it will always be that way. At the same time, Germany has perhaps never been as far-sighted, and seldom as conscious of honor. Accordingly, today I had the passports returned to the American charge d'affaires, and he was bluntly informed of the following: 


President Roosevelt's steadily expanding policy has been aimed at an unlimited world dictatorship. In pursuing this goal, the United States and Britain have used every means to deny the German, Italian and Japanese nations the prerequisites for their vital natural existence. For this reason, the governments of Britain and the United States have opposed every effort to create a new and better order in the world, for both the present and the future. 


Since the beginning of the war, the American President Roosevelt has steadily committed ever more serious crimes against international law. Along with illegal attacks against ships and other property of German and Italian citizens, there have been threats and even arbitrary deprivations of personal freedom by internment and such. The increasingly hostile attacks by the American President Roosevelt have reached the point that he has ordered the U.S. navy, in complete violation of international law, to immediately and everywhere attack, fire upon and sink German and Italian ships.  American officials have even boasted about destroying German submarines in this criminal manner.


American cruisers have attacked and captured German and Italian merchant ships, and their peaceful crews were taken away to imprisonment In addition, President Roosevelt's plan to attack Germany and Italy with military forces in Europe by 1943 at the latest was made public in the United States [by the Chicago Tribune and several other newspapers on Dec. 4, 1941], and the American government made no effort to deny it. 


Despite the years of intolerable provocations by President Roosevelt, Germany and Italy sincerely and very patiently tried to prevent the expansion of this war and to maintain relations with the United States. But as a result of his campaign, these efforts have failed.




Click on this link to visit Metapedia Alternative Encyclopedia for German WWII Revisionism


War Crimes Against Germans

Targeted Starvation of German Civilians



20 Million Germans robbed of their land and home and driven out of German territory, former German territory, or their homelands where they had lived for a couple of centuries – primarily in the East. A huge number of them was tortured to death or executed. Most of them had to flee for their lives often with just a few items or just their clothes on their backs. This was all arranged by the evil world rulers who incited hate in the local people against the Germans with lies via their filthy, evil media. Many Germans died on the road fleeing through enemy territory, often several countries. They were robbed, raped and murdered. Some became ill and did not survive. 
2 Million German women and girls were raped inside of Germany alone. Including fleeing or driven out ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe, the number of raped women and girls is probably 5 Million. Many travelled without men as most of the men were fighting the war on one or the other side. 10 -15 % died from the injuries or torture during rape. The Bolshevik Jew and Military Leader Ilya Ehrenburg ordered the Russian soldiers with leaflets to rape the pride out of the German women and kill them. 
Hamburg 1943

Consider This…

During the evacuation of the German civilians from East Germany, 1,000 ships of all sizes and classes were utilized for the rescue of German refugees and expulsion victims. 2 Million refugees were saved on these ships. However, more than 200 civilian ships were attacked and destroyed and as a result 40,000 German women and children drowned in the Eastern Sea. The famous ship Wilhelm Gustloff was one of the ships that never reached a save harbor.
A memorial to the people of the MS Gustloff
 Denk Mal

Table of German Deaths – media



by Michael Walsh
“War crime trials for allied soldiers overdue.” Says analyst
“British and allied troops appearing as defendants in war crimes trials with brutal Serbs and former Red Army thugs is well overdue”, says 20th Century analyst, Michael Walsh. His research exposes allied genocide, enslavement and institutionalized ill treatment of axis prisoners-of-war both during and after World War 11.
He says, “the scale of abuse of prisoners-of-war was contrary to the Geneva and other conventions to which Britain and its allies were signatories. As late as 1948, three years after the war’s end, the British Government’s treatment of its foreign prisoners was subject to International Red Cross scrutiny and international condemnation. The IRC threatened to bring the British government before international tribunals for abuse and illegal enslavement. Typically, British administered prisoner-of-war camps were worse than Belsen long after the war had ended and war disruption ceased. Tragically even civilians were illegally held, deported and murdered in the tens of thousands whilst the evil killers responsible have so far evaded justice.
The respected Associated Press Photographer, Henry Griffin who had taken the pictures of corpses in Buchenwald and Dachau when visiting Allied POW camps agreed: “The only difference I can see between these men and those corpses is that here they are still breathing.” (1)
“According to revelations by members of the House of Commons, about 130,000 former German officers and men were held during the winter of 1945-46 in British camps in Belgium under conditions which British officers have described as ‘not much better than Belsen.” (2)
Adding to international outrage, Cyril Connolly, one of England’s most acclaimed writers reported: “British guards imprisoned German troops and tortured them.” He described how “they were so possessed by propaganda about German ‘Huns’ that they obviously enjoyed demonstrating their atrocities to visiting journalists. A British reporter named Moorehead who was present at these ‘torture fests’ observed that ‘a young British medical officer and a captain of engineers managed the Bergen-Belsen camp. “The captain was in the best of moods,” he said. “When we approached the cells of gaoled guards, the sergeant lost his temper.” The captain explained. ‘This morning we had an interrogation. I’m afraid the prisoners don’t look exactly nice.’
The cells were opened for the visiting journalists. “The German prisoners lay there, crumpled, moaning, covered with gore. The man next to me made vain attempts to get to his feet and finally managed to stand up. He stood there trembling, and tried to stretch out his arms as if fending off blows. “Up!” yelled the sergeant. “Come off the wall.”
“They pushed themselves off from the wall and stood there, swaying. In another cell the medical officer had just finished an interrogation. “Up.” yelled the officer. “Get up.” The man lay in his blood on the floor. He propped two arms on a chair and tried to pull himself up. A second demand and he succeeded in getting to his feet. He stretched his arms towards us. “Why don’t you kill me off?” he moaned.
“The dirty bastard is jabbering this all morning.” the sergeant stated. (3)
Former British Army veteran A.W Perkins of Holland-on-Sea described conditions in the ‘Sennelager’ British concentration camp, which shockingly held, not captured troops but civilians. He recounts; “During the latter half of 1945 I was with British troops guarding suspected Nazi civilians living on starvation rations in a camp called Sennelager. They were frequently beaten and grew as thin as concentration camp victims, scooping handfuls of swill from our waste bins.”
This ex-guard described how other guards amused themselves by baiting starving prisoners. “They could be shot on sight if they ventured close to the perimeter fence. It was a common trick to throw a cigarette just inside the fence and shoot any prisoner who tried to reach it.” (4).
“When Press representatives ask to examine the prison camps, the British loudly refuse with the excuse that the Geneva Convention bars such visits to prisoner-of-war camps.” complained press correspondent Arthur Veysey from London on May 28th 1946.
Typically “The prisoners lived through the winter in tents and slept on the bare ground under one blanket each. They say they are underfed and beaten and kicked by guards. Many have no underclothes or boots.” reported the Chicago Tribune Press Service on 19 May 1946 one year after the war’s end.
“In the summer of 1946 an increasing number of prisoners of-war were escaping from British slave camps often with British civilian aid. “Accounts of the chases by military police are reminiscent of pre-Civil War pursuits by fleeing Negro fugitives.” stated an Associated Press dispatch (London, August 27th, 1946) more than sixteen months after the war ended.
Tens of thousands of middle-European peoples, displaced by the war who fell into British hands were treated even worse in British controlled Austria and Yugoslavia. There, Britain and the NKVD ran the concentration camps jointly. The latter, forerunners to the evil KGB, were invited to assist the British in the capture and corralling, deportation and slaughter of their captives.
One British officer described how “The prisoners (civilians) were treated coarsely but not brutally. They were pushed and shoved but there was no resistance, no fighting or trying to get back or get away. They were all completely docile, resigned to their fate. The soldiers collected them all quickly into groups and marched them away to be machine-gunned in groups.’
The British officer added, ‘some of them didn’t get very far I’m afraid. At the back of the station there was a wood, a copse, and they seemed to be marched behind this copse. Shortly afterwards there were quite a number of sustained bursts of machine-gun fire. I can’t say for certain what happened, because I couldn’t see the shooting. But I am pretty sure that a lot of them were shot there and then, not on the siding itself but just around the corner of the wood.”
This is typical of many accounts when units of the British Army working with Red Army NKVD officers, hunted down and butchered tens of thousands of Cossack civilian refugees including children in Austria, in summer, 1945 after the war had ended.
Tens of thousands of people of many nationalities were hunted down and rounded up like cattle to be taken to the Red Army’s killing fields. One account described how ‘the whole train was bespattered with blood. They were open-plan carriages, and I remember the bloodstains where bodies had been dragged right down the corridor between the seats and down three of four steps. The lavatories were absolutely covered in blood….”
“Another such patrol, consisting of two Red Army officers and four British soldiers set off into the hills on horseback on June 8th. They captured one such group on the lower slopes…. “The Cossacks ran off, leaving just a few, mainly women and children who were too weak to move. One soldier spotted a Cossack in the distance, aimed his rifle at him, fired and saw him drop. …. As he was not seen to rise again it was assumed he had been killed.”
Captain Duncan McMillan remembers, ‘Being guided to a small railway station where there was a barbed-wire enclosure’ He saw the Cossacks being unloaded from the trucks and described how they were stripped of their possessions, even food before being marched away. ‘Many British soldiers who were there have testified that they heard the rattle of machine-guns nearby just moments after the prisoners were removed.” James Davidson said: “We thought that machine-gunning must be the finish of them. We thought they were just taken back there and slaughtered.”
These awful accounts were described in Nicholas Bethell’s book, The Last Secret published by Futura, (London) in 1974. The English legal apparatus suppressed further accounts.
In August 1946 15 months after the end of the Second World War, according to the International Red Cross, “Britain had 460,000 German prisoners slaving for her.” This was in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention (Enslavement of Prisoners-of-War is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Article.75) which Britain was a signatory to. Arthur Veysey of the Chicago Tribune Press Service on May 28th 1946 reported “When they (German POWs) learned upon arrival in British and French ports they were to be worked indefinitely as slaves, they became sullen.”
Arthur Veysey appalled by the British government’s abuse of human rights and the illegality of its evil slave-ownership policies and defiance of the Geneva Convention said, “The British Government nets over $250,000,000 annually from its slaves. The Government, which frankly calls itself the ‘owner’ of the prisoners, hires the men out to any employer needing men, charging the going rate for such work, usually $15 to $20 a week. It pays the slaves from 10 to 20 cents a day. The prisoners are never paid in cash, but are given credits either in the form of vouchers or credits.”
When American attempts were made to prevent Stalin from abducting five million Germans, many of them civilians including children, as slave laborers after Germany’s defeat, the Soviets made their point. They produced a proclamation signed by General Dwight Eisenhower a year earlier, which gave the Soviets complete freedom to do whatever, they wished with captured Germans. This included deportation, enslavement; to loot and destroy without restraint, even using German transport to do so. They reminded the US Government that they had an equal right to do as the Americans were doing and were exercising the same right.
Eyewitness accounts describe events when Berlin and Breslau surrendered. “The long grey-green columns of prisoners were marched east downcast and fearful towards huge depots near Leningrad, Moscow, Minsk, Stalingrad, Kiev, Kharkov and Sevastopol. All fit men had to march 22 miles a day. Those physically handicapped went in handcarts or carts pulled by spare beasts.” This was reported in the Congressional Record on March 29th 1946.
By August 1946 France according to the International Red Cross had enslaved nearly three-quarters of a million former German servicemen. Of these 475,000 had been captured by the Americans who ‘in a deal’ had transferred them to French control for the expressed purpose of forced labour. Interestingly in a macabre way, the French returned 2,474 German POWs complaining that they were weaklings. (5)
Those returned must indeed have been in a bad way for the 472,526 remaining slaves had already been described by correspondents as; “a beggar army of pale, thin men clad in vermin infested tatters.” All were pronounced unfit for work, three quarters of them due to deliberate starvation. Of this unfortunate ‘army’ of slaves 19% were so badly treated they needed to be hospitalized (6)
In the notorious camp in the Sarthe District for 20,000 prisoners, inmates received just 900 calories a day; thus 12 died every day in the hospital. Four to five thousand are unable to work any more. Recently trains with new prisoners arrived at the camp; several prisoners had died during the trip, several others had tried to stay alive by eating coal that had been lying in the freight train by which they came. (7)
On December 5th 1946 the American Government requested the repatriation (by October 1, 1947) to Germany of the 674,000 German prisoners-of-war it had handed over to France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg.
France agreed in principle but refused to abide by the release date stipulated. They pointed out, correctly, that a December 1st 1945 memorandum clearly stated that German prisoners handed over to the French by the US Government ‘were chattels to be used indefinitely as forced labour’. (8)
The German armed forces invariably obeyed the Rules of War conventions to the letter. Speaking for himself and other allied military commanders, Major General Robert W. Grow, U.S.A. Commander 6th Armored Division in Europe conceded there was ‘no German atrocity problem’.
“My service during World War Two was in command of an armored division throughout the European campaign, from Normandy to Saxony. My division lost quite a number of officers and men captured between July 1944 and April 1945. In no instance did I hear of personnel from our division receiving treatment other than proper under the ‘Rules of Land Warfare’. As far as the 6th Armored Division was concerned in its 280 days of front line contact, there was no ‘atrocity problem’. Frankly, I was aghast, as were many of my contemporaries, when we learned of the proposed ‘war crimes’ trials and the fact that military commanders were among the accused. I know of no general officer who approved of them.” (9)
Despite the German observance of convention the American forces response was often as summary and as brutal as those practiced by their Soviet allies. Only in cases where large numbers of captured soldiers had been taken were they to be enslaved. If captured in smaller groups the US Army policy was simply to slaughter their captured prisoners where they stood.
A specific study is now being made for the purpose of compiling evidence of such atrocities to which the author, Michael Walsh, would appreciate input.
One such case was the cold-blooded slaying of an estimated 700 troops of the 8th SS Mountain Division. These troops who had fought with honorable distinction had earlier captured a US field hospital. Although the German troops had conducted themselves properly they were, when subsequently captured by the US Army, routinely separated and gunned down in groups by squads of American troops.
A similar fate befell infantrymen of the SS Westphalia Brigade who were captured by the US 3rd Armored Division. Most of the German captives were shot through the back of the head. “The jubilant Americans told the locals to leave their bodies in the streets as a warning to others of US revenge” Their corpses lay in the streets for five days before the occupying forces relented and allowed the corpses to be buried. After the war the German authorities attempted, without success, to prosecute the GIs responsible. (10)
Ironically in the light of postwar research it has been revealed that the only atrocities committed at Dachau were those carried out by the victorious allies. Equally ironically this camp was an allied concentration camp (eleven years) for a longer period of time than it was a German administered camp. There, “Three hundred SS camp guards were quickly neutralized.” on the orders of General Dwight D. Eisenhower.
The term neutralized of course is a politically correct (or cowardly) way of saying that prisoners-of-war were rounded up and machine-gunned in groups. Accounts of the mass murder of prisoners-of-war at Dachau have been described in at least two books; ‘The Day of the Americans by Nerin Gun, Fleet Publishing Company, New York, and, Deliverance Day – The Last Hours at Dachau by Michael Selzer; Lippincot, Philadelphia
These books describe how German prisoners were collected in groups, placed against a wall and methodically machine-gunned by American soldiers while some were still standing, hands raised in surrender. American soldiers casually climbed over the still twitching bodies, killing the wounded. Whilst this was happening, American photographers were taking pictures of the massacres that have since been published.
At Dachau, which was in the American zone of Germany, a shock force of American and Polish guards attempted to entrain a group of Russian prisoners from Vlasov’s Army who had refused to be repatriated under the new American ruling.
‘All of these men refused to entrain,’ Robert Murphy wrote in his report of the incident. ‘They begged to be shot. They resisted entrainment by taking off their clothes and refusing to leave their quarters…. Tear-gas forced them out of the building into the snow where those who had cut and stabbed themselves fell exhausted and bleeding in the snow. Nine men hanged themselves and one had stabbed himself to death and one other who had stabbed himself subsequently died; while twenty others are still in hospital from self-inflicted wounds. The entrainment was finally effected of 368 men.” (11)
“The last operation of this kind in Germany took place at Plattling near Regensburg, where fifteen hundred men of Vlasov’s Army had been interned by the Americans. In the early hours of February 24th, 1946, they were driven out of their huts wearing only their night-clothes, and handed over to the Russians in the forest near the Bavarian-Czech border. Before the train set off on its return journey the American guards were horrified to see the bodies of Vlasov’s men who had already committed suicide hanging in rows from trees, and when they returned to Plattling even the German SS prisoners in the nearby POW camp jeered at them for what they had done.” (13)
According to the Toronto Daily Star, March, 9th, 1968, “Former members of an illegal Israeli force which was given absolute freedom to slaughter Germans conceded that “More than 1,000 Nazi SS Officers died as a result of eating arsenic-impregnated bread introduced April, 13th, 1946, in an American-run prisoner-of-war camp near Nuremberg.”
After the US victory (the battle for Remagen Bridge) Germans in the Rhineland surrendered en masse. Between April and July 1945, some 260,000 German prisoners-of-war were held under American guard in the boggy fields between Remagen and Sinzig. They were kept in the open air and their daily ration was one potato, a biscuit, a spoonful of vegetables and some water. Racked by disease, at least 1,200 died, according to German records.” (14)
In the USA where 140,000 German prisoners-of-war were shipped, the Catholic Bishops Conference described how, “Multitudes of civilians and prisoners of war have been deported and degraded into forced labor unworthy of human beings.”
“Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are put like slaves to forced labor, although the only thing with which they can be reproached is the fact that they were soldiers. Many of these poor fellows are without news from home and have not been allowed to send a sign of life to their dear ones.”
United States 140,000 (US Occupation Zone of which 100,000 were held in France, 30,000 in Italy, 14,000 in Belgium. Great Britain 460,000 German slaves. The Soviet Union 4,000,0005,000,000 estimated. France had 680,000 German slaves by August 1946. Yugoslavia 80,000, Belgium 48,000, Czechoslovakia 45,000, Luxembourg 4,000, Holland 1,300. Source: International Red Cross.
An outraged International Red Cross organization opined: “The United States, Britain and France, nearly a year after peace are violating International Red Cross agreements they solemnly signed in 1929. Although thousands of former German soldiers are being used in the hazardous work of clearing minefields, sweeping sea mines and razing shattered buildings, the Geneva Convention expressly forbids employing prisoners ‘in any dangerous labour or in the transport of any material used in warfare.’
Henry Wales in Geneva, Switzerland on April 13, 1946 added, ‘The bartering of captured enemy soldiers by the victors throws the world back to the dark ages when feudal barons raided adjoining duchies to replenish their human live stock. It is an iniquitous system and an evil precedent because it is wide open for abuse with difficulty in establishing responsibility. It is manifestly unjust and sell them for political reasons as the African Negroes were a century ago.”
By contrast the German armed forces behaved impeccably towards their prisoners-of-war. “The most amazing thing about the atrocities in this war is that there have been so few of them. I have come up against few instances where the Germans have not treated prisoners according to the rules, and respected the Red Cross reported respected newspaper The Progressive February, 4th 1945.
Allan Wood, London Correspondent of the London Express agreed. “The Germans even in their greatest moments of despair obeyed the Convention in most respects. True it is that there were front line atrocities – passions run high up there – but they were incidents, not practices, and misadministration of their American prison camps was very uncommon.” Lieutenant Newton L. Marguiles echoed his words.
US Assistant Judge Advocate, Jefferson Barracks, April 27th1945. “It is true that the Reich exacted forced labour from foreign workers, but it is also true that, they were for the most part paid and fed well.”
“I think some of the persons found themselves better off than at any time in their lives before.” added Dr.James K.Pollack, Allied Military Government.
“What did the Germans do to get efficient production from forced labour that we were not able to do with Germans working down the mines? They fed their help and fed them well.” Said Max H. Forester, Chief of AMG’s Coal and Mining Division in July 1946.
Asked what were the chances of the evil perpetrators of such crimes being brought to justice, Michael Walsh said that the only thing that stood between the allied sadists and the hangman’s rope was the will to bring them to trial.
Precedent on retrospective justice is already a fact of life. Its failure is that war crimes justice is selective and so far applicable only to the defeated foe under highly questionable and internationally criticized legal procedures.
What is needed is to raise public awareness and a lead be given by those in public life whose voice is less likely to be censored. He added that the interests of justice must come before national pride, political expediency and military guilt. “How else.” He added, “can human civilization progress than through the administration of justice that is blind to race, political dogma and national interests?
(1) Congressional Record, December 11, 1945 p. A-5816.
(2) Gruesome Harvest, R.F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics, Chicago, 1947.
(3) Cyril Connolly, The Golden Horizon, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London
(4) Daily Mail, London, 22nd, April, 1995
(5) John Thompson, Chicago Tribune Press Service, Geneva, August 24, 1946).
(6) Gruesome Harvest, R.F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics, Chicago, 1947).
(7) Louis Clair, The Progressive, 14 January, 1946).
(8) Gruesome Harvest, R.F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics, Chicago, 1947).
(9) Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-Appraisal, H.K Thompson/Henry Strutz, Amber Publishing Corp. N.Y 1976.
(10) Daily Mail, London, May 1, 1995.
(11) Douglas Botting, In The Ruins of The Reich, George Allen & Unwin, London
(12) Douglas Botting, In The Ruins of The Reich, George Allen & Unwin, London
(13) Douglas Botting, In The Ruins of The Reich, George Allen & Unwin, London
(14) Roger Boyes, The (London) Times, 7th March 1995

“. . . there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed: and hid that shall not be made known.” – Matthew 10:26
Is America finally about to be thrown a scrap or two of historical truth? If so, have the Soviet relations of recent months, which has caused its leaders to admit to the murder of millions of their own people, allowed a few rays of truth to filter down and penetrate the Iron Curtain which has been erected over World War II, and which has kept vital facts from our people?
Something out of the ordinary seems to be going on within America’s ruling circles. Are we finally to be told the truth about World War II?
Recently a book was written by an eminent Canadian author, James Bacque, of Toronto. It is titled OTHER LOSSES and deserves the widest possible distribution in the United States, especially among our veterans who fought World War II. Although Mr. Bacque’s book does not picture America and her allies in a favorable light, it has had an amazing reception in Canada, although the people of the United States, for the most part have been kept in the dark about one of the most heinous episodes of World War II, which revolves around the Supreme Commander of the Allies in Europe, Gen. Dwight David Eisenhower, who was known during his days at West Point as that “terrible Swedish Jew.”
I have my own opinions of Dwight David Eisenhower, opinions formed during the early days of World War II, from information I received from officers who knew “Ike” before he became Supreme Commander.
During the days before World War II, “Ike,” as he was affectionately called, was noted as a ”ladies man, and the best damned bridge player on the Post.” (Quotation not mine.) When anyone would mention Ike as a troop commander, it was met with hilarious, profane skepticism. Then too, my opinions of Ike were formed by the attitude of my Commanding General, Gen. George Patton, who looked on Eisenhower as a “whimp,” not worthy of his rank.
As many of you will remember, Ike was promoted to Supreme Commander in Europe. From Lieutenant Colonel, in early 1941, Eisenhower was promoted to full Colonel in March 1941, to Brigadier General (temporary) in September. In February 1942, after he became a favorite of Gen. George Marshall during the Louisiana Maneuvers, he was appointed Assistant Chief of the War Plans Division. About this time, Ike became acquainted with the daughter of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and she introduced her boy friend to “pappa.” Evidently F.D.R. recognized in this young officer, a man who would agree with his plans and who would do anything to get promoted. This began a rapid spiral of promotions which by-passed many officers who outranked him and who were much more qualified for the posts he occupied. He became Chief of Operations Division, War Department General Staff (March, 1942), to Commanding General of the European Theater of Operations in June 1942, to Allied Commander in Chief, for the invasion of North Africa (November, 1942), Sicily, (May 1943), Italy (September, 1943) and finally to his ultimate designation by President F.D.R. as Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force for the invasion of Europe.
It was Eisenhower’s advise to F.D.R. and Churchill, which caused the war to drag on for two extra years, resulting in millions of deaths on both sides, and hundreds of billions of dollars of profit for Eisenhower’s racial brethren, the International bankers, who financed both sides.
In early 1943, General Patton and the British Commander, Gen. Montgomery, presented a plan to Churchill and F.D.R. which called for the invasion of Europe through the “soft underbelly of Europe.” This would have liberated all the eastern European countries from Communist control and would have ended the war in 1943.
But Eisenhower’s hatred of the Germans, which was openly shown many times during those terrible days of the war, demanded that as many Germans as possible be made to suffer for their part in the war.
It might be well to state here, that as early as 1902, International Jewry had a plan for the destruction of Christianity in Europe.
This called for the destruction, first of Czarist Russia, which took place in 1917, and then for the destruction of Germany. A war chest of some $2-billion was set aside for this purpose, long before a man named Adolf Hitler came on the scene. When Churchill and F.D.R. listened to the advice of Stalin, instead of their two best military leaders, it gave Stalin two years to establish control over all of Eastern Europe, which is now known as the Warsaw Pact Nations.
We can see the further treason in Eisenhower’s actions, when in 1945, as Patton’s armored forces swept into Germany, they were held back from entering Berlin, and were even ordered to withdraw to the Western borders of Germany, until Soviet troops could enter Germany.
Any military commander “worth their salt,” knows that Patton could have ended the war on the Eastern border of Germany and that country would have never been divided. Patton by this time was beginning to realize that a conspiracy existed among the top war leaders, which were keeping him from the victory he so richly deserved. It was a traumatic lesson which was to be later repeated with General Douglas MacArthur in Korea, when he was not allowed to attack enemy positions north of the Yalu River.
The One Worlder’s in Washington, D.C., and London had other plans and aided Stalin in his rape of Eastern Europe and Germany.
It was the “terrible Swedish Jew” Eisenhower, whose open hatred of everything German, caused him to promote Operation Keelhaul, at the end of the war, where thousands of anti-Communist fighters, who had surrendered to American forces, were forced at bayonet point, back to the tender mercies of the Communists. Thousands of them were murdered outright, or disappeared into the Gulags of Russia.
Eisenhower returned to the States, made a hero by the controlled prostitute press of America, and his popularity from a populace he had betrayed, was such that he became the 34th President of the United States in 1953.
Eisenhower was quoted at the war’s end as saying: ”I hate war as only a soldier who has lived through it can only as one who has seen it’s brutality, it’s futility, it’s Stupidity” But he did not hate it as much as he hated Germans, and he took a terrible Jewish revenge on over a million surrendered German soldiers and civilians when the war ended. Praised by the media and the ”kept” historians, this man was directly responsible for one of the most reprehensible acts in the history of civilized warfare. One which should put him in the same class with Atilla the Hun and other barbarians.
The peace which was inflicted on a completely defeated Germany in 1945, was called the Morgenthau Plan. It was promoted by Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, a Jew, who later stated that most of the ideas for this plan had come from Eisenhower.
Now, after a tremendous research of over twenty years, the truth about this Jew Commander of America’s forces, who became the 34th President of the United States, can be known.
In 1945, during the post-World War II period, American foreign policy was largely in the hands of a small group of very powerful Zionists based in Washington, D.C. This secret, invisible government, which has controlled America for over fifty years, was headed then by Sen. Herbert Lehman; Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, and Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau. They drew up the “blueprint” for a plan, which the enthusiastic Eisenhower carried out in Europe, which was the most monstrous policy of hate and vengeance known in the annals of civilized history.
This policy is still in operation today, fifty years later, where media pundits, twisting, exaggerating, and even manufacturing historical claims, have hounded, harassed, and had arrested 70 and 80-year old European war veterans for alleged ”war crimes,” which were supposed to have taken place over fifty years ago.
The following article, entitled THE EISENHOWER DEATH CAMPS, was taken from the January 1990 issue of INSTAURATION, a scholarly American monthly. Every American veteran who served in World War II should know these facts. They are entitled to know how we were lied to and inveigled into a war for the benefits of the Internationalists. Every American Legion and Veteran’s of foreign War Post in this country, should have this article read to its them bets, for you see, the same treason was carried out in Korea and then later in Vietnam. It is we, the veteran’s of America, who have the right to know the truth, about the traitors who were responsible for the murder of our buddies, and the crippling of hundreds of thousands more, and who are even now laying the groundwork to get your sons and daughters involved in World War Ill.
The National Archives in Washington, (D.C.) contains an official document called the Weekly Prisoner of War and Disarmed Enemy Forces Report for the week ending Sept. 8, 1945. It shows that 1,056,482 German prisoners were then being held by the U.S. Army in the European theater, of whom 692,895 were still classified as POWs (Prisoners of War) and the other 363,587 as DEFs (Disarmed Enemy Forces.)
This latter designation was illegal under international law and completely contrary to the Geneva Convention, to which both the United States and Germany were signatories. A German soldier designated DEF had no right to any food, shelter, or water in fact, to anything. Quite often he did not receive even the basic necessities of life and died within days.
In the first week of September 1945, 13,051 of the 363,587 Germans died and were listed cryptically as “other losses.” This was the equivalent of a death rate of 3.6% per week. At such a rate, all the remaining 350,536 DEFs would have been dead within 28 weeks before the end of the approaching winter.
The civilian death rate immediately outside the American camps in Germany was about 2% per year, or nearly 100 times lower, despite the greater proportion of older people. Since adequate supplies were readily available to the American troops at all times, this killing seems to have been deliberate.
As for the 692,895 German soldiers still falsely listed as POWs, the last of them had actually been transferred from POW to DEF status a month earlier on August 4, by order of General Eisenhower. Their death rate quickly quadrupled within weeks, from .2% to .8% per week. Assuming the latter rate for the week ending September 8, about 5,543 of the so-called POWs listed in the report as being alive and in American hands had died that week – all would have died within just over two years.. (The reason this death rate was lower than 3.6% weekly for the longer-term DEFs was simply that the barbaric treatment of the DEFs was cumulative, and that some of the American troops refused to go along with this barbaric treatment.) I recall the winter of 1945, when I was on occupation duty in Japan. A similar order came from our local U.S. military commander who was known for his hatred of all Japanese. It did not come from MacArthur’s headquarters in Tokyo. We were not allowed to give food of any kind to Japanese civilians, although many of them were on the verge of starvation. I was commanding a detachment of 28 men, which were guarding a Japanese Quarter Master dump at the little town of Niski’ya’hama, about eighty miles south of Osaka. Food in this storehouse was literally spoiling, yet we were not allowed to share it with the Japanese people. For Christmas rations that year, my detachment received eight sheep carcasses and 28 turkeys, with no refrigeration for storage. Rather than see this food go to waste, I shared it with the starving population, and when word leaked out, I came very close to being court marshaled. It was only the intervention of a high ranking officer from MacArthur’s Headquarters which saved me.
The same thing happened over and over again in Germany, and American officers and servicemen were court marshaled, on Eisenhower’s orders, for sharing their rations with the starving Germans. If you were a young man, with several small children at home, you know how these enemy children played on the minds of decent Americans who knew what their government was doing was wrong. Enemy children have never been enemies, to big hearted Americans.
But with a man of unbounded hatred for the Germans, his order of August 4th, made it impossible for there to be such a thing as a bona fide German POW in American hands on European soil.
Instead, there were vast concentrations of men (including some women and children) starving to death in open, muddy, disease-ridden fields.
In November 1945, Eisenhower returned to Washington. A month later, a slight relaxation went into effect. Men of conscience such as General George Patton, had no qualms about killing German soldiers in combat, but he drew a line at the deliberate policy of murder which was advocated by Eisenhower. I firmly believe this was one of the reasons he met his untimely death The truth which is now coming out of old records, show that “war crimes” was by no means a German monopoly, and the “good war,” the Jewish media and historians called it in the United States, was as evil as any conflict in world history.
Bacque’s careful calculations forced him to conclude:
Eisenhower had deplored the German’s useless defense of the Reich in the last months of the war because of the waste of life. At least ten times as many Germans – undoubtedly 800,000, almost certainly 900,000, and quite possibly a million died in the French and American camps as were killed in all the combat on the Western front in northwest Europe from America’s entry into the war in December 1941, through April 1945.”
Bacque was ably assisted in his research by Col. Ernest F. Fisher, a senior historian for the U.S. Army, as well as by other highly placed members of the American military. One of them, Col. Philip S. Lauben, Chief of the German Affairs branch of SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force), stated that, in late 1945, “the Vosges (northeast France) was just one big death camp (for Germans).”
In spite of everything which has been written about Eisenhower which makes him out to be a hero, there seems little question that Dwight Eisenhower meets all the qualifications of a certified war criminal, even if Bacque’s figures are off a bit. (If Germany had been the winner, there is little doubt he would have been tried and found guilty of the most heinous crimes against mankind.)
Many veterans will get upset with this appraisal of a man they looked on as a “bona fide” American hero. But the proof for these accusations can be found in what happened to those Germans who were fortunate enough to surrender to the British and the Canadians some two million of them. The evidence shows that “almost all continued in fair health and many were quickly released and sent home or transferred to the French, to help in the post-war work of reconstruction.
Bacque specifically commends General Patton for behavior towards his POWs it a civilized manner. His Third Army freed vast numbers of German captives during May 1945, to the dismay, no doubt, of the Zionists who controlled Washington.
Both General Omar Bradley and J. C. H. Lee, Communications Zone (ComZ) Europe, ordered the release of prisoners within a week of the war’s end. This SHAEF order was countermanded by Eisenhower on May IS, 1945.
While German soldiers from the British and Canadian zones were quickly regaining strength and were helping rebuild Europe, Germans taken by the Americans were dying by the hundreds of thousands – emaciated figures in diarrhea smeared clothing, huddling pitifully in watery holes with perhaps a scrap of cardboard over their heads and a rotten potato for supper. At times many of them were reduced to drinking urine and eating grass.
Did all this happen because of one supremely unprincipled and influential man named Eisenhower? Or was Ike in turn influenced by a small circle around him or by his superiors in Washington? Historians will be probing this question for decades to come.
Here are the principle dates by which this infamy will live:
1944: Eisenhower told the British ambassador to Washington that the 3,500 officers of the German General staff should be ”exterminated.” He also favored the liquidation of perhaps 100,000 prominent Germans. Soon after, he wrote to his wife, Mamie: “God, I hate Germans! Why? Because the German is a beast!” Eisenhower said he was ashamed to bear a German name.
August 1944: The North American wheat surplus was greater than at any time in history, nearly one billion bushels. The U.S. corn surplus and potato crop also reached a new high.
March 10, 1944: A message sent from Eisenhower to the Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS) of Britain and the U.S. recommended the creation of an entirely new class of prisoners, Disarmed Enemy Forces or DEFs. At a press conference in Paris, this same day, Ike said: “If the Germans were reasoning like normal beings, they would realize the whole history of the United States and Great Britain is to be generous towards a defeated enemy. We observe all the laws of the Geneva Convention.”
March 19, 1945: Eisenhower’s special assistant, General Everett Hughes, visited the American supply depots at Naples and Marseille. In both places, he writes, there are ”more stocks than we can ever use. (They) stretch as far as eye can see.”
Spring 1945: The International Red Cross had over 100,000 tons of food stockpiled in Switzerland. At one point, it sent two trainloads into the American Zone of Germany, but the food was sent back. The Morgenthau Plan for a ”Carthaginian Peace” in Germany, to use the words of Military Governor Lucius Clay, is implemented through the directive JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) 1067, which specifies to Eisenhower the policy he must adopt towards every institution in Germany. The directive is largely the work of three of Henry Morgenthau’s underlings in the Treasury Department Harry Dexter White, Frank Coe, and Harry Glasser. White and Glasser were both Jews and all three were Communist ”fellow travelers.”
April 11, 1945: On the eve of his death, FDR told Morgenthau in Warm Springs, GA: “Henry, I am with you l00%” When Truman took over, he continued Morgenthau’s “Carthaginian Policy” towards conquered Germany.
April 17, 1945: The Americans opened their enormous Rheinberg Camp, six miles in circumference, with no food or shelter whatsoever. As in the other big “Rhine meadow” camps, opened in mid-April, there was initially no latrines and no water. In some camps, the men were so crowded they could not lie down. Meanwhile, at Camp Kripp, near Remagen, the half-American Charles von Luttichau determines that his German comrades are receiving about 5% as much food as their captors.” Complaining to the camp commander, HE SAID: ”Forget the Geneva Convention. You don’t have any rights.”
Late April 1945: Heinz Janssen, a survivor of the Rheinberg camp, described conditions as they were at the time. “Amputees slithered like amphibians through the mud , soaking and freezing. Naked to the skies day after day and night after flight, they lay desperate in the sand of Rheinberg or sleep exhaustedly into eternity ill their collapsing holes.”
April 26, 1945: The Combined Chiefs of Staff sent a message to Eisenhower, urging him not to take any more German prisoners after VE Day. He ignored it. The CCS approved of Ike’s proposed DEF status, but only for certain types of German prisoners. The British refused to go against the Geneva Convention. The CCS orders the illegal DEF status to be kept strictly secret. By this date, Eisenhower’s Quartermaster General of ASHAEF, Gen. Robert Littlejohn, has already twice reduced the rations to German prisoners. A message to Gen. George C. Marshall, signed by Ike, mandated: ”No shelter” for German prisoners, despite an unusually cold and wet March and April.
May 4, 1945: The first German POWs were transfer-red to DEF status. Mail to and from all German prisoners was banned for more than a year.
May 8, 1945: Germany surrendered unconditionally. The U.S. State Department wasted no time dismissing Switzerland as the official Protecting Power for German prisoners, contravening the Geneva Convention. State also informed the International Red Cross that, with no Protecting Power to report to, there is no point in sending delegates to the camps. From this day forward, prisoners held by the U.S. Army had no access to any impartial observer. The British and Canadians also removed the Swiss protectors, but continued treating their POWs decently.
May, 1945: The American Red Cross reported that more than 98% of Americans captured by the Germans will be coming home safely, thanks in part to the food parcels sent to them during the war, which were promptly delivered by the Germans.
May 15, 1945: Eisenhower and Churchill talked about further reducing the rations for the German POWs. Churchill was informed that the POWs have been getting 2,000 calories per day (compared to 4,000 for American troops) and that 2,150 was regarded as an absolute minimum required for sedentary adults living under shelter. Eisenhower failed to tell Churchill that the U.S. Army was not even feeding many DEFs, and that they were feeding others, much less than 2,000 calories per day.
Mid-May 1945: The Bingen camp, near Bad Kreuznach in the Rhineland, was now holding between 200,000 and 400,000 German POWs, with no shelter, food, water, or medicine. The death rate for prisoners in these U.S. camps were now about 30% per year, according to a U.S. medical survey.
June 2, 1945: The European Theater Provost Marshal issued two reports. One, the last in a series of daily reports, logged 2,870,400 POWs on hand. The other, the first report in a weekly series, dated the same day, logged only 1,836,000. At one point in mid-June, the prisoner strength on the ration list is given as 1,421,559, despite the evidence of Gen. J.C.H. Lee and others that there were about 4 million. This bizarre bookkeeping persisted throughout 1945 in all branches of the occupying army. The apparent purpose was to obscure the death toll by means of an indecipherable mass of conflicting Statistics. (One of Bacque’s greatest coups has been to decipher them.)
Mid – June, 1945: British “Tommies” took over the huge Rheinberg camp from the Americans, saving many thousands of German lives. The final act of the ”Yanks” before the British took charge, was to bulldoze one section flat while the men were still living in their holes in the ground. Meanwhile, a team of doctors from the U.S. Army Medical Corps completed a survey of some of the smaller Rhineland camps, holding some 80,000 POWs (not DEFs). They found a death rate 80 times higher than anything they have known in their professional career.
July, 1945: Eisenhower becomes military governor of the U.S. Zone in Germany. He continued to turn back all relief teams from Switzerland, the U.S. and elsewhere.
July 10, 1945: A French Army unit under Gen. Rousseau, took over the Dietersheim camp (near Mainz) from the Americans. He found 32,000 men and women of all ages in a moribund (dying) State. Another French officer Capt .Julien, was taking command 17 days later and found a vast mire ”peopled with living skeletons, male and female, huddling under scraps of wet card board .” Horrified, Julien wrote: ‘This is just like the photographs of Buchenwald and Dachau.
July 20, 1945: Gen. Littlejohn received a memo stating, “These men, German POWs are authorized a maximum of 1,150 calories for the non-workers and 1,850 for workers.” (Remember, it takes 2,000 calories of keep a sedentary adult alive.
July 26, 1945: The International Red Cross proposed restoring mail service to German POWs. Fearing that the reality of the death camps might come to light, the U. S. War Department rejected the idea.
August 4, 1945: Eisenhower ordered that all remaining German POWs be stripper of their rights, thus reducing them to DEF status.
August 27, 1945: In a long memorandum, Gen. Littlejohn informed Eisenhower that 1,550,000 Germans who supposedly were getting U.S. ARMY RATIONS, WERE RECEIVING NOTHING. Ike turned a deaf ear to his report and the death rate continued to climb.
August 30, 1945: Max Huber, head of the International Red Cross, wrote a stinging letter to the U.S. State Department about American interference in efforts to save starving Germans. Some months later, an evasive response, signed ”Eisenhower,” arrived in Washington, falsely claiming that giving Red Cross food to enemy personnel was forbidden. Thousands of train cars loaded with decaying food were sent back to Geneva arid to sources in Paris and Brussels. Huber apologized for tying up the French rail system because of the food which was being returned by the Americans.
By this time, more than 2-million German men had been discharged into American custody, including thousands of priests, ministers, doctors, and professors. Not one single camp commander or guard was questioned by the Allied press corps and the controlled media of the U.S. concerning conditions in these hell holes.
It might be well, to stop right here and ask this question: ”Is anyone who reads this horrifying account, so naive as to believe that the American people would have put up with these barbaric actions by its chief military men if they had known about it? Do you think that the politicians who were in the forefront of those who kept these facts from Americans would have lasted very long in office, if the truth had been known? Do you think that millions of Americans would show such concern for the Holocaust of the Jews, if they knew that it was Jewish hatred for their fellow kinsmen, that were killing over a million Germans? I sincerely doubt it! That’s why these facts have been kept from the American people for almost fifty years.
Late Summer, 1945: Jean-Pierre Pradervand, head of the International Red Cross delegations in France, told Henry W. Dunning, an American Red Cross official, that conditions in the French camps are worse, in many instances, than anything seen in the former Nazi camps. Pradervand showed Dunning pictures of the living skeletons. Dunning explained all this to the American Red Cross in Washington, which informed key government officials. Nevertheless, the cover-up continued. Pradervand also informed Charles De Gaulle that one-third of the prisoners handed over to France by the Americans will die soon without a radical change in treatment. De Gaulle showed no interest and the prisoners continued to die.
September 27, 1945: Pradervand’s pictures of German living skeletons were shown to Eisenhower in his office.
September 30, 1945 – October 1: The French newspaper, Le Monde, ran a story which began: “As one speaks today of Dachau, in ten years people throughout the world will speak about camps such as Saint Paul d’Egiaux.”
October 11,13, 14, 15, 20: The New York Times ran a cover-up report of the death camps by star newsman Drew Middleton. Interviewed by Bacque in 1988, Middleton admitted that he never actually visited any of the 50 U.S. camps located within 40 miles of his Frankfurt desk, but was only ‘driven by,’ as he was being debriefed by the military.”
December 1945: Eisenhower returned to the States and the U.S. Army allowed the first relief shipment to enter the American sector.
1947 – 1950’s: Nearly all the surviving records of the Rhineland death camps were destroyed. The West German government concluded that 1.7-million German soldiers were alive at the wars’ end, and who were known to have been in fair health, and disappeared. The Western Allies pinned virtually all the blame on the Soviets.
1950: The first German edition of ALLHERERTE KRIEGSVERBRECHEN is published. Never translated into English, the book gives eye-witness descriptions of the conditions which prevailed in the American camps.
1960s – 1972: The West German Foreign Office, under Willy Brandt subsidized books denying the atrocities in American POW camps and the high death rate.
1980: The International Committee of the Red Cross refuses to open its archives to James Bacque and other investigators into Allied atrocities. To this day, the ICRC has remained silent on the subject, despite the visits of Pradervand and other Red Cross delegates to many methhe camps.
September 1989: James Bacque’s book on the American death camps, “Other Losses,” published by Stoddard, a Canadian Publishing House, was released, after being refused by more than 30 American publishers. Saturday night, one of Canada’s most respected magazines. simultaneously published a summary of this book as its lead story and within days Canada was buzzing about Gen. Eisenhower’s war crimes. Why is it that we have heard little or nothing of this in the United States?
As American citizens, many of us who served in the American Armed Forces during World War II, and a great many of us who are of German heritage, should demand of our leaders in Washington, D.C. that the truth about this War be made known.
With accurate information of what really happened, instead of Zionist propaganda, just possibly we might be able to avert World War III, which is now being planned by these same One Worlders.
It is interesting to note, that it has been proven in recent years, that many of the pictures taken in Germany during WW II, purporting to be Jewish victims of ”racial extermination,” were actually pictures of German civilians who had died under American war criminals.
(Most of the information in this article came from the March 1990, CANADIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE. Their mut Wly intelligence newsletter is available from the above address)

 The Wehrmacht [German] War Crimes Bureau


  • The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945, by Alfred M. de Zayas. Nebraska University Press, 1989. Softcover, 364 pages. Bibliography, index, photographs. ISBN: 0-8032-9908-7
  • Reviewed by Robert Clive

When the topic of atrocities committed during the Second World War is discussed, such places as Babi Yar, Lidice, Malmedy and Oradour-sur-Glane almost immediately come to mind. But few will mention — or even have heard of — Bromberg, Bassabetovka, Goldap, Hohensalza, Nemmersdorf, or St. Pierre de Rumilly. The first group of names are associated with war crimes attributed to the Nazis. In the second list, the victims were Germans murdered by anti-Axis forces.
That atrocities were committed by the Allies against Germans and non-combatant civilians on both the Eastern and Western fronts is not often acknowledged. In large measure this reflects the fact that “victors write the history.” As a recent spate of popular books attests, the Second World War has been established in the public consciousness as “the last good war,” in which the forces of Evil were vanquished, despite the enormous costs involved, both material and moral.
In an important book only now available in English translation, Alfred M. de Zayas, a graduate of Harvard Law School, outlines the history of the Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, which from September 1939 until May 1945 kept a running record of war crimes committed against the Germans, their allies, and civilians.
The study grew out of research de Zayas undertook among previously unexamined German war-time legal records while he was director of the “Working Group on the Laws of War” at the Institute of International Law at Göttingen University (from which institution he also holds a Ph.D. in history). First published in 1979 as Die Wehrmacht-Untersuchungsstelle by Universitas/Langen Muller, the book was very favorably received throughout German-speaking Europe and served as the basis for a highly acclaimed two-part television documentary broadcast in Germany in 1983.
All belligerents investigated reported breaches of the laws and customs of war. When hostilities ended in 1945, Axis political and military leaders were imprisoned and many were executed for their alleged involvement in war crimes — a process that continues to this day. Allied officials who were responsible for committing atrocities against Axis personnel have not been similarly dealt with.
The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau was the direct successor to the Prussian Bureau of Investigation of Violations of the Laws of War, which conducted investigations until after the end of the First World War as an arm of the Reich War Ministry. There was a remarkable degree of continuity between the two organizations. Johannes Goldsche, a military judge who served as deputy chief of the Prussian Bureau, was appointed director of the Wehrmacht Bureau and served in this capacity throughout the Second World War. Both bureaus had the identical mission: to document allied offenses and submit reports. Some of their findings served as the basis for diplomatic protests lodged by the German Foreign Office against the Allied powers. But as we know, during and after the two wars, international public opinion tended to dismiss out of hand German allegations of Allied war crimes. Thus far, the one exception has been the case of Katyn, where thousands of Polish officers and intellectuals were murdered by the Soviets near Smolensk.
The author did not accept German allegations at face value. After sifting through several hundred volumes of official records, he interviewed more than 300 judges, witnesses, and victims. He cross-checked events mentioned in Bureau reports by consulting other German record groups and relevant American, British, French, and Swiss files. (Soviet records remain largely unavailable to scrutiny by Western researchers). De Zayas’s research “confirmed the correctness of the protocols.” He goes on to forthrightly state:
All in all the coherency of the War Crimes Bureau files, the confirmation of persons involved, and the comparison with other historical sources justify the conclusion that the Bureau did function in a trustworthy manner, that its investigations were authentic and its documents reliable … The Bureau was not a propaganda arm of the Nazi regime …
De Zayas divides his study into two parts. The first twelve chapters outline the history of the Prussian bureau and then relate why and when the Wehrmacht agency was started. The Bureau’s personnel and methods of operation are delineated.
Part Two presents details on specific cases. A careful line is drawn between historical events and mere propaganda. To those who have been brought up on a steady diet of Nazi atrocity stories, it is this second section that contains real eye-openers.
The Wehrmacht Bureau established that Polish military personnel and civilians committed numerous atrocities against ethnic Germans living within Poland’s pre-war frontiers, and against German civilians and soldiers after the war commenced. On the Western Front, the Bureau determined that the British were guilty of plundering the French and Belgian populace. The famous Belgian cyclist Julian Vervaecke was among the civilians killed by British soldiers. The French likewise executed Belgian non-combatants, Jewish refugees, and prisoners of war.
In his discussion of atrocities committed by the Allies in the West, de Zayas affirms that “there was no fabrication of atrocity stories [by the Bureau] but rather the methodical collection and evaluation of evidence. Nor was there any attempt to blame the Allies for destruction that may have been caused by the Germans themselves.”
Most of the existing records deal with atrocities committed on the Eastern Front by the Red Army and Soviet secret police (the NKVD). From the outset of the war in the East, the Bureau received reports of atrocities and wholesale violations of the internationally accepted rules of warfare. And as the Axis armies advanced, Soviet subjects came forward to reveal additional acts of barbarism perpetrated by the Soviet authorities.
POWs, whether Germans or Axis allies, were often shot out of hand, or shortly after they had been questioned. At Feodosiya, on the Black Sea, wounded soldiers were drenched with water and then left on the beaches to freeze to death. Captured soldiers were not merely executed, but frequently subjected to torture and mutilation first, then left where their remains could be easily discovered.
When the Red Army invaded German territory in late 1944, civilians who had been unable to flee before their advance were condemned to undergo a regime of ferocious brutality. At such towns as Goldap, Gumbinnen, and Nemmersdorf, even children were raped before being murdered by Russian soldiers. (The book includes photographs of these deeds). Alexander Solzhenitsyn is cited by de Zayas for his testimony on this topic. The famous Russian author, who fought as a captain in the Red Army, confirmed that, “all of us knew very well that if the girls were German they could be raped and then shot. This was almost a combat distinction.”
The Bureau also documented Soviet crimes against non-Germans. Chapters deal with Lvov, where thousands of civilians were found murdered in the prisons of the NKVD; Katyn; and Vinnitsa, a Ukrainian town where mass graves dating from 1936 were discovered. De Zayas reiterates that “the War Crimes Bureau was not established to fabricate documents on Allied war crimes: its records are genuine; its investigations were carried out methodically, in a judicial manner.”
This study does not consider atrocities attributed to the Germans and their allies. De Zayas does point out, however, that the Soviets conducted the first war crimes trials against members of the German armed forces when three soldiers captured at Stalingrad were hanged in 1943, after being found “guilty” of liquidating Soviet citizens in specially constructed gas vans.
With respect to the alleged Nazi “Final Solution” to the Jewish Question, in a footnote de Zayas concedes:
Without exception, all the German military judges interviewed by the author claimed not to have known about exterminations at any of the concentration camps until after the end of the war. A few admitted hearing rumors of executions on the Eastern Front but claimed that they had been unable to obtain corroborative evidence.
Elsewhere, de Zayas remarks:
The investigations described in this book manifest again and again the subjective conviction of the German military judges in the field and of the staff members of the Bureau that the German armed forces were fighting honorably, in compliance with the Hague and Geneva Convention, while those on the other side were violating those Conventions.
De Zayas has opened a new chapter in the study of the conduct of the Second World War. Now that his book is available in English translation, and published by a distinguished university press, its appearance hopefully will generate discussion of the topics it has raised, and inspire others to further research.
From The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1990 (Vol. 10, No. 2), pp. 237-241.

                                                                                                      The Greatest Mass Rape in History  by Kevin Alfred Strom
One of this century’s greatest crimes, and probably one of the greatest crimes against women in history, was the mass rape of the conquered women of Europe after the Judeo-Communist victory there in 1945. The rapists were mainly Red Army soldiers, some of them non-White troops from the Far East and Central Asian Republics of the Soviet Union. But I am sorry to say that many of the rapists were men of our own race, and some were Americans. They were brutes no doubt, but they were permitted and encouraged to indulge their lower than bestial urges by official “Allied” policies which incited hatred particularly against the Germans, but also against those of other European nationalities which were then allied with Germany in an anti-Communist bloc. One cannot contemplate this great mass orgy of rape, gang rape, and sexual slavery of innocent women and little girls without revulsion. It would be easy for you to toss this newsletter aside and pickup more pleasant or amusing reading. But if you want to know the truth about one of the darkest secrets of our present establishment, a horrible crime against women about which the Politically Correct feminists are strangely silent, then I urge you to read on.
I claim no originality for the documentation or recounting of this ghastly crime perpetrated mainly by what Franklin Roosevelt called “our noble Soviet ally.” We are indebted to Dr. Austin J. App, a professor and scholar of English literature at Catholic University, the University of Scranton, and LaSalle College, among others, who risked career and livelihood to bring these truths to light. In April, 1946, when he published the work upon which this article is based, entitled Ravishing the Women of Conquered Europe, he was a lone voice crying out for justice in an America still high on war propaganda and on a “victory” that in the later Cold War years and after would be seen clearly as a defeat for America and the West as much as it was for Germany.
As the Red Army advanced toward her in 1945, the city of Berlin had become a city virtually without men. Out of a civilian population of 2,700,000, 2,000,000 were women. It is small wonder that the fear of sexual attack raced through the city like a plague. Doctors were besieged by patients seeking information on the quickest way to commit suicide, and poison was in great demand.
In Berlin stood a charity institution, the Haus Dehlem, an orphanage, maternity hospital, and foundling home. Soviet soldiers entered the home, and repeatedly raped pregnant women and women who had just given birth. This was not an isolated incident. No one will ever know how many women were raped, but doctors’ estimates run as high as 100,000 for the city of Berlin alone, their ages ranging from 10 to 70.
On March 24, 1945, our “noble Soviet allies” entered Danzig. A 50-year-old Danzig teacher reported that her niece, 15, was raped seven times, and her other niece, 22, was raped fifteen times. A Soviet officer told a group of women to seek safety in the Cathedral. Once they were securely locked inside, the beasts of Bolshevism entered, and ringing the bells and playing the organ, “celebrated” a foul orgy through the night, raping all the women, some more than thirty times. A Catholic pastor in Danzig declared, “They violated even eight-year-old girls and shot boys who tried to shield their mothers.”
The Most Reverend Bernard Griffin, British Archbishop, made a tour of Europe to study conditions there, and reported, “In Vienna alone they raped 100,000 women, not once but many times, including girls not yet in their teens, and aged women.”
A Lutheran pastor in Germany, in a letter of August 7, 1945, to the Bishop of Chichester, England, describes how a fellow pastor’s “two daughters and a grandchild (ten years of age) suffer from gonorrhea, [as a] result of rape” and how “Mrs. N. was killed when she resisted an attempt to rape her,” while her daughter was “raped and deported, allegedly to Omsk, Siberia, for indoctrination.”
The day after our noble Soviet allies conquered Neisse, Silesia, 182 Catholic nuns were raped. In the diocese of Kattowitz 66 pregnant nuns were counted. In one convent when the Mother Superior and her assistant tried to protect the younger nuns with outstretched arms, they were shot down. A priest reported in Nord Amerika magazine for November 1, 1945, that he knew “several villages where all the women, even the aged and girls as young as twelve, were violated daily for weeks by the Russians.”
Sylvester Michelfelder, a Lutheran pastor, wrote in the Christian Century “Bands of irresponsible bandits in Russian or American uniforms pillage and rob the trains. Women and girls are violated in sight of everyone. They are stripped of their clothes.”
On April 27, 1946 Vatican Radio charged that in the Russian occupation zone of Eastern Germany cries of help are going up “from girls and women who are being brutally raped and whose bodily and spiritual health is completely shaken.”
The rapists did not all wear a red star. John Dos Passos, writing in LIFE magazine for January 7, 1946, quotes a “red-faced major” as saying that “Lust, liquor and loot are the soldier’s pay.” A serviceman wrote to TIME magazine for November 12, 1945 “Many a sane American family would recoil in horror if they knew how ‘Our Boys’ conduct themselves, with such complete callousness in human relationships over here.” An army sergeant wrote “Our own Army and the British Army …have done their share of looting and raping… This offensive attitude among our troops is not at all general, but the percentage is large enough to have given our Army a pretty black name, and we too are considered an army of rapists.”
An Italian survivor of American bombing states that Black American troops, stationed in Naples, were allowed by their superiors free access to poor, hungry, and humiliated Italian women. The result of this interracial rape and sexual slavery was the production of a generation of pitiable mixed-race children, a legacy of the brutal conqueror.
According to an AP dispatch of September 12, 1945, entitled “German-American Marriages Forbidden”, the Franklin Roosevelt government instructed its soldiers that marriage with the inferior Germans was absolutely forbidden, but those having illegitimate children by German women, whose husbands and boyfriends were conveniently dead or held as prisoners or slave laborers, could count on allowance money. And, according to TIME magazine of September 17, 1945, the government provided these soldiers with an estimated 50 million condoms per month, and graphically instructed them as to their use. For all practical purposes, our soldiers were being told: “Teach these Germans a lesson — and have a wonderful time!” Such were the great crusaders who brought “democracy” to Europe.
For the Americans and British, open rape was not as common as among the Soviet troops. The Soviets simply raped any female from eight years up and if a German man or woman killed a Russian soldier for anything, including rape, 50 Germans were killed for each incident, as reported in TIME magazine, June 11, 1945. But for most of our boys, having that “wonderful time” depended a great deal on the “cooperation” of the German and Austrian women. From the starving and the homeless, of course, sexual “cooperation” could be bought for a few pennies or a mouthful of food. I don’t think we ought to dignify this arrangement with any other than its true name of sexual slavery.
The Christian Century for December 5, 1945 reported “the American provost marshal, Lieutenant Colonel Gerald F. Beane, said that rape presents no problem for the military police because a bit of food, a bar of chocolate, or a bar of soap seem to make rape unnecessary. Think that over, if you want to understand the situation in Germany.” The Weekly Review of London, for October 25, 1945, described it thus: “Young girls, unattached, wander about and freely offer themselves for food or bed. …very simply, they have one thing left to sell, and they sell it… …as a way of dying it may be worse than starvation, but it will put off dying for months — or even years.”
Dr. George N. Shuster, president of Hunter College, wrote in the Catholic Digest of December 1945 after a visit to the American Zone of occupation, “You have said it all when you say that Europe is now a place where woman has lost her perennial fight for decency because the indecent alone live.” By official policy, the Allies created conditions in which the only German mothers who could keep their young children alive were those who themselves or whose sisters became mistresses of the occupying troops. Our own officials admittedly brought the Germans down to a total daily food intake less than that of an American breakfast, a level which leads to slow but sure death unless relieved.
According to testimony given in the United States Senate on July 17, 1945, when the colonial French troops under Eisenhower’s command, presumably mostly Africans, entered the German city of Stuttgart, they herded German women into the subways and raped some two thousand of them. In Stuttgart alone, troops under Eisenhower’s command raped more women in one week than troops under German command raped in all of France for four entire years. In fact, of all the major belligerents in World War II, the German troops had by far the smallest record of rape and looting. In fact, the German army’s incidence of rape in all of Germany’s occupied territories was even lower than that of American troops stationed on American soil!
According to the International News Service in London, January 31, 1946, when American soldier’s wives were brought to Germany, they were given special authorization to wear military uniforms because “the GIs did not want their wives mistaken for Fraeuleins by other occupation troops.” A writer for the New York World Telegram January 21, 1945 stated “Americans look on the German women as loot, just like cameras and Lugers.” Dr. G. Stewart, in a health statement submitted to General Eisenhower, reported that in the first six months of American occupation, venereal disease jumped to twenty times its former level in Germany.
I want you imagine an orgy of rape like this happening in your country, in your neighborhood, to your family, to your wife, your sister, your daughter. I want you to imagine what it would feel like to be totally powerless to stop it from happening, completely unable to bring the criminals to justice. And I want to ask you, were there ever any “war crimes” or “hate crimes” trials of these butchers and rapists and inciters to butchery and rape? We in America are very good at raining “smart bombs” on our adversaries, and in violently enforcing the dictates of the United Nations on faraway peoples that our press have vilified. But we have really been very insulated from the horrors of mass warfare on our own territory. However, unless we wake up, we will find that someday the political situation in America will not be to the liking of the international elitists, and we may find foreign troops in blue UN helmets on our shores, to “correct” the situation. They will of course be called “peace-keeping” troops in the macabre Newspeak that our would-be masters have created, but their bombs and bullets, I assure you, will kill your family quite as dead as any others. And in the homelands where those “peace-keepers” hail from, I also assure you that the controlled media will have thoroughly indoctrinated them with a hatred of the nasty Americans who must be put in their place for their sins of questioning the dictates of the New World Order. Just as today, we are taught to hate the Iraqis and the Afrikaners of South Africa; just as yesterday we were taught to hate the Germans.
Few today remember that in the 1940s, the Allies, who even then were calling their world-government-in-the-making the “United Nations,” were pursuing a policy of unconditional surrender, which meant that the Germans would be obligated to accept an occupation government whose announced intentions, the infamous and genocidal Morgenthau Plan, would have reduced Germany to medieval conditions and cut her population by enforced starvation. Go to a large library and check out Secretary Morgenthau’s book, Germany Is Our Problem, Harper and Brothers, 1945. You will note the use of the term “United Nations” on the front flyleaf and in the foreword by Franklin D. Roosevelt. A prominent Jewish writer in America, Theodore Kaufman, had in 1941 written a book entitled Germany Must Perish, which advocated the extermination of all Germans by sterilization. Kaufman’s book received favorable reviews in major American magazines and newspapers. Other books, such as Louis Nizer’s What To Do With Germany, also contributed to this atmosphere of strident anti-German hatred. War propaganda and official policy combined to create an image of the German as sub-human and deserving of almost infinite punishment if not annihilation.
Churchill said to the Germans in January, 1945, “We Allies are no monsters. This, at least, I can say, on behalf of the United Nations, to Germany. …Peace, though based on unconditional surrender, will bring to Germany and Japan immense and immediate alleviation of suffering and agony.”
Against that false claim the late Dr. Austin App proclaimed the truth: Those Allies who were “no monsters” literally raped more European women than had ever before been raped in the history of the world. They put Germany on a starvation-level diet. Under direct orders from Dwight Eisenhower, they killed more than a million German POWs. They looted 12 million people of their homes, goods, food, and even clothes and drove them from their homelands. They took one-fourth of their farmland, they took their ships and their factories and their farm implements and then told them to live by farming. They abused and starved to death more German babies than there ever were Jews in Germany. They raped and debauched hundreds of thousands of German, Austrian, and Hungarian girls and women from eight to eighty. They brought to their death five times as many Germans in one year of peace as died during five years of war. Yes, yes, of course, these men of the United Nations, these men of the New World Order are no monsters.
Quite apart from any ethnic or ideological considerations, World War II was a war between, on the one side, the elitists who created Communism as a way-station on the road to their New World Order; and on the other, those who opposed that New World Order. It is a tragedy of millennial proportions that America and Britain were induced to fight on the side of Communism and Communism’s masters.
Ladies and gentlemen, you have been lied to by those who want to submerge us into their world government. The public schools, the major media, and the government are lying to you. If you want to keep your freedom, you need to wake up.

Wilhelm Gustloff, who worked for the Swiss government as a meteorologist, joined the German NSDAP (National Socialiste Deutsch Arbeit Partei) in 1929. He put much effort into the distribution of the book, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to the point that members of the Swiss Jewish community sued the book's distributor, the Swiss NSDAP/AO (NSDAP Party outside Germany), for libel.

Gustloff was assassinated on February 4th, 1936 by David Frankfurter, a Croatian Jewish student incensed by Gustloff's antisemitic activism.

There were hard feelings in Germany towards Jews for many incidents, the assassination of Gustloff being one.... And then...

On November 9th, 1938 a German diplomat stationed in Paris, Ernst vom Rath, was assassinated by a Polish Jew, Herschel Grynszpan... which touched-off the spontaneous German civilian backlash reaction against Jews known as "Krystallnacht" (so called because of all the broken glass present where Jewish businesses and Synagogues were vandalized)...

"Official" history will assure us that it was either the Gestapo or SS that instigated and orchestrated the anti-Semitic riots... but that, of course, is a typical lie.

It was Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbles, who personally quieted the riots.

The Genocide of 15+ Million 

Germans by the Jews

The Real Holocaust of World War Two – The Genocide of 15+ Million Germans
A crime so great, so cruel, and so heinous, that none in the entire span of human history can equal it. The gates of hell were opened up. It is the ghastly truth of the jewish-orchestrated plundering, mass rape, mass murder, and subjugation of the German people in the latter days and aftermath of World War Two, which continues to this day. Estimated 15+ million ethnic Germans murdered after the war. Around 5-10+ million German women mass raped.

German children deported from the eastern areas of Germany taken over by Poland arrive in West Germany – August 1948 [1]
German refugees from the “death march” from Lodz, a Polish city which evicted ethnic German residents [2]
Germans Expelled From Poland
German women and children flee west, 1945
The greatest ethnic cleansing in European history, and almost no one talks or knows about it?  How can that be?

As a result of the Second World War, an estimated 15 million ethnic Germans were stripped of their citizenship and land and property, and expelled from their ancestral lands in Eastern Europe, mostly lands formerly part of Germany which were stolen from Germany at the Versailles treaty following World War One.  Seven to eight million Germans were expelled from parts of Poland that were actually German land ceded to Poland following WW1.  Three million were expelled from portions of Czechoslovakia, primarily the Sudetenland.  Some two million ethnic Germans living inside the Soviet Union were expelled, many to Siberian gulags.  Around half a million from Hungary, 300,000 from Romania, and smaller numbers from Yugoslavia and other areas are also expelled.  It is estimated that at least 2 million of those Germans were murdered or otherwise died as a result of these expulsions, with some estimates running as high as 6 million killed.

Real Holocaust Cattle Car Trains: German civilians ordered onto trains for expulsion
Many photographs such as these are co-opted by the Holocaust propagandists and used as “proof” of actions against jews, when in reality it was Germans who were the victims.
A Real Holocaust Deportation Train
In many cases Ethnic Germans being forcibly expelled were ordered on to trains, some packed with 80 people crammed into each cattle car without adequate (or, occasionally, any) food, water or heating, to be shipped to occupied Germany.  This photograph is of Germans being expelled from the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia.
Sudeten Germans boarding trains to be expelled from Czechoslovakia
German Refugees from East Prussia, 1945 [3]
Sudeten Germans make their way to the railway station in Liberec, in former Czechoslovakia, to be transferred to Germany – July, 1946

11-12 million “Volksdeutsche” expellees who make it back to Germany initially live in refugee camps, and make up around 20% of the post-war German population
German children at a refugee camp in western Germany, December 1944 [5]
German expellees in Northwestern Germany, 1948 

Real “Holocaust”, Genocide, and Ethnic Cleansing: 3 Million Ethnic Germans Brutally Expelled From Czechoslovakia
Ethnic German civilians brutally massacred in Czechoslovakia

After the Soviet Army moves out of Czechoslovakia, the Czech Army and civilians begin the mass murder and expulsion of the 3 million ethnic Germans living mostly in northern and western Czechoslovakia.  This was sanctioned by the Czech President and government, who openly called for the “liquidation” of the German population from Czechoslovakia.   Thousands of Germans attempting to flee to the German border were dragged from trains and convoys and shot by the side of the road, and buried in mass graves.

Germans can be seen in the video being forced to dig graves (either for themselves or their own people), lined up along the side of the road and shot, and even corpses ran over by a truck.

The Allies Endorse This Mass Ethnic Cleansing
At the Potsdam Conference, the Allies “dispense justice” to the defeated Germans and endorse a so-called “orderly and humane” expulsion of millions of ethnic Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and other Eastern European nations.  This is an official endorsement of ethnic cleansing and genocide by governments of nations unprecedented in world history.

The Expulsion Of The Germans: The Largest Forced Migration In History




In December 1944 Winston Churchill announced to a startled House of Commons that the Allies had decided to carry out the largest forced population transfer — or what is nowadays referred to as “ethnic cleansing” — in human history.


Millions of civilians living in the eastern German provinces that were to be turned over to Poland after the war were to be driven out and deposited among the ruins of the former Reich, to fend for themselves as best they could. The Prime Minister did not mince words. What was planned, he forthrightly declared, was “the total expulsion of the Germans... For expulsion is the method which, so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting.”


The Prime Minister’s revelation alarmed some commentators, who recalled that only eighteen months previously his government had pledged: “Let it be quite clearly understood and proclaimed all over the world that we British will never seek to take vengeance by wholesale mass reprisals against the general body of the German people.”


In the United States, senators demanded to know when the Atlantic Charter, a statement of Anglo-American war aims that affirmed the two countries’ opposition to “territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned” had been repealed. George Orwell, denouncing Churchill’s proposal as an “enormous crime,” took comfort in the reflection that so extreme a policy “cannot actually be carried through, though it might be started, with confusion, suffering and the sowing of irreconcilable hatreds as the result.”


Orwell greatly underestimated both the determination and the ambition of the Allied leaders’ plans. What neither he nor anybody else knew was that in addition to the displacement of the 7-8 million Germans of the East, Churchill, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had already agreed to a similar “orderly and humane” deportation of the more than 3 million German-speakers — the “Sudeten Germans” — from their homelands in Czechoslovakia. They would soon add the half-million ethnic Germans of Hungary to the list.


Although the governments of Yugoslavia and Romania were never given permission by the Big Three to deport their German minorities, both would take advantage of the situation to drive them out also.


By mid-1945, not merely the largest forced migration but probably the largest single movement of population in human history was under way, an operation that continued for the next five years. Between 12 and 14 million civilians, the overwhelming majority of them women, children and the elderly, were driven out of their homes or, if they had already fled the advancing Red Army in the last days of the war, forcibly prevented from returning to them.

From the beginning, this mass displacement was accomplished largely by state-sponsored violence and terror. In Poland and Czechoslovakia, hundreds of thousands of detainees were herded into camps — often, like Auschwitz I or Theresienstadt, former Nazi concentration camps kept in operation for years after the war and put to a new purpose.


The regime for prisoners in many of these facilities was brutal, as Red Cross officials recorded, with beatings, rapes of female inmates, gruelling forced labour and starvation diets of 500-800 calories the order of the day. In violation of rarely-applied rules exempting the young from detention, children routinely were incarcerated, either alongside their parents or in designated children’s camps. As the British Embassy in Belgrade reported in 1946, conditions for Germans “seem well down to Dachau standards.”


Though the death rates in the camps were often frighteningly high — 2,227 inmates of the Mysłowice facility in southern Poland alone perished in the last ten months of 1945 — most of the mortality associated with the expulsions occurred outside them.


Forced marches in which inhabitants of entire villages were cleared at fifteen minutes’ notice and driven at rifle-point to the nearest border, accounted for many losses. So did train transports that sometimes took weeks to reach their destination, with up to 80 expellees crammed into each cattle car without adequate (or, occasionally, any) food, water or heating.


The deaths continued on arrival in Germany itself. Declared ineligible by the Allied authorities to receive any form of international relief and lacking accommodation in a country devastated by bombing, expellees in many cases spent their first months or years living rough in fields, goods wagons or railway platforms.


Malnutrition, hypothermia and disease took their toll, especially among the very old and very young. Although more research is needed to establish the total number of deaths, conservative estimates suggest that some 500,000 people lost their lives as a result of the operation.


Not only was the treatment of the expellees in defiance of the principles for which the Second World War had professedly been fought, it created numerous and persistent legal complications. At the Nuremberg trials, for example, the Allies were trying the surviving Nazi leaders on charges of carrying out “deportation and other inhumane acts” against civilian populations at the same moment as, less than a hundred miles away, they were engaging in large-scale forced removals of their own.


Similar problems arose with the UN’s 1948 Genocide Convention, the first draft of which outlawed the “forced and systematic exile of individuals representing the culture of a group.” This provision was deleted from the final version at the insistence of the U.S. delegate, who pointed out that it “might be interpreted as embracing forced transfers of minority groups such as have already been carried out by members of the United Nations.”


To the present day, expelling states continue to go to great lengths to exclude the deportations and their continuing effects from the reach of international law. In October 2009, for example, the current President of the Czech Republic, Václav Klaus, refused to sign the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty unless his country was granted an “exemption” ensuring that surviving expellees could not use the Treaty to seek redress for their maltreatment in the European courts.

How Britain tortured Nazi PoWs: The horrifying interrogation methods that belie our proud boast that we fought a clean war

The German SS officer was fighting to save himself from the gallows for a terrible war crime and might say anything to escape the noose. But Fritz Knöchlein was not lying in 1946 when he claimed that, in captivity in London, he had been tortured by British soldiers to force a confession out of him.


Tortured by British soldiers? In captivity? In London? The idea seems incredible.


Britain has a reputation as a nation that prides itself on its love of fair play and respect for the rule of law. We claim the moral high ground when it comes to human rights. We were among the first to sign the 1929 Geneva Convention on the humane treatment of prisoners of war.

Tainted: Bindfolded German soldiers may have been forced into untrue admissions, it has been revealed

Tainted: Bindfolded German soldiers may have been forced into untrue admissions, it has been revealed.


Surely, you would think, the British avoid torture? But you would be wrong, as my research into what has gone on behind closed doors for decades shows.


It was in 2005 during my work as an investigative reporter that I came across a veiled mention of a World War II detention centre known as the London Cage. It took a number of Freedom Of Information requests to the Foreign Office before government files were reluctantly handed over.

From these, a sinister world unfolded — of a torture centre that the British military operated throughout the Forties, in complete secrecy, in the heart of one of the most exclusive neighbourhoods in the capital.


Thousands of Germans passed through the unit that became known as the London Cage, where they were beaten, deprived of sleep and forced to assume stress positions for days at a time.


Some were told they were to be murdered and their bodies quietly buried. Others were threatened with unnecessary surgery carried out by people with no medical qualifications. Guards boasted that they were ‘the English Gestapo’.

The London Cage was part of a network of nine ‘cages’ around Britain run by the Prisoner of War Interrogation Section (PWIS), which came under the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Military Intelligence.

Out in the open: Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Scotland revealed some secrets in his controversial book about interrogating German officers, 'The London Cage'

Out in the open: Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Scotland revealed some secrets in his controversial book about interrogating German officers, 'The London Cage.'


Three, at Doncaster, Kempton Park and Lingfield, were at hastily converted racecourses. Another was at the ground of Preston North End Football Club. Most were benignly run.


But prisoners thought to possess valuable information were whisked off to a top-secret unit in a row of grandiose Victorian villas in Kensington Palace Gardens, then (as now) one of the smartest locations in London.

Today, the tree-lined street a stone’s throw from Kensington Palace is home to ambassadors and billionaires, sultans and princes. Houses change hands for £50 million and more.

Yet it was here, seven decades ago, in five interrogation rooms, in cells and in the guardroom in numbers six, seven and eight Kensington Palace Gardens, that nine officers, assisted by a dozen NCOs, used whatever methods they thought necessary to squeeze information from suspects.

Of course, it is crucial to put these events into context. When the gloves first came off at Britain’s interrogation centres — the summer of 1940 — German forces were racing across France and the Low Countries, and Britain was fighting for its very survival. The stakes could not have been higher.


In the following years, large parts of Britain’s cities were left in ruins, hundreds of thousands of service personnel and civilians died, and barely a day passed without evidence emerging of a new Nazi atrocity. Little wonder, perhaps, that it was felt acceptable for German prisoners to suffer in British interrogation centres.


And it should also be said that whatever went on within their walls, it paled into insignificance compared with the horrors the Nazis visited on millions of prisoners.


So, how can we be sure about the methods used at the London Cage? Because the man who ran it admitted as much — and was hushed up for half-a-century by an establishment fearful of the shame his story would bring on a Britain that had been fighting for honesty, decency and the rule of law.


That man was Colonel Alexander Scotland, an accepted master in techniques of interrogation. After the war, he wrote a candid account of his activities in his memoirs, in which he recalled how he would muse, on arriving at the Cage each morning: ‘Abandon all hope ye who enter here.’

Because, he said, before going into detail: ‘If any German had any information we wanted, it was invariably extracted from him in the long run.’



As was customary, before publication Scotland submitted his manuscript to the War Office for clearance in 1954. Pandemonium erupted. All four copies were seized. All those who knew of its contents were silenced with threats of prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.

What caused the greatest consternation was his admission that the horrors had continued after the war, when interrogators switched from extracting military intelligence to securing convictions for war crimes.

Feared: Col Robin 'Tin Eye' Stephens was prepared to seek his own rough justice

Feared: Col Robin 'Tin Eye' Stephens was prepared to seek his own rough justice.


Of 3,573 prisoners who passed through Kensington Palace Gardens, more than 1,000 were persuaded to sign a confession or give a witness statement  for use in war crimes prosecutions.


Fritz Knöchlein, a former lieutenant colonel in the Waffen SS, was one such case. He was suspected of ordering the machine-gunning of 124 British soldiers who surrendered at Le Paradis in northern France during the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940. His defence was that he was not even there.


At his trial, he claimed he had been tortured in the London Cage after the war. He was deprived of sleep for four days and nights after arriving in October 1946 and forced to walk in a tight circle for four hours while being kicked by a guard at each turn.


He was made to clean stairs and lavatories with a tiny rag, for days at a time, while buckets of water were poured over him. If he dared to rest, he was cudgelled. He was also forced to run in circles in the grounds of the house while carrying heavy logs and barrels. When he complained, the treatment simply got worse.


Nor was he the only one. He said men were repeatedly beaten about the face and had hair ripped from their heads. A fellow inmate begged to be killed because he couldn’t take any more brutality.

All Knöchlein’s accusations were ignored, however. He was found guilty and hanged.


Suspects in another high-profile war crime — the shooting of 50 RAF officers who broke out from a prison camp, Stalag Luft III, in what became known as the Great Escape — also passed through the Cage.


Of the 21 accused, 14 were hanged after a war-crimes trial in Hamburg. Many confessed only after being interrogated by Scotland and his men. In court, they protested that they had been starved, whipped and systematically beaten. Some said they had been  menaced with red-hot pokers and ‘threatened with electrical devices’.


Scotland, of course, denied allegations of torture, going into the witness box at one trial after another to say his accusers were lying.


It was all the more surprising, then, that a few years later he was willing to come clean about the techniques he employed at the London Cage.


In his memoirs, he disclosed that a number of men were forced to incriminate themselves. A general was sentenced to death in 1946 after signing a confession at the Cage while, in Scotland’s words, ‘acutely depressed after the various examinations’.

Flashback: The prisoners in the dock are Nazi leaders Hermann Goering and Rudolph Hess - it is unknown how they might have been treated in prison

Flashback: The prisoners in the dock are Nazi leaders Hermann Goering and Rudolph Hess - it is unknown how they might have been treated in prison.


A naval officer was convicted on the basis of a confession that Scotland said he had signed only after being ‘subject to certain degrading duties’.


Scotland also acknowledged that one of the men accused of the ‘Great Escape’ murders went to the gallows even though he had confessed after he had — in Scotland’s own words — been ‘worked on psychologically’. At his trial, the man insisted he had been ‘worked on’ physically as well.


Others did not share Scotland’s eagerness to boast about what had gone on in Kensington Park Gardens. An MI5 legal adviser who read his manuscript concluded that Scotland and fellow interrogators had been guilty of a ‘clear breach’ of the Geneva Convention.


They could have faced war-crimes charges themselves for forcing prisoners to stand to attention for more than 24 hours at a time; forcing them to kneel while they were beaten about the head; threatening to have them shot; threatening one prisoner with an unnecessary appendix operation to be performed on him by another inmate with no medical qualifications.


Appalled by the embarrassment his manuscript would cause if it ever came out, the War Office and the Foreign Office both declared that it would never see the light of day.


Two years later, however, they were forced to strike a deal with him after he threatened to publish his book abroad. He was told he would never be allowed to recover his original manuscript, but agreement was given to a rewritten version in which every line of incriminating material had been expunged.

World War II Victory Day June 1946; Marshall of the Royal Air Force, Lord Tedder, salutes the crowds in Parliament Square during the Victory Day Parade

World War II Victory Day June 1946; Marshall of the Royal Air Force, Lord Tedder, salutes the crowds in Parliament Square during the Victory Day Parade.

A heavily censored version of The London Cage duly appeared in the bookshops in 1957.

But officials at the War Office, and their successors at the Ministry of Defence, remained troubled. 


Years later, in September 1979, Scotland’s publishers wrote to the Ministry of Defence out of the blue asking for a copy of the original manuscript  by the now dead colonel for their archives.


The request triggered fresh panic as civil servants sought reasons to deny the request. But in the end they quietly deposited a copy in what is now the National Archives at Kew, where it went unnoticed — until I found it a quarter of a century later.


Is there more to tell about the London Cage? Almost certainly. Even now, some of the MoD’s files on it remain beyond reach.


Scotland, his interrogators, technicians and typists, and the towering guardsmen left the building in January 1949. The villas were unoccupied for several years.


Eventually, numbers six and seven were leased to the Soviet Union, which was looking for a new embassy building. Today, they house the chancery of the Russian embassy.


Number eight — where it is thought the worst excesses were carried out — remained empty. It was too large to be a family home in the post-war years and in too poor a state of repair to be converted to offices. By 1955, the building had fallen into such disrepair it was sold to a developer, who knocked it down and built a block of three luxury flats. One that went on the market in 2006 was valued at £13.5 million.


The Cage was not, however, Britain’s only secret interrogation centre during and after World War II. MI5 also operated an interrogation centre, code-named Camp 020, at Latchmere House, a Victorian mansion near Ham Common in South-West London, whose 30 rooms were turned into cells with hidden microphones.

Horror: Liverpool after the Blitz - but were the real perpetrators brought to justice?

Horror: Liverpool after the Blitz - but were the real perpetrators brought to justice?


The first of the German spies who arrived in Britain in September 1940 were taken there. Vital information about a coming German invasion was extracted at great speed. This indicates the use of extreme methods, but these were desperate days demanding desperate measures. In charge was Colonel Robin Stephens, known as ‘Tin Eye’, because of the monocle fixed to his right eye.


It was not a term of affection. The object of interrogation, Stephens told his officers, was simple: ‘Truth in the shortest possible time.’ A top secret memo spoke of ‘special methods’, but did not elaborate.


He arranged for an additional 92-cell block to be added to Latchmere House, plus a punishment room — known chillingly as Cell 13 — which was completely bare, with smooth walls and a linoleum floor.


Close to 500 people passed through the gates of Camp 020. Principal among them were German spies, many of whom were ‘turned’ and persuaded — or maybe forced — to work for MI5.


Its first inmates were members of the British Union of Fascists.  Some were held in cells brightly lit 24 hours a day, others in cells kept in total darkness.



Several prisoners were subjected to mock executions and were knocked about by the guards. Some were apparently left naked for months at a time.


Camp 020 had a resident medical officer, Harold Dearden, a psychiatrist who dreamed up regimes of starvation and of sleep and sensory deprivation intended to break the will of its inmates. He experimented in techniques of torment that left few marks — methods that could be denied by the torturers and that civil servants and government ministers could disown.


These techniques surfaced again after the war in a British interrogation facility at Bad Nenndorf, a German spa town, in one of the internment camps for those considered a threat to the Allied occupation.


In the four years after the war, 95,000 people were interned in the British zone of Allied-occupied Germany. Some were interrogated by what was now termed the Intelligence Division.

In charge of Bad Nenndorf was ‘Tin Eye’ Stephens, on attachment from MI5, and drawing on his Camp 020 experiences. An inmate recalled him yelling questions at prisoners and then punching them.


Over the next two years, 372 men and 44 women would pass through his hands. One German inmate recalled being told by a British intelligence officer: ‘We are not bound by any rules or regulations. We do not care a damn whether you leave this place on a stretcher or in a hearse.’


He was made to sleep on a wet floor in a temperature of minus 20 degrees for three days. Four of his toes had to be amputated due to frostbite.


A doctor in a nearby hospital complained about the number of detainees brought to him filthy, confused and suffering from multiple injuries and frostbite. Many were painfully emaciated after months of starvation. A number died.


The regime was intended to weaken, humiliate and intimidate prisoners.


With complaints soaring, a British court of inquiry was convened to investigate what had been going at Bad Nenndorf. It concluded that former inmates’ allegations of physical assault were substantially correct. Stephens and four other officers were arrested while Bad Nenndorf was abruptly closed.

But there was a quandary for the Labour government. The political fallout could be deeply damaging. There were other similar interrogation centres in Germany.


From the very top, there were urgent moves to hush things up.


Stephens’ court martial for ill-treatment of prisoners was heard behind closed doors. He did not deny any of the horrors. His defence was that he had no idea the prisoners for whom he was responsible were being beaten, whipped, frozen, deprived of sleep and starved to death.


This was the very defence that had been offered — unsuccessfully — by Nazi concentration camp commandants at war-crimes trials. But he was acquitted.


The suspicion remains that he got off because, if cruelties did occur at Bad Nenndorf, they had been authorised by government ministers.

Extracted from Cruel Britannia by Ian Cobain, published by Portobello Books

Bombing of Dresden: An Act of Genocide

'After a very short while,’ reports a woman, herself an evacuee from Cologne, trapped in another basement, ‘we had to put on our gas masks and goggles. Smoke and fumes were pouring through the breaches in the cellar walls from the cellars on both sides. There were no gas masks however for the infants. The people who suffered most were the elderly and the children. With my own eyes I had to watch as a three week old baby suffocated in the arms of its mother.’

'On the square there were thousands of people standing packed shoulder to shoulder, not panicking but very mute and still. Above them the fires raged. At the station entrance the heaps of dead children and others were already being piled up, as they were brought out of the station. ‘There must have been a children’s train at the station. More and more dead were stacked up. I took away one of their blankets for one of my babies, who were not dead but alive and terribly cold.’ In the morning some elderly S.A. men came and one of them helped me and my family to get through the town to safety.’ 



The bombing of Dresden was just as horrific as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Dresden was an unarmed city, and was one of the major centers of culture in Germany. The bombing of Dresden was an act of genocide against the German people and given this occurred very late in the war; in March of 1945, the attack was done to further break the German morale. The attack was carried out with incendiary bombs [fire bombs], and to such an extent that nearly all of the oxygen was sucked out of the city and Dresden was reduced to ashes. The suffering of innocents was beyond the imagination. This bombing, like the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were direct attacks on unarmed civilians. The dates chosen for this specific onslaught on the German people coincided with the Christian holy day of "Ash Wednesday." Few people are aware of the fact that the 'Holy Bible' is nothing more than a book of Jewish witchcraft. For more about this see www.exposingchristianity.com. The Jews used this specific date [directing the spiritual energy of Christians] to reduce Dresden to ASHES.



‘The conflagration in Dresden nourished the suspicion that the western Allies were concerned only with the liquidation of the German Volk,’ suggested the Inspector of German Fire Services in memoirs written after the war. To those in Dresden who had survived the first attack, it seemed that all they had been told about the Allies’ Morgenthau Plan was materialising only too quickly.' 


"Like most historic Jewish military operations, the great massacres of World War II occurred, not on the battlefield, but in peaceful neighborhood communities. This was in accordance with the dictate of the Book of Esther, which directs the Jews to massacre women and children, and to exterminate the families of those who dare to oppose them.


Thus it was in Dresden, a historic German cultural center, where many thousands of German women and children, refugees from Communism had gathered. They were assured by the Red Cross that they would be safe, even while the Jewish generals were preparing to murder the men. The blood-maddened Jews desired not only to murder as many German civilians as possible but also to erase from history all evidence of Western civilization, the greatest examples of White culture which had been gathered in Dresden, the irreplaceable porcelain, the priceless paintings, the baroque furniture, and the rococo mansions with their poetry carved in stone. All was laid waste in a mass bombing attack in which some 300,000 German civilians died in a city which was not even a military target!


Like Dresden, Hiroshima was also an ancient cultural center, with no visible military objective. Its non- combatant families also died horribly by the hundreds of thousands. Many were pulverized instantly by the first atomic bomb ever used in a military operation, but thousands of other victims lived on for years, mangled and burned, their limbs and organs slowly rotting away from radiation poisoning. Even while the Japanese officials were desperately suing for peace, the Jews hastily ordered the dropping of a second atomic bomb, this one on Nagasaki, bringing off a second 'test' of their Hell bomb against helpless non-combatants, as prescribed by the Book of Esther. Again, hundreds of thousands of civilians died horribly."



"Before World War II, Dresden was called 'the Florence of the Elbe' and was regarded as one the world's most beautiful cities for its architecture and museums. Dresden's contribution to the war effort was minimal compared with other German cities. In February 1945, refugees fleeing the Russian advance in the east took refuge there."


"On the night of February 13, hundreds of RAF bombers descended on Dresden in two waves, dropping their lethal cargo indiscriminately over the city. The city's air defenses were so weak that only six Lancaster bombers were shot down. By the morning, some 800 British bombers had dropped 1,478 tons of high-explosive bombs and 1,182 tons of incendiaries on Dresden, creating a great firestorm that destroyed most of the city and killed numerous civilians. Later that day, as survivors made their way out of the smoldering city, over 300 U.S. bombers began bombing Dresden's railways, bridges, and transportation facilities, killing thousands more. On February 15, another 200 U.S. bombers continued their assault on the city's infrastructure. All told, the bombers of the U.S. Eighth Air Force dropped 954 tons of high-explosive bombs and 294 tons of incendiaries on Dresden. Later, the Eighth Air Force would drop 2,800 more tons of bombs on Dresden in three other attacks before the war's end."


"At the end of the war, Dresden was so badly damaged that the city was basically leveled. A handful of historic buildings--the Zwinger Palace, the Dresden State Opera House, and several fine churches--were carefully reconstructed out of the rubble, but the rest of the city was rebuilt with plain modern buildings. American author Kurt Vonnegut, who was a prisoner of war in Dresden during the Allied attack and tackled the controversial event in his book Slaughterhouse-Five, said of postwar Dresden, 'It looked a lot like Dayton, Ohio, more open spaces than Dayton has. There must be tons of human bone meal in the ground.'" 



"‘The streets were littered with hundreds of corpses,’ S.S. Obergruppenführer Kehrl described, ‘Mothers with their children, youths and elderly people; sometimes their bodies were charred and burned, sometimes untouched; sometimes they were clothed, sometimes naked, with a waxen pallor like tailors’ dummies. They lay in every attitude, now quiet and composed, now hideously contorted, with the final struggle of death crying out in every line of their faces.’ Even those who had reached the public air raid shelters had not escaped; there scenes were little different, unusual only where panic had broken out as the people realised the nature of the fate they would never elude. ‘Here and there the positioning of the remains of the bones and skulls betrayed how the occupants had fought each other to escape from their buried prisons.’ When rescue teams finally cleared their way into the hermetically sealed bunkers and shelters after several weeks, the heat generated inside them had been so intense that nothing remained of their occupants; a soft undulating layer of grey ash was left in one bunker, from which the number of victims could only be estimated as ‘between 250 and 300’ by the doctors. Doctors were frequently employed in these gruesome tasks of enumeration, as the German Reich Statistical Office was up to January 31,1945 most meticulous about compiling its statistical tables and data. Pools of molten metal, which had formerly been the pots, pans, and cooking utensils taken into them, further testified to the uncommon temperatures in these bunkers. The task of recovering the bodies was allocated to the Sicherheitsund Hilfsdienst (S.H.D.), the Rescue and Repair Service, which was organised in five divisions: fire service, comprised of local firebrigades as distinct from the para-military national service; Instandsetzungsdienst, the service which repaired fractured gas mains, restored electricity and water supplies, and demolished dangerous structures; the medical service, organised by the German Red Cross; the decontamination service, for counter-measures during allied gas-attacks, and finally the veterinary service for tending wounded livestock and pets." 



"Some people had met extremely unpleasant ends, when the central heating systems were hit and the basements had flooded with scalding hot water. People who had taken refuge in the static water tanks had also in some parts been scalded to death. The water tank on the corner of Muschinski-Strasse for example had apparently boiled in the intense heat of the night’s fire-storm. A score of corpses, their skin lobster-red from the heat, were floating in the water." 



"In meteorology [he continued] the differences of temperature involved are of the order of 20° to 30° Celsius. In this firestorm they were of the order of 600°, 800° or even one thousand degrees Celsius. This explained the colossal violence of the fire-storm winds. Individuals were flung over and bowled like tumbleweed along the streets as the hurricane ripped all the clothes from their bodies. Crowds of people fleeing for safety were seized by the tornado, hurled into the flames and burned alive—a holocaust in the truest sense of the word." 


The movie "Dresden" [2006] is a very realistic portrayal of the horrendous tradgedy. This movie is very graphic and extremely sad.

Kurt Vonnegut Jr's "Slaughterhouse-Five" [1972] also features the firebombing of Dresden.





FEBRUARY 1945: The cultural wonderland of Dresden, Germany is swollen with terrified refugees who had fled westward from the rapists of Stalin's advancing Red Army. The city became so crowded that new arrivals were asked to go westward because there was no more room available. The refugees doubled the city's population from 600,000 to 1.2 million.
As part of a sick joke, the Allies choose the Catholic holy day of 'Ash Wednesday' to literally turn Catholic Dresden to ashes.
With the war already lost, between 200,000-300,000 innocent German civilians (some estimates are as high as 500,000 due to the refugees!) are burned alive by fire, boiled alive in molten pavement as they tried to run, roasted alive in bomb shelters, or suffocated to death from smoke or oxygen depravation during the Dresden firebombings of February 13-15, 1945.
The tornado-infernos destroy 90% of the city's center, where most of the people are trapped. People burst into screaming balls of fire and pain, before their heads and organs explode due to the intense heat. To escape the open-air oven, terrified Germans flee toward death in the frigid river. The following day, British fighter planes machine-gun survivors on the ground.
Adding modern insult to historical injury, U.S. court-historians and the wholly-owned German government have since steadily downgraded the death toll to a ridicuolusly "low" 40,000!


Let’s examine some of the players who were pressuring Johnson into and escalating a full scale protracted war in Vietnam… besides the usual Joint Chiefs of Staff... and Robert S. McNamara who was surely qualified (wink, wink) to become the 8th Secretary of Defense because he had been a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Air Corps during WWII; and he was the first non-Ford-family president of the Ford Motor Company prior to being selected as Secretary of Defense by JFK.

The Rostow brothers, the sons of Jewish Russian socialists, were a big influence on LBJ. Eugene V. Rostow was Dean of the Yale Law School when he was asked to become LBJ’s Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. Walt Whitman Rostow had been JFK’s Deputy National Security Advisor and became LBJ’s National Security Advisor on April Fool’s Day (how poetic), 1966 until January 20, 1969.

Walt Rostow
​, a Jew, ​
had served with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), under the "Father of American Intelligence," William "Wild Bill" Donovan, during WW II as part of a committee that selected German targets for U.S. bombardment.

Immediately after Germany’s unconditional surrender, Walt Rostow became Assistant Chief of the German-Austrian Economic Division in the U.S. Department of State in Washington. He then became the Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Europe in 1947. We can easily deduce that Walter Rostow was one of the key players in the murderously punitive Morgenthau Plan that was perpetrated upon the demolished and helpless German nation. And he was a major influence in deciding to erase Dresden on Ash Wednesday.

Walt Rostow was considered a staunch anti-communist, which doesn’t ring true considering the man’s parents were Russian born socialists. He was very prominent for his role in shaping U.S. foreign policy in Southeast Asia during the 1960s. Jewish German-born Henry Kissinger replaced Walt Rostow as U.S. National Security Advisor beginning with the Nixon
Click on the text below to see videos indicated

Exposing the NAZI epithet, it's origin and who benefits...

Living in Hitler's Germany (A letter from Hans Schmidt)

Adolph Hitler, The Greatest Story Never Told

Hitler's War, What the Historians Neglect to Mention

The Truth About Gun Control in NSDAP Germany

Hitler, Man of the Year - TIME magazine 1938

Hitler and Jesse Owens 1936 Olympics

Hitler Explains The International Jewish Problem

Who REALLY Started World War II ? (The Danzig Massacres of 1939)

What Started World War 2 the real cause

Hitler Explains His Reasons For Invading Russia

WW2 - Hitler vs The Jewish Central Bankers Pt.1

Hitler, The Man Who Fought The Bank

Germany Must Perish (1941 book by Jewish Author)

Why did Adolf Hitler hate Jews

Hitler Explains The International Jewish Problem

Adolf Hitler defends Palestine

Hitler Speech True Then, True Now


Aleksandr Solzhenitsyns "The Jews in the Soviet Union" Part 1

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyns The Jews in the Soviet Union Part 2

SHOCKING TRUTH Jewish Zionists - Communist Bolsheviks

Hitler Speeches with accurate English subtitles

Adolf Hitler Last speech

"Adolf Hitler"One day the world will know I was right!!

Multicultural Wehrmacht and Waffen SS

Leon Degrelle - The Epic Story of the Waffen SS

Adolf Hitler's Pan European Army

800,000 Russians were fighting on the German side during WW2.

'Liberation from Bolshevism': WWII German Troops Welcomed in the Soviet Union 

As German forces advanced into the Soviet Union in 1941, many people welcomed the troops as liberators from Bolshevik tyranny. The welcome was especially warm in the Baltic countries, western Belarus and western Ukraine. As this four-minute video (no narration) shows, grateful people express appreciation for the troops who brought freedom from harsh Soviet rule, and restored ancient rights. German soldiers, as well as troops of German-allied nations, often helped local people repair homes and buildings, fix damaged infrastructure, and re-open churches that the Bolsheviks had shut down or destroyed.
Russians Under German Rule During World War II 

Glimpses of life of Russians, and people of other Soviet nationalities, under German occupation during World War II, are shown. Included are scenes of people showing appreciation for German troops and administration, and for restoring freedoms that the Soviets had taken away. Runtime: 4:01 mins. With music, but no narration. Also shown are soldiers of the German-sponsored, anti-Stalinist "Russian Liberation Army." In addition to the many former Soviet citizens who served in military units that fought with Germany and its allies against the Red Army were many others who served as volunteer "Hiwis."
Flight From Hell

... Even though the Germans were the foe, more often than not, they treated us better than Stalin's Reds. My dad was picked up by the Germans after being left for dead by Stalin's troops, and was taken to one of their field hospitals. When he felt strong enough he left with the help of peasants and made his way home ... For many in the West it may seem hard to believe, but Nazi occupation, despite reprisals, was better than being under Stalin. Because, for the first time, farmers could work the land free of the disastrous Bolshevik collective system, bumper crops were harvested. The Germans organized efficient food distribution. At last there was no starvation in the land.

Ethnic Germans A Forgotten Genocide

Hellstorm - Exposing The Real Genocide of Nazi Germany

Churchill's Policy of Deliberately Bombing German Civilians - A British War Crime

The Real Holocaust Victims Were the Victims of British Firebombing in World War II

The untold story of Eisenhower's Rhine Meadows Death Camps

Eisenhower's Rhine-Meadows Death Camps

Gen George Patton On Jews And Germans

GENERAL PATTON was murdered .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a9qnD9sn4I

10,000,000 Germans Expelled From Eastern Europe after WWII


What if Germany had Won?

Gerhard Lauck: Joachim Peiper’s Final Struggle against Communism


Source: http://whiteresister.com/index.php/8-archives/77-gerhard-lauck-joachim-peiper-s-final-struggle-against-communism

                                                  Joachim Peiper was born on January 30th, 1915 as the son of an officer’s family in Berlin.


He belonged to the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. In 1938, he became the adjutant of Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler. But as the war started, he wanted to serve at the front line. He commanded the 10th SS Leibstandarte A.H. company in Poland, Holland, Belgium and in France.


In 1941 he fought in Russia with the 3rd Panzergrenadier battalion of the SS Panzergrenadier regiment 2. He replaces the 320th infantry division of General Postel, encircled in Kharkov.


On March 19th 1943 he takes Bielgorod. In September 1943 he is in Italy. In November of the same year he fights for the Reich in Jitomir and with the 1st army breaks through the encirclement at Kamenets Podolsk.


Until October 1944 he fought at the West Front. On December 16th 1944 – under the command of Sepp Dietrich’s 6th Panzer army – he is at the spearhead of the offensive in the Ardennes with his 1st SS Panzer division L.A.H.


He advanced to La Gleize near Stavelot. Cut off from the rest of the army, he was encircled. But he could escape with his men, on foot and in icy cold, leaving back all the war material. Always fighting under Sepp Dietrich’s command, he battled the Soviets until the end, at the west of the Danube near Vienna. The same way in the alps at St. Pollen and Krems where he and his men finally surrendered to the Americans. He made it to SS-Obersturmbannführer and bearer of the Knight’s Cross with Swords.


After Germany’s capitulation this flawless, noble-minded and incredibly brave soldier was imprisoned, beaten and humiliated. He was accused of having ordered the execution of American POWs at Baugnez near Malmedy during the offensive in the Ardennes: Caught by the Kampfgruppe J.P., the captured U.S. soldiers were taken to a meadow to wait there for their transport to the front line. Peiper left back some of his men as guards. He himself drove at the head of his tanks far in front of the following troops to Ligneuville. As most of the Kampfgruppe troops arrived in Baugnez, the troops remained there chatted with their comrades left behind. A Spähwagen had a breakdown and was repaired. Suddenly a soldier sitting on a tank startled and noticed that some of the American prisoners had made use of their inattentiveness and wanted to flee. But a shot fired from his handgun caused panic among the prisoners who were running away in all directions. Submachine guns were used and 21 Americans shot while fleeing.



After the capitulation the men of the 1st SS Panzer division were tracked down and taken to the camp Zuffenhausen. 400 were transferred to the prison of Schwäbisch Hall near Stuttgart. Peiper’s troops consisted of mostly very young soldiers. One was 16, two were 17, eleven were 18 and eight were 19 years old. 22 of the 72 convicts were thereby below the age of 20; all of them were tortured in order to force any confessions. Peiper was an example for his crew, and under his command the team made well. There was never any betrayal among his units. The men were taken to the KZ Dachau where 72 of the 74 accused were convicted at a show trial. One commited suicide, one was Alsatian and was handed over to a French court. 43 – among them Peiper, who was called to account for his men’s actions – were sentenced to death by hanging, 22 to life imprisonment, eight to 20, eleven to ten years of prison. The trial was later newly heard and the sentence to death was replaced by life imprisonment. After eleven years of custody, J. Peiper was released as the last of his comrades in December 1956.



In January 1957 he started to work for Porsche in Frankfurt. Syndicates demanded his dismissal. Afterwards he worked for VW in Stuttgart, but there he was dismissed as well because of leftist agitation. With this he realized that he could not remain any longer in Germany and moved with his family to France. During the offensive in 1940 he had become acquainted with the region around the Langres Plateau and already at that time he loved it as a beautiful and quiet place. He then helped a French POW, a German-friendly nationalist, who had to work in Reutlingen for some relatives of Peiper like a forced labor convict in a garage. But there was a regulation between France and Germany, enabling the release of two French POWs for every voluntary worker willing to work in Germany. On Peiper’s recommendation that man, Gauthier, was allowed to return to his family. He had not forgotten Peiper and as he had to leave Germany in 1957, it was Gauthier who helped him and sold him the watermill of Traves. That building was in bad condition and Peiper did not have the necessary financial means to restore the mill. SS-Obersturmbannführer Erwin Ketelhut has afterwards taken over the water mill and in 1960 Peiper made build a house in Spannplate, high up on the bank of the Saone, hidden by bushes, not to see from the streets and like a military fortification. He had lived there – despite threats and anonymous phone calls – quite peacefully for over sixteen years.



On July 11th 1976 he bought some wire for a kennel in a shop in Vesoul, the capitol of that department. The salesman was an Alsatian: Paul Cacheux, member of the communist party, recognized through his accent that he was German and asked him whether he had been in France during the war. Peiper paid with a check with his name and address on it. Paul Cacheux looked up Peiper’s name in the “brown list” where all wanted Germans were registered. He passed his data over to the Resistance. On June 22nd 1976 the French communist newspaper “L’Humanité” wrote: „What does this Nazi do in France?”. It was demanded to force Peiper to leave France. Flyers showing Peiper as a war criminal and Nazi were distributed to people in Traves. “Peiper, we’ll deliver you a 14 July!” was smeared on walls. July 14th is of course the French national holiday.



The morning of July 13th Peiper sent his wife, suffering from cancer, back to Germany. He himself did not want to leave his house because he expected it to be burned down. His neighbor Ketelhut had suggested to pass the night in the water mill but Peiper rejected that offer. He did not want Ketelhut staying with him either, since he would have shot any attackers. “No”, he said, “It’s been already killed enough.” Joachim Peiper waited on the veranda of his house from where he could observe the Saone river. Erwin Ketelhut had lent him his rifle. At 10:30 pm he heard a noise in the bushes and saw a dozen men climbing up the river bank. He shot in the air to intimidate the drunk intruders. She called him to come outside. He did that and opened the door in order to talk to them.



What happened afterwards can only be told by the culprits. Obersturmbannführer Joachim Peiper’s body was found charred and only one meter in size, he had no hands and feet. He died at about 1:00 am. The house was burned down, the ceiling broken in. What happened between 11:30 pm and 1:00 am? Was the Obersturmbannführer alive when he was mutilated? Was he still alive when he was burned? The culprits had poured gas on the floor, lit with a mixture of petrol and motor oil. Peiper lay in his bedroom, on the left side with his back to the wall, one arm bowed before his chest. Nothing had fallen upon him. He died by the immense heat. The body was not cremated but shrunken.



Erwin Ketelhut and the French having known and liked him shared the opinion that this knightly man, having defied so many dangers, should not have died this way. The murderers had driven with their car over a meadow to the river bank where two barges lay ready. With them they had crossed the Saone and afterwards had to climb up the steep bank through bushes. After the murder they ran the other way back over the meadows, in front of the house, to the street. The firemen searched the river for missing body parts. The French police’s investigation work took six months. The communists from Vesoul and the Resistance members were questioned. Nobody knew anything! Then the case was shelved. Nobody was ever arrested or punished! The area of Traves is not densely populated, there are only about ten inhabitants per square kilometer. Everybody knows everyone there and the people know everything about each other.



The culprits are known to the inhabitants, but the people say nothing. In the night from 13th to 14th July we have a protest vigil for Obersturmbannführer and bearer of the Knight’s Cross Joachim Peiper. The injustice made to him will not remain unpunished! With this cruel death Joachim Peiper has paid his last respects to his people and his homeland.


  The (Jewish) Morgenthau Plan

  David Irving's Introduction to the Morgenthau Plan

  [In 1986 David Irving published in the German language a file of Allied documents on the origins and history of the Morgenthau Plan. This was his introduction to the documentation].
  David Irving's facsimile record and commentary on the infamous American policy for Germany, Der Morgenthau Plan 1944/45: a Free Download in German
 THIS VOLUME  reproduces in full the 22-page Morgenthau Plan for the first time. [Not yet reproduced on this site. This is just the editor's Introduction].
> It also prints a selection of key British and American documents relating to the plan, although the story is still incomplete: many parts of the British foreign office files relating to it are still closed to public inspection, an exception to the general thirty-year rule.
> The Morgenthau Plan, more formally known as the Treasury Plan for the Treatment of Germany, was devised by Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White and Secretary Henry R. Morgenthau Jr. in the summer of 1944. Morgenthau had just visited the battlefields of Normandy and spoken with General Dwight D Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, then arrived in Britain for talks with Mr Winston Churchill, the British prime minister and his advisers.
> While important elements of the Plan, including the subtle re-education of the Germans by their own refugees and the dismantling of German heavy
> industry to aid British exports, were indeed put into effect, in the directive 1067 which the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff finally issued to Eisenhower, the main parts of the Morgenthau Plan, including orders to liquidate entire classes of suspected Nazi war criminals upon simple identification, and to leave the German nation to 'stew in its own juice,' were not formally implemented.
> The Morgenthau Plan would have led to the death by starvation and pestilence of ten million Germans in the first two years after the war, in addition to the one million who had been killed in the saturation bombing and the three million killed in the enforced expulsion from Germany's eastern territories.
> The Plan, enthusiastically adopted by German-born Lord Cherwell (Professor Friedrich A. Lindemann, Churchill's close friend, economic, strategic and scientific adviser), was pushed through at the Quebec summit conference between Roosevelt and Churchill on September 15, 1944.
> It was part of the price that Churchill and Cherwell were willing to pay for a broad package of American concessions over which Morgenthau had political control including further Lend-lease aid (Phase II) to the British Empire after the war; moreover Mr Churchill needed his support on military issues including joint British strategic control of the atomic bomb (the Hyde Park agreement which was signed on September 18, 1944) and Britain's participation in the war in the Pacific. We can only speculate about Harry Dexter White's purpose in canvassing a plan which would have ruined the largest country in Central Europe, the last bastion that would protect Western Europe from the Red Army in post-war years.
> The memorandum endorsing the plan's objectives was initialled (Okayed) by F.D.R. and W.C. on September 15, 1944.
> The Plan caused immediate controversy. Hearing that it had been initialled at Quebec, Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War (Kriegsminister), made bitter comments about the Semites in his unpublished private diary. Anthony Eden, British foreign secretary (1940-1945).and later prime minister, dismissed Morgenthau's and Lord Cherwell's lobbying, in a hitherto unpublished document, as a piece of gratuitous impertinence: 'These ex-Germans,' wrote Eden, 'seem to wish to wash away their ancestry in a bath of hate. A.E. Nov 19.'
> When details of the Morgenthau Plan leaked to the press in America, angry British politicians demanded to know if Churchill had indeed signed such a document.
> In 1953, after the F.B.I. levelled Soviet spy charges against the plan's co-author, Herry Dexter White, Sir Winston Churchill sent to Lord Cherwell a letter behind which was all the anxiety and guilt of a great man who realizes he has been duped.

  * * * * *

> Much still remains to be revealed about the Morgenthau Plan. Dr Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister, made enough capital from it to inflict tens of thousands of extra casualties on British and American troops in the battles that followed its publication, and in the autumn 1944 U.S. presidential election campaign Roosevelt's opponent Thomas Dewey lost no time in pointing this out. 'The publishing of this Plan,' claimed Dewey, 'was as good as ten fresh German divisions.'
> Coming under increasing fire, Morgenthau wrote around his fellow ministers, appealing for support. Telephoning Henry Stimson on November 4, 1944, to 'urge him to do something,' he found the Kriegsminister too busy cooking the official records to cleanse Roosevelt of any implication in quite another scandal. 'He sounded more tired than ever. Said he was tired out from working the last two weeks on Pearl Harbor report to keep out anything that might hurt the Pres.'
> Clever forgeries, prettying-up of official files after the event: this is why historians who rely only on printed volumes are likely to be misled. For this reason, it is important that my full dossier on the infamous Morgenthau Plan should be published in facsimile, to enable future generations of Germans to distinguish between the fantasies of Nazi propagan- dists and the total truth of 1944-1945. David Irving, London, June 1985
 CHERWELL,(1886-1957)faddish, teetotal personal adviser to Churchill from 1940; Paymaster General 1943-45, 1951-53. Had a knack of putting complicated matters in terms intelligible to Winston. When Cherwell became Paymaster General on December 31, 1942 Oliver Harvey aptly summed him up: 'He is a somewhat sinister figure who under the guise of scientific adviser puts up a lot of reactionary stuff.' Henry Stimson, asked if he knew the Prof, acidly replied: 'I'm not sure whether that means the Professor or the Prophet. We in the War Department know him only as an old fool who loudly proclaimed that we could never cross the Channel and also that when the robots [V-weapons] came they could never do any damage!'
> In Admiral Leahy's personal file on 'White, Harry D.' is a document entitled, 'Publicity in regard to Harry D. White, one time Assistant Secretary of the Treasury,' November 1953. According to this the Attorney General had announced that on February 20, 1946 the F.B.I. gave to White House officials including Leahy a report of White's association with Soviet agents.
> Leahy noted, 'I have no recollection of having seen or heard of such a report at any time.' His only contact with White, in connection with Britain's request for Lend Lease, had been at a meeting on November 18, 1944.
> In June and July 1944, Roosevelt and other leading Americans had begun dropping remarks about their plans for Germany and the Germans. On June 7, entertaining the Polish prime minister Mikolajczyk at the White House, Roosevelt had related with round eyes remarks made by Stalin about his plans to 'liquidate 50,000 German officers.' In fact when Churchill tried to persuade Stalin to adopt such a plan, to his annoyance Stalin insisted on fair and proper trials in every case.
> General Dwight D. Eisenhower had similar views. He told British ambassador Lord Halifax on July 10, 1944, that he felt the enemy leaders should be 'shot while trying to escape.' Imprisonment was not enough for the 3,500 officers of the German general staff. Lieutenant-Commander Harry C. Butcher, Eisenhower's naval aide, noted in a secret diary: 'There was agreement that extermination could be left to nature if the Russians had a free hand.' Why just the Russians?, inquired Eisenhowerthey could temporarily assign zones in Germany to the smaller nations with old scores to settle.
> Stimson felt that it would be wise to allow the British to occupy Northern Germany, because that was where much liquidation would be effected. 'I felt,' recorded the Republican Kriegsminister obliquely in his diary, 'that repercussions would be sure to arise which would mar the page of our history if we, whether rightly or wrongly, seemed to be responsible.' If the Americans occupied southern Germany, it would keep them away from Russia during the occupation period: 'Let her do the dirty work,' he suggested to the President, 'but don't father it.'
> After a discussion with General George C Marshall on the punishment of Hitler, the Gestapo and the S.S., Stimson wrote in his diary, 'I found around me, particularly Morgenthau, a very bitter atmosphere of personal resentment against the entire German people without regard to individual guilt. of the Nazis.'


> In July 1944 General George C. Marshall had informed Eisenhower that Henry R. Morgenthau Jr., Secretary of the Treasury, and a party of experts were planning a trip to investigate currency problems in France. Eisenhower replied that there was nothing to be learned in the little strip of land which his armies then controlled'which is divided about equally between fighting fronts and a solid line of depots, with two main lateral roads completely filled with double columns of motor transport.'
> Privately he added that these VIP trips were a pain in the neck. There just was not the space for visitors: Bradley's only accommodation consisted of one trailer and a couple of Jeeps, while Montgomery 'usually simply refuses to see unwelcome visitors.' He could hardly have made himself plainer. But Morgenthau had Roosevelt's ear, so Eisenhower had no choice but to humor him.
> On the transatlantic flight Morgenthau's chief assistant Harry Dexter White slipped to him a copy of the report by the Washington interdepartmental Foreign Economic Policy Committee on postwar policy toward Germany. It shocked Morgenthau. As drafted, it would leave Germany more powerful in five or ten years than she had been before the war. Colonel Bernard Bernstein, financial adviser (G-5) at Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF), took Eisenhower's special train to meet Morgenthau's party in Scotland.
> Morgenthau's son was also there when Morgenthau stepped off the C-54 at Prestwick, Scotland, on August 6 -- Eisenhower's chief of staff Bedell Smith had secured a comfortable army appointment for him. (There was to be 'no mention whatsoever, at any time, about his son nor photographs including his son,' Morgenthau's aide had stipulated.
> On the long train journey down to London, Bernstein expressed concern to White and Morgenthau about SHAEF's proposed handbook for American officers in the future military government of Germany: it was too soft, he said; little was being done to make Germany suffer. On the contrary, SHAEF's experts seemed to be preparing for Germany's smooth return to the family of nations. Army directives were being prepared to occupy, 'take over and control' Civil Affairs in Germany. Evidently, said Bernstein, the Allies were to assume responsibility for Germany's welfare, and 'even [sic] ensure that the Germans received medical care and treatment.'

> They could not have picked a worse day for their visitHitler's counterattack against Patton and Bradley began during the night. They lunched on August 7 at Ike's Portsmouth command post. According to Morgenthau's version, General Eisenhower also strongly opposed any soft line on Germany: 'The whole German population is a synthetic paranoid,' he told the Treasury Secretary. 'And there is no reason for treating a paranoid gently. The best cure is to let the Germans stew in their own juice.'
> Ike's female assistant Kay Summersby eavesdropped and wrote in her diary afterwards: 'Secretary Morgenthau and party for lunch. Quite concerned about post war policies in Germany and particularly anxious that we do not establish rates of exchange that might favour Germany.' (Morgenthau was proposing to inflict a punitive rate of exchange on Germany, which would bankrupt her for all time, rendering her unable to rise again and make another war.)
> This prompted the Supreme Commander to enlarge on his own views about the enemy, which he himself later quoted as follows: 'The German people must not be allowed to escape a personal sense of guilt.. Germany's war-making power should be eliminated.. Certain groups should be specifically punished.. The German General Staff should be utterly eliminated. All records destroyed and individuals scattered and rendered powerless to operate as body.'
> It was, claimed Morgenthau, Eisenhower who instilled in him the idea of a harsh treatment of the Germans. Eisenhower would later deny this, or plead loss of memory, but reporting this to his own staff on August 12, Morgenthau said: 'General Eisenhower had stated, and given the Secretary permission to repeat to others, that in his view we must take a tough line with Germany as we must see to it that Germany was never again in a position to unleash war upon the world.' He added, 'The Prime Minister had indicated his general concurrence with General Eisenhower's viewpoint.' And on August 19 he would tell President Roosevelt that Eisenhower 'is perfectly prepared to be tough with the Germans when he first goes in.' Morgenthau said that he had told the general, 'All the plans in G-5 are contrary to that view.'

> On August 10, Churchill's diary showed a lunch appointment with Henry Morgenthau.
> Churchill had longer-term worries than the future of Germany. He had at last woken up to the long term cost of the war to the Empire. Britain's indebtedness would soon be $3,000m; her exports were less than one-third of their 1938 level; to maintain full employment she must increase exports fivefold. So she must start rebuilding her export trade now which Americans might not understand. But Britain must release labor to rebuild her export industries. So Lend-Lease must continue even after Hitler's defeat, though a reduction of about twenty-seven percent would appear reasonable to the British. (, discussion FDR/WSC, September 14, in Morgenthau diary and copy in General Hap H. Arnold diary; and. W. D. Taylor, memo on meeting of Sir John Anderson and Sir David Waley with Morgenthau, Harry Dexter White, August 11.)
> Over lunch on August 10, they sized each other up. Churchill knew that Morgenthau was no friend of Britain. Morgenthau flattered Roosevelt a few days later that it was interesting 'how popular he [Roosevelt] was with the soldiers and how unpopular Churchill was.' He described one instance to Roosevelt: 'I told him [Roosevelt],' he wrote in his diary, 'about the difficulty of finding someone to take me through the shelters [in the East End of London] because both Churchill and Sir Robert Morris [?Home Secretary Mr Herbert Morrison] had been jeered when they went through them recently, and that finally they decided on Mrs Churchill and Lady Mountbatten.' Morgenthau amused Roosevelt's Cabinet a week later with a description of how the prime minister 'kept referring to his age during conversations.'
> At the meeting between Churchill and Morgenthau the small-talk was as frigid as only an interview between a penniless debtor and his banker can be. 'Churchill,' described Morgenthau to Roosevelt, '.. started the conversation by saying that England was broke.. Churchill's attitude was that he was broke but not depressed about England's future.. He is going to tell Parliament about their financial condition at the right time after the Armistice, and that when he does that he is through.'
> Churchill said that he had heard that Morgenthau was unfriendly towards Britain.
> Morgenthau denied this, was brutally frank. Churchill must put his cards on the table. He must appoint a committee to consider financial questions, and then tell Parliament the facts.
> When told of this, Churchill quailed at the idea. Roosevelt retorted, 'Oh, he is taking those tactics now. More recently his attitude was that he wanted to see England through the peace.'
> Still, the revelation that Churchill had bankrupted Britain startled him. 'I had no idea,' he told Morgenthau. 'This is very interesting,' he sneered. 'I had no idea that England was broke. I will go over there and make a couple of talks and take over the British Empire.'
> Morgenthau gave a similar version of their conversation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. 'The Prime Minister stated,' he told Anderson on August 11, 'that he did not wish to bring this matter into the open while our combined war effort in Europe was at its height.' Churchill was prepared to speak to Parliament about the straitened financial outlook, but not just yet. Morgenthau's view was that, under the circumstances, Churchill ought to take it up directly with the President.
> Reporting to Roosevelt a few days later Morgenthau said, 'In England you can see the thing much clearer. There are two kinds of people there: One like Eden who believes we must cooperate with Russia, and that we must trust Russia for the peace of the world,'at which point FDR said he belonged to the same school as Eden' -- and there is the other school which is illustrated by the remark of Mr Churchill who said, "What are we going to have between the white snows of Russia and the white cliffs of Dover?"'
> Churchill was beginning to hint at the need for a strong postwar Germany, and Morgenthau did not like the sound of that at all. Roosevelt replied that he hoped to see Churchill soon, even though the Prime Minister was 'not his own master in some important matters, being overridden frequently by the Foreign Office.' (Memo Robert A. Lovett to Stimson, Aug 18, 1944: Stimson papers.)
> One other topic was discussed at No.10 Downing Street. Morgenthau shortly told Zionist leaders that the Prime Minister had assured him that, as was well known, his sympathy was still for Zionism and Zionist aspirations: that 'it was simply a matter of timing as to when he would give the Jews their State in Palestine.'*
> Turning his back on the unpleasant truth of Britain's bankruptcy, Mr Churchill had literally flown taking off late on August 10 to tour British headquarters in the Mediterranean.
> Remaining in England, on August 12 and 13 Morgenthau tried to analyse Churchill's political attitude with U.S. Ambassador John G. Winant and Anthony Eden. In England, he again said, he saw several groups: a pro-Soviet group around Eden, favoring harsh treatment of Germany, including dismemberment. A second, dangerous group favoured Germany's economic restoration as a bulwark against the Soviet Union; and a third group, mid-way, preferring a strong Europe as a whole, aligned with Britain. Morgenthau inquired where Churchill lay, and Edenhesitatinglyadmitted that Churchill was probably in that third group. Winant agreed: Churchill now had 'certain reservations' against the Soviet Union, but he could still be persuaded that it was desirable to continue the grisly Three Power agreement reached at Teheran on the future of Germany. Anyway, Winant was confident that Churchill would go along with Roosevelt in any program. Morgenthau expressed to Eden his personal concern that there were Allied officials aiming to restore Germany's economy as quickly as possible. Eden expressed surprise as it ran counter to the Teheran agreements. Stalin, he claimed, was determined to smash Germanyto dismember herso that she could never again disrupt Europe.
> * U.S. Dept of State record of visit by Dr Nahum Goldmann, September 13, 1944: US embassy files, London, 710 Arab-Jewish relations.)
> 'Eden,' noted Harry Dexter White, 'said Roosevelt had agreed with Stalin, but Churchill was at first reluctant to accede. He (Churchill) was willing to make Austria independent and to take East Prussia away, but was doubtful about going beyond that.' Eden added that after talking it over with him Churchill decided to go along with Roosevelt and Stalin on this. Eden felt it important to pursue a tough policy on Germany, 'as nearly in accord with Russian policy toward Germany as possible,' if only to reassure Stalin of Britain's good intentions. It was an interesting statement, and Morgenthau asked him to repeat it. Eden obliged. 'He [Morgenthau] said [to Eden] that in his conversation with Churchill the question of the program to be followed upon occupation of Germany had come up and that he had gathered from the Prime Minister's comments that he was in agreement with the view expressed by Morgenthau, to the effect that during the early months Germany's economy ought to be let pretty much alone and permitted to seek its own level.'
> This was the origin of what Morgenthau later called leaving the Germans to 'stew in their own juice.'
> Morgenthau now talked with Anderson alone. Until now the Chancellor had lifted the veil on Britain's bankrupt future only slightly in Parliament, he admitted, in opening the talks with the U.S. Treasury officials on August 11: so his coming budget message about Britain's bleak post-war future was going to shock Parliament and people. 'Financially,' summarized one Treasury official, 'England has thrown everything into the war effort regardless of consequences. It is well known throughout the country that England has gone into the war on the basis of "unlimited liability"; the consequences of such financial action, however, have not been weighed nor understood by the country. He stated that England would emerge from the war with high international and national prestige, but in a deplorable financial position. The period of the war would have seen England's transition from a position of the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation.'
> When Morgenthau visited him on August 15 Eden read out to him selected extracts of the Teheran conference between Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt. namely those extracts dealing with Germany. Roosevelt said that he wanted to discuss the partition of GermanyGermany could be divided into three or fifteen parts, he said. Roosevelt suggested they instruct the European Advisory Commission to report on the problem. Stalin agreed, and since they both evidently felt strongly on it, Churchill agreed.
> However, as Ambassador John G Winant explained, the European Advisory Commission (EAC) had not taken up the question of partition, because the Russian representative had always stalled. Morgenthau pointed out that the Teheran directive to the EAC was evidently not known to the State Department. 'Eden said,' according to Harry Dexter White's memo, 'there are some groups in both the United States and in England who feared that Communism would grow in Germany if a tough policy were pursued by the Allies. This group believed that it was important to have a strong Germany as protection against possible aggression by Russia. He said it was a question whether there was a greater danger from a strong Germany or from a strong Russia. For his part, he believed there was greater danger from a strong Germany.'


> Morgenthau had been shocked by the confusion he found in London as to the treatment of postwar Germany. He made no secret of this upon his return to Washington. When he visited Cordell Hull in Washington on August 18, the Secretary of State had to admit he had never been told what was in the minutes of Teheran. On August 19, Roosevelt confidently assured Morgenthau, 'Give me thirty minutes with Churchill and I can correct this.' He added, 'We have got to be tough with Germany and I mean the German people, not just the Nazis. You either have to castrate the German people or you have got to treat them in such a manner so they can't go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past.'
> Morgenthau now outlined in response what later became his infamous Plan'In his opinion serious consideration should be given to the desirability and feasability of reducing Germany to an agrarian economy wherein Germany would be a land of small farms, without large-scale industrial enterprises.' . Morgenthau complained, 'Well, Mr President, nobody is considering the question along those lines in Europe. In England they want to build up Germany so that she can pay reparations.'
> On August 21, the Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson dictated in his own diary (now in Yale University archives) a note that he had talked with Roosevelt's special adviser Harry L. Hopkins on the telephone: 'He wants me to talk with Morgenthau on the subject of Germany.' At noon on August 23, Stimson went to the White House to see the president: 'It is the first time I have seen him since June. I succeeded in getting through to him my views of the importance of having a decision on what we are going to do to Germany. I came back to the Department and Secretary Morgenthau came to lunch with me in my room. I had [John] McCloy in too. Morgenthau told me of how he had learned in London that the division of Germany had been agreed upon at Teheran between the three chiefs. Although the discovery of this thing has been a most tremendous surprise to all of us, I am not sure that the three chiefs regard it as a fait accompli and in this talk with Morgenthau it developed that the so-called decision was of a more informal character than I had understood from McCloy's first report to me of Morgenthau's news a day or two ago. In the afternoon I settled down and tried to dictate my ideas in regard to the postwar settlement with Germany.'
> In this document, 'Brief for Conference with the President on August 25,' Stimson listed 'a number of urgent matters of American policy' including the zones of occupation, the partition of Germany, and in particular the 'policy vs. liquidation of Hitler and his gang". His wording was very explicit.
> 'Present instructions seem inadequate beyond imprison-ment. Our officers must have the protection of definite instructions if shooting required. If shooting required it must be immediate; not postwar.' He also asked the question, 'How far do U.S. officers go towards preventing lynching in advance of Law and Order?'
> Meanwhile Morgenthau got at Roosevelt first. Lunching at the White House on August 23, he sketched out details of his plan for punishing and emasculating postwar Germany regardless of the effect which this running sore would have on the rest of Europe. He visited Roosevelt again early on August 25 and handed him a memorandum on the German problem.
> Later that day, Stimson and Morgenthau both lunched with the president. The Kriegsminister took up the question of the British and American zones of Germany and urged Roosevelt to allow the British to occupy Northern Germany. 'I further urged the point,' he recorded in his diary, 'that by taking south-western Germany we were in a more congenial part of Germany and further away from the dirty work that the Russians might be doing with the Prussians in Eastern Germany. I was inclined to think that I had made an impression on him, but it was impossible to say. I either then or in my former meeting pressed on him the importance of not partitioning Germany other than the allotment of East Prussia to Russia or Poland, and Alsace Lorraine to France and a possible allotment to Silesia to Poland, namely trimming the outer edges of Germany. Other than those allotments I feared that a division of Germany and a policy which would prevent her from being industrialized would starve her excess population of 30 million people, giving again my description of how she had grown during the period between 1870 and 1914 by virtue of her industralization..'


> Stimson, worried that Allied troops would shortly enter Germany without policy directives, suggested that Roosevelt appoint a Cabinet committee. The president accepted the point, and then they went together into Cabinet. Navy secretary Forrestal wrote a diary on this date.
> So did the Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard.
> Both were struck by Roosevelt's insistance that the Germans in future live off soup-kitchens as a punishment. Henry Stimson's diary is also explicit: 'At the very beginning of Cabinet he brought up this last point and said that he would appoint Secretaries Hull, Morgenthau and myself as the members of that committee..' Later Stimson joined Morgenthau at the airport. 'I had the opportunity of a satisfactory talk with him on matters on which we were inclined to disagree, namely the use of over-punitive measures on Germany principally economic. I have been trying to guard against that.'
> In a subsequent 'Memorandum of Conversation with the President,' August 25, Stimson felt that he had made his point that the penalties should be against individuals and 'not by destruction of the economic structure of Germany which might have serious results in the future.' 'As to partition, the Secretary [Stimson] argued for a lopping off of sections rather than a general partition and thought the President was inclined to agree that Germany should be left as a self supporting state. The President showed some interest in radical treatment of the Gestapo.'
> For the last days in August Stimson remained on his farm, maintaining scrambler telephone contact with McCloy in Washington. 'In particular,' wrote Stimson in his diary, 'I was working up and pressing for the point I had initiated, namely that we should intern the entire Gestapo and perhaps the S.S. leaders and then vigorously investigate and try them as the main instruments of Hitler's system of terrorism in Europe. By so doing I thought we would begin at the right end, namely the Hitler machine, and punish the people who were directly responsible for that, carrying the line of investigation and punishment as far as possible. I found around me, particularly Morgenthau, a very bitter atmosphere of personal resentment against the entire German people without regard to individual guilt and I am very much afraid that it will result in our taking mass vengeance on the part of our people in the shape of clumsy economic action.'


> Harry Dexter White completed the first draft of the Plan on September 1. Almost immediately the British embassy learned what Morgenthau was up to.
> On September 2, Morgenthau retired to his country home for the Labor Day weekend, an American public holiday. White sent the completed draft out to him there. President Roosevelt and his wife motored over from Hyde Park to take tea with Morgenthau under the trees of his estate at nearby Fishkill and Morgenthau showed the draft to him.
> Roosevelt's thinking on Germany was rather simplistic: no aircraft, uniforms or marching. Morgenthau had said: 'That's very interesting, Mr President, but I don't think it goes nearly far enough.' He wanted the Ruhr dismantled and its machinery given to the needy neighbors; 'I realize this would put 18 or 20 million people out of work,' he conceded airily. But it ought to guarantee the prosperity of Britain and Belgium for twenty years. Able bodied Germans could be transported to Central Africa as slave labor on 'some big TVA project.' TVA was the Tennessee Valley Authority hydroelectric project which Roosevelt's new Deal had used to generate employment. He went off at a tangent: he was thinking of re-education of the Germans. 'You will have to create entirely new textbooks,' he said.
> That Monday, September 4, Stimson flew back to Washington and had a conference with General Marshall that afternoon: 'Discussed with him my troubles in regard to the treatment of Germany and the method in which we should investigate and punish the Gestapo.. It was very interesting to find that army officers have a better respect for the law in those matters than civilians who talk about them and are anxious to go ahead and chop everybody's head off without trial of hearing.'
> Invited to dine with Morgenthau that evening, Stimson found there McCloy and Harry White of the Treasury. 'We were all aware of the feeling that a sharp issue is sure to arise over the question of the treatment of Germany. Morgenthau is, not unnaturally, very bitter, and as he is not thoroughly trained in history or even economics it became very apparent that he would plunge out for a treatment of Germany which I feel sure would be unwise. But we talked the matter over with temperateness and goodwill during the evening and that was as much as could be hoped from the situation. We did succeed in settling with perfect agreement the question of the currency which should be issued in Germany namely that we should issue Allied military marks at a 10 cent value of the mark. Morgenthau had first struck for only 5 cents, wishing to use a low rate of the mark to punish Germany.'
> The Cabinet Committee on Germany met for the first time on September 5 in Hull's office. Hull was cautious. 'We must not lay plans for partition of Germany,' he pointed out, 'until British and Russian views are known.' Stimson found himself in a minority. 'This proposal,' he said of Morgenthau's plan, 'will cause enormous evils. The Germans will be permanent paupers, and the hatreds and tensions that will develop will obscure the guilt of the Nazis, and poison the springs of future peace.' 'My plan,' retorted Morgenthau, unabashed, 'will stop the Germans from every trying to extend their domination by force again. Don't worry. The rest of Europe can survive without them!'
> Stimson was unconvinced. 'This plan will breed war, not prevent it!'
> 'It's very singular,' he wrote to Marshall. 'I'm the man in charge of the Department which does the killing in this way, and yet I am the only one who seems to have any mercy for the other side.' Hull's ideas were no less extreme than Morgenthau's.
> Stimson returned to his office and dictated this note for his diary:
> 'As soon as I got into the meeting it became very evident that Morgenthau had been rooting around behind the scenes and had greased the way for his own views by conference with the president and others. We did get through the question of the currency alright on the lines which we had decided upon last evening. Then Hull brought up a draft of agenda.. and as soon as we got into a discussion of these, I, to my tremendous surprise, found that Hull was as bitter as Morgenthau against the Germans and was ready to jump all the principles that he had been laboring for in regard to trade for the past twelve years. He and Morgenthau wished to wreck completely the immense Ruhr-Saar area of Germany into a second rate agricultural land regardless of all that that area meant.. Hopkins went with them so far as to wish to prevent the manufacture of steel.. which would pretty well sabotage everything else. I found myself a minority of one and I labored vigorously but entirely ineffectively against my colleagues. In all the four years that I have been here I have not had such a difficult and unpleasant meeting although of course there were no personalities. We all knew eachother too well for that. But we were irreconcilably divided. At the end it was decided that Hull would send in his memorandum to the President while we should each of us send a memorandum of views in respect to it.'
> Hull had submitted a paper with the title, 'Suggested Recommendations on Treatment of Germany from the Cabinet Committee for the President.' In his reply dated September 5, Stimson utterly rejected it. 'I cannot treat as realistic the suggestion that such an area in the present economic condition of the world can be turned into a non-productive 'ghost territory' when it has become the center of one of the most industrialized continents in the world, populated by peoples of energy, vigor and progressiveness.' As for destroying the coalmines, etc, he added: 'I cannot conceive of turning such a gift of nature into a dustheap.'


> The British ambassador Lord Halifax notified the Foreign Office on September 6, 1944, about all this, and asked the poignant question: 'Whom do we shoot or hang? The feeling is that we should not have great state trials, but proceed quickly and with despatch. The English idea, once preferred but then withdrawn, was to give the Army lists to liquidate on mere identification. What has happened to this idea? Besides individuals, what categories should be shot?'.
> On the same day, September 6, Roosevelt called the Committee to a sudden conference at the White House.
> Stimson wrote,
> 'After what had happened yester- day I.. expected to be steam-rollered by the whole bunch. But the meeting went off better than I had expected. The President.. then took up the question of German economy, looking at me and reverting to his proposition made at Cabinet a week or two ago that Germany could live happily and peacefully on soup from soup kitchens if she couldn't make money for herself. He said that our ancestors had lived successfully and happily in the absence of many luxuries that we would now deem necessities.. As he addressed his remarks to me, I took the chance and tried to drive in the fact that the one point that had been at issue in our yesterday's preparatory meeting of the Committee had been the proposition that the Ruhr and the Saar a plot of non-industrial agricultural land.. I said I was utterly opposed to the destruction of such a great gift of nature and that it should be used for the reconsturction of the world which sorely needed it now.. Morgenthau had submitted through Hull a memorandum giving his program towards Germany and it had reiterated what he had put forth verbally, namely a complete obliteration of the industrial powers of the Ruhr.. I pointed this out and said that this was what I was opposed to. The President apparently took my side on this but he mentioned the fact that Great Britain was going to be in sore straits after the war and he thought that the products of the Ruhr might be used to furnish raw material for British steel industry. I said that I had no objection certainly to assisting Britain every way that we could, but that this was very different from obliterating the Ruhr as had been proposed.. I wound up by using the analogy of Charles Lamb's dissertation on roast pig. I begged the President to remember that this was a most complicated economic question and all that I was urging upon him was that he should not burn down his house of the world for the purpose of getting a meal of roast pig. He apparently caught the point.'
> On September 7, Stimson showed to General Marshall the memorandum he had written about Germany. '[Marshall] thoroughly approved the position I have taken of temperate treatment economically of the Saar-Ruhr area as being the only possible thing for us to do. I also showed them the memorandum which I received from Morgenthau demanding that the leaders of the Nazi party be shot without trial and on the basis of the general world appreciation of their guilt, and it met with the reception that I expectedabsolute rejection of the notion that we should not give these men a fair trial.. But at 11:45 I heard from McCloy that Morgenthau still sticks to his guns and has been to the president again and has demanded a re-hearing.'
> Stimson began looking for allies too. 'Dinner with Mabel [Stimson] and [Felix] Frankfurter. Frankfurter was helpful as I knew he would be. Although a Jew like Morgenthau, he approached this subject with perfect detachment and great helpfulness. I went over the whole matter with him from the beginning with him, reading him Morgenthau's views on the subject of the Ruhr and also on the subject of the trial of the Nazis, at both of which he snorted with astonishment and disdain. He fully backed up my views and those of my fellows in the Army,.. these men the substance of a fair trial and that they cannot be railroaded to their death without trial.'
> Now, by September 9, the full Morgenthau Plan was ready. At a meeting that day with FDR, Henry Stimson laid into it. 'Instead of having a two hour conference with the President,' wrote Stimson, 'as Secretary Morgenthau had asked for, our conference boiled down to about forty-five minutes and that was taken up mainly by the President's own discursive questions and remarks.. Morgenthau appeared with a new diatribe on the subject of the Nazis and an enlargement of his previous papers as to how to deal with them. Hull took no leading part as chairman but sat silent with very little to say. The President addressed most of his remarks to me and about the only things that I can remember were (1) that he asserted his predilection for feeding the Germans from soup kitchens instead of anything heavier, and (2) he wanted to be protected from the expected revolution in France. Those are the two obsessions that he has had on his mind on this whole subject as far as I could see.'
> Morgenthau's record shows that Roosevelt said he wanted Germany partitioned into three parts. He flipped through the pages of Morgenthau's memorandum, and kept prodding Morgenthau: 'Where is the ban on uniforms and marching?' Morgenthau reassured him it was all there.
> At one point FDR exclaimed, 'Furthermore I believe in an agricultural Germany,' he said. This conference behind him, Roosevelt, as Stimson later put it, 'pranced up to the meeting at Quebec,' leaving Hull and Stimson behind. On September 12 he cabled to Morgenthau, 'Please be in Quebec by Thursday September 14th noon.' In a looseleaf folder Morgenthau took his Plan up to Quebec with him.


> Stimson was astonished to hear that Roosevelt had asked Morgenthau up to Quebec. 'While he has the papers we have written on the subject with him,' Stimson recorded on September 13, 'he has not invited any further discussion on the matter with us. Instead apparently today he has invited Morgenthau up, or Morgenthau has got himself invited. I cannot believe that he will follow Morgenthau's views. If he does, it will certainly be a disaster.' And on September 14, the Kriegsminister wrote, 'It is an outrageous thing. Here the President appoints a Committee with Hull as its Chairman for the purpose of advising him in regard to these questions in order that it may be done with full deliberation and, when he goes off to Quebec, he takes the man who really represents the minority and is so biassed by his Semitic grievances that he is really a very dangerous adviser to the President at this time. Hull.. is left behind.'

> At Quebec both Churchill and Roosevelt were ill men. Churchill was kept going only with M&B sulphona- mide-type drugs. Roosevelt's great brain had already deteriorated so far that at one banquet in August he had proposed a toast to the same the Icelandic prime minister twice in twenty minutes.
> Both were putty in the hands of evil men. Roosevelt camouflaged his withering brain with carefree bonhomie. On September 13, he would turn to his loathsome dog Falla and command, pointing at Morgenthau, 'say hello to your Uncle Henry.'
> The two leaders reached Quebec early on September 11. In fact Roosevelt's train had pulled into the railroad station fifteen minutes before Churchill's train (10:15 AM), by design rather than accident, as he confessed to the Canadian prime minister with a candour that left Mackenzie King gasping in his diary, 'It seemed to me that the President was rather assuming that he was in his own country.' Roosevelt was much thinner in his body and face, had lost around thirty pounds in weight, his eyes were drawn, his haggard face had sunless pallor, and to his shocked host Mackenzie King he looked distinctly older and worn. The electioneering abuse on him as 'a senile old man' had etched deeply into him.* Churchill told Mackenzie King that it was wonderful what Canada was doing in the war, and he particularly praised the latest financial aid given by Canada to Britain, and that he recognized that Canada had had to cover up in a way in order to give what she had. (Mackenzie Kiary, Sept 11, 1944).
> As he told Mackenzie King at the end of his stay, Britain would never forget how Canada had helped: 'Really,' he said, 'we are the one debtor nation that will come out of the war.' Now Britain had to expand her export trade and build up her industries. 'I understand that it has to be kept secret for the present,' Churchill said, referring to Canada's financial aid to Britain. They lunched in the Citadel and talked about the war's personalities, about de Gaulle and Chiang-Kai-shek; Churchill flattered F.D.R. that he was head of the strongest military power on earth, both in the air, at sea and on the land.
> Churchill looked better, and was getting to grips with some Scotch as well as a couple of brandies. It was hard for even the Canadian hosts to find out about Churchill's and Roosevelt's intentions. Mackenzie King himself was tired and his eyes and body were aching with old age. After luncheon, Mrs Roosevelt wheeled the president over in his wheelchair to see the models Churchill had brought from England of the D-day invasion equipmenta gift for the Hyde Park library. As Roosevelt leaned forward to see them there were beads of perspiration on his forehead. Then he was wheeled away for an afternoon rest. Sir John Dill took Mackenzie King aside and told him he believed that Churchill 'enjoyed' this war. 'It is clear,' agreed Mackenzie King, 'that it is the very breath of life to him.'
> On the following day, September 13, it began raining around noon. Morgenthau arrived at Quebec. The problem looming over the conference was of financing the war effort. Canada was now being asked to commit her forces for the South Pacific, but Mackenzie King saw immense political difficulties in further Imperial wars Canadians would never agree that their taxes should be spent fighting to protect India or recover Burma and Singapore. Roosevelt sneered to Morgenthau that he 'knew now' why the British wanted to join in the war in the Pacific. 'All they want is Singapore back.'

The Diaries of Mackenzie King

> That evening, September 13, FDR and Churchill stayed at the dinner table at the Citadel. At 8 pm on September 13, Churchill dined with FDR, Morgenthau, Cherwell, and other members of their staff. Mackenzie King left at 9 pm and he found them still sitting there, talking at 11:30 pm. 'Churchill was immediately opposite the President,' Mackenzie King described in his diary, 'and both of them seemed to be speaking to the numbers assembled which included Morgenthau, Lord Cherwell, Lord Leathers, Lord Moran and two or three others. Morgenthau arrived this afternoon. Anthony Eden is to arrive in the morning.'
> Morgenthau's papers show that they talked about Germany. Churchill irritably said, 'What are my Cabinet members doing discussing plans for Germany without first discussing them with me?' FDR explained that this was why Morgenthau had come up from Washington. Tomorrow Morgenthau would talk privately with Cherwell about it. Churchill challenged FDR: 'Why don't we discuss Germany now?' so Roosevelt asked Morgenthau to outline his plan. Remarkably, Churchill's first reaction was hostile. When the Treasury Secretary embarked on the details of dismantling the Ruhr, Churchill was shocked and interrupted him. He was flatly opposedall that was necessary was to eliminate German arms production. Doing what Morgenthau proposed, Churchill waspishly told Roosevelt's Treasury Secretary, who was a Jew, would 'unnatural, un-Christian and unnecessary.' He doubted it would help even if all Germany's former steel markets went to Britain. 'I regard the Morgenthau Plan,' he said with heavy sarcasm, 'with as much enthusiasm as I would handcuffing myself to a dead German.' He was truculent, even offensive, rasping at one point to Roosevelt in particular, 'Is this what you asked me to come all the way over here to discuss?' And at another, to the American representatives in general: 'If you do not do something for Britain then the British simply will have to destroy gold and do business largely within the Empire.' The Prof glowered at his prime minister, but Admiral Leahy, the president's chief of staff, sided with Churchill. F.D.R. kept quiet. That was his way. He had done his footwork behind the scenes. Once, the conversation switched to India and stayed there for an hour. Churchill was angry at FDR's refusal to understand the administration problems faced by the British in a subcontinent where the birth and death rates were high, and the people were careless of poverty and ignorant of disease. 'I'll give the United States half of India to admi- nister,' Churchill flung at F.D.R., 'and we will take the other half. And then we'll see who does better.'
> Surprised at Churchill's hostility to the Plan, Lord Cherwell suspected that WSC had not wholly grasped what Morgenthau was driving at. In a private tête-à-tête the next morning (September 14) he apologized profusely for Winston's behaviour over dinner, promised Morgenthau that he would try to dress up the Plan in a way more attractive to the Prime Minister.
> Churchill got the message, wrote later: 'We had much to ask from Mr Morgenthau.' When FDR and Churchill discussed policy toward Germany later that day Churchill now declared himself in favour of the Plan, as outlined to him by Lord Cherwell. Cherwell was instructed to draft a memorandum for signature and give it to Churchill.
> At one point Mackenzie King asked how long the war was going to last. Churchill said he feared that it might drag on -- the Germans might hold out in the Alps or elsewhere. 'Hitler and his crowd know that their lives are at stake,' he said, 'so they will fight to the bitter end. This may mean that at some time we have to take the position that the war is really won, and that what is still going on anew is just mopping up groups here and there.' On the question of what to do with Germany, Churchill said that there would not be any attempt to control the country immediately by Allied forces. The Germans would have to police their own people. 'They are a race that loves that sort of thing,' he said. 'To be given any little authority, once they are beaten, and to wield it over others.' He envisaged something like centralized stations (FLAKTURME?) on towers around the different cities. If there was any difficulty from the Germans they could be threatened with a local bombardment. If the difficulty kept up they could be given a very effective bombardment from the skies. 'He did not contemplate continued active fighting,' recorded Mackenzie King after this discussion.
> Churchill took a nap at the Citadel, dreaming deeply, and arrived late for dinner. 'I have been thousands of miles away,' he apologized. He sat opposite Roosevelt and Morgenthau. A few hours earlier Anthony Eden, summoned by Churchill from London, had arrived at Quebec. He sat to Roosevelt's left, worn out by the eighteen-hour flight in a Liberator bomber. Churchill was in good spirit, the Canadian premier was pleased to see how well he was looking, and surmised it was because of the scarcity of alcohol.
> Out of earshot of Churchill and Eden, at 11:00 a.m. on September 15, Morgenthau invited Lord Cherwell and Harry Dexter White to his room, read the Prof's draft and disliked it. It represented 'two steps backwards,' he said. Since the last discussion, he said, Churchill had seemed to accept the Plan, and had himself spoken promisingly of turning Germany into an agricultural state as she had been in the last quarter of the 19th century. Morgenthau urged them to scrap this draft, and return to the two leaders for fresh instructions.
> When Churchill met Roosevelt, in the presence of Henry Morgenthau and Harry Dexter White, an hour later at noon September 15, Britain's financial problems were clearly uppermost in his own mind, rather than the future of Germany. Roosevelt read through the draft Lend-Lease Agreement for Phase II, and approved it with a minor change.
> But each time he seemed about to sign it, he kept interrupting with a fresh anecdote -- he was in one of his talky moods, as Morgenthau described them. Churchill was unable to contain himself. 'What do you want me to do,' he exclaimed nervously. 'Get on my hind legs and beg like Falla?'.
> FDR enjoyed every moment of Churchill's -- Britain's -- humiliating plight. But eventually he signed: OK, FDR. Churchill added: WC, 15.9. (A copy of the document is also in the Forrestal papers; and cf Leahy diary, October 19, 1944.)
> It was a load off Churchill's mind. He became quite emotional and Morgenthau saw tears in the old man's eyes. After the signing he thanked Roosevelt effusively, and said that it was something they were doing for both countries.

> Still at this noon conference on September 15, 1944, and feeling in generous mood, Churchill turned to Lord Cherwell. 'Where are the minutes on this matter of the Ruhr?' he asked the Prof. The Prof and Morgenthau had agreed to say they did not have them -- because the American, on reading Cherwell's draft, had felt the text was too milk-and-water. ('I thought we could get Churchill to go much further,' he noted afterwards.)
> Churchill was annoyed at this lapse. Roosevelt humorously observed that the document was not ready because Morgenthau had 'interspersed the previous discussion with too many dirty stories.'
> 'Well,' Churchill interrupted impatiently, 'I'll restate it.' He did so forcefully. Then he invited the Prof and Morgenthau to leave the room and dictate the memorandum anew.
> When the two men walked back in, the new draft still did not suit Churchill's new temperament. 'No,' he said, 'that won't do at all.' Morgenthau's heart sank, but then he heard Churchill add, 'It's not drastic enough. Let me show you what I want.' He asked for his stenographer, then himself dictatedrather well, as Morgenthau thought.
> 'At a conference between the President and the Prime Minister upon the best measures to prevent renewed rearmament by Germany, it was felt that an essential feature was the future disposition of the Ruhr and the Saar.'
> Among those listening was Eden. Eden was going white about the gills. He was hearing this for the first time.
> 'The ease,' continued Churchill, 'with which the metallurgical, chemical and electric industries..'

> 'In Germany,' interposed Roosevelt, because he had in mind the whole of Germany, and not just the Ruhr and Saar industries.
> 'The ease with which the metallurgical, chemical and electric industries in Germany can be converted from peace to war has already been impressed upon us by bitter experience. It must also be remembered that the Germans have devastated a large portion of the industries of Russia and of other neighbouring Allies, and it is only in accordance with justice that these injured countries should be entitled to remove the machinery they require in order to repair the losses they have suffered. The industries referred to in the Ruhr and in the Saar would therefore be necessarily put out of action and closed down. It was felt that the two districts should be put under somebody under the World Organization which would supervise the dismantling of these industries and make sure that they were not started up again by some subterfuge.
> 'This programme for eliminating the war-making industries in the Ruhr and in the Saar is looking forward to converting Germany into a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in its character.
> 'The Prime Minister and the President were in agreement upon this programme.'
> Eden was horrified. He exclaimed to Churchill, 'You can't do this. After all, you and I publicly have said quite the opposite.'
> A row broke out between the two men. It got quite nasty. But Churchill kept arguing that this was the only way to steal Germany's export market. 'How do you know what it is or where it is,' snapped Eden, and Churchill testily retorted: 'Well, we will get it wherever it is.' He took a pen and initialled the document. Roosevelt had already done the same. 'O.K. FDR' and 'WC, 15.9.'

> Copies went to London immediately for the War Cabinet. There is no doubt about it. Typed on long green telegram sheets, it is to be found among Eden's private papers at Birmingham University, and Lord Cherwell's papers at Oxford university.
> Copies were circulated to the ministries in Washington as well.* On September 15 Roosevelt sent it to Hull, prefaced by the explanation: 'After many long conversations with the Prime Minister and Lord Cherwell, the
> general matter of post-war plans regarding industries has been worked out as per the following memoranda. This seems eminently satisfactory and I think you will approve the general idea of not rehabilitating the Ruhr, Saar, etc.'
> Knowing that Eden would return to London before him, Churchill turned to his foreign secretary: 'Now I hope, Anthony,' he said, you're not going to do anything about this with the War Cabinet if you see a chance to present it. After all, the future of my people is at stake and when I have to choose between my people and the German people, I am going to choose my people.'
> For the rest of the day Eden sulked and brooded. Morgenthau was delighted, particularly by the unexpected bonus that Churchill had himself dictated the infamous memorandum. He could hardly later disavow it. Afterwards Morgenthau lunched with Lord Cherwell. That afternoon -- it was still September 15, 1944 -- Roosevelt looked at the Combined Chiefs of Staff map of postwar Germany and found it 'terrible,' as he told Morgenthau. He took three colored pencils and sketched where he wanted the British and American armies to go in Germany. He waited until the PM was in a good humor and everything else settled, then showed the map to him. Churchill approved it.
> Admiral Leahy was also pleased with it, explaining to Morgenthau that since the British were going to occupy the Ruhr and the Saar, they would have the odium of carrying the Morgenthau plan out. Henry Stimson, isolated on his estate by a hurricane that weekend, now learned of Morgenthau's triumph at Quebec. He wrote in his diary, 'On Saturday or Sunday [September 16-17] I learned from McCloy over the long distance telephone that the President has sent a decision flatly against us in regard to the treatment of Germany. Apparently he has gone over completely to the Morgenthau proposition and has gotten Churchill and Lord Cherwell with them. But the situation is a serious one and the cloud of it has hung over me pretty heavily over the weekend. It is a terrible thing to think that the total power of the United States and the United Kingdom in such a critical matter as this is in the hands of two men, both of whom are similar in their impulsiveness and their lack of systematic study.I have yet to meet a man who is not horrified with the "Carthaginian" attitude of the Treasury. It is Semitism gone wild for vengeance and, if it is ultimately carried out (I can't believe that it will be) it as sure as fate will lay the seeds for another war in the next generation. And yet these two men in a brief conference at Quebec with nobody to advise them except "yes-men," with no Cabinet officer with the President except Morgenthau, have taken this step and given directions for it to be carried out.'
> * Copies of this are in, inter alia, (Dwight D Eisenhower Library, Eisenhower files, Box 152, Morgenthau Plan.; ibid., Box 76, Morgenthau; Henry Morgenthau's book, 'Germany is Our Problem,' New York, 1945; Cherwell papers; Foreign office, files, London; Forrestal diary, October 20 ("Morgenthau.. handed me a copy"); Morgenthau papers, diary, pp.1454-5, September 15, 1944.


> At noon on the sixteenth, calling at the Citadel for a final joint meeting with Roosevelt and Churchill, airforce commander General Arnold thought that the President looked 'very badly.' 'He did not have the pep, power of concentration, could not make his usual wisecracks, seemed to be thinking of something else. Closed his eyes to rest more than usual.' (Arnold diary).
> Roosevelt left that evening for his Hyde Park estate, joined there by Churchill early on the eighteenth. On September 18, Churchill and Roosevelt signed their secret agreement on the atomic bomb: 'It might perhaps, after mature consideration, be used against the Japanese;' and there was to be 'full collaboration between the United States and the British Government' in its postwar development and commerical exploitation. (Since neither Churchill's nor Roosevelt's successors knew of this secret agreement, it would remain unhonoured.)
> After dinner on September 19 Churchill left for Staten Island by train and boarded the Queen Mary off New York the next morning for the return journey to England. Lord Cherwell, his eminence grise, remained in Washington. Roosevelt was still under Morgenthau's influence. On September 20, John McCloy told Stimson, who wrote it in his diary, that he had heard from Halifax and Sir Alec Cadogan that the president was 'very firm for shooting the Nazi leaders without trial.' After Quebec, the Washington campaign against the Morgenthau Plan stepped up. McCloy showed it to Forrestal, the Navy Secretary.
> Both Stimson and Hull carried protests to the President against it. On September 20, Morgenthau proudly related to Secretaries Stimson and Hull how he had obtained the initials of Roosevelt and Churchill on his Declaration. Stimson and Hull both gained the impression that the president had not read what he had so easily initialled. On September 22 there was a discussion between Roosevelt, Bush, Leahy and Lord Cherwell. The last-named wrote a handwritten note. After discussion of the atomic bomb project ("Tube Alloys") the conversation passed to more general topics.
> 'P[resident] said that the British Empire, in its struggle against fascism, had got into terrible economic trouble. It was a U.S. interest to help Britain over that trouble and see that she became once more completely solvent and able to pay her way. In fact to put it bluntly the U.S. could not afford to see the British Empire go bankrupt. For this reason it was essential to increase Great Britain's exports. It had been decided at Q[uebec]though he did not know when this would be announced or whether it would simply be allowed to leak out later that in the interests of world security German war-making potential in the Ruhr and the Saar would be extinguished and those regions put under international control. In fact Germany should revert definitely to a more agricultural habit. This would leave a gap in the export markets which the U.K. might well fill to general advantage. It might be that some high minded people would disapprove, but he found it hard to be high minded vis-à-vis the Germans when he thought of all they had done.'
> Almost overnight, Roosevelt changed his mind. What changed it for him, was probably the leakage of the Morgenthau Plan to the newspapers, published in great detail on September 23 by the Wall Street Journal. Roosevelt covered his tracks as best he could. Pulling out all the stops, Morgenthau sent a copy of the full-length Plan round to Lord Cherwell at his Washington hotel on September 26, asking him to show it to Churchill.
> But the opposition was stiffening. To Stimson's surprise, on the 27th Roosevelt himself telephoned on the scrambler telephone. 'He.. was evidently under the influence of the impact of criticism which has followed his decision to follow Morgenthau's advice. The papers have taken it up violently and almost unanimously against Morgenthau and the President himself, and the impact has been such that he had already reached a conclusion that he had made a false step and was trying to work out of it. He told me that he didn't really intend to try to make Germany a purely agricultural country but said that his underlying motive was the very confidential one that England was broke; that something must be done to give her more business to pull out after the war, and he evidently hoped that by something like the Morgenthau Plan Britain might inherit Germany's Ruhr business.'
> The five biggest American engineering unions issued a declaration on September 29 dismissing the Plan as economically unsound and warning that it 'contained the seeds of a new war.' Politically, the Morgenthau Plan was a disaster. Roosevelt was coming up to a new presidential election in a few weeks' time. On October 3, lunching with Stimson, he remarked: 'You know, Morgenthau pulled a boner. Don't let's be apart on that. I have no intention of turning Germany into an agrarian state.' Stimson thereupon produced a copy of the Declaration and read the appropriate lines from it. Roosevelt listened in horror. He had no idea how he could have agreed to such proposals. At a meeting the same day with Lord Cherwell, Harry Hopkins said to the Prof: 'Be careful with Cordell Hull. He is very annoyed at Henry Morgenthau's intervention in the plans for the treatment of Germany. He has no doubt at all that you supported Morgenthau because you were anxious to get the Lend-Lease negotiations through.'
> In London, Eden angrily rebuked Churchill for having initialled the agreement. On September 29 a Labour Member of Parliament, Richard Stokes, challenged Eden to tell the truth about the Morgenthau Plan.
> Lord Keynes, British economist, in Washington on Churchill's orders to ask for $6,757m to be allocated to Lend-Lease for Britain in 1945, wrote to London with the inside story of the leak to the newspapers. He thought the Plan might still be implemented. But Roosevelt had already turned his back on the document. Writing to the State Department on October 20, he made clear that he approved the Department's economic plans. Morgenthau continued to campaign for his Plan's acceptance. On October 20th., he lunched with Marineminister James Forrestal and revealed the plan to him.


> Regardless of the Quebec document initialling the Morgenthau Plan, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff had issued to General Eisenhower a wide interim directive on policy towards Germany, on September 17, 1944. The Supreme Commander was to ensure that the Germans realized they would never again be allowed to threaten world peace. 'Your occupation and administration,' the document read, 'will be just but firm and distant. You will strongly discourage fraternization between Allied troops and the German officials and population.' But then more directives were issued as appendices. A Political Directive issued on October 14 stressed the elimination of the German officer corps. 'General Staff officers not taken into custody as prisoners are to be arrested and held, pending receipt of further instructions as to their disposal.'
> That sounded ominous. The appended Economic Directive circulated in October 1944 was very similar to Morgenthau's plan. 'You shall assume such control of existing German industrial, agricultural, utility, communication and transportation facilities, supplies and services as are necessary for the following purposes..' and then continued, 'except for the purposes specified above, you will take no steps looking toward the economic rehabilitation of Germany or designed to maintain or strengthen the German economy except to the extent necessary to accomplish the purposes set out above, the responsibility for such economic problems as price controls, rationing, unemployment, production, reconstruction, distribution, consumption, housing or transportation, will remain with the German people and the German authorities.'
> The proposed Relief Directive was even more stark: 'You will invite the German authorities to maintain or re-establish such health services and facilities as may be available to them under the circumstances. In the event that disease and epidemics should threaten the safety of allied troops or endanger or impede military occupation, you shall take such steps as you deem necessary to protect the health of Allied troops and to eradicate the source of the problem.'
> As the barrage began against him and his Plan, Morgenthau was bitterly critical of the British policy draft, and sent to England a 'Memorandum on the British Draft of Policy Directive on Germany,' dated November 1, 1944. He asked his crony Lord Cherwell to send it to Churchill, who did so, complaining that the British War Office had evidently prepared their very elaborate draft without any guiding principle, whereas the American draft appeared to have been prepared since, and in the light of, the discussions at Quebec. 'Broadly speaking our draft tells the troops to encourage and help the Germans to restore their industry unless this interferes with the war. The U.S. draft says that they should only be helped to restore the industry if this assists us in prosecuting the war.' Cherwell sent this summary to Churchill on November 5.
> Churchill approved, sent a minute to Anthony Eden on November 6: 'I do not remember ever having seen the War Office draft and certainly Mr Morgenthau's criticisms of it seem very cogent. This matter requires immediate reconsideration first by you and then by the War Cabinet. WSC 6.11.1944.' Across one corner of Churchill's letter.
> Anthony Eden wrote to his permanent secretary, Sir Alexander Cadogan, on November 7, 1944: 'I don't think I ever read any draft. At the same time I cannot see that this is any business of Mr Morgenthau's, still less Lord Cherwell's & should like to say so. Would you please go into the matter for me? A.E. Nov 7.'


> Rejoicing at the chance, Eden's staff drafted a lengthy, rough-tongued reply to go jointly from the Foreign Office (Eden) and the War office (Sir James Grigg) and Mr Churchill. Eden approved the draft, writing in a handwritten memo: 'I have never read the documents and I hope that they deserve this stalwart defence. Anyhow it is well stated & Morgenthau's interference is a piece of gratuitous impertinence. These ex-Germans seem to wish to wash away their ancestry in a bath of hate. A.E. Nov 19.'
> The British government retained its logical approach to the German occupation problem. On November 20 the War Cabinet circulated the E.I.P.S. re- draft of the economic and relief directives. Characteristic of the British attitude was the paragraph ordering Eisenhower, after closing down the munitions factories, to 'ensure that the other utilities are restored to full working order and that coalmines and are maintained in working condition and in full operation so far as transport will permit.'
> Mr Roosevelt's metamorphosis was now complete. When the British Minister of State had lunch with President Roosevelt on December 22, 1944, Roosevelt told him he was quite sure 'that it was most unwise to attempt to come now to any long term decisions about Germany,' since it would be folly to commit themselves to plans which might be found to be inappropriate when they arrived. F.K. Roberts, head of the F.O.'s Central Europe department, minuted on his copy, 'This surely marks a considerable retreat on the part of the President from the Morgenthau Plan of forcible dismemberment.'

> By January 1945 there still seemed little doubt in SHAEF's mind that entire classes of German captives were to be shot out of hand. SHAEF's views as formulated in a report of its Psychological Warfare Division were hotly discussed in Washington. There was little doubt why the new plan proposed to differentiate between the German people and the members of their government, High Command, and Nazi Party on the other. Marineminister Forrestal objected. 'The American people,' he wrote in his diary on Janury 16, 1945, 'would not support mass murder of Germans, their enslavement, or the industrial devastation of the country.'
> Churchill continued to argue for liquidation of the enemy leaders.
> At Yalta, Admiral Leahy noted in his diary on February 9, that 'The Prime Minister.. expressed an opinion that the 'Great War Criminals' should be executed without formal individual trials.' Again Stalin blocked this proposal, and Truman would later strongly adopt the same position, that a trial was vital.
> 'The British,' summarized Stimson in his diary one weekend (April 27-29) 'have to my utmost astonishment popped out for what they call political action which is merely a euphemistic name for lynchlaw, and they propose to execute these men without a trial.. Fortunately the Russians and the French are on our side.'
> Morgenthau continued to peddle his plan around Washington. He visited Roosevelt on the day before the president died, and again badgered him to adopt the plan. On the day the war ended, May 8, 1945, Morgenthau would resume his vicious campaign for the starvation of central Europe, this time with Harry S. Truman. He telephoned Henry Stimson, lunching at home, and complained that the Coordinating Committee was not carrying out his 'scorched earth' policy as hard as he wanted, particularly as related to the destruction of all oil and gasoline and the plants for making them in Germany, and Directive 1067 that ordained this. Except for the purpose of facilitating the occupation, JCS.1067 defined, 'you [Eisenhower] will take no steps looking toward the economic rehabilitation of Germany nor designed to maintain or strengthen the German economy.'
> The U.S. army was protesting this senseless order. But Morgenthau wanted his evil will performed. Stimson privately dictated next day, 'I foresee hideous results from his influence in the near future.' In a memorandum to Mr. Truman dated May 16, Stimson outlined the probable consequences of such pestilence and famine in central Europe'political revolution and Communistic infiltration.' And he added a warning against the emotional plans to punish every German by starvation: 'The eighty million Germans and Austrians in central Europe today necessarily swing the balance of that continent.'

Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin: A Dialogue Between Adolf Hitler and Me... http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/Bolshevism_From_Moses_to_Lenin.pdf

John F. Kennedy Even Knew The Truth And Warned US All

ACTUAL QUOTE “Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived… he had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him. He had in him the stuff of which legends are made” - John F. Kennedy,President of the United States of America

They say "the winner's write history," and it is absolutely true; the most egregious example in modern times has to be the mainstream (mis)understanding of Adolf Hitler and pre-WWII Germany.

Adolf Hitler was actually a vegetarian, animal-lover, an author, an artist, a political activist, economic reformer and nominated for a Nobel Peace prize.  He enacted the world's first anti-animal cruelty, anti-pollution and anti-smoking laws.  Unlike the demonic portrait that history has painted of him, Hitler was beloved by his people and he wanted nothing but peace.

After WWI in 1919 the Internationalist League of Nations Treaty of Versailles enforced draconian reparation taxes on Germany so ridiculous that US President Woodrow Wilson said, "If I was a German I should think I would never sign it."  British Prime Minister David Lloyd George said, "We have written a document that guarantees war in 20 years … When you place conditions on a people [Germany] that it cannot possibly keep, you force it to either breech the agreement or to war."

The next year, in 1920 Jewish international bankers (many of them the same involved in creating the League of Nations and the Federal Reserve) began giving big interest-bearing loans to Germany.

By 1923 Germany was already going bankrupt to the Jewish financiers and couldn't continue paying the 270 billion Reichmark war reparations.  Unable to even buy back their own coal from the "allies," factories began closing and thousands of Germans became unemployed.  In 1924 as revenge for Germany stopping payment to the Jewish international banksters, they devalued the Papiermark so sharply that within months millions of German families couldn't afford food or rent.  It took a wheelbarrow full of Paper marks to buy a loaf of bread; thousands of Germans died of starvation.

Stalin and the Jewish Bolsheviks were building concentration camps during this time, using Poland and other neighboring countries as a satellite to attack and takeover German soil.

This was the pretext for Hitler's rise to power.  From 1933-1940 Hitler tried repeatedly to make peace with the Jews and "allied" forces even calling for complete disarmament on everyone's part.  He was nominated for the Nobel peace prize in 1939, the very year he was attacked on his own soil after repeatedly pleading for peaceful solutions.  In 1936 99% of German registered voters went out to vote and 98.8% voted for Hitler.

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America,

The website here has great information  and a I recommend you have a look

The Zionists Jewish media has ever since painted an evil picture of Hitler and the Jew World Order has even enacted laws in 18 European countries prohibiting free-speech on the issues of Judaism and the Holocaust.  Please read Why the Holocaust Denial? and watch the following videos to see how you have been lied to about one of the most significant men in modern history.

So when you see the news propaganda  has been controlled by them and there cronies for a long time.

Remember that the Zoinsts Jewish Bolsheviks (Stalin ,Eisenhower Roosevelt and Churchill killed 65 MILLION PEOPLE)

Hitlers only entered Poland to stop the Genocide with much diplomacy before invading Poland to save 3 million people from death..the was never published

The propaganda from the Zionists had there plans to destroy Hitler as he would not play ball with them and they have been doing this for many years.

Hitler removed the Banking mafia from Germany and this put a huge scare into Zionists  fiat dollar and they knew if they let Germany continue other nations would follow suit and there empire would be finished, They staged a propaganda war and started WW2.

Zionist Rothschild and other members of the Banking Cartel who did loan Germany to assist in Finical aid to rebuild Germany wanted more then to rebuild they wanted to financially enslave Germany in debt like they have done to so many nations.

Hitler realized this and started Germany's own monetary system. John F Kennedy did the same thing and murdered these Zionists have much power.

THE BRUTAL MURDER of Muammar Gaddafi by Zionist-owned Libyan insurgents is an example of what happens to political leaders who defy international Jewish bankers.

Gaddafi refused to do the bidding of the Rothschild-centered global banking cartel in 5 areas:

• A Gaddafi-Centered African Union With A Common Currency
• A Gaddafi-Run Central Bank Of Libya
• A Gaddafi-Holding Of 150 Tons Of Gold
• A Gaddafi-Run Libyan Oil Industry
• A Gaddafi-Run ‘Blue-Gold’ Water Reserves

Gaddafi’s main threat to International Jewry’s Banking Cartel was his plan for a common African currency—the gold-backed Libyan dinar—which would have replaced the all fiat-issued US dollar, British pound, and French franc as the main currencies in Africa.

Jewish banking interests were clearly at stake as the US dollar is maintained by the Jewish-run Federal Reserve Bank; the British pound by the Jewish-run Central Bank of England; and the French franc by the Jewish-run Banque de France.

Is it any surprise then that the three major invaders of Libya — America, England, and France — whose Zionist-bought leaders: Obama, Cameron, & Sarkozy, are praising the brutal and slow murder of Libyan chief, Muammar Gaddafi?

JFK instituted measures that would cripple World Zionism and its global cycle of war, financial crises, militarism, inflation, depressions, and usurious debt, all outlined in the Protocols.

First, JFK ordered the Vietnam War stopped and the troops brought home. Vietnam was the latest Oil War. Who owns World Oil? The Rothschilds. They "own" Yukos Oil in Russia and "own" the Rockefellers in America. Do they also "own" the Saudis?

Second, JFK was going to wind down the Arms Race and seek world peace. The trillions spent for "Defense" was never for the defense of America but for an arsenal to enable World Zionism to impose its Capitalism on the rest of the world.

Third, JFK ordered the Treasury to print US currency instead of the Rothschild Federal Reserve Notes supported by the Rothschild illegal income tax. The US bonds, held by the Fed for our Fed currency, pay many billions in interest annually to World Zionism. With a "stroke of the pen" JFK would cost them trillions as well as their domination of global money and finances through debt and speculation

Fourth, JFK intruded on the wage price spiral in the steel industry in favor of labor. The corporate stock of US Steel plummeted, a bad omen for Capitalism

Fifth, JFK would not give nuclear weapons to Israel. Jews invented these inhuman weapons in America and Israel could not have them for its global terrorism. This was unacceptable! Ben Gurion resigned.

Sixth, JFK was going to dismantle the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA with Mossad are essential for World Zionism's global terrorism.

Seventh, JFK stood in the way of a Zionist puppet in the White House, Lyndon Johnson, who gave up a most powerful position for an office described as "not worth a bucket of pee pee" and as the "gofer" of a man he detested. This decision only made sense three years later.

After JFK, the White House surrendered America to World Zionism. Johnson cancelled all of JFK's anti-Zionist measures, the Arms Race resumed, the Vietnam War was escalated, war debt and interest skyrocketed, nuclear weaponry given to Israel,

Henry Jackson in the Senate made Zionist policy Washington policy, the crew of the USS Liberty was murdered by Israel without a murmur, Treasury currency was withdrawn and interest payments to World Zionism increased, and the "flyspeck in the desert" soared from protectorate to partner to patriarch of Washington.

A few years later, Zionism cost the American people their standard of living by the oil embargo for Washington's subservience to World Zionism. On Memorial Day, let US remember that Washington's War Memorial for millions of veterans was an afterthought to a Museum for a Zionist Myth. The veterans were really "serving" World Zionism

Lyndon Johnson, George Bush and Nelson Rockefeller as well as Mossad, CIA and Mafia in the murder of JFK. The common denominator is World Zionism. There are connections. Who else could join them in a single enterprise? The Warren Commission was suggested by a Zionist, conducted by a Zionist, and its finding validated and promulgated by Zionists and the Zionist press. It was a Zionist hoax like September 11.

It operates through governments like England, Israel and Washington and global corporations, financial and banking conglomerates, international financiers, and secretly interlinked organizations, institutions, "philanthropies", foundations, fronts, and factions with enormous amounts of money at their disposal.

Zionism, by its monopolies, frauds, gouging, usury, speculation, bankruptcies and tax evasion, is amassing the wealth of the whole world

We have a quisling government in America. Washington is the slave of World Zionism just as predicted in the Protocols.

 The American people have been conditioned for decades to submissiveness, like Pavlov's dogs, by the Zionist media and its subliminal messages.

The New York metropolitan area (25 millions) is overwhelmed by the Zionist media and its continuous lies and propaganda about war and terrorism.

More history not publicized both sides of the war were financed by the Rothschild Banking Empire which has financed both sides of most wars,and Prescott Bush. G.W.Bush's Father was charged and fined Millions for being the financial front man for the Zionists agenda.

The Bush family still own half of I.G.Farben. The chemical company that has now spread through the entire medical and agricultural industry.

OTHER LOSSES - Die sonstigen Verluste Die verschwiegene Geschichte Deutschlands nach 1945 https://vimeo.com/169230748

James Bacque - WWII, Hidden history and Other Losses .... ttps://youtu.be/_RzFgopQA6A

Had Hitler won World War II, what would be different in the post-war world?

Here are a few examples:


1 – No USSR (the Soviet government murdered millions of its own people during its 70 year reign — to study this topic read the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; Hitler would have liberated the USSR, though taking large parts of its Western region for lebensraum, “living space”)


2 – No cold war (because there would be no USSR)


3 – No Communist Eastern Europe/Iron Curtain (when WWII ended, Eastern Europe fell to Communism — this was part of Stalin’s spoils of war)


4 – No Red China and Mao’s subsequent killing of 40 – 60 million Chinese (the USSR created favorable conditions for Mao’s Communists which ultimately led to Mao’s victory over Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalists in 1949, thus if no USSR, no Mao victory)


5 – No Communist North Vietnam (both the Soviet Union and Red China aided Ho Chi Minh)


6 – No Communist Cambodia and Pol Pot’s slaughter of 2 million Cambodians (Red China aided Pol Pot)


7 – No dividing Korea into North Korea and South Korea (the Allies split Korea after WWII ended, with North Korea becoming Communist… another of Stalin’s spoils of war)


8 – No Communist Cuba (given the previous, what support would Castro have had in the 1950’s?)


9 – No Communism anywhere (Hitler was the world’s most fervent anti-Communist)


10 – Liberalism and multiculturalism wouldn’t dominate Western ethos (both are Jewish creations and both have always been heavily promoted/advanced by Jews; thus if no Jewish influence, then no liberalism and no multiculturalism… at least certainly nowhere near the degree we see today)


11 – No Cultural Marxism and no political correctness (these are social engineering “tools” which came out of the Jewish think tank known as the Frankfurt School)


12 – No third world immigration into Western nations (Jews wouldn’t be in power positions to craft and force through liberal immigration laws; Jews are responsible for each and every Western nation’s liberal immigration policy/laws, as all were orchestrated by a consortium consisting of the World Jewish Congress, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and B’nai B’rith)


13 – No depraved filth on TV, in movies, etc. (because Jews wouldn’t run Hollywood)


14 – No widespread pornography (Jewish lawyers and Jewish activists were the main challengers of anti-obscenity laws, under the guise of “Freedom of Speech”)


15 – There would still be prayer in public schools (Jewish lawyers were instrumental in banning prayer in public schools under the guise of so-called “separation of church and state,” something that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution)


16 – No man-hating radical feminist movement (Jews such as Betty Friedan, Sonia Pressman, and Gloria Steinem, among others, were the key drivers of radical feminism)


17 – No Israel and all the problems it has brought the USA and the immeasurable misery it has wrought on the Palestinians


18 – Jews would be living in Madagascar (perhaps) and would be carefully monitored (Madagascar was one place Hitler considered as a Jewish homeland)


Many reading this will ask, “But what about the Holocaust?” The Holocaust has been grossly exaggerated by organized Jewry in order to create sympathy for Jews worldwide and thus help advance the Jewish agenda (i.e., people seen as victims tend to get their way). It is also used as a political weapon to justify Israeli militarism against the Palestinians. Hitler’s Final Solution (rebranded in the early 1970’s as the “Holocaust”) was a plan to remove Jews from Europe, not to kill them. During WWII, just as the U.S. couldn’t trust Japanese Americans, thus causing FDR to round many of them up and place them in concentration camps, Hitler couldn’t trust Jews since many were partisans sympathetic to the USSR and hence they aided the USSR in various subversive, anti-German activities. Therefore the National Socialists rounded up Jews and placed them in concentration camps.


Somewhere around one million Jews died during WWII (not six million) mostly due to disease and starvation in the final months of the war. Heavy Allied bombing of Germany and parts of German occupied Europe destroyed many roads, rail lines, and bridges making it impossible for Germany to adequately supply the camps with food and medicine. The result is that many Jews died of starvation and disease; and of course many non-Jews also died of starvation and disease (again, due to a massive Allied bombing campaign and its destruction of German transportation infrastructure). Lastly, there were no “gas chambers.” Much has been written about this. To study the “gas chamber” subject, read the research papers published by Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno (there are many others as well). To get a broad overview of the Holocaust, read my article, What Was The Holocaust… What Actually Happened?


It should also be noted that Hitler never wanted to “conquer the world.” He simply wanted to safeguard Europe and the greater Western World from all manner of nefarious Jewish influence and, more broadly, safeguard the world-at-large specifically from, 1) usurious Jewish banking and, 2) Jewish-driven cultural degradation.


As previously stated, the Allied heads-of-State (Roosevelt, Churchill, et al) were puppets of International Jewry; each sold his soul for power and prestige. Again, as earlier stated, World War II was a war between two competing ideologies: Nationalism -vs- Jewish Bolshevik internationalism/globalism — unfortunately International Jewry won.


Was World War II “the good war” as is often claimed? No, it was exactly the opposite. The Allied victory marked the beginning of the end of Western Civilization.


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 national community.


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.




As witnesses:










                                                                                                                                                                                               __________________________________________And From The "FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH " File_____________________________________________________________



                                            How a Trove of Nazi Art Wound Up Under Lock and Key on an Army Base in Virginia

The 70-year odyssey of a collection that few want and even fewer get to see.

Sarah Forgey and I had been talking for a couple of minutes before I noticed we were standing next to Adolf Hitler. The three of us—the three-foot-high head of the Nazi dictator, the curator of the Army’s German art collection, and I—were near an enormous 1941 Hans Schmitz-Wiedenbrück painting of Wehrmacht soldiers standing heroically in the wind. Forgey and I were discussing how the Nazis used art as propaganda. The imposingly big Hitler bust, meanwhile, was bound onto a rough pine frame by some buff-colored straps, cushioned by foam. Tied up like this, the Führer seemed less than menacing. Still, you don’t really ever expect to find yourself staring at a larger-than-life sculpture of one of history’s worst mass murderers. Certainly not in an Army base off Route 1 in Woodbridge, not far from a Wegmans.


How did the Nazis’ art wind up in Virginia? It involves soldiers, lawyers, and an Indiana Jones-like professor.


This particular bust came into Uncle Sam’s possession seven decades ago. At the end of World War II, Allied soldiers seized it from the Eagle’s Nest, the Führer’s Austrian mountaintop redoubt. It was more than a simple piece of war booty. Seventy-two years after V-E Day, the Army still owns the statue as well as hundreds of other pieces of German propaganda and wartime art—all of which reside on post at Fort Belvoir. The collection includes four watercolor paintings by Hitler himself. They’re under lock and key in a flat file inside a vault.


It’s not easy to get to the Army’s Nazi-art stash. My visit took months to arrange. The Center of Military History, which oversees the Army’s art collection, does little to publicize the Nazi pieces in its possession. They’ve been loaned out only twice in the last decade. When I made this trip and finally got to the massive room that holds the artwork, an Army communications officer joked, “The Ark of the Covenant is just down there.”


Given concerns about the resurgence of far-right groups in America, the military has some reason to keep these relics of the Third Reich hidden. “There’s a very narrow line that we have to walk,” says Forgey, “because we certainly don’t want it to be a rallying point for Nazism.” Yet the roughly 600 objects housed at Fort Belvoir also provide revealing glimpses at the rise of fascism, and its folly, that have rarely seemed more relevant on this side of the Atlantic.


For all the civics-class implications, however, the story of how a cache of Nazi propaganda wound up in a Woodbridge warehouse also involves some adventure, some bureaucracy, some litigation, and some unlikely characters. It begins with a real-life Indiana Jones, a professor from Oregon who did such a thorough job of stripping Germany of propaganda after World War II that the United States has spent decades wrestling with a collection of art that few want and even fewer ever get to see.


The Army’s German collection includes four “creepy” watercolors under lock and key. The artist: Adolf Hitler.
The Army’s German collection includes four “creepy” watercolors under lock and key. The artist: Adolf Hitler.

Gordon Gilkey spent much of the Second World War trying to get himself into a position to protect Europe’s treasures. The son of an Oregon rancher, he paid for his undergraduate art education by clearing land for a dollar a day. Gilkey established a relationship with Franklin D. Roosevelt after the President liked some fine-art prints Gilkey had made of the 1939 World’s Fair. After the outbreak of World War II, he lobbied Roosevelt to deploy art experts to save the continent’s masterpieces. “There should be knowledgeable people along with the troops to tell them what not to blow up,” he told FDR, according to an oral history Gilkey recorded in 1980.


“There’s a very narrow line we have to walk,” says curator Sarah Forgey. “We certainly don’t want it to be a rallying point for Nazism.”


In 1943, Roosevelt established the American Commission for the Protection and Salvage of Artistic and Historic Monuments in War Areas, with Supreme Court justice Owen J. Roberts as its chair. Some of the US art world’s most notable figures joined the commission, including Paul Sachs of the Fogg Museum at Harvard and David Finley Jr., director of the National Gallery of Art.


The commission assembled a team of Arts and Monuments officers, known as “Monuments Men,” who raced around Europe, liberating artwork the Nazis had stolen from Jewish families, churches, and museums (and laying the groundwork for a George Clooney movie 70 years in the future). Lacking the educational pedigree typical of that team, Gilkey was stuck in Texas, teaching navigation for the Army Air Corps as head of a maps, charts, and aerial-photographs division at Ellington Field.


Undeterred, Gilkey eventually got himself assigned instead to the Chief Military Historian’s office in the US European command. At war’s end, he finally got an art project of his own. He was charged with carrying out a pledge made by FDR at the Yalta Conference in early 1945: “remove all Nazi and militarist influences from public office and from the cultural and economic life of the German people.” Gilkey’s job was to oversee the seizure and removal of all militaristic artwork in defeated Germany.


Visual propaganda was central to Hitler’s rise. He had served in the German Army in World War I, and his first assignment afterward was as a propagandist. Hitler instinctively understood the appeal to the emotions of a bewildered German people whose self-image had almost collapsed in the disastrous period after that war. As he ascended to power, he advertised his National Socialist German Workers’ Party with attention-grabbing posters and symbols that forged links with the past greatness he argued Germany had lost.


Gordon Gilkey, shown in 1985, convinced the Army to let him lead a unit to track down Nazi art in sites from Bavarian mountain redoubts to watering holes in Austria. Photograph by Marian Wood Kolisch.
Gordon Gilkey, shown in 1985, convinced the Army to let him lead a unit to track down Nazi art in sites from Bavarian mountain redoubts to watering holes in Austria. Photograph by Marian Wood Kolisch.

As its leader, Hitler ordered the creation of a corps of artists to document the country’s military exploits. They made field sketches of German troops in action and later turned them into paintings, which were then sold to high-ranking officers and displayed in military-run museums and casinos. Other paintings depicted Hitler as half man, half god, often with medieval overtones. He bought some of the works himself, including a gigantic oil painting by Emil Scheibe that showed soldiers mobbing him at the frontlines.


As the Nazi dream crumbled in the Götterdämmerung of 1945, many of the owners of this artwork began to hide it, a logical response to the uncertainty sweeping Germany as its once-fearsome army retreated. If Hitler somehow prevailed, one could claim he was keeping the works safe from invading troops. If Germany lost, these advertisements for the old regime would at least be difficult to find.


An old man in an apron answered the door at Schloss Ringberg when Captain Gordon Gilkey knocked in 1947. His name was Wilhelm Luitpold von Bayern, and despite being dressed like a servant, he was the prince regent of Bavaria. The prince had been polishing his collection of toy cannons when the US Army appeared. Gilkey advised him he was there to inspect a collection of war art he’d heard was in the castle. The prince let him in and—after Gilkey determined that the art had indeed been previously held by a Luftwaffe command—supervised as soldiers loaded the paintings onto trucks.


This was a relatively easy transaction. The soldiers “must be thirsty,” the prince said when they were done, and he summoned the castle’s artist in residence with a handclap, then poured them all beer from a tap on the castle’s wall.


Other Gilkey capers weren’t so frictionless. Once, after he traced some of Hitler’s own collection of war art to a bar in St. Agatha, Austria, the manager refused him entry. Gilkey’s companion, an Army captain from Texas, threatened to shoot down the door—as well as the manager if she stood in their way much longer. The conductor of the Vienna Symphony Orchestra happened by, intervened, and finessed the situation. (Not only did the Army get the paintings, but the Texan got a date with the conductor’s daughter.)


Fort Belvoir’s three-foot bust of Hitler, one of the more dramatic pieces that the US Army requisitioned as the Third Reich fell.
Fort Belvoir’s three-foot bust of Hitler, one of the more dramatic pieces that the US Army requisitioned as the Third Reich fell.

During his assignment, Gilkey found war paintings hidden in salt bins at Bad Aussee, Austria, where Hitler and his cronies had also stored famous works stolen from all over Europe. He turned up works in a train bound for Berlin that American planes had strafed but miraculously hadn’t burned. He found a stash in a woodcutter’s hut near the Czechoslovakian border. In that case, the paintings were hidden under floorboards in the attic. They’d nearly been torched when, two days before Germany surrendered, some Luftwaffe men holed up there with “food, drinks, and fräuleins,” as Gilkey described in a 1947 report. It would have been a self-inflicted wound by the Germans: Some SS men who’d been among Hitler’s personal bodyguards happened upon the party and, convinced they’d come across American troops, began shooting. “A battle of mutual extermination resulted before the error was discovered,” Gilkey wrote.


When he got there, the artworks were mildewed and a family of mice had moved in and “eaten the ends off many pictures,” leaving them with “an uneven deckle edge.” Gilkey oversaw the restoration before crating them for shipment to the US. He affixed a label to the back of each work and initialed every one.


All in all, Gilkey’s team wound up confiscating 8,722 pieces of art. But whereas the higher-ups who had blessed the mission might have imagined that the haul would be entirely made up of master-race propaganda and fascist hate-mongering, the crates that were shipped back to Washington in March 1947 contained an awful lot of relatively anodyne stuff—so anodyne, in fact, that Gilkey was willing to hold a small exhibition in US-occupied Frankfurt just before packing the stuff up. So anodyne that, inevitably, the owners and artists were unafraid to say they wanted them back.


The debate over what to do with Gilkey’s haul was just getting started. But as the decades progressed, the debate would encompass not just the accidentally confiscated still-lifes but the fascist core of the collection, too.


It was money—the need to eke out a living in war-ravaged Germany—that led to the first pleas. Artists and their families, desperate for cash, petitioned the US government for the return of individual works. One of them, Herbert Agricola, copped to having painted some militaristic art, including depictions of hangings, but noted that he also had painted landscapes and portraits.


“I think there must be a way to select at least the number of paintings which do not show any military stuff,” he wrote in 1948, saying he was “in a real bad situation now.”


Eve Zimmerman, widow of the deceased graphic artist Bodo Zimmerman, wrote that she had “only a little hope” of receiving her husband’s works, which if returned would not only help the family stave off financial ruin but also would “tear him away from oblivion.”


In 1950, the US returned 1,659 pieces to West Germany that it deemed neither militaristic nor political. But there was a problem: The country didn’t want them. The postwar government “didn’t want to have anything to do with the Nazi programs of World War II,” wrote art historian Bess Hormats, who was acting curator of the Army’s art collection. So even after being shipped, the repatriated artwork languished in a warehouse in Bonn until the late 1970s, after a German TV documentary and symposium generated public pressure on the West German government to bring the works home.


By that point, historians were wondering whether even overtly fascist works were all that harmful. In a 1978 Washington Post article, Hormats wrote, “The relatively few works which can be considered Nazi propaganda paintings, only one generation after they were created for the Thousand Year Reich, appear so pompous and ludicrous that they are laughable to all but the lunatic fringe.”


American politicians largely accepted Hormats’s assessment. In 1981, Congressman G. William Whitehurst of Virginia introduced legislation to repatriate all of the German art in US possession. President Ronald Reagan signed the bill the next year.


Still, not all of the art went back. The Army decided that while a lot could go, pieces showing swastikas or celebrations of dead Nazi leaders would have to remain. Much of the collection ended up at Berlin’s Deutsches Historisches Museum. The US kept 586 pieces of the most heinous stuff. But just because it was heinous didn’t mean no one wanted it. Thus a rich Texan named Billy F. Price introduced a new problem.


Price had become rich manufacturing compressors in Houston, a career that allowed him to indulge a fascination in Hitler’s paintings. He self-published a survey of the dictator’s paintings called Adolf Hitler: The Unknown Artist. He also befriended the heirs of Hitler’s photographer, Heinrich Hoffman, who accused the US of wrongly seizing not only Hoffman’s photographic collection—some of which ended up in the National Archives—but also four paintings by Hitler that Hoffman said he’d purchased himself or had been given as gifts. Hoffman died in 1957, and in 1982 Price sued the government, saying he’d bought the rights to these works from Hoffman’s heirs and would like everything back.


Price’s legal theory was “basically that it was stolen,” says Larry Campagna, a Texas lawyer who worked on the case. “It is possible during wartime for an occupying army to make use of your property and sometimes to even requisition your property. If you need somebody’s house, you don’t keep title to the house.” The main argument was, he says, that “it was the family’s property and they never lost title to that.”


Price convinced a Texas district court, which in 1989 ordered the US government to turn over the artworks to Price and to pay a nearly $8-million judgment. The United States appealed. In 2003, a federal judge in DC reversed the ruling and dismissed the case. Price died in 2016. Hitler’s paintings remained in the Army’s hands.


It’s not quite like storming Schloss Ringberg, but getting in to see what remains of the Gilkey collection poses challenges. It involves making your way through a security gate, then driving almost a mile before arriving at what looks like a 1980s elementary school that has possibly the cleanest loading dock in America. This is Fort Belvoir’s state-of-the-art Museum Support Center, where the government houses the artifacts that tell the story of the US Army’s 240-plus years. Visitors to its cavernous interior are brushed by positive-pressure air and illuminated by UV lights that control microbial growth. It holds General John “Blackjack” Pershing’s car, a priceless Revolutionary War flag, some original Norman Rockwells, and Abner Doubleday’s sword. When people from the Smithsonian visit, Sarah Forgey says, “they’re jealous.”


Forgey has worked for the Center of Military History for ten years, the first two as a contractor. She became an expert on the German war art by reading everything she could find about it. But she’s also able to look at the art critically, discussing a question that likely few art historians would prefer to tackle: Was Hitler any good as a painter?


The subject comes up after Forgey sweeps a sheet of foam wrap off a folding table. Underneath are four paintings in gilt frames whose author also created the Holocaust.


In 1950, the U.S. sent back 1,659 pieces it deemed harmless. One problem: The German government didn’t want them.


They’re small. One shows World War I soldiers in a valley. Another shows a Belgian town, around the same time, turned to rubble by artillery. We linger on a painting Hitler made of the courtyard in Munich’s Alter Hof. He portrays it as empty of people, a trickling fountain the only sign it wasn’t abandoned.


“In terms of his draftsmanship, he’s proficient,” Forgey says. “You know, if I took an art class, I’d be happy with the results if I painted that.” But, she says, “I find personally that the more you look at these, the creepier they get.” Perhaps that comes from knowing who painted them, she allows, but “the more I look at this, the less life I see.”


When Hitler depicts humans, they’re tiny, inconsequential, compared with the buildings or landscapes he places them in. Yet neither a tree in the corner nor the water in the fountain shows any “sparkle of life,” Forgey observes. The shadows are pale and play ominously, edging inward from the painting’s edges. “It just looks creepy to me after I’ve been looking at it for a while.”


In 2019, the Army will open the vast National Museum of the United States Army in Fort Belvoir, but it’s unclear whether much of the Nazi collection will see the light of day. Though civilian researchers can ask for a visit, the Army is pretty careful about who’s allowed in, and every now and then it gets an inquiry from someone who “raises a red flag,” Forgey says.


Gilkey died in 2000, having spent a career in academia, rising to dean of liberal arts at Oregon State University, where he donated more than 10,000 prints he’d collected over the years. Forgey says it’s not unthinkable that the Army might at some point show some of the darker works he acquired: “I’ve believed that this material can be interpreted in an educational exhibit, and you know it is for the good of the country that we see it.”


That seems to have been on Gilkey’s mind, too. Even as he swiped paintings from all over the Reich, he was thinking about preserving them, noting in his report that he was thrilled to find art supplies from Hitler’s war-art program for sale in a black market in Passau. “Seldom do retouchers have available the same pigments with which the original paintings were made,” he wrote.


A stamp of authenticity on one of the 8,722 pieces confiscated and catalogued by Gilkey’s men.
A stamp of authenticity on one of the 8,722 pieces confiscated and catalogued by Gilkey’s men.

Even after the army deaccessioned most of the stuff, a good percentage of what remains isn’t, strictly speaking, propaganda but rather wartime scenes that the US kept as part of its “study collection.” As one striking example, Forgey shows me drawings of the Battle of Monte Cassino from Axis and Allied perspectives.


It’s still the propaganda, though, that shows how easily everyday life can turn dark. A chilling Fritz Erler triptych depicts stylized Germans—a farmer, a professional type—among soldiers recast as Roman warriors. The central panel shows a rally with thousands of hands raised in salute to an empty stage bedecked with a Nazi banner. Another work I’d been hoping to see was out for restoration when I visited: a large piece of plywood called “The Standard Bearer” that fashions Hitler as a medieval knight. “This is the heart of Nazi propaganda right here,” Forgey says. At one point, an American GI had made a bayonet hole in Hitler’s face, which Gilkey catalogued as a “Third Army deletion.” Says Forgey: “We consider it to be part of the painting’s history.”


How dangerous is this stuff now? At a time when Richard Spencer led a DC crowd in Nazi salutes while shouting, “Heil, Trump!” and when young men carrying swastika flags swarmed Charlottesville shouting about Jews, it’s not crazy to believe there’s a dangerously enthusiastic audience for these works in real life. Bess Hormats’s Cold War conviction that these pieces were laughable feels a little less persuasive today.


I’m not comfortable with the government deciding to quarantine any expression, but when Nazism—actual Nazism!—is again gaining prominence in the US, you don’t have to stare long at a depiction of Hitler at an early Nazi meeting called “In the Beginning Was the Word” before wondering whether modern-day Germany got it right by banning this garbage. How much smarter are we, really, than the people who followed Hitler into the abyss? As Gilkey wrote in his 1947 report, “German art became a tool to spread the manure of Nazism.”


Back at Fort Belvoir, many of the paintings in the German war-art collection hang on screens that roll out from a large, pergola-like steel frame. They share the rack with the work of American artists who documented military life in its peaceful and most God-awful moments, from a painting of soldiers on leave in an English park to Tom Lea’s “The Price,” which shows a Marine on Peleliu seconds before his death, his left arm, shoulder, and chest pulped by mortar fire. “Our artists were given an astounding degree of autonomy,” Forgey says.


The German war artists didn’t get that kind of freedom, but glimpses of the real story of the war—events propaganda could never accurately portray—managed to sneak in past the censors’ eyes. One canvas shows soldiers in a trench holding grenades, unsure of what fate would greet them over the top. Another depicts a miserable march through a winter landscape with a dead horse mostly out of the frame.


Time has made some of the works’ own history even harder to see. That Hitler bust has a dent in it from when it fell and ever-fainter wax marks from boots where US soldiers kicked it. Using a black light, you can see an obscene drawing on one side of his head. On the other, a soldier wrote: “FOOL.”


This article appears in the November 2017 issue of Washingtonian.