World War II German 'Eastern Campaign' Song
"From Finland to the Black Sea" is a stirring wartime song that was commissioned for the military campaign by Germany and allied nations against the Soviet Union. Also known as the "Russia Song" and "Forwards to the East," it was first broadcast in June 1941 a few days after the beginning of "Operation Barbarossa," the greatest military strike in history. Composed by Norbert Schultze, it was commissioned by Reich Minister Goebbels. Color footage of combat accompanies the music. Runtime: 4:12 mins.
A Straight Look at the Second World War
A great war leaves the country with three armies - an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves.
A link to a video of these Hitler Speeches: https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=DNUADN8MHWHY
Schadewaldt Hans - The Polish Atrocities against the German Minority in Poland. http://www.balderexlibris.com/index.php?post/Schadewaldt-Hans-The-Polish-Atrocities-against-the-German-Minority-in-Poland
According to our mainstream history books, “the Good Guys” banded together to stop the worst scourge in global history.
There is just one problem with this official version of the history-changing
event known as World War II. It’s a lie!
Why, and for whom, were the 20th century’s worldwide wars actually waged?
Roosevelt Conspired to Start World War II in Europe
We Elected Their Nemesis ... But He Was Ours
Establishment historians claim that U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt never wanted war and made every reasonable effort to prevent war. This article will show that contrary to what establishment historians claim, Franklin Roosevelt and his administration wanted war and made every effort to instigate World War II in Europe.
THE SECRET POLISH DOCUMENTS
The Germans seized a mass of documents from the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs when they invaded Warsaw in late September 1939. The documents were seized when a German SS brigade led by Freiherr von Kuensberg captured the center of Warsaw ahead of the regular German army. Von Kuensberg’s men took control of the Polish Foreign Ministry just as Ministry officials were in the process of burning incriminating documents. These documents clearly establish Roosevelt’s crucial role in planning and instigating World War II. They also reveal the forces behind President Roosevelt that pushed for war.
Some of the secret Polish documents were first published in the United States as The German White Paper. Probably the most-revealing document in the collection is a secret report dated January 12, 1939 by Jerzy Potocki, the Polish ambassador to the United States. This report discusses the domestic situation in the United States. I quote (a translation of) Ambassador Potocki’s report in full:
On January 16, 1939, Potocki reported to the Warsaw Foreign Ministry a conversation he had with American Ambassador to France William Bullitt. Bullitt was in Washington on a leave of absence from Paris. Potocki reported that Bullitt stated the main objectives of the Roosevelt administration were:
Juliusz (Jules) Łukasiewicz, the Polish ambassador to France, sent a top-secret report from Paris to the Polish Foreign Ministry at the beginning of February 1939. This report outlined the U.S. policy toward Europe as explained to him by William Bullitt:
On March 7, 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent another remarkably perceptive report on Roosevelt’s foreign policy to the Polish government. I quote Potocki’s report in full:
These secret Polish reports were written by top-level Polish ambassadors who were not necessarily friendly to Germany. However, they understood the realities of European politics far better than people who made foreign policy in the United States. The Polish ambassadors realized that behind all of their rhetoric about democracy and human rights, the Jewish leaders in the United States who agitated for war against Germany were deceptively advancing their own interests.
There is no question that the secret documents taken from the Polish Foreign Ministry in Warsaw are authentic. Charles C. Tansill considered the documents genuine and stated, “Some months ago I had a long conversation with M. Lipsky, the Polish ambassador in Berlin in the prewar years, and he assured me that the documents in the German White Paper are authentic.”
William H. Chamberlain wrote, “I have been privately informed by an extremely reliable source that Potocki, now residing in South America, confirmed the accuracy of the documents, so far as he was concerned.” Historian Harry Elmer Barnes also stated, “Both Professor Tansill and myself have independently established the thorough authenticity of these documents.”
Edward Raczyński, the Polish ambassador to London from 1934 to 1945, confirmed in his diary the authenticity of the Polish documents. He wrote in his entry on June 20, 1940: “The Germans published in April a White Book containing documents from the archives of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, consisting of reports from Potocki from Washington, Łukasiewicz in Paris and myself. I do not know where they found them, since we were told that the archives had been destroyed. The documents are certainly genuine, and the facsimiles show that for the most part the Germans got hold of the originals and not merely copies.”
The official papers and memoirs of Juliusz Łukasiewicz published in 1970 in the book Diplomat in Paris 1936-1939 reconfirmed the authenticity of the Polish documents. Łukasiewicz was the Polish ambassador to Paris, who authored several of the secret Polish documents. The collection was edited by Wacław Jędrzejewicz, a former Polish diplomat and cabinet member. Jędrzejewicz considered the documents made public by the Germans absolutely genuine, and quoted from several of them.
Tyler G. Kent, who worked at the U.S. Embassy in London in 1939 and 1940, has also confirmed the authenticity of the secret Polish documents. Kent says that he saw copies of U.S. diplomatic messages in the files which corresponded to the Polish documents. 
The German Foreign Office published the Polish documents on March 29, 1940. The Reich Ministry of Propaganda released the documents to strengthen the case of the American isolationists and to prove the degree of America’s responsibility for the outbreak of war. In Berlin, journalists from around the world were permitted to examine the original documents themselves, along with a large number of other documents from the Polish Foreign Ministry. The release of the documents caused an international media sensation. American newspapers published lengthy excerpts from the documents and gave the story large front-page headline coverage.
However, the impact of the released documents was far less than the German government had hoped for. Leading U.S. government officials emphatically denounced the documents as not being authentic. William Bullitt, who was especially incriminated by the documents, stated, “I have never made to anyone the statements attributed to me.” Secretary of State Cordell Hull denounced the documents: “I may say most emphatically that neither I nor any of my associates in the Department of State have ever heard of any such conversations as those alleged, nor do we give them the slightest credence. The statements alleged have not represented in any way at any time the thought or the policy of the American government.” American newspapers stressed these high-level denials in reporting the release of the Polish documents.
These categorical denials by high-level U.S. government officials almost completely eliminated the effect of the secret Polish documents. The vast majority of the American people in 1940 trusted their elected political leaders to tell the truth. If the Polish documents were in fact authentic and genuine, this would mean that President Roosevelt and his representatives had lied to the American public, while the German government told the truth. In 1940, this was far more than the trusting American public could accept.
MORE EVIDENCE ROOSEVELT INSTIGATED WORLD WAR II
While the secret Polish documents alone indicate that Roosevelt was preparing the American public for war against Germany, a large amount of complementary evidence confirms the conspiracy reported by the Polish ambassadors. The diary of James V. Forrestal, the first U.S. secretary of defense, also reveals that Roosevelt and his administration helped start World War II. Forrestal’s entry on December 27, 1945 stated:
Joseph Kennedy is known to have had a good memory, and it is highly likely that Kennedy’s statements to James Forrestal are accurate. Forrestal died on May 22, 1949 under suspicious circumstances when he fell from his hospital window.
Sir Ronald Lindsay, the British ambassador to Washington, confirmed Roosevelt’s secret policy to instigate war against Germany with the release of a confidential diplomatic report after the war. The report described a secret meeting on September 18, 1938 between Roosevelt and Ambassador Lindsay. Roosevelt said that if Britain and France were forced into a war against Germany, the United States would ultimately join the war. Roosevelt’s idea to start a war was for Britain and France to impose a blockade against Germany without actually declaring war. The important point was to call it a defensive war based on lofty humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage hostilities with a minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of life and property. The blockade would provoke some kind of German military response, but would free Britain and France from having to declare war. Roosevelt believed he could then convince the American public to support war against Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by insisting that the United States was still neutral in a non-declared conflict.
President Roosevelt told Ambassador Lindsay that if news of their conversation was ever made public, it could mean Roosevelt’s impeachment. What Roosevelt proposed to Lindsay was in effect a scheme to violate the U.S. Constitution by illegally starting a war. For this and other reasons, Ambassador Lindsay stated that during his three years of service in Washington he developed little regard for America’s leaders.
Ambassador Lindsay in a series of final reports also indicated that Roosevelt was delighted at the prospect of a new world war. Roosevelt promised Lindsay that he would delay German ships under false pretenses in a feigned search for arms. This would allow the German ships to be easily seized by the British under circumstances arranged with exactitude between the American and British authorities. Lindsay reported that Roosevelt “spoke in a tone of almost impish glee and though I may be wrong the whole business gave me the impression of resembling a school-boy prank.”
Ambassador Lindsay was personally perturbed that the president of the United States could be gay and joyful about a pending tragedy which seemed so destructive of the hopes of all mankind. It was unfortunate at this important juncture that the United States had a president whose emotions and ideas were regarded by a friendly British ambassador as being childish.
Roosevelt’s desire to support France and England in a war against Germany is discussed in a letter from Verne Marshall, former editor of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, to Charles C. Tansill. The letter stated:
William Phillips, the American ambassador to Italy, also stated in his postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration in late 1938 was committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France. Phillips wrote: “On this and many other occasions, I would have liked to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister] frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my official position, I could not properly make such a statement without instructions from Washington, and these I never received.”
When Anthony Eden returned to England in December 1938, he carried with him an assurance from President Roosevelt that the United States would enter as soon as practicable a European war against Hitler if the occasion arose. This information was obtained by Senator William Borah of Idaho, who was contemplating how and when to give out this information, when he dropped dead in his bathroom. The story was confirmed to historian Harry Elmer Barnes by some of Senator Borah’s closest colleagues at the time.
The American ambassador to Poland, Anthony Drexel Biddle, was an ideological colleague of President Roosevelt and a good friend of William Bullitt. Roosevelt used Biddle to influence the Polish government to refuse to enter into negotiations with Germany. Carl J. Burckhardt, the League of Nations High Commissioner to Danzig, reported in his postwar memoirs on a memorable conversation he had with Biddle. On December 2, 1938, Biddle told Burckhardt with remarkable satisfaction that the Poles were ready to wage war over Danzig. Biddle predicted that in April a new crisis would develop, and that moderate British and French leaders would be influenced by public opinion to support war. Biddle predicted a holy war against Germany would break out.
Bernard Baruch, who was Roosevelt’s chief advisor, scoffed at a statement made on March 10, 1939 by Neville Chamberlain that “the outlook in international affairs is tranquil.” Baruch agreed passionately with Winston Churchill, who had told him: “War is coming very soon. We will be in it and you [the United States] will be in it.”
Georges Bonnet, the French foreign minister in 1939, also confirmed the role of William Bullitt as Roosevelt’s agent in pushing France into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated March 26, 1971, Bonnet wrote, “One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did everything he could to make France enter the war.”
Dr. Edvard Beneš, the former president of Czechoslovakia, wrote in his memoirs that he had a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park with President Roosevelt on May 28, 1939. Roosevelt assured Beneš that the United States would actively intervene on the side of Great Britain and France against Germany in the anticipated European war.
American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, who was the chief European newspaper columnist of the International News Service, met with Ambassador William Bullitt at the U.S. embassy in Paris on April 25, 1939. More than four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt told Wiegand: “War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after Britain and France enter it.” When Wiegand said that in the end Germany would be driven into the arms of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, Ambassador Bullitt replied: “What of it. There will not be enough Germans left when the war is over to be worth Bolshevizing.”
On March 14, 1939, Slovakia dissolved the state of Czechoslovakia by declaring itself an independent republic. Czechoslovakian President Emil Hácha signed a formal agreement the next day with Hitler establishing a German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia, which constituted the Czech portion of the previous entity. The British government initially accepted the new situation, reasoning that Britain’s guarantee of Czechoslovakia given after Munich was rendered void by the internal collapse of that state. It soon became evident after the proclamation of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia that the new regime enjoyed considerable popularity among the people living in it. Also, the danger of a war between the Czechs and the Slovaks had been averted.
However, Bullitt’s response to the creation of the German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia was highly unfavorable. Bullitt telephoned Roosevelt and, in an “almost hysterical” voice, Bullitt urged Roosevelt to make a dramatic denunciation of Germany and to immediately ask Congress to repeal the Neutrality Act.
Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen reported in their nationally syndicated column that on March 16, 1939, President Roosevelt “sent a virtual ultimatum to Chamberlain” demanding that the British government strongly oppose Germany. Pearson and Allen reported that “the President warned that Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued.”
Responding to Roosevelt’s pressure, the next day Chamberlain ended Britain’s policy of cooperation with Germany when he made a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing Hitler. Chamberlain also announced the end of the British “appeasement” policy, stating that from now on Britain would oppose any further territorial moves by Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally committed itself to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.
Roosevelt also attempted to arm Poland so that Poland would be more willing to go to war against Germany. Ambassador Bullitt reported from Paris in a confidential telegram to Washington on April 9, 1939, his conversation with Polish Ambassador Łukasiewicz. Bullitt told Łukasiewicz that although U.S. law prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, the Roosevelt administration might be able to supply warplanes to Poland indirectly through Britain. Bullitt stated: “The Polish ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain financial help and airplanes from the United States. I replied that I believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States to Poland, but added that it might be possible for England to purchase planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to Poland.”
Bullitt also attempted to bypass the Neutrality Act and supply France with airplanes. A secret conference of Ambassador Bullitt with French Premier Daladier and the French minister of aviation, Guy La Chambre, discussed the procurement of airplanes from America for France. Bullitt, who was in frequent telephonic conversation with Roosevelt, suggested a means by which the Neutrality Act could be circumvented in the event of war. Bullitt’s suggestion was to set up assembly plants in Canada, apparently on the assumption that Canada would not be a formal belligerent in the war. Bullitt also arranged for a secret French mission to come to the United States and purchase airplanes in the winter of 1938-1939. The secret purchase of American airplanes by the French leaked out when a French aviator crashed on the West Coast.
On August 23, 1939, Sir Horace Wilson, Chamberlain’s closest advisor, went to American Ambassador Joseph Kennedy with an urgent appeal from Chamberlain to President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally obligated itself to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now turned to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. Kennedy telephoned the State Department and stated: “The British want one thing from us and one thing only, namely that we put pressure on the Poles. They felt that they could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that we could.”
Presented with a possibility to save the peace in Europe, President Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain’s desperate plea out of hand. With Roosevelt’s rejection, Kennedy reported, British Prime Minister Chamberlain lost all hope. Chamberlain stated: “The futility of it all is the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of all Europe.”
U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and his advisers played a crucial role in planning and instigating World War II. This is proven by the secret Polish documents as well as numerous statements from highly positioned, well-known and authoritative Allied leaders who corroborate the contents of the Polish documents.
 Weber, Mark, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, Summer 1983, pp. 136-137, 140.
 Count Jerzy Potocki to Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, The German White Paper: Full Text of the Polish Documents Issued by the Berlin Foreign Office; with a foreword by C. Hartley Grattan, New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, 1940, pp. 29-31.
 Ibid., pp. 32-33.
 Juliusz Lukasiewicz to Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, The German White Paper: Full Text of the Polish Documents Issued by the Berlin Foreign Office; with a foreword by C. Hartley Grattan, New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, 1940, pp. 43-44.
 Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943. Translated into English by Weber, Mark, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 150-152.
 Tansill, Charles C., “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 184 (footnote 292).
 Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, p. 60 (footnote 14).
 Barnes, Harry Elmer, The Court Historians versus Revisionism, N.p.: privately printed, 1952, p. 10.
 Raczynski, Edward, In Allied London, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963, p. 51.
 Weber, Mark, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 142.
 Ibid., pp. 137-139.
 New York Times, March 30, 1940, p. 1.
 Forrestal, James V., The Forrestal Diaries, edited by Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield, New York: Vanguard Press, 1951, pp. 121-122.
 Dispatch No. 349 of Sept. 30, 1938, by Sir Ronald Lindsay, Documents on British Foreign Policy, (ed.). Ernest L. Woodard, Third Series, Vol. VII, London, 1954, pp. 627-629. See also Lash, Joseph P., Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941, New York: Norton, 1976, pp. 25-27.
 Dallek, Robert, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy 1932-1945, New York: Oxford University Press, 1979, pp. 31, 164-165.
 Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 518-519.
 Tansill, Charles C., “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 168.
 Phillips, William, Ventures in Diplomacy, North Beverly, Mass.: privately published, 1952, pp. 220-221.
 Barnes, Harry Elmer, Barnes against the Blackout, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1991, p. 208.
 Burckhardt, Carl, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939, Munich: Callwey, 1960, p. 225.
 Sherwood, Robert E., Roosevelt and Hopkins, an Intimate History, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948, p. 113.
 Fish, Hamilton, FDR The Other Side of the Coin: How We Were Tricked into World War II, New York: Vantage Press, 1976, p. 62.
 Beneš, Edvard, Memoirs of Dr. Edvard Beneš, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954, pp. 79-80.
 “Von Wiegand Says-,” Chicago-Herald American, Oct. 8, 1944, p. 2.
 Chicago-Herald American, April 23, 1944, p. 18.
 Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 250.
 Moffat, Jay P., The Moffat Papers 1919-1943, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956, p. 232.
 Pearson, Drew and Allen, Robert S., “Washington Daily Merry-Go-Round,” Washington Times-Herald, April 14, 1939, p. 16.
 U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I, Washington: 1956, p. 122.
 Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, pp. 101-102.
 Koskoff, David E., Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974, p. 207; see also Taylor, A.J.P., The Origins of the Second World War, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005, p. 272.
Behind the Powers
83% of Americans were against involvement in the European war prior to the trickery at Pearl Harbor. And then...
Kasserine Pass: America's Most Humiliating Defeat of World War II
Michael Peck - The National Interesthttps://nationalinterest.org/blog/kasserine-pass-americas-most-humiliating-defeat-world-war-ii-19574
... The GIs should have remembered what the British had learned the hard way: never underestimate the Germans.
Soon Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, admiringly dubbed the "Desert Fox" by the British, would teach the rookie Americans
a lesson on the art of war at a dusty defile called Kasserine Pass ... Kasserine left a bitter residue that poisoned the
Allied cause for the rest of the war. It confirmed the British in their belief that the Americans were baby soldiers,
soft and spoiled amateurs who needed gentle but firm guidance from their wiser, more experienced English cousins.
German Soldiers of World War II: Why They Were the Best, and Why They Still Lost
The German soldiers of World War II have often been portrayed, both during the war and in the decades since,
as simple-minded, unimaginative and brutish ... As specialists of military history who have looked into the matter
agree, the men of Germany's armed forces -- the Wehrmacht -- performed with unmatched ability and resourcefulness
throughout the nearly six years of conflict ... High-ranking British military figures were similarly impressed with the skill,
tenacity and daring of their adversaries. "Unfortunately we are fighting the best soldiers in the world - what men!,"
exclaimed Lt. Gen. Sir Harold Alexander, commander of the 15th Army Group in Italy, in a March 1944 report to London ...
It was the superiority of numbers that was ultimately decisive.
The Second World War in Europe was a victory of quantity over quality.
Web of Deceit: The Jewish Puppet Masters Behind World War II
CHURCHILL, ROOSEVELT, STALIN (1945)
It was these three powerful individuals, the winners of WWII, who decided to carve up the world between them by manufacturing pretexts for a catastrophic world war that would claim 60-80 million lives, roughly 3 per cent of the world’s population, and reduce Germany to a wasteland of rubble. Behind them, lurking in the shadows, stood their Jewish Puppet Masters, egging them on and telling them exactly what they had to do.
Here are the highly toxic and politically incorrect views of four key diplomats who were close to the events leading up to World War II. Ponder them carefully and ask yourselves: Could they all have been mistaken?
Joseph P. Kennedy, US Ambassador to Britain during the years immediately preceding World War II, was the father of the famous American Kennedy dynasty. James Forrestal, the first US Secretary of Defense (1947-1949), quotes him as saying “Chamberlain [the British Prime Minister] stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.” (The Forrestal Diaries, Cassell 1952, p.129).
Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office in January 1939, is quoted approvingly by the highly respected British military historian Major-General JFC Fuller. Concerning public opinion in America, Count Potocki says:
Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out, found anti-Semitism in Germany “understandable.” This was because before the advent of the Nazis “the stage, the press, medicine and law were crowded with Jews. Among the few with money to splurge, a high proportion were Jews. The leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred.” — Hugh Wilson, American diplomat, quoted in Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh, Hodder, 1976.
Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Berlin “said further that the hostile attitude [toward Germany] in Great Britain was the work of Jews, which was what Hitler thought himself.” (AJP Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, Penguin 1987, p. 324).
“One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred.” — Hugh Wilson, American ambassador in Berlin, c.1938
Is this negative attitude toward international Jewry attributable to a groundless antisemitism—to a hatred of Jews for no valid or justifiable reason? A knowledge of the economic background to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding of this complex question.
At the end of the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked into paying massive reparations to France and other economic competitors and former belligerent countries by the terms of the iniquitous Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the meddling of liberal American President Woodrow Wilson, himself acting under Jewish advice. [See Paul Johnson, A History of the Modern World (1983), p.24; and H. Nicholson, Peacemaking, 1919 (1933), pp. 13-16]
Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the Great War of 1914-1918 in spite of the fact that “Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts, though too belated, to avert one.” (Professor Sydney B. Fay, The Origins of the World War (Vol. 2, p. 552).
As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations made by the Versailles Treaty, by 1923 the situation in Germany became desperate. Inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were engaged to print money around the clock. (See this picture). In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar; by 1924, it had become roughly 5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle classes, reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero. (See Arthur Koestler, The God that Failed, p. 28).
According to distinguished British historian Sir Arthur Bryant:
The caption to a famous anti-Semitic German cartoon headed sarcastically “The Land of Freedom”, referring to Germany under the Jewish heel, has a caption in German that translates as: “When one is ruled by the Jews, freedom is only an empty dream.” (See the 1939 cartoon here).
— § —
Strangely enough, a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon’s Hitler, Germans and the “Jewish Question”, essentially confirms what Sir Arthur Bryant says above. Sarah Gordon, incidentally, is Jewish, so this is a rare example of a Jew actually admitting that anti-Semitism could have a rational basis:
Arthur Koestler, also Jewish, confirms the Jewish over-involvement in German publishing:
Edgar Mowrer, Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, wrote an anti-German tract called “Germany Puts the Clock Back”, published as a Penguin Special and reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938. He notes alarmingly:
Sir Arthur Bryant, already quote above, describes throngs of child prostitutes outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. He adds “Most of them—the night clubs and vice resorts—were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years.” (pp. 144-5).
† “Most of the night clubs and vice resorts were owned and managed by Jews.” — St Arthur Bryant, British historian.
† “It’s disgusting how the Jews are taking everything by storm. Even the Rome of Seutonius has never known such orgies as the pervert balls of Berlin.” — Jewish German writer Stefan Zweig.
† “The decay of moral values in all areas of life—the period of deepest German degradation—coincided exactly with the height of Jewish power in Germany.” — Dr Friedrich Karl Wiehe, German historian, in Germany and the Jewish Question.
(Quotes added by LD)
— § —
Douglas Reed, Chief Central European correspondent before WWII for the London Times, was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported:
In Reed’s book Disgrace Abounding (1939), he notes:
Jewish writer Edwin Black gives a similar picture. “In Berlin alone,” he states, “about 75 percent of the attorneys and nearly as many of the doctors were Jewish.” (The Transfer Agreement (1984), p. 58)
“I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes the word JEW in dripping red letters.” — Douglas Reed, 1938. Note that 99 out of 100 shops in the High Street were owned by Jews, and yet Jews made up less than one percent of the population.
To cap it all, Jews were perceived as dangerous enemies of Germany after Samuel Untermeyer, the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation, declared war on Germany on August 6, 1933. (See Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement: the Untold Story of the Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Palestine (1984), pp. 272-277). According to Black, “The one man who most embodied the potential death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermeyer” (p. 369).
This was the culmination of a worldwide boycott of German goods led by international Jewish organizations.
The London Daily Express on March 24, 1933 carried the headline “Judea Declares War on Germany”. The boycott was particularly motivated by the German imposition of the Nuremberg Laws, which ironically were similar in intent and content to the Jewish cultural exclusivism practiced so visibly in present-day Israel. At a single stroke, this headline disproves the lie that Germany initiated World War II. International Jewry is here clearly seen declaring war on Germany as early as 1933. It would take the Jews another six years to cajole their Anglo-American stooges to go to war on their behalf.
Next time you hear anyone claim falsely that “Germany started World War Two”, send them a copy of this headline picture from The Daily Express, dated March 24, 1933:
JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY
History's Little Known Naval Disasters
Institute for Historical Reviewhttp://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n2p22_Weber.html
Many of those who view "Titanic," the blockbuster motion picture, may leave the movie theater believing that the April 15, 1912, sinking of the great British liner, with the loss of 1,523 men, women and children, was history's greatest maritime disaster ... But these disasters are dwarfed by the sinkings of the Wilhelm Gustloff, the General Steuben and the Goya, three German ships crowded with evacuated refugees and wounded soldiers that were struck by Soviet submarines during the final months of the Second World War.
History's Greatest Naval Disasters: The Wilhelm Gustloff, the General Steuben and the Goya
John Ries -- Institute for Historical Reviewhttp://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p371_Ries.html
For many people, the image of a great maritime disaster calls to mind the well-known sinking of the Titanic, which went down in April 1912 after striking an iceberg, taking the lives of 1,503 men, women and children ... Dwarfed by the little-known sinkings of the Wilhelm Gustloff, the General Steuben and the Goya - converted German liners crowded with refugees and wounded soldiers that were sunk by Soviet submarines during the final months of the Second World War. In each case, more lives were lost than in the sinkings of either the Sultana, the Lusitania or the Titanic.
The Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff: Deadliest Sea Disaster
Unsolved Mysteries - Videohttps://youtu.be/lJ0BO0b9Km4
The sinking of the 'Wilhelm Gustloff' is not well known, but this was one of the worst naval disasters in history. This 44-minute documentary tells the story of how this German vessel, packed with women and children refugees, was sunk by a Soviet submarine on Jan. 30, 1945. Estimates of the number of drowning victims run as high as 9,000 -- that is, more than the number of those who died in the Titantic and Lusitania sinkings combined.
Allied Attacks Killed Thousands of Camp Inmates: The 1945 'Cap Arcona' and 'Thielbek' Sinkings
Mark Weber -- Institute for Historical Reviewhttp://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n4p-2_Weber.html
All prisoners of German wartime concentration camps who perished while in German custody are routinely regarded as "victims of Nazism" -- even if they lost their lives as direct or indirect result of Allied policy ... Among the German concentration camp prisoners who perished at Allied hands were some 7,000 inmates who were killed during the war's final week as they were being evacuated in three large German ships that were attacked by British war planes. This little-known tragedy is one of history's greatest maritime disasters.
The Hypocrisy of the Semitic WW2 Historical Narrative:
“Good War . . . Better Peace"
To help create an awakening upon the upcoming 70th Anniversary of the end of the “Good War” and the beginning of the “Good Peace,” Tom Goodrich personally offered the following from his book, Hellstorm—The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947, and details from his next book, he hopes it will make you inspired to stand against the historical lies made against our Germanic folk.
And so, with the once mighty German Army now disarmed and enslaved in May, 1945, and with their leaders either dead or awaiting trial for so-called “war crimes,” the old men, with the others remaining in Eisenhowers death camps. Women and children who remained in the dismembered Reich found themselves utterly at the mercy of the victors, motivated by the Jewish racist broadcasts of Ilya Ehrenburg. Unfortunately for these survivors, never in the history of the world was mercy and humanity in shorter supply and Semitic malice in over-supply.
Soon after the Allied victory in Europe, the purge of Nazi Party members from government, business, industry, science, education, and all other walks of German life commenced (which also included all ordinary folk, who were replaced with the types of proto-multiculturalists who now form todays European governments). While a surprising number of Nazis were allowed—even compelled—to man their posts temporarily to enable a smooth transition, all party members, high and low, the actual ordinary German folk, were sooner or later excised from German daily life. In theory, “de-Nazification” was a simple transplanting of Nazi officials with those of democratic, socialist or communist underpinnings. In practice, the purge became little more than a cloak for a vile, illegal enforcement of rape, torture and death, executed almost exclusively by Jewish Commissars in the East and their relatives in the complicit Western allied forces.
De-Nazification (Re-enforcing Semitic defilement)
Because their knowledge of the language and culture was superb, most of the intelligence officers accompanying US and British forces into the Reich were Jewish refugees who had fled Germany in the late 1930s, after failing to have corrupted Germany in the 1930s, they now had their chance now that the allies had done the fratricidal fighting on their behalf, Jews such as relatives of Ed Milibands family.
Although their American and English “aides” were hardly better, the fact that many of these “39ers” became interrogators, examiners and the rscreeners, with old scores to settle, insured that Nazis— or any German, for that matter—would be put within the malicious, genocidal reach of these fanatical racist Jews. One man opposed to the vengeance-minded program was George Patton: “Evidently the virus started by Morgenthau and [Bernard] Baruch of a Semitic revenge against all Germans is still working ... ,” wrote the general in private. “I am frankly opposed to this war-criminal stuff. It is not cricket and it is Semitic....I can’t see how Americans can sink so low.”
Soon after occupation, all adult Germans were compelled to register at the nearest Allied headquarters and complete a lengthy questionnaire on their past activities. While many nervous citizens were detained then and there, most returned home, convinced that at long last the terrible ordeal was over. For millions, however, the trial had but begun.
“Then it started,” remembered Anna Fest, a woman who had registered with the Americans six weeks earlier.
Such a feeling of helplessness, when three or four heavily armed military police stand in front of you. You just panic. I cried terribly. My mother was completely beside herself and said, “You can’t do this. She registered just as she was supposed to.” Then she said, “If only you’d gone somewhere else and had hidden.” But I consider that senseless, because I did not feel guilty. . . . That was the way it went with everyone, with no reason given.
Few German adults, Nazi or not, escaped the dreaded knock on the door. Far from being dangerous fascists, Freddy and Lali Horstmann were actually well-known anti-Nazis. Records Lali from the Russian Zone:
“I am sorry to bother you,” he began, “but I am simply carrying out my orders. Until when did you work for the Foreign Office?” “Till 1933,” my husband answered. “Then you need fear nothing,” Androff said.... “We accuse you of nothing, but we want you to accompany us to the headquarters of the NKVD, the secret police, so that we can take down what you said in a protocol, and ask you a few questions about the working of the Foreign Office... .” We were stunned for a moment; then I started forward, asking if I could come along with them. “Impossible,” the interpreter smiled. My heart raced. Would Freddy answer satisfactorily? Could he stand the excitement? What sort of accommodation would they give him? “Don’t worry, your husband has nothing to fear,” Androff continued. “He will have a heated room. Give him a blanket for the night, but quickly, we must leave. .. .” There was a feeling of sharp tension, putting the soldier on his guard, as though he were expecting an attack from one of us. I took first the soldier, then the interpreter, by their hands and begged them to be kind to Freddy, repeating myself in the bustle and scraping of feet that drowned my words. There was a banging of doors. A cold wind blew in. I felt Freddy kiss me. I never saw him again.
“[W]e were wakened by the sound of tires screeching, engines stopping abruptly, orders yelled, general din, and a hammering on the window shutters. Then the intruders broke through the door, and we saw Americans with rifles who stood in front of our bed and shone lights at us. None of them spoke German, but their gestures said: ‘Get dressed, come with us immediately.’ This was my fourth arrest.”
So wrote Leni Riefenstahl, a talented young woman who was perhaps the world’s greatest film-maker. Because her epic documentaries— Triumph of the Will and Olympia—seemed paeans to not only Germany, but National Socialism, and because of her close relationship with an admiring Adolf Hitler, Leni was of more than passing interest to the Allies. Though false, rumors also hinted that the attractive, sometimes-actress was also a “mistress of the devil”—that she and Hitler were lovers.
“Neither my husband nor my mother nor any of my three assistants had ever joined the Nazi Party, nor had any of us been politically active,” said the confused young woman. “No charges had ever been filed against us, yet we were at the mercy of the [Allies] and had no legal protection of any kind.”
Soon after Leni’s fourth arrest, came a fifth.
The jeep raced along the autobahns until, a few hours later ...I was brought to the Salzburg Prison; there an elderly prison matron rudely pushed me into the cell, kicking me so hard that I fell to the ground; then the door was locked. There were two other women in the dark, barren room, and one of them, on her knees, slid about the floor, jabbering confusedly; then she began to scream, her limbs writhing hysterically. She seemed to have lost her mind. The other woman crouched on her bunk, weeping to herself.
As Leni and others quickly discovered, the “softening up” process began soon after arrival at an Allied prison. When Ernst von Salomon, his Jewish girl friend and fellow prisoners reached an American holding pen near Munich, the men were promptly led into a room and brutally beaten by military police. With his teeth knocked out and blood spurting from his mouth, von Salomon moaned to a gum-chewing officer, “You are no gentlemen.” The remark brought only a roar of laughter from the attackers. “No, no, no!” the GIs grinned. “We are Mississippi boys!” In another room, military policemen raped the women at will while leering soldiers watched from windows. After such savage treatment, the feelings of despair only intensified once the captives were crammed into cells.
“The people had been standing there for three days, waiting to be interrogated,” remembered a German physician ordered to treat prisoners in the Soviet Zone. “At the sight of us a pandemonium broke out which left me helpless.... As far as I could gather, the usual senseless questions were being reiterated: Why were they there, and for how long? They had no water and hardly anything to eat. They wanted to be let out more often than once a day.... A great many of them have dysentery so badly that they can no longer get up.” “Young Poles made fun of us,” said a woman from her cell in the same zone. “[They] threw bricks through the windows, paperbags with sand, and skins of hares filled with excrement. We did not dare to move or offer resistance, but huddled together in the farthest corner, in order not to be hit, which could not always be avoided. . . . [W]e were never free from torments.” “For hours on end I rolled about on my bed, trying to forget my surroundings,” recalled Leni Riefenstahl, “but it was impossible.”
The mentally disturbed woman kept screaming—all through the night; but even worse were the yells and shrieks of men from the courtyard, men who were being beaten, screaming like animals. I subsequently found out that a company of SS men was being interrogated.
They came for me the next morning, and I was taken to a padded cell where I had to strip naked, and a woman examined every square inch of my body. Then I had to get dressed and go down to the courtyard, where many men were standing, apparently prisoners, and I was the only woman. We had to line up before an American guard who spoke German. The prisoners stood to attention, so I tried to do the same, and then an American came who spoke fluent German. He pushed a few people together, then halted at the first in our line.
“Were you in the Party?” The prisoner hesitated for a moment, then said: Yes.” He was slugged in the face and spat blood. The American went on to the next in line. “Were you in the Party?” The man hesitated. “Yes or no?” “Yes.” And he too got punched so hard in the face that the blood ran out of his mouth. However, like the first man, he didn’t dare resist. They didn’t even instinctively raise their hands to protect themselves. They did nothing. They put up with the blows like dogs. The next man was asked: “Were you in the Party?” Silence. “Well?” “No,” he yelled, so no punch. From then on nobody admitted that he had been in the Party and I was not even asked.
As the above case illustrated, there often was no rhyme or reason to the examinations; all seemed designed to force from the victim what the inquisitor wanted to hear, whether true or false. Additionally, most such “interrogations” were structured to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible. Explained one prisoner:
The purpose of these interrogations is not to worm out of the people what they knew—which would be uninteresting anyway—but to extort from them special statements. The methods resorted to are extremely primitive; people are beaten up until they confess to having been members of the Nazi Party.... The authorities simply assume that, basically, everybody has belonged to the Party. Many people die during and after these interrogations, while others, who admit at once their party membership, are treated more leniently.
“A young commissar, who was a great hater of the Germans, cross-examined me... ,” said Gertrude Schulz. “When he put the question: ‘Frauenwerk [Women’s Labor Service]?’ I answered in the negative. Thereupon he became so enraged, that he beat me with a stick, until I was black and blue. I received about 15 blows ... on my left upper arm, on my back and on my thigh. I collapsed and, as in the case of the first cross-examination, I had to sign the questionnaire.”
American torture pen
“Both officers who took our testimony were former German Jews,” reminisced a member of the women’s SS, Anna Fest. While vicious dogs snarled nearby, one of the officers screamed questions and accusations at Anna. If the answers were not those desired, “he kicked me in the back and the other hit me.”
They kept saying we must have been armed, have had pistols or so. But we had no weapons, none of us....I had no pistol. I couldn’t say, just so they’d leave me in peace, yes, we had pistols. The same thing would happen to the next person to testify.... [T]he terrible thing was, the German men had to watch. That was a horrible, horrible experience.... That must have been terrible for them. When I went outside, several of them stood there with tears running down their cheeks. What could they have done? They could do nothing.
Not surprisingly, with beatings, rape, torture, and death facing them, few victims failed to “confess” and most gladly inked their name to any scrap of paper shown them. Some, like Anna, tried to resist. Such recalcitrance was almost always of short duration, however. Generally, after enduring blackened eyes, broken bones, electric shock to breasts—or, in the case of men, smashed testicles—only those who died during torture failed to sign confessions. Alone, surrounded by sadistic hate, utterly bereft of law, many victims understandably escaped by taking their own lives. Like tiny islands in a vast sea of evil, however, miracles did occur. As he limped painfully back to his prison cell, one Wehrmacht officer reflected on the insults, beatings, and tortures he had endured and contemplated suicide.
I could not see properly in the semi-darkness and missed my open cell door. A kick in the back and I was sprawling on the floor. As I raised myself I said to myself I could not, should not accept this humiliation. I sat on my bunk. I had hidden a razor blade that would serve to open my veins. Yes. You can mangle this poor body—I looked down at the running sores on my legs—but myself, my honor, ...that is within me, you cannot touch. This body is only a shell, not my real self... New strength seemed to rise in me.
I was pondering over what seemed to me a miracle when the heavy lock turned in the cell door. A very young American soldier came in, put his finger to his lips to warn me not to speak. “I saw it,” he said. “Here are baked potatoes.” He pulled the potatoes out of his pocket and gave them to me, and then went out, locking the door behind him.
Horrific as de-Nazification was in the British, French and, especially the American Zone, it was nothing compared to what took place in Poland, behind Soviet lines, much like the violation of Germans that occured in 1939 at the hands of communist Polish Jews, which motivated Hitler to make the humanitarian intervention into Poland which was then used as the excuse for war against Germany. In hundreds of concentration camps sponsored by an apparatus called the “Office of State Security,” thousands of Germans—male and female, old and young, high and low, Nazi official and non–Nazi official, SS, Wehrmacht, Volkssturm, Hitler Youth, all—were rounded up and imprisoned. Staffed and run by Jews, with help from Poles, Czechs, Russians, and other concentration camp survivors (where radicals, degenerates and enemies of the German people were held to prevent them from attacking German people, society at large and the war effort), the prisons were little better than torture chambers where dying was a thing to be prolonged, not hastened. While those with blond hair, blue eyes and handsome features were first to go, anyone who spoke German would do, these Communists enforced dysgenics of the most Semitic form. Moments after arrival, prisoners were made horrifyingly aware of their fate. John Sack, himself a Jew, reports on one camp run by twenty-six-year-old Shlomo Morel:
“I was at Auschwitz,” Shlomo proclaimed, lying to the Germans but, even more, to himself, psyching himself like a fighter the night of the championship, filling himself with hate for the Germans around him. “I was at Auschwitz for six long years, and I swore that if I got out, I’d pay all you Nazis back.” His eyes sent spears, but the “Nazis” sent him a look of simple bewilderment. . . . “Now sing the Horst Wessel Song!” No one did, and Shlomo, who carried a hard rubber club, hit it against a bed like some judge’s gavel. “Sing it, I say!” “The flags held high . . . ,” some Germans began. “Everyone!” Shlomo said. “The ranks closed tight. . . .” “I said everyone!” “Blond!” Shlomo cried to the blondest, bluest-eyed person there. “I said sing!” He swung his rubber club at the man’s golden head and hit it. The man staggered back. “Our comrades, killed by the Reds and Reactionaries... .” “Sonofabitch!” Shlomo cried, enraged that the man was defying him by not singing but staggering back. He hit him again, saying, “Sing!” “Are marching in spirit with us...” “Louder!” “Clear the street for the Brown Battalions... .” “Still louder!” cried Shlomo, hitting another shouting man.... “Millions of hopeful people... .” “Nazi pigs!” “Are looking to the swastika... .” “Schweine!” Shlomo cried. He threw down his rubber club, grabbed a wooden stool, and, a leg in his fist, started beating a German’s head. Without thinking, the man raised his arms, and Shlomo, enraged that the man would try to evade his just punishment, cried, “Sonofawhore!” and slammed the stool against the man’s chest. The man dropped his arms, and Shlomo started hitting his now undefended head when snap! the leg of the stool split off, and, cursing the German birchwood, he grabbed another stool and hit the German with that. No one was singing now, but Shlomo, shouting, didn’t notice. The other guards called out, “Blond!” “Black!” “Short!” “Tall!” and as each of these terrified people came up, they wielded their clubs upon him. The brawl went on till eleven o’clock, when the sweat-drenched invaders cried, “Pigs! We will fix you up!” and left the Germans alone. Some were quite fixed.... Shlomo and his subordinates had killed them. (These are the true war crimes, all committed by Jews)
The next night it was more of the same . . . and the next night and the next and the next. Those who survived the “welcoming committees” at this and other camps were flung back into their pens.
“I was put with 30 women into a cell, which was intended to accommodate one person,” Gerlinde Winkler recalled. “The narrow space, into which we were rammed, was unbearable and our legs were all entangled together. . . . The women, ill with dysentery, were only allowed to go out once a day, in order to relieve themselves. A bucket without a cover was pushed into the cell with the remark: ‘Here you have one, you German sows.’ The stink was insupportable, and we were not allowed to open the little window.”
“The air in the cells became dense, the smell of the excrement filled it, the heat was like in Calcutta, and the flies made the ceiling black,” wrote John Sack. “I’m choking, the Germans thought, and one even took the community razor blade and, in despair, cut his throat open with it.”
When the wretched inmates were at last pried from their hellish tombs, it was only for interrogation. Sack continues:
As many as eight interrogators, almost all Jews, stood around any one German saying, “Were you in the Nazi Party?” Sometimes a German said, “Yes,” and the boys shouted, “Du schwein! You pig!” and beat him and broke his arm, perhaps, before sending him to his cell. . . . But usually a German said, “No,” and the boys ... told him, “You’re lying. You were a Nazi.” “No, I never was.” “You’re lying! We know about you!” “No, I really wasn’t—” “Du lugst! You’re lying!” they cried, hitting the obstinate man. “You better admit it! Or you’ll get a longer sentence! Now! Were you in the Nazi Party?” “No!” the German often said, and the boys had to beat him and beat him until he was really crying, “I was a Nazi! Yes!” But sometimes a German wouldn’t confess. One such hard case was a fifty-year-old.... “Were you in the Party?” “No, I wasn’t in it.” “How many people work for you?” “In the high season, thirty-five.” “You must have been in the Party,” the boy deduced. He asked for the German’s wallet, where he found a fishing license with the stamp of the German Anglers Association. Studying it, he told the German, “It’s stamped by the Party.” “It’s not,” said the German.
He’d lost his left arm in World War I and was using his right arm to gesture with, and, to the boy, he may have seemed to be Heiling Hitler. The boy became violent. He grabbed the man’s collar, hit the man’s head against the wall, hit it against it ten times more, threw the man’s body onto the floor, and, in his boots, jumped on the man’s cringing chest as though jumping rope. A half dozen other interrogators, almost all Jews, pushed the man onto a couch, pulled off his trousers, and hit him with hard rubber clubs and hard rubber hoses full of stones. The sweat started running down the Jews’ arms, and the blood down the man’s naked legs. “Warst du in der Partei?” “Nein!” “Warst du in der Partei?” “Nein!” the German screamed—screamed, till the boys had to go to Shlomo’s kitchen for a wooden spoon and to use it to cram some rags in the German’s mouth. Then they resumed beating him. . . . The more the man contradicted them, the more they hated him for it.
Shlomo Morel: one of thousands of Jewish psychopaths involved, many of whose descendants form the core of modern leftwing political parties in Europe, such as relatives of the Milibands and Barbara Spectre's.
After undergoing similar sessions on a regular basis, the victim was brought back for the eighth time.
By now, the man was half unconscious due to his many concussions, and he wasn’t thinking clearly. The boys worked on him with rubber and oak-wood clubs and said, “Do you still say you weren’t in the Party?” “No! I didn’t say I wasn’t in the Party!” “You didn’t?” “No!” said the punch drunk man. “I never said it!” “You were in the Party?” “Yes!” The boys stopped beating him. They practically sighed, as if their ordeal were over now. They lit up cigarettes.... “Scram,” one said to the German. The man stood up, and he had his hand on the doorknob when one of the boys impulsively hit the back of his head, and he fell to the floor, unconscious. “Aufstehen, du Deutsches schwein. Stand up, you German pig,” the boys said, kicking him till he stood up and collapsed again. Two boys carried him to his cell and dropped him in a corner.... Of course, the boys would beat up the Germans for “Yes”es as well as “No”s. In Glatz, the Jewish commandant asked a German policeman, “Were you in the Party?” “Of course! I was obliged to be!” “Lie down,” the commandant said, and six weeks later the boys were still whipping the German’s feet.
Some torture sessions lacked even the pretense of an examination. Remembered Eva Reimann:
My cell door opened. The guard, who, because of the foul smell, held a handkerchief to his nose, cried, “Reimann Eva! Come!” I was led to a first-floor room. He shouted at me, “Take off your shoes!” I took them off. “Lie down!” I lay down. He took a thick bamboo stick, and he beat the soles of my feet. I screamed, since the pain was very great. . . . The stick whistled down on me. A blow on my mouth tore my lower lip, and my teeth started bleeding violently. He beat my feet again. The pain was unbearable.... The door opened suddenly, and, smiling obligingly, a cigarette in his mouth, in came the chief of the Office, named Sternnagel. In faultless German he asked me, “What’s wrong here? Why do you let yourself be beaten? You just have to sign this document. Or should we jam your fingers in the door, until the bones are broad. . . ?
A man picked me up by the ankles, raised me eight inches above the floor, and let me fall. My hands were tied, and my head hit hard. . . . I lay in a bloody puddle. Someone cried, “Stand up!” I tried to, and, with unspeakable pain, I succeeded. A man with a pistol came, held it to my left temple, and said, “Will you now confess?” I told him, “Please shoot me.” Yes, I hoped to be freed from all his tortures. I begged him, “Please pull the trigger.”
After barely surviving his “interrogation,” one fourteen-year-old was taken to the camp infirmary. “My body was green, but my legs were fire red,” the boy said. “My wounds were bound with toilet paper, and I had to change the toilet paper every day. I was in the perfect place to watch what went on.... All the patients were beaten people, and they died everywhere: at their beds, in the washroom, on the toilet. At night, I had to step over the dead as if that were normal to do.” When the supply of victims ran low, it was a simple matter to find more.
John Sack: One day, a German in pitch-black pants, the SS’s color, showed up in Lola’s prison. He’d been spotted near the city square by a Pole who’d said, “Fascist! You’re wearing black!” At that, the German had bolted off, but the Pole chased him a mile to the Church of Saints Peter and Paul, tackled him by a gold mosaic, hit him, kicked him, and took him to Lola’s prison. Some guards, all girls, then seized the incriminating evidence: the man’s black pants, pulling them off so aggressively that one of the tendons tore. The man screamed, but the girls said, “Shut up!” and they didn’t recognize that the pants were part of a boy scout uniform. The “man” was fourteen years old. The girls decided to torture him [with]. . . . fire. They held down the German boy, put out their cigarettes on him, and, using gasoline, set his curly black hair afire.
At the larger prison camps, Germans died by the hundreds daily. “You pigs!” the commandant then cried, and he beat the Germans with their stools, often killing them. At dawn many days, a Jewish guard cried, “Eins! Zwei! Drei! Vier!” and marched the Germans into the woods outside their camp. “Halt! Get your shovels! Dig!” the guard cried, and, when the Germans had dug a big grave, he put a picture of Hitler in. “Now cry!” the guard said. “And sing All the Dogs Are Barking!” and all the Germans moaned, All the dogs are barking, All the dogs are barking, Just the little hot-dogs, Aren’t barking at all. The guard then cried, “Get undressed!” and, when the Germans were naked, he beat them, poured liquid manure on them, or, catching a toad, shoved the fat thing down a German’s throat, the German soon dying.
Utterly unhinged by years of persecution, by the loss of homes and loved ones, for the camp operators, no torture, no sadism, no bestiality, seemed too monstrous to inflict on those now in their power. Some Germans were forced to crawl on all fours and eat their own excrement as well as that of others. Many were drowned in open latrines. Hundreds were herded into buildings and burned to death or sealed in caskets and buried alive. Near Lamsdorf, German women were forced to disinter bodies from a Polish burial site. According to John Sack:
The women did, and they started to suffer nausea as the bodies, black as the stuff in a gutter, appeared. The faces were rotten, the flesh was glue, but the guards—who had often seemed psychopathic, making a German woman drink urine, drink blood, and eat a man’s excrement, inserting an oily five-mark bill in a woman’s vagina, putting a match to it—shouted at the women . . . “Lie down with them!” The women did, and the guards shouted, “Hug them!” “Kiss them!” “Make love with them!” and, with their rifles, pushed on the backs of the women’s heads until their eyes, noses and mouths were deep in the Polish faces’ slime. The women who clamped their lips couldn’t scream, and the women who screamed had to taste something vile. Spitting, retching, the women at last stood up, the wet tendrils still on their chins, fingers, clothes, the wet seeping into the fibers, the stink like a mist around them as they marched back to Lamsdorf. There were no showers there, and the corpses had all had typhus, apparently, and sixty-four women . . . died.
Not surprisingly, the mortality rate at the concentration camps was staggering and relatively few survived. At one prison of eight thousand, a mere 1,500 lived to reach home. And of those “lucky” individuals who did leave with their lives, few could any longer be called human.
When a smattering of accounts began to leak from Poland of the unspeakable crimes being committed, many in the West were stunned. “One would expect that after the horrors in Nazi concentration camps, nothing like that could ever happen again,” muttered one US senator, who then reported on beatings, torture and “brains splashed on the ceiling.”
“Is this what our soldiers died for?” echoed a Briton in the House of Commons. Added Winston Churchill: “Enormous numbers [of Germans] are utterly unaccounted for. It is not impossible that tragedy on a prodigious scale is unfolding itself behind the Iron Curtain.”
While Churchill and others in the West were expressing shock and surprise over the sadistic slaughter taking place in the Soviet Zone, precious little was said about the “tragedy on a prodigious scale” that was transpiring in their own backyard.
Among the millions imprisoned by the Allies were thousands of Germans accused of having a direct or indirect hand in war crimes. Because the victorious powers demanded swift and severe punishment, Allied prosecutors were urged to get the most damning indictments in as little time as possible. Unfortunately for the accused, their captors seemed determined to inflict as much pain as possible in the process.
“[W]e were thrown into small cells stark naked,” Hans Schmidt later wrote. “The cells in which three or four persons were incarcerated were six and a half by ten feet in size and had no windows or ventilation.”
When we went to the lavatory we had to run through a lane of Americans who struck us with straps, brooms, cudgels, buckets, belts, and pistol holders to make us fall down. Our head, eyes, body, belly, and genitals were violently injured. A man stood inside the lavatory to beat us and spit on us. We returned to our cells through the same ordeal. The temperature in the cells was 140 Fahrenheit or more. During the first three days we were given only one cup of water and a small slice of bread. During the first days we perspired all the time, then perspiration stopped. We were kept standing chained back to back for hours. We suffered terribly from thirst, blood stagnation and mortification of the hands. From time to time water was poured on the almost red-hot radiators, filling the cells with steam, so that we could hardly breathe. During all this time the cells were in darkness, except when the American soldiers entered and switched on electric bulbs ... which forced us to close our eyes.
Our thirst became more and more cruel, so that our lips cracked, our tongues were stiff, and we eventually became apathetic, or raved, or collapsed. After enduring this torture for several days, we were given a small blanket to cover our nakedness, and driven to the courtyard outside. The uneven soil was covered with pebbles and slag and we were again beaten and finally driven back on our smashed and bleeding feet. While out of breath, burning cigarettes were pushed into our mouths, and each of us was forced to eat three or four of them. Meanwhile the American soldiers continued to hit us on eyes, head, and ears. Back in our cells we were pushed against burning radiators, so that our skin was blistered.
For thirteen days and nights we received the same treatment, tortured by heat and thirst. When we begged for water, our guards mocked us. When we fainted we were revived by being drenched with cold water. There was dirt everywhere and we were never allowed to wash, our inflamed eyes gave us terrible pain, we fainted continuously.
Every twenty minutes or so our cell doors were opened and the soldiers insulted and hit us. Whenever the doors were opened we had to stand still with our backs to the door. Two plates of food, spiced with salt, pepper, and mustard to make us thirstier, were given us daily. We ate in the dark on the floor. The thirst was the most terrible of all our tortures and we could not sleep. In this condition I was brought to trial.
During the Nazi war crimes trials and hearings, almost any method that would obtain a “confession” was employed. Eager to implicate high-ranking German officers in the Malmedy Massacre, American investigator Harry Thon ordered Wehrmacht sergeant Willi Schafer to write out an incriminating affidavit:
Next morning Mr. Thon appeared in my cell, read my report, tore it up, swore at me and hit me. After threatening to have me killed unless I wrote what he wanted, he left. A few minutes later the door of my cell opened, a black hood encrusted with blood, was put over my head and face and I was led to another room. In view of Mr. Thon’s threat the black cap had a crushing effect on my spirits.... Four men of my company ... accused me, although later they admitted to having borne false testimony. Nevertheless I still refused to incriminate myself. Thereupon Mr. Thon said that if I continued to refuse this would be taken as proof of my Nazi opinions, and . . . my death was certain. He said I would have no chance against four witnesses, and advised me for my own good to make a statement after which I would be set free. . . . I still refused. I told Mr. Thon that although my memory was good, I was unable to recall any of the occurrences he wished me to write about and which to the best of my knowledge had never occurred. Mr. Thon left but returned in a little while with Lieutenant [William] Perl who abused me, and told Mr. Thon that, should I not write what was required within half an hour, I should be left to my fate. Lieutenant Perl made it clear to me that I had the alternative of writing and going free or not writing and dying. I decided for life.
Another Landser unable to resist the pressure was Joachim Hoffman:
[W]hen taken for a hearing a black hood was placed over my head. The guards who took me to my hearing often struck or kicked me. I was twice thrown down the stairs and was hurt so much that blood ran out of my mouth and nose. At the hearing, when I told the officers about the ill treatment I had suffered, they only laughed. I was beaten and the black cap pulled over my face whenever I could not answer the questions put to me, or gave answers not pleasing to the officers....I was beaten and several times kicked in the genitals.
Understandably, after several such sessions, even the strongest submitted and signed papers incriminating themselves and others. “If you confess you will go free,” nineteen-year-old Siegfried Jaenckel was told. “[Y]ou need only to say you had an order from your superiors. But if you won’t speak you will be hung.”
Despite the mental and physical abuse, young Jaenckel held out as long as he could: “I was beaten and I heard the cries of the men being tortured in adjoining cells, and whenever I was taken for a hearing I trembled with fear.... Subjected to such duress I eventually gave in, and signed the long statement dictated to me.”
Far from being isolated or extreme cases, such methods of extorting confessions were the rule rather than the exception. Wrote author Freda Utley, who learned of the horror after speaking with American jurist Edward van Roden:
Beatings and brutal kickings; knocking-out of teeth and breaking of jaws; mock trials; solitary confinement; torture with burning splinters; the use of investigators pretending to be priests; starvation; and promises of acquittal. . . . Judge van Roden said: “All but two of the Germans in the 139 cases we investigated had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators.” He told of one German who had had lighted matchsticks forced under his fingernails by the American investigators to extort a confession, and had appeared at his trial with his fingers still bandaged from the atrocity.
In addition to testimony given under torture, those who might have spoken in defense of the accused were prevented. Moreover, hired “witnesses” were paid by the Americans to parrot the prosecution’s charges.
When criticism such as Utley’s and van Roden’s surfaced, and even as victims were being hung by the hundreds, those responsible defended their methods.
“We couldn’t have made those birds talk otherwise... ,” laughed one Jewish “interrogator,” Colonel A. H. Rosenfeld. “It was a trick, and it worked like a charm.”
This is the true history of the war crimes of the “Good war” and the “Good peace” as Tom Goodrich describes in order to draw emphasis to the sadistic hypocrisy of the Jewish controlled historical narrative. We must look at these crimes and then as Germanic folk declare that we shall avenge them. We shall never again let our Germanic folk be subject to such vile, Semitic malice, in accordance with this declaration we must prevent the worse ongoing Jewish Supremacist engineered defilement of our nations through mass immigration, where our people are being made victims of African and Asian immigrant criminality and demographic invasion, worse than even what these Germans faced at the hands of the likes of the Jewish Shlomo Morel or the USSRs Genrich Yagoda. Statistically the victims of the likes of Ed Milibands “open the floodgates” Hellstorm of an immigration policy would be far more damaging long-term. This is our calling to defiance, in remembrance of the crimes against our people in the past, from the Semitic controlled Rome through to the Semitic controlled Charlemagne and worser leaders since, culminating and worsening post 1945, we must retake control of every level of our civilization to prevent this from continuing, dedicated defiance, politically, socially and logistically.
We must remember the real histories of our people and use their memories, in their suffering of the hellstorms inflicted upon them, to inspire us to prevent the descendants of these same Jewish Supremacists from taking or retaining electoral and wider socio-political power today, in each and every area in this era we must defend our folk, we must reclaim the media, the schools, the universities, councils, police forces, military forces, national services, judicial commissions and all our borders and each and every currently occupied street and town, in order to safeguard our Germanic folk from the ongoing Semitic and non-European destruction, degradation and demographic defilement against our sacred Germanic folk.
---Rise up in defiance---
Wartime Bombings of Neutral Switzerland
By Joachim Hoffmann
For some time now it has become common to beat up on prototypically democratic Switzerland in a sometimes unfriendly and occasionally almost hateful way. Apparently this is being done for political motives.
To this end, certain regrettable events during the Second World War are strongly emphasized, without in all fairness mentioning the difficult circumstances under which the Swiss Confederation had to maintain its neutrality and sovereignty toward not only the Axis powers, and especially Germany, but also toward the western Allies.
Above all the United States, which is in the forefront of the accusatory critics, should permit itself to be reminded of the great extent to which, for years, it violated Swiss neutrality. From 1943 onwards American war planes flew at will over the neutral country, sometimes in flight formations, in attacks on targets in the German Reich.
Time and again they also carried out offensive operations against Swiss territory. Thus, on April 1, 1944, Schaffhausen was the victim of an intense American air attack, with considerable human losses and heavy destruction of property. Passenger and freight rail cars, viaducts and train stations were also repeatedly bombed or fired upon, such as in Chiasso and Basel, resulting in numerous fatalities and extensive material damage. On February 22, 1945, alone 18 Swiss lost their lives, and 50 were wounded, some severely, in American bombing attacks and air raids on the northern part of the country.
In the aftermath of the American air attacks on Basel and Zürich on March 5, 1945, which once again caused considerable human losses and material damage, the government in Washington was notified in a strongly worded protest of the routine flouting of Swiss neutrality, and of the steadily increasing number of border violations, and that such bombings were intolerable. The situation had become so tense that Washington directed the supreme commander of the United States Army Air Force in Europe, General Spaatz, and his chief of staff, to go to Bern [the Swiss capital] in person to apologize and promise reform.
Among the various US airplanes that came down on Swiss territory were no fewer than 160 large four-motor B-17 "flying fortress" bombers and B-24 "Liberators," either because the crews wanted to avoid being taken prisoner in Germany, or were deserters who simply wanted to get out of military service, or because they were forced to land or were shot down by Swiss flyers or air defense forces.
War planes of other countries also repeatedly carried out offensive operations against Switzerland, including, on a large scale, by the British Royal Air Force, and also, not so seriously but still considerable, by the German Luftwaffe, and even on occasion by French planes.
However, none of the nations at war so massively and continuously challenged Swiss neutrality, and caused such great loss of life and destruction of property, as the bombers and fighter planes of the United States air force.
From The Journal of Historical Review, Nov.-Dec. 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 6), page 15.
This item originally appeared as a reader's letter in the September 1997 issue of the Swiss magazine Schweizer Soldat.
About the Author
Joachim Hoffmann (1930- 2002), was an eminent German historian. He studied modern history, eastern European history and comparative ethnology at the University of Hamburg and at the Free University in Berlin He received his doctorate (Dr. phil.) in history in 1959. Between 1960 and 1995, he was a historian with the Militärgeschichtliche Forschungsamt (Military History Research Center), a federal German government agency. For a time he served as the Center’s scholarly director. Hoffmann was the author of several books and numerous articles, dealing especially with 19th century political, diplomatic and military history, and the history of the German-Soviet War.
Adolf Hitler: My Political Testament (Berlin, 29 April 1945)
Since 1914, when as a volunteer, I made my modest contribution in the World War which was forced upon the Reich, over thirty years have passed.
In these three decades, only love for my people and loyalty to my people have guided me in all my thoughts, actions, and life. They gave me the strength to make the most difficult decisions, such as no mortal has yet had to face. I have exhausted my time, my working energy, and my health in these three decades.
It is untrue that I or anybody else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was desired and instigated exclusively by those international statesmen who were either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests. I have made so many offers for the reduction and elimination of armaments, which posterity cannot explain away for all eternity, that the responsibility for the outbreak of this war cannot rest on me. Furthermore, I never desired that after the first terrible World War a second war should arise against England or even against America. Centuries may pass, but out of the ruins of our cities and monuments of art there will arise anew the hatred for the people who alone are ultimately responsible: International Jewry and its helpers!
As late as three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish War, I proposed to the British Ambassador in Berlin a solution for the German-Polish problem -- similar to the problem of the Saar area, under international control. This offer cannot be explained away, either. It was only rejected because the responsible circles in English politics wanted the war, partly in the expectation of business advantages, partly driven by propaganda promoted by international Jewry.
But I left no doubt about the fact that if the peoples of Europe were again only regarded as so many packages of stock shares by these international money and finance conspirators, then that race, too, which is the truly guilty party in this murderous struggle would also have to be held to account: the Jews! I further left no doubt that this time we would not permit millions of European children of Aryan descent to die of hunger, nor millions of grown-up men to suffer death, nor hundreds of thousands of women and children to be burned and bombed to death in their cities, without the truly guilty party having to atone for its guilt, even if through more humane means.
After six years of struggle, which in spite of all reverses will go down in history as the most glorious and most courageous manifestation of a people's will to live. I cannot separate myself from the city which is the capital of this Reich. Because our forces are too few to permit any further resistance against the enemy's assaults, and because individual resistance is rendered valueless by blinded and characterless scoundrels, I desire to share the fate that millions of others have taken upon themselves, in that I shall remain in this city. Furthermore, I do not want to fall into the hands of enemies who for the delectation of the hate-riddled masses require a new spectacle promoted by the Jews.
I have therefore resolved to remain in Berlin and there to choose death of my own will at the very moment when, as I believe, the seat of the Fuehrer and Chancellor can no longer be defended. I die with a joyful heart in the awareness the immeasurable deeds and achievements of our soldiers at the front, of our women at home, the achievements of our peasants and workers, and the contribution, unique in history, of our youth, which bears my name.
It goes without saying that I thank them all from the bottom of my heart and that it is also my desire that in spite of everything they should not give up the struggle, but continue fighting wherever they may be, faithful to the great Clausewitz, against the enemies of the Fatherland. From the sacrifices of our soldiers and from my own comradeship with them, there will come in one way or another into German history the seed of a brilliant renaissance of the National Socialist movement and thus the realization of a true 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.
Dr. JOSEPH GOEBBELS
WWII - EUROPA - The Last Battle
https://youtu.be/WqREtbt__O8 part 1
https://youtu.be/wQrYPQ5xew4 part 2
https://youtu.be/Pol0zyH2klA part 3
https://youtu.be/t32odnVdcOg part 4
https://youtu.be/t32odnVdcOg part 5
https://youtu.be/h0pA2aTyXy4 part 6
https://youtu.be/IC_dXHLAT-A part 7
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.
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.
FORBIDDEN HISTORY - QUOTE TO REMEMBER
"I lived in Germany during the 1980's when many people who lived during the war were still alive. I sought out anyone who lived near Poland in 1939 and was lucky enough to meet several people. One was a customs official who said it was so bad on the border they were armed and also had grenades in their office ready for attacks. Another told me his farm animals were often stolen by Polish (Jewish?) terrorists. Another told of his niece being raped by a Pole (Jew?) who crossed the border. He told me in 1940 they caught the man and showed me a copy of the death order signed by Heydrich, in which he ordered the man put to death.
This is just one of many stories told to me by German civilians who witnessed these border incursions just like had happened in 1919-1928. One thing many people fail to see is that Poland openly attacked Germany right after World War I, which led to many border battles. Once Germany started pressing Poland to work out a solution to the corridor, the attacks started again. .And one thing that is clear to me is that Germany did not make up these attacks."
- G.H. Ohio, USA
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.
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
The German-Polish War has ended quickly. There is nothing that the Allies can do help their Polish
puppet. The French actually invade Germany on September 7th, advancing 8 km before stopping.
The quiet period between the end of the Polish war until May 1940, is dubbed by a US Senator
as "The Phony War."
During this time, Hitler pleads for the Allies to withdraw their war declarations. Towards France he declares: ."I have always expressed to France my desire to bury forever our ancient enmity and bring together these two nations, both of which have such glorious pasts."
To the British, Hitler says: “I have devoted no less effort to the achievement of Anglo-German friendship. At no time and in no place have I ever acted contrary to British interests….Why should this war in the West be fought?”
Hitler’s pleas for peace are ignored as the allies amass 600,000 troops in Northern France! Plans are openly discussed to advance eastward upon Germany, via Belgium and Holland, as well as establishing operations in neutral Norway and Denmark, with or without their consent.
As Hitler continues to plead for peace, the British government deploys its army and frightens its people.
Stalin's War Against His Own Troops
By Yuri Teplyakov
At dawn on June 22, 1941, began the mightiest military offensive in history: the German-led Axis attack against the Soviet Union. During the first 18 months of the campaign, about three million Soviet soldiers were taken prisoner. By the end of the conflict four years later, more than five million Soviet troops are estimated to have fallen into German hands. Most of these unfortunate men died in German captivity.
A major reason for this was the unusual nature of the war on the eastern front, particularly during the first year -- June 1941-June 1942 -- when vastly greater numbers of prisoners fell into German hands than could possibly be accommodated adequately. However, and as Russian journalist Teplyakov explains in the following article, much of the blame for the terrible fate of the Soviet soldiers in German captivity was due to the inflexibly cruel policy of Soviet dictator Stalin.
During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:
"When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other 'Slav submen' POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the  Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin's own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot]."
Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:
"Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners' postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: 'There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans'."
Given this situation, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh. Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity. Of the 91,000 German troops captured in the Battle of Stalingrad, fewer than 6,000 ever returned to Germany.
As Teplyakov also explains here, Red Army "liberation" of the surviving Soviet prisoners in German camps brought no end to the suffering of these hapless men. It wasn't until recently, when long-suppressed Soviet wartime records began to come to light and long-silenced voices could at last speak out, that the full story of Stalin's treatment of Soviet prisoners became known. It wasn't until 1989, for example, that Stalin's grim Order No. 270 of August 16, 1941 -- cited below -- was first published.
-- Mark Weber
"What is the most horrible thing about war?"
Marshal Ivan Bagramyan, three-time Hero of the Soviet Union Alexander Pokryshkin, and Private Nikolai Romanov, who has no battle orders or titles, all replied with just one word: "Captivity."
"Is it more horrible than death?" I was asking soldier Nikolai Romanov a quarter of a century ago when, on the sacred day of May 9 [anniversary of the end of the war against Germany in 1945], we were drinking bitter vodka together to commemorate the souls of the Russian muzhiks who would never return to that orphaned village on the bank of the Volga.
"It's more horrible," he replied. "Death is your own lot. But if it's captivity, it spells trouble for many ..."
At that time, in 1965, I could not even vaguely imagine the extent of the tragedy which had befallen millions upon millions, nor did I know that that tragedy had been triggered by just a few lines from the Interior Service Regulations of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army: a Soviet soldier must not be taken prisoner against his will. And if he has been, he is a traitor to the Motherland.
How many of them were there -- those "traitors"?
"During the war years," I was told by Colonel Ivan Yaroshenko, Deputy Chief of the Central Archives of the USSR Ministry of Defense, in Podolsk near Moscow, "as many as 32 million people were soldiers, and 5,734,528 of them were taken prisoner by the enemy."
Later I learned where this happened and when. Thus, the Red Army suffered the most tragic losses in terms of prisoners of war in the following battles: Belostok-Minsk, August 1941, 323,000; Uman, August 1941, 103,000; Smolensk-Roslavl, August 1941, 348,000; Gomel, August 1941, 30,000; Demyansk, September 1941, 35,000; Kiev, September 1941, 665,000; Luga-Leningrad, September 1941, 20,000; Melitopol, October 1941, 100,000; Vyazma, October 1941, 662,000; Kerch, November 1941, 100,000; Izyum-Kharkov, May 1942, 207,000. People were taken prisoner even in February 1945 (Hungary), 100,000.
The same archives in Podolsk hold another 2.5 million cards "missing in action" -- two and a half million who never returned home. Experts believe: two million of them are still lying in Russia's forests and marshes. And about 200,000 must be added to the list of POWs. Proof? From time to time the Podolsk archives receive a letter from somewhere in Australia or the United States: "I was taken prisoner. Request confirmation that I took part in battles against fascism."
This person was lucky -- he survived. The majority, however, had a different lot. German statistics put it on record: 280,000 person died at deportation camps and 1,030,157 were executed when trying to escape or died at factories or mines in Germany.
Many of our officers and men were killed by famine before they reached the camps. Nearly 400,000 men died in November-December 1941 alone. During the entire war there were 235,473 British and American prisoners of war in Germany -- 8,348 of them died. Were our men weaker? Hardly. The reasons were different. In the West it is believed that the millions of our POWs who died in captivity fell victim not only to fascism but also to the Stalinist system itself. At least half of those who died from hunger could have been saved had Stalin not called them traitors and refused to send food parcels to them via the International Red Cross.
It can be argued how many would have survived, but it's a fact that we left our POWs to the mercy of fate. The Soviet Union did not sign the Geneva Convention concerning the legal status of prisoners of war. Refusing to sign it was consistent with the Jesuitical nature of the "leader of the peoples."
From Stalin's point of view, several provisions of the Convention were incompatible with the moral and economic institutions which were inherent in the world's "freest country." The Convention, it turns out, did not guarantee the right to POWs as working people: low wages, no days off, no fixed working hours. Exception was also taken to the privileges fixed for some groups of POWs. In other words it should be more humane. But greater hypocrisy can hardly be imagined. What privileges were enjoyed at that very same time by millions in [Soviet] GULAG prison camps? What guarantees existed there and how many days off did they have?
In August 1941 Hitler permitted a Red Cross delegation to visit the camp for Soviet POWs in Hammerstadt. It is these contacts that resulted in an appeal to the Soviet government, requesting that it should send food parcels for our officers and men. We are prepared to fulfill and comply with the norms of the Geneva convention, Moscow said in its reply, but sending food in the given situation and under fascist control is the same as making presents to the enemy.
The reply came as a surprise. The Red Cross representatives had not read Stalin's Order of the Day -- Order No. 270, signed on August 16, 1941. Otherwise they would have understood how naive their requests and offers were, and how great was Stalin's hatred for those who had found themselves behind enemy lines.
It made no difference: who, where, how and why? Even the dead were considered to be criminals. Lt.-Gen. Vladimir Kachalov, we read in the order, "being in encirclement together with the headquarters of a body of troops, displayed cowardice and surrendered to the German fascists. The headquarters of Kachalov's groups broke out of the encirclement, the units of Kachalov's group battled their way out of the encirclement, but Lt.-Gen. Kachalov preferred to desert to the enemy."
General Vladimir Kachalov had been lying for 12 days in a burned out tank at the Starinka village near Smolensk, and never managed to break out to reach friendly forces. Yet this was of no concern for anyone. They were busy with something else -- looking for scapegoats whom they could dump all of their anger on, looking for enemies of the people whose treachery and cowardice had again subverted the will of the great military leader.
We had to be "convinced" again and again: the top echelons of authority, the leaders, have no relation whatsoever to any tragedy, to any failure -- be it the collapse of the first Five-Year Plan or the death of hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the Dnieper. Moreover, these misfortunes cannot have objective reasons either, being due solely to the intrigues of saboteurs and the enemies of the progressive system. For decades, ever since the 1930s, we have been permanently looking for scapegoats in the wrong place, but finding them nevertheless. At that time, in the first summer of the war, plenty of them were found. And the more the better. On June 4, 1940, the rank of general was re-established in the Red Army. They were awarded to 966 persons. More than 50 were taken prisoner in the very first year of the war. Very many of them would envy their colleagues -- those 150 generals who would later die on the battlefields. The torments of captivity proved to be darker than the grave. At any rate the destinies of Generals Pavel Ponedelin and Nikolai Kirillov, mentioned in the same Order No. 270, prove that this is so. They staunchly withstood their years in the German camps. In April 1945 the [western] Allies set them free and turned them over to the Soviet side. It seemed that everything had been left behind, but they were not forgiven for August 1941. They were arrested after a "state check-up": five years in the Lefortovo jail for political prisoners and execution by a firing squad on August 25, 1950.
"Stalin's last tragic acts in his purging of the military were the accusations of betrayal and treachery he advanced in the summer of 1941 against the Western Front commanders, Pavlov and Klimovskikh, and several other generals among whom, as it became clear later, there were also people who behaved in an uncompromising way to the end when in captivity." This assessment is by the famous chronicler of the war, Konstantin Simonov. It appeared in the 1960s, but during the wartime ordeals there was indomitable faith: the prisoners of war (both generals and soldiers) were guilty. No other yardstick existed.
International law states that military captivity is not a crime, "a prisoner of war must be as inviolable as the sovereignty of a people, and as sacred as a misfortune." This is for others, whereas for us there was a different law -- Stalin's Order No. 270.
If ... "instead of organizing resistance to the enemy, some Red Army men prefer to surrender, they shall be destroyed by all possible means, both ground-based and from the air, whereas the families of the Red Army men who have been taken prisoner shall be deprived of the state allowance [that is, rations] and relief."
The commanders and political officers ... "who surrender to the enemy shall be considered malicious deserters, whose families are liable to be arrested [just] as the families of deserters who have violated the oath and betrayed their Motherland."
Just a few lines, but they stand for the hundreds of thousands of children and old folks who died from hunger only because their father or son happened to be taken prisoner.
Just a few lines, but they amount to a verdict on those who never even thought of a crime, who were only waiting for a letter from the front.
Having read these lines, I came to understand the amount of grief they carried for absolutely innocent people, just as I understood the secret sorrow of the words Private Nikolai Romanov told me a quarter of a century ago: "Your own captivity spells trouble for many."
I understood why the most horrible thing for our soldiers was not to be killed, but to be reported "missing in action," and why before each battle, especially before the assault crossing of rivers, they asked one another: "Buddy, if I get drowned, say that you saw me die."
Setting their feet on a shaky pontoon and admitting, as it were, that they could be taken prisoner solely through their own fault, they mentally glanced back not out of fear for their own lives -- they were tormented and worried over the lives of those who had stayed back at home.
But what was the fault of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers encircled near Vyazma when Hitler launched Operation Taifun -- his advance on Moscow? "The most important thing is not to surrender your positions," the General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief ordered them. And the army was feverishly digging trenches facing the west, when panzer wedges were already enveloping them from the east.
General Franz Halder, Chief of Staff of the Wehrmacht's ground forces, made the following entry in his diary on this occasion: "October 4 -- 105 days of the war. The enemy has continued everywhere holding the unattacked sectors of the front, with the result that deep envelopment of these enemy groups looms in the long term."
Who was supposed to see these wedges? A soldier from his tiny foxhole or Stalin from the GHQ? And what was the result? Who was taken prisoner? Who betrayed the Motherland? The soldier did.
In May 1942, as many as 207,047 officers and men (the latest figure) found themselves encircled at Kharkov. When Khrushchev held power, it was Stalin that was considered to be guilty of this. When Brezhnev took over, the blame was again put on Khrushchev who, incidentally, had been merely warned by Stalin for that defeat which opened the road for the Germans to the Volga. But who then betrayed the Motherland, who was taken prisoner? The soldier.
May 19, 1942, is the date of our army's catastrophe in the Crimea. "The Kerch Operation may be considered finished: 150,000 POWs and a large quantity of captured equipment." This is a document from the German side. And here is a document from the Soviet side cited by Konstantin Simonov: "I happened to be on the Kerch Peninsula in 1942. The reason for the humiliating defeat is clear to me. Complete mistrust of the army and front commanders, Mekhlis' stupid willfulness and arbitrary actions. He ordered that no trenches be dug, so as not to sap the soldiers' offensive spirit."
Stalin's closest aide and then Chief of the Main Political Administration (GPU), Lev Mekhlis, the first Commissar of the Army and Navy, returned to Moscow after that defeat. And what did the soldier do? The soldier stayed in captivity.
There is no denying that no war can do without treachery and traitors. They could also be found among POWs. But if compared with the millions of their brothers in captivity, they amounted to no more than a drop in the ocean. Yet this drop existed. There is no escaping this. Some were convinced by leaflets like this one:
The Murderous Balance of Bolshevism:
Killed during the years of the Revolution and Civil War -- 2,200,000 persons.
Died from famine and epidemics in 1918 -1921 and in 1932-1933 -- 14,500,000 persons.
Perished in forced labor camps -- 10,000,000 persons.
Some even put it this way: I am not going into action against my people, I am going into action against Stalin. But the majority joined fascist armed formations with only one hope: as soon as the first fighting starts, I'll cross the line to join friendly troops. Not everyone managed to do this, although the following fact is also well known. On September 14, 1943, when the results of the Kursk Battle were summed up, Hitler explained the defeat by the "treachery of auxiliary units": indeed, at that time 1,300 men -- practically a whole regiment -- deserted to the Red Army's side on the southern sector. "But now I am fed up with this," Hitler said. "I order these units to be disarmed immediately and this whole gang to be sent to the mines in France."
It has to be admitted that it was Hitler who rejected longer than all others the proposals to form military units from among Soviet POWs, although as early as September 1941 Colonel von Tresckow had drawn up a plan for building up a 200,000-strong Russian anti-Soviet army. It was only on the eve of the Stalingrad Battle, when prisoners of war already numbered millions, that the Führer gave his consent at last.
All in all, it became possible to form more than 180 units. Among them the number of Russian formations was 75; those formed from among Kuban, Don and Terek Cossacks -- 216; Turkistan and Tatar (from Tataria and the Crimean Tatars) -- 42; Georgian -- 11; peoples of the Northern Caucasus -- 12; Azerbaijani -- 13; Armenian -- 8.
The numerical strength of these battalions by their national affiliation (data as of January 24, 1945) was the following: Latvians -- 104,000; Tatars (Tataria) -- 12,500, Crimean Tatars -- 10,000; Estonians -- 10,000; Armenians -- 7,000; Kalmyks -- 5,000. And the Russians? According to the official figures of Admiral Karl Dünitz's "government," as of May 20, 1945, there were the 599th Russian Brigade -- 13,000, the 600th -- 12,000, and the 650th -- 18,000 men.
If all of this is put together (as we are doing now), it would seem that there were many who served on the other side. But if we remember that only 20 percent of these forces took part in hostilities, that they were recruited from among millions of POWs, that thousands upon thousands crossedthe front line to return to friendly troops, the brilliance of the figures will clearly fade.
One detail -- the Reich's special services displayed special concern over forming non-Russian battalions as if they knew that they would be required, especially after the war when whole peoples, from babies to senile old men, came to be accused of treachery. And it made no difference -- whether you were kept in a prison camp or served in the army -- all the same you were an enemy.
But the POWs themselves were not yet aware of this -- everything still lay ahead. The hangover after liberation would set in a little later. Both for those who themselves escaped from the camps (500,000 in 1944, according to the estimate of Germany's Armaments Minister Speer) and for those who after liberation by Red Army units (more than a million officers and men) again fought in its ranks.
For too long a time we used to judge the spring of 1945 solely by the humane instructions issued by our formidable marshals -- allot milk for Berlin's children, feed women and old men. It was strange reading those documents, and at the same time chewing steamed rye instead of bread, and eating soup made of dog meat (only shortly before her death did my grandmother confess she had slaughtered dogs to save us from hunger). Reading those orders, I was prepared to cry from tender emotions: how noble it was to think that way and to show such concern for the German people.
And who of us knew that at the same time the marshals received different orders from the Kremlin with respect to their own people?
[To the] Commanders of the troops of the First and Second Byelorussian Fronts [Army Groups], and the First, Second, Third and Fourth Ukrainian Fronts ...
The Military Councils of the Fronts shall form camps in [rear-zone] service areas for the accommodation and maintenance of former prisoners of war and repatriated Soviet citizens -- each camp for 10,000 persons. All in all, there shall be formed: at the Second Byelorussian Front -- 15 [camps]; at the First Byelorussian Front -- 30; at the First Ukrainian Front -- 30; at the Fourth Ukrainian Front -- 5; at the Second Ukrainian Front -- 10; at the Third Ukrainian Front -- 10 camps ...
The check-up [of the former prisoners of war and repatriated citizens] shall be entrusted as follows: former Red Army servicemen -- to the bodies of SMERSH counter-intelligence; civilians -- to the commissions of the NKVD, NKGB, SMERSH ...
I phoned Col.-Gen. Dmitri Volkogonov, Chief of the Institute of Military History under the USSR Ministry of Defense [and author of Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy]: "Where did you find that order? Both at the State Security Committee and at the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs they told me that they had nothing of the kind."
"This one is from Stalin's personal archives. The camps existed, which means that there are also papers from which it is possible to learn everything: who, where, what they were fed, what they thought about. Most likely, the documents are in the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The convoy troops were subordinate to this government department. It included the Administration for the Affairs of Former Prisoners of War. Make a search."
And search I did. Maj.-Gen. Pyotr Mishchenkov, First Deputy Chief of the present-day Main Administration for Corrective Affairs (GUID) at the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, was sincerely surprised: "This is the first I heard about this. I would be glad to help, but there is nothing I can do about it. I know that there was a colony in the Chunsky district of the Irkutsk Region. People got there after being checked up at the filtering camps mentioned in Stalin's order. They were all convicted under Article 58 -- high treason."
One colony ... Where are the others, what happened to their inmates? After all, as many as 100 camps were at work. The only thing I managed to find out -- by October 1, 1945, they had "filtered" 5,200,000 Soviet citizens; 2,034,000 were turned over by the Allies -- 98 percent of those who stayed in Germany's western occupation zones, mostly POWs. How many of them returned home? And how many went, in accordance with Order No. 270, into Soviet concentration camps? I don't yet have any authentic documents in my possession. Again only Western estimates and some eyewitness accounts.
I spoke to one such eyewitness on the Kolyma. A former "traitor to the Motherland," but then the accountant general of the Srednekan gold field, Viktor Masol, told me how in June 1942 in the Don steppes after the Kharkov catastrophe they -- unarmed, hungry, ragged Red Army men -- were herded like sheep by German tanks into crowds of many thousands. Freight cars took them to Germany, where he mixed concrete for the Reich, and three years later they were sent in freight cars from Germany across the whole Soviet Union -- as far as the Pacific Ocean. In the port of Vanino they were loaded into the holds of the Felix Dzerzhinsky steamship [named after the founder of the Soviet secret police], which had previously borne the name of Nikolai Yezhov, [a former] People's Commissar of Internal Affairs [that is, the NKVD or secret police], bound for Magadan. During the week they were on their way, they were given food only once -- barrels with gray flour, covered with boiling water, were lowered through the hatch. And they, burning their hands and crushing one another, snatched this mess and stuffed it, choking, into their mouths: most often people go crazy with hunger. Those who died on the way were thrown overboard in the Nagayev Bay, the survivors marched into the taiga, again behind the barbed wire of -- now -- their native prison camps.
Just a few survived and returned. But even they were like lepers. Outcasts. How many times they heard: "Better a bullet through your head ..."
Many former POWs thought about a bullet in the 1940s-1950s. Both when they were reminded from the militia office -- "you are two days overdue" (all the POWs were kept on a special register with mandatory reports on strictly definite days), and when people told them: "Keep silent. You whiled away your time in captivity on fascist grub ..."
And they did keep silent.
In 1956, after Khrushchev's report, it became possible to speak about Stalin. Former POWs were no longer automatically enemies of the people, but not quite yet defenders of the Motherland. Something in between. On paper it was one way, but in life everything was different.
Two years ago, on the eve of V-Day, I interviewed Col.-Gen. Alexei Zheltov, Chairman of the Soviet War Veterans' Committee. As befits the occasion, he was telling me with tears in his eyes about the holiday, about a Soviet soldier, an accordion in his hands, in the streets of spring-time Vienna. And I don't know what made me ask him, well, and former prisoners of war, are they war veterans?
"No, they are not veterans. Don't you have anything else to write about? Look how many real soldiers we have ..."
If Alexei Zheltov, the tried and tested veteran commissar, were the only one to think that way, that wouldn't be so bad. The trouble is that this philosophy is preached by the majority of the top brass. Both those who have long retired on pensions and who still hold command positions. For nearly 40 years we have been "orphaned," have lived without "the father of the peoples," but we sacredly revere his behests, sometimes not even noticing this ourselves.
Human blood is not water. But is has also proved to be a perfect conserving agent for Stalin's morality. It has become even thicker. It has not disappeared even after several generations. It lives on. And not infrequently it triumphs. Try and raise the problem of prisoners of war (even before me this theme was taken up on more than one occasion, so I'm no discoverer here) -- the reaction is always the same: better talk about something else. And if you fail to heed a "piece of good advice," they may even start to threaten: "Don't you dare!"
To whom should one address his requests? To the government or the Supreme Soviet? What beautiful walls of the Kremlin should one knock on to demand that soldierly dignity be returned to former POWs, that their good name be restored?
Suppose your knocking has been heard. They will ask: what are you complaining about? What resolution do you take exception to? Oh, not a resolution. You are only worried over the past? How strange ...
But it's even more strange that we still have real soldiers, real heroes and real people, meaning that there are also those who are not real. To this day our life is still like a battle front: by force of habit, we continue putting people in slots -- these on this side, others over there. There seems to be neither law nor Order No. 270 any longer, like there is no one and nothing to fight against, but all the same whatever was once called black may at best become only gray. But by no means white.
... May 9: the whole country cries and rejoices. Veterans don their medals and pour out wine, remembering their buddies. But even in this circle a former POW is the last to hold out his glass and the last to take the floor.
What then is to be done? What should we do to squeeze the Stalinoid slave out of ourselves?
About the Author
Yuri Teplyakov, born in 1937, studied journalism at Moscow State University. He worked as a journalist for the Moscow daily newspapers Izvestia and Komsomolskaya Pravda, and for the APN information agency. From 1980 to 1993 he worked for the weekly Moscow News. In writing this article, he expresses thanks to Mikhail Semiryaga, D.Sc. (History), "who provided me with considerable material, which he found in German archives. As for the documents of Soviet filtering camps, I shall go on with my searches." This article originally appeared in Moscow News, No. 19, 1990, and was reprinted by special arrangement in The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1994 (Vol. 14, No. 4), pages 4-10.
America's ‘Second Crusade’ in Retrospect
Looking Back at the U.S. Role in World War Two
By William Henry Chamberlin
America's Second Crusade belongs to history. Was it a success? Over two hundred thousand Americans perished in combat and almost six hundred thousand were wounded. There was the usual crop of postwar crimes attributable to shock and maladjustment after combat experience. There was an enormous depletion of American natural resources in timber, oil, iron ore, and other metals. The nation emerged from the war with a staggering and probably unredeemable debt in the neighborhood of one quarter of a trillion dollars. Nothing comparable to this burden has ever been known in American history.
Were these human and material losses justified or unavoidable? From the military standpoint, of course, the crusade was a victory. The three Axis nations were completely crushed. American power on land and at sea, in the air and in the factory assembly line, was an indispensable contribution to this defeat.
But war is not a sporting competition, in which victory is an end in itself. It can only be justified as a means to achieve desirable positive ends or to ward off an intolerable and unmistakable threat to national security. When one asks for the fruits of victory five years after the end of the war, the answers sound hollow and unconvincing.
Consider first the results of the war in terms of America's professed war aims: the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms. Here surely the failure has been complete and indisputable. Wilson failed to make his Fourteen Points prevail in the peace settlements after World War I. But his failure might be considered a brilliant success when one surveys the abyss that yawns between the principles of the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms and the realities of the postwar world.
After World War I there were some reasonably honest plebiscites, along with some arbitrary and unjust territorial arrangements. But the customary method of changing frontiers after World War II was to throw the entire population out bag and baggage – and with very little baggage.
No war in history has killed so many people and left such a legacy of miserable, uprooted, destitute, dispossessed human beings. Some fourteen million Germans and people of German stock were driven from the part of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse line, from the Sudeten area of Czechoslovakia, and from smaller German settlements in Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Rumania.
Millions of Poles were expelled from the territory east of the so-called Curzon Line and resettled in other parts of Poland, including the provinces stolen from Germany. Several hundred thousand Finns fled from parts of Finland seized by the Soviet Union in its two wars of aggression. At least a million East Europeans of various nationalities Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Yugoslavs, Letts, Lithuanians, Estonians – became refugees from Soviet territorial seizures and Soviet tyranny.
Not one of the drastic surgical operations on Europe's boundaries was carried out in free consultation with the people affected. There can be no reasonable doubt that every one of these changes would have been rejected by an overwhelming majority in an honestly conducted plebiscite.
The majority of the people in eastern Poland and the Baltic states did not wish to become Soviet citizens. Probably not one person in a hundred in East Prussia, Silesia, and other ethnically German territories favored the substitution of Polish or Soviet for German rule. What a mockery, then, has been made of the first three clauses of the Atlantic Charter: "no territorial aggrandizement," "no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned," "the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live."
The other clauses have fared no better. The restrictions imposed on German and Japanese industry, trade, and shipping cannot be reconciled with the promise "to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world."
In the great conflict then raging between Germany and the other Axis nations, on one side, and the British Empire and Soviet Russia, on the other, the United States was officially still neutral. Nevertheless, and violating both international law and repeated pledges to the American people, Roosevelt had already plunged the United States into the war. At this meeting he publicly committed the US to "the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny." Just weeks earlier, and on his order, US forces had occupied Iceland.
At this meeting Roosevelt and Churchill announced the "Atlantic Charter," which proclaimed "the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live." The Allied leaders were never sincere about such pledges. Britain was already violating it in the case of India and other imperial dominions, and later Roosevelt and Churchill would betray it in the case of Poland, Hungary and other European nations.
The terrific war destruction and the vindictive peace have certainly not helped to secure "for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security."
In the year 1950, five years after the end of the Second Crusade, "all men in all lands" are not living "out their lives in freedom from fear and want." Nor are "all men traversing the high seas and oceans without hindrance."
The eighth and last clause of the Atlantic Charter holds out the prospect of lightening "for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments." But this burden has become more crushing than it was before the crusade took place. The "peace-loving peoples" have been devoting ever larger shares of their national incomes to preparations for war.
All in all, the promises of the Charter seem to have evaporated in a wraith of Atlantic mist.
Nor have the Four Freedoms played any appreciable part in shaping the postwar world. These, it may be recalled, were freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, and freedom from fear and want. But one of the main consequences of the war was a vast expansion of Communist power in eastern Europe and in East Asia. It can hardly be argued that this has contributed to greater freedom of speech, expression, and religion, or, for that matter, to freedom from want and fear.
The fate of Cardinal Mindzenty, of Archbishop Stepinac, of the Protestant leaders in Hungary, of the many priests who have been arrested and murdered in Soviet satellite states, of independent political leaders and dissident Communists in these states, offers eloquent testimony to the contrary.
In short, there is not the slightest visible relation between the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms and the kind of world that has emerged after the war. Woodrow Wilson put up a struggle for his Fourteen Points. There is no evidence that Franklin D. Roosevelt offered any serious objection to the many violations of his professed war aims.
It may, of course, be argued that the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms were unessential window dressing, that the war was not a crusade at all, but a matter of self-defense and national survival. However, there is no proof that Germany and Japan had worked out, even on paper, any scheme for the invasion of the American continent.
In his alarmist broadcast of May 27, 1941, Roosevelt declared: “Your Government knows what terms Hitler, if victorious, would impose. I am not speculating about all this... They plan to treat the Latin American countries as they are now treating the Balkans. They plan then to strangle the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada.”
But this startling accusation was never backed up by concrete proof. No confirmation was found even when the Nazi archives were at the disposal of the victorious powers. There has been gross exaggeration of the supposed close co-operation of the Axis powers. General George C. Marshall points this out in his Report on the Winning of the War in Europe and the Pacific [Simon & Schuster, pp. 1-3], published after the end of the war. This report, based on American intelligence reports and on interrogation of captured German commanders, contains the following statements:
No evidence has yet been found that the German High Command had any over-all strategic plan...
When Italy entered the war, Mussolini's strategic aims contemplated the expansion of his empire under the cloak of German military success. Field Marshal Keitel reveals that Italy's declaration of war was contrary to her agreement with Germany. Both Keitel and Jodl agree that it was undesired...
Nor is there evidence of close strategic coordination between Germany and Japan. The German General Staff recognized that Japan was bound by the neutrality pact with Russia but hoped that the Japanese would tie down strong British and American land, sea and air forces in the Far East.
In the absence of any evidence so far to the contrary, it is believed that Japan also acted unilaterally and not in accordance with a unified strategic plan.
Not only were the European partners of the Axis unable to coordinate their plans and resources and agree within their own nations how best to proceed, but the eastern partner, Japan, was working in even greater discord. The Axis as a matter of fact existed on paper only. [Italics supplied.]
So, in the judgment of General Marshall, the Axis did not represent a close-knit league, with a clear-cut plan for achieving world domination, including the subjugation of the American continent. It was a loose association of powers with expansionist aims in Europe and the Far East.
Of course the United States had no alternative except to fight after Pearl Harbor and the German and Italian declarations of war. But the Pearl Harbor attack, in all probability, would never have occurred if the United States had been less inflexible in upholding the cause of China. Whether this inflexibility was justified, in the light of subsequent developments in China, is highly questionable, to say the least.
The diplomatic prelude to Pearl Harbor also includes such fateful American decisions as the imposition of a virtual commercial blockade on Japan in July 1941, the cold-shouldering of Prince Konoye's overtures, and the failure, at the critical moment, to make any more constructive contribution to avoidance of war than Hull's bleak note of November 26.
The war with Germany was also very largely the result of the initiative of the Roosevelt Administration. The destroyer deal, the lend-lease bill, the freezing of Axis assets, the injection of the American Navy, with much secrecy and double-talk, into the Battle of the Atlantic: these and many similar actions were obvious departures from neutrality, even though a Neutrality Act, which the President had sworn to uphold, was still on the statute books.
It is sometimes contended that the gradual edging of the United States into undeclared war was justified because German and Japanese victory would have threatened the security and well-being of the United States, even if no invasion of this hemisphere was contemplated. This argument would be easier to sustain if the war had been fought, not as a crusade of "a free world against a slave world," but as a cold-blooded attempt to restore and maintain a reasonable balance of power in Europe and in Asia.
Had America's prewar and war diplomacy kept this objective in mind, some of the graver blunders of the Second Crusade would have been avoided. Had it been observed as a cardinal principle of policy that Soviet totalitarianism was just as objectionable morally and more dangerous politically and psychologically than the German and Japanese brands, the course of American policy would surely have been different. There would have been more favorable consideration for the viewpoint artlessly expressed by Senator Truman when he suggested that we should support Russia when Germany was winning and Germany when Russia was winning.
It was the great dilemma of the war that we could not count on winning the war without Russia and certainly could not hope to win the peace with Russia. But there was at least a partial solution for this dilemma. One of the ablest men associated with the American diplomatic service suggested this to me in a private conversation: "We should have made peace with Germany and Japan when they were too weak to be a threat to us and still strong enough to be useful partners in a coalition against the Soviet Union."
But such realism was at a hopeless discount in a crusading atmosphere. The effect of America's policy was to create a huge power vacuum in Europe and in Asia, and to leave the Soviet Union the one strong military power in both these continents. Then the United States belatedly began to offer resistance when the Soviet leaders acted precisely as anyone might have expected them to act in view of their political record and philosophy.
An old friend whom I met in Paris in 1946, a shrewd and witty British journalist, offered the following estimate of the situation which followed the Second Crusade: "You know, Hitler really won this war – in the person of Stalin."
President Roosevelt declared in his speech of May 27, 1941: "We will accept only a world consecrated to freedom from want and freedom from terrorism." The war into which he was steadily and purposefully steering his country was apparently supposed to assure such a world.
The argument that "we cannot live in a totalitarian world" carried weight with many Americans who were not impressed by lurid pictures of the Germans (who were never able to cross the narrow English Channel) suddenly frog-leaping the Atlantic and overrunning the United States. Both in the hectic days of 1940-41 and in the cooler retrospect of 1950 it seems clear that a Nazi Germany, dominant in Europe, and a militarist Japan, extending its hegemony in Asia, would be unpleasant neighbors and would impose disagreeable changes in the American way of life.
It could plausibly be argued that in such a world we should have to assume a heavy permanent burden of armament, that we should have to keep a constant alert for subversive agents, that our trade would be forced into distorted patterns. We would be exposed to moral corruption and to the erosion of our ideals of liberty because the spectacle of armed might trampling on right would be contagious.
These dangers of totalitarianism were real enough. But it was a disastrous fallacy to imagine that these dangers could be exorcised by waging war and making peace in such fashion that the power of another totalitarian state, the Soviet Union, would be greatly enhanced.
Failure to foresee the aggressive and disintegrating role which a victorious Soviet Union might be expected to play in a smashed and ruined Europe and Asia was the principal blunder of America's crusading interventionists. Those who secretly or openly sympathized with communism were at least acting logically. But the majority erred out of sheer ignorance and wishful thinking about Soviet motives and intentions. They were guilty of a colossal error in judgment and perspective, and almost unpardonable error in view of the importance of the issues at stake.
After Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war, the United States, of course, had a stake in the success of the Red Army. This, however, does not justify the policy of one-sided appeasement which was followed at Teheran and Yalta.
If one looks farther back, before America's hands were tied diplomatically by involvement in the conflict, there was certainly no moral or political obligation for the United States and other western powers to defend the Soviet Union against possible attacks from Germany and Japan. The most hopeful means of dealing with the totalitarian threat would have been for the western powers to have maintained a hands-off policy in eastern Europe.
In this case the two totalitarian regimes might have been expected to shoot it out to their hearts' content. But advocates of such an elementary common-sense policy were vilified as appeasers, fascist sympathizers, and what not. The repeated indications that Hitler's ambitions were Continental, not overseas, that he desired and intended to move toward the east, not toward the west, were overlooked.
Even after what General Deane called "the strange alliance" had been concluded, there was room for maneuvering. We could have been as aloof toward Stalin as Stalin was toward us. There is adequate evidence available that the chance of negotiating a reasonable peace with a non-Nazi German government would have justified an attempt, but the "unconditional surrender" formula made anything of this sort impossible. With a blind optimism that now seems amazing and fantastic, the men responsible for the conduct of American foreign policy staked everything on the improbable assumption that the Soviet Government would be a cooperative do-gooder in an ideal postwar world.
The publicist Randolph Bourne, a caustic and penetrating critic of American participation in its First Crusade, observed that war is like a wild elephant. It carries the rider where it wishes to go, not where he may wish to go.
Now the crusade has ended. We have the perspective of five years of uneasy peace. And the slogan, "We are fighting so that we will not have to live in a totalitarian world," stands exposed in all its tragic futility. For what kind of world are we living in today? It is not very much like the world we could have faced if the crusade had never taken place, if Hitler had been allowed to go eastward, if Germany had dominated eastern Europe and Japan eastern Asia? Is there not a "This is where we came in" atmosphere, very reminiscent of the time when there was constant uneasy speculation as to where the next expansionist move would take place. The difference is that Moscow has replaced Berlin and Tokyo. There is one center of dynamic aggression instead of two, with the concentration of power in that one center surpassing by far that of the German-Japanese combination. And for two reasons their difference is for the worse, not for the better.
First, one could probably have counted on rifts and conflicts of interest between Germany and Japan which are less likely to arise in Stalin's centralized empire. Second, Soviet expansion is aided by propaganda resources which were never matched by the Nazis and the Japanese.
How does it stand with those ideals which were often invoked by advocates of the Second Crusade? What about "orderly processes in international relations," to borrow a phrase from Cordell Hull, or international peace and security in general? Does the present size of our armaments appropriation suggest confidence in an era of peace and good will? Is it not pretty much the kind of appropriation we would have found necessary if there had been no effort to destroy Nazi and Japanese power?
Secret agents of foreign powers? We need not worry about Nazis or Japanese. But the exposure of a dangerously effective Soviet spy ring in Canada, the proof that Soviet agents had the run of confidential State Department papers, the piecemeal revelations of Soviet espionage in this country during the war – all these things show that the same danger exists from another source.
Moral corruption? We have acquiesced in and sometimes promoted some of the most outrageous injustices in history: the mutilation of Poland, the uprooting of millions of human beings from their homes, the use of slave labor after the war. If we would have been tainted by the mere existence of the evil features of the Nazi system, are we not now tainted by the widespread prevalence of a very cruel form of slavery in the Soviet Union?
Regimentation of trade? But how much free trade is there in the postwar world? This conception has been ousted by an orgy of exchange controls, bilateral commercial agreements, and other devices for damming and diverting the free stream of international commerce.
Justice for oppressed peoples? Almost every day there are news dispatches from eastern Europe indicating how conspicuously this ideal was not realized.
The totalitarian regimes against which America fought have indeed been destroyed. But a new and more dangerous threat emerged in the very process of winning the victory. The idea that we would eliminate the totalitarian menace to peace and freedom while extending the dominion of the Hammer and Sickle has been proved a humbug, a hoax, and a pitiful delusion.
Looking back over the diplomatic history of the war, one can identify ten major blunders which contributed very much to the unfavorable position in which the western powers find themselves today. These may be listed as follows:
(1) The guarantee of "all support in their power" which the British Government gave to Poland "in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence." This promise, hastily given on March 31, 1939, proved impossible to keep. It was of no benefit to the Poles in their unequal struggle against the German invasion. It was not regarded as applicable against Russia when the Soviet Union invaded and occupied eastern Poland, with the full understanding and complicity of Hitler.
All this ill-advised guarantee accomplished was to put Great Britain and France into war against Germany, to the great satisfaction of Stalin, for an objective which the western powers could not win. Poland was not freed even after the United States entered the war and Hitler was crushed. It was only subjected to a new tyranny, organized and directed from Moscow.
There is no proof and little probability that Hitler would have attacked the west if he had not been challenged on the Polish issue. The guarantee, more than any other single action, spoiled the best political opportunity the western powers possessed in 1939. This was to canalize German expansion eastward and to keep war out of the West.
(2) The failure of the American Government to accept Konoye's overtures for a negotiated settlement of differences in the Far East. The futility of the crusade for China to which the American Government committed itself becomes constantly more clear.
(3) The "unconditional surrender" slogan which Roosevelt tossed off at Casablanca in January 1943. This was a godsend to Goebbels and a tremendous blow to the morale and effectiveness of the underground groups which were working against Hitler. It weakened the American and British position in relation to Russia, since Stalin did not associate himself with the demand. It stiffened and prolonged German resistance.
(4) The policy of "getting along" with Stalin on a basis of all-out appeasement. The Soviet dictator was given everything he wanted in the way of munitions and supplies and was asked for nothing in return, not even an honest fulfillment of the Atlantic Charter, of which he was a cosignatory. The disastrous bankruptcy of this policy is evident from one look at the geographical, political, and moral map of the world today.
(5) Failure to invade the Balkans, as Churchill repeatedly urged. This mistake was the result partly of the policy of appeasing Stalin and partly of the narrowly military conception of the war which dominated the thinking of the War Department. There was a tendency to regard the war as a kind of bigger football game, in which victory was all that mattered.
(6) The public endorsement by Roosevelt and Churchill in September 1944 of the preposterous Morgenthau Plan for the economic destruction of Germany. To be sure, the full extravagance of this scheme was never put into practice, but enough of its vindictive destructionist spirit got into the Potsdam Declaration and the regulations for Military Government to work very great harm to American national interests and European recovery.
(7) The bribing of Stalin, at China's expense, to enter the Far Eastern war and the failure to make clear, until the last moment, that unconditional sur render, for Japan, did not mean the elimination of the Emperor. These were grave mistakes, fraught with fateful consequences for American political interests in the Orient. Had the danger from Russia, the undependability of China, and the desirability of enlisting Japan as a satellite ally been intelligently appreciated, a balance of power far more favorable to the United States would now exist in East Asia.
(8) The failure, for political reasons, to exploit the military opportunities which opened up in the last weeks of the struggle in Europe, notably the failure to press on and seize Berlin and Prague. Closely linked with this error was the failure to insist on direct land access to Berlin in the negotiations about the postwar occupation of Germany.
(9) The persistent tendency to disregard the advice of experts and specialists, and base American foreign policy on "hunches" inspired by amateurs and dilettantes. Conspicuous examples of unfitness in high places were Harry Hopkins as adviser on Russia, Edward R. Stettinius as Secretary of State, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., as policy framer on Germany, and Edwin W. Pauley as Reparations Commissioner. A parallel mistake was the laxness which permitted American and foreign Communist sympathizers to infiltrate the OWI, OSS, and other important strategic agencies.
(10) The hasty launching, amid much exaggerated ballyhoo, of the United Nations. The new organization was not given either a definite peace settlement to sustain or the power which would have made it an effective mediator and arbiter in disputes between great powers. It was as if an architect should create an elaborate second story of a building, complete with balconies, while neglecting to lay a firm foundation.
These were unmistakable blunders which no future historical revelations can justify or explain away. In these blunders one finds the answer to the question why complete military victory, in the Second Crusade as in the First, was followed by such complete political frustration. Perhaps the supreme irony of the war's aftermath is that the United States becomes increasingly dependent on the good will and co-operation of the peoples against whom it waged a war of political and economic near extermination, the Germans and the Japanese, in order to maintain any semblance of balance of power in Europe and in Asia.
Primary responsibility for the involvement of the United States in World War II and for the policies which characterized our wartime diplomacy rests with Franklin D. Roosevelt. His motives were mixed and were probably not always clear, even to himself. Frances Perkins, Secretary of labor in his Cabinet and a personal friend, described the President as "the most complicated human being I ever knew."
Certainly Roosevelt was far from being a simple and straightforward character. In an age when Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini played the role of the popular tyrant, of the dictator whose grip on his people is maintained by a mixture of mass enthusiasm and mass terrorism, Roosevelt showed what could be done in achieving very great personal power within the framework of free institutions. His career after his election to the presidency stamps him as a man of vast ambition, capable, according to Frances Perkins, of "almost childish vanity."
There were probably three principal motives that impelled Roosevelt to set in motion the machinery that led America into its Second Crusade. First was this quality of ambition. What role could be more tempting than that of leader of a wartime global coalition, of ultimate world arbiter? Second was the necessity of finding some means of extricating the American economy from a difficult position. Third was a conviction that action against the Axis was necessary. This conviction was greatly strengthened by the first two motives.
Roosevelt's first Administration, which began at the low point of a very severe depression, was a brilliant political success. He was re-elected in 1936 by an enormous majority of popular and electoral votes. But dark clouds hung over the last years of his second term of office. For all the varied and sometimes contradictory devices of the New Deal failed to banish the specter of large-scale unemployment. There were at least ten million people out of work in the United States in 1939.
The coming of the war in Europe accomplished what all the experimentation of the New Deal had failed to achieve. It created the swollen demand for American munitions, equipment, supplies of all kinds, foodstuffs which started the national economy on the road to full production and full employment.
There was the same economic phenomenon at the time of the First World War. The vast needs of the Allies meant high profits, not only for munitions makers (later stigmatized as "merchants of death"), but for all branches of business activity. It brought a high level of farm prices and industrial wages. As the Allies ran out of ready cash, loans were floated on the American market. The United States, or at least some American financial interests, acquired a direct stake in an Allied victory.
Now, the purely economic interpretation of our involvement in World War I can be pressed too far. There is neither evidence nor probability that Wilson was directly influenced by bankers or munitions makers. He had given the German Government a public and grave warning of the consequences of resorting to unlimited submarine warfare. When the German Government announced the resumption of such warfare, Wilson, with the assent of Congress, made good his warning.
Yet the lure of war profits (not restricted, it should be noted, to any single class of people) did exert a subtle but important influence on the evolution of American policy in the years 1914-17. It worked against the success of the mediation efforts launched by House as Wilson's confidential emissary. The British and French governments counted with confidence on the absence of any strong action to back up periodic protests against the unprecedented severity of the blockade enforced against Germany. The American economy had become very dependent on the flow of Allied war orders.
After the end of the war, after depression and repudiation of the greater part of the war debts, the majority of the American people reached the conclusion that a war boom was not worth the ultimate price. This feeling found expression in the Neutrality Act. Roosevelt himself in 1936 described war profits as "fools' gold."
Yet the course of American economic development in World War II followed closely the pattern set in World War I. First the Neutrality Act was amended to permit the sale of munitions. Then, as British assets were exhausted, the lend-lease arrangement was substituted for the war loans of the earlier period. As an economic student of the period [Broadus Mitchell in Depression Decade] says:
The nation did not emerge from the decade of the depression until pulled out by war orders from abroad and the defense program at home. The rescue was timely and sweet and deserved to be made as sure as possible. Whether the involvement of the United States in the war through progressive departure from neutrality was prompted partly by the reflection that other means of extrication from economic trouble had disappeared, nobody can say. No proponent did say so. Instead, advocates of "all-out aid to Britain," convoying of allied shipping and lend-lease took high ground of patriotism and protection of civilization.
There can be no reasonable doubt that the opposition of business and labor groups to involvement in the war was softened by the tremendous flood of government war orders. It is an American proverb that the customer is always right. Under lend-lease and the immense program of domestic arms expansion the government became the biggest customer.
Ambition certainly encouraged Roosevelt to assume an interventionist attitude. He unmistakably enjoyed his role as one of the "Big Three," as a leading figure at international conferences, as a mediator between Stalin and Churchill. There is a marked contrast between Roosevelt's psychology as a war leader and Lincoln's.
The Civil War President was often bowed down by sorrow over the tragic aspects of the historic drama in which he was called to play a leading part. His grief for the men who were dying on both sides of the fighting lines was deep and hearty and unaffected. One finds little trace of this mood in Roosevelt's war utterances. There is no Gettysburg Address in Roosevelt's state papers. The President's familiar mood is one of jaunty, cocksure, sometimes flippant, self-confidence.
Another trait in Roosevelt's personality which may help to explain the casual, light-hearted scrapping of the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms is a strong histrionic streak. If he originated or borrowed a brilliant phrase, he felt that his work was done. He felt no strong obligation to see that the phrase, once uttered, must be realized in action.
When did Roosevelt decide that America must enter the war? There was a hint of bellicose action in his quarantine speech of October 5, 1937. Harold Ickes claims credit for suggesting the quarantine phrase, which did not appear in earlier drafts of the speech which had been prepared in the State Department. It was like Roosevelt to pick up and insert an image which appealed to him. However, the quarantine speech met such an unfavorable reception that it led to no immediate action.
Various dates are suggested by other observers. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, who enjoyed substantial influence and many contacts in Administration circles, asserted in a Roosevelt memorial address at Harvard University in April 1945: “There came a moment when President Roosevelt was convinced that the utter defeat of Nazism was essential to the survival of our institutions. That time certainly could not have been later than when Mr. Sumner Welles reported on his mission to Europe [March 1940].”
That Roosevelt may have been mentally committed to intervention even before the war broke out is indicated by the following dispatch from Maurice Hindus in the New York Herald Tribune of January 4, 1948:
Prague – President Eduard Benes of Czechoslovakia told the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt on May 29, 1939, that war would break out any day after July 15 of that year, with Poland as the first victim, and Mr. Roosevelt, in reply to a question as to what the United States would do, said it would have to participate because Europe alone could not defeat Adolf Hitler.
A suggestion by Assistant Secretary of State A. A. Berle that Roosevelt should have become the leader of the free world against Hitler is believed to have influenced the President's psychology. [Davis and Lindley, How War Came, p. 65.]
Admiral James O. Richardson, at that time Commander in Chief of the Pacific fleet, talked at length with Roosevelt in the White House on October 8, 1940. He testified before the Congressional committee investigating Pearl Harbor [Report of the Congressional Joint Committee, Part I, p. 266] that he had asked the President whether we would enter the war and received the following answer:
He [Roosevelt] replied that if the Japanese attacked Thailand, or the Kra peninsula, or the Netherlands East Indies, we would not enter the war, that if they even attacked the Philippines he doubted whether we would enter the war, but that they could not always avoid making mistakes and that as the war continued and the area of operation expanded sooner or later they would make a mistake and we would enter the war.
It is clear from these varied pieces of evidence that the thought of war was never far from Roosevelt's mind, even while he was assuring so many audiences during the election campaign that "your government is not going to war." During the year 1941, as has been shown in an earlier chapter [of America's Second Crusade], he put the country into an undeclared naval war in the Atlantic by methods of stealth and secrecy. This point was made very clear by Admiral Stark, then Chief of Naval Operations, in his reply to Representative Gearhart during the Pearl Harbor investigation:
Technically or from an international standpoint we were not at war, inasmuch as we did not have the right of belligerents, because war had not been declared. But actually, so far as the forces operating under Admiral King in certain areas were concerned, it was against any German craft that came inside that area. They were attacking us and we were attacking them.
Stark also testified that, by direction of the President, he ordered American warships in the Atlantic to fire on German submarines and surface ships. This order was issued on October 8, 1941, two months before Hitler's declaration of war.
It is scarcely possible, in the light of this and many other known facts, to avoid the conclusion that the Roosevelt Administration sought the war which began at Pearl Harbor. The steps which made armed conflict inevitable were taken months before the conflict broke out.
Some of Roosevelt's apologists contend that, if he deceived the American people, it was for their own good. But the argument that the end justified the means rests on the assumption that the end had been achieved. Whether America's end in its Second Crusade was assurance of national security or the establishment of a world of peace and order or the realization of the Four Freedoms "everywhere in the world," this end was most certainly not achieved.
America's Second Crusade was a product of illusions which are already bankrupt. It was an illusion that the United States was at any time in danger of invasion by Nazi Germany. It was an illusion that Hitler was bent on the destruction of the British Empire. It was an illusion that China was capable of becoming a strong, friendly, western-oriented power in the Far East. It was an illusion that a powerful Soviet Union in a weakened and impoverished Eurasia would be a force for peace, conciliation, stability, and international co-operation. It was an illusion that the evils and dangers associated with totalitarianism could be eliminated by giving unconditional support to one form of totalitarianism against another. It was an illusion that a combination of appeasement and personal charm could melt away designs of conquest and domination which were deeply rooted in Russian history and Communist philosophy.
The fruit harvested from seeds of illusion is always bitter.
We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon the world another war in which civilization will irretrievably succumb... It is on this mystery of the future that history will pronounce Hitler either a monster or a hero.
I appeal to reason in international affairs. I want to show that the idea of eternal enmity is wrong. We are not hereditary enemies.
There can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi Power. Which cheers its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which vaunts the spirit of aggression and conquest, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen, with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force.
At no time and in no place have I ever acted contrary to British interests … I believe even today that there can only be real peace in Europe and throughout the world if Germany and England come to an understanding.
I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering.
this hour I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense, in
Great Britain as much as elsewhere. ... I can see no reason why this war must go on.
We shall go on to the end. We shall fight on the seas, we shall fight in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender...
Time and time again I have offered friendship, and if necessary closest cooperation, to England. But love cannot be offered from one side only. It must be met with reciprocation by the other side.
Germany is not pursuing any interests in the West.
You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs. Victory in spite of all terrors. Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.
All of my peace overtures have been rejected and war was declared on us.... The German people has no hatred, no inimical feeling toward the English or French people.
There is one thing that will bring Hitler down, and that is an absolutely devastating exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland.
Again and again I uttered these warnings against this specific type of aerial warfare, and I did so for over three and a half months. That these warnings failed to impress Mr. Churchill does not surprise me in the least. For what does this man care for the lives of others? What does he care for culture or for architecture?
And even if this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World (United States), with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
(Roosevelt) is resolved to take over, as safely and securely as possible, the British Empire in the moment of its downfall. Since England is no longer in the position to pay cash for all the American deliveries.
I have it in me to be a successful soldier. I can visualize great movements and combinations.
World War I
Churchill is the most bloodthirsty of amateur strategists that history has ever known.
We never thought of peace, not even in that year when we were completely isolated and could have made peace without serious detriment to the British Empire. Why should we think of it now, when victory approaches for the three of us?
It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. ... I have made too many offers for the limitation and control of armaments, which posterity will not be cowardly enough always to disregard, for responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be placed on me. Nor have I ever wished that, after the appalling First World War, there would ever be a second against either England or America.
I want proposals for "basting the Germans on their retreat from Breslau."
January, 1945 (3 weeks before the
genocidal firebombing of the civilians of Dresden)
Centuries will go by, but from the ruins of our towns and monuments the hatred of those ultimately responsible will always grow anew against the people whom we have to thank for all this: international Jewry and its henchmen (Churchill, FDR).
In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.
The gift Mr. Churchill possesses is the gift to lie with a pious expression on his face and to distort the truth until finally glorious victories are made out of the most terrible defeats.
I consider that it will be found much better by all Parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history.
...despite all setbacks, (this war) will one day go down in history as the most glorious and heroic manifestation of the struggle for existence of a nation.
|The mud-bath house at Bad Nenndorf|
"Our treatment by the English in Bad Nenndorf was inhuman. I was confined alone in a cell in which there were four plank beds. My handcuffs were not removed in the locked and watched cell neither by day nor by night, neither when I ate nor when I attended to bodily needs. Indeed, at night with my hands still tied, I was bound by yet another fetter to the posts of the plank bed so that I could not move and for that reason was unable to sleep. I was hustled to my interviews down a long corridor to the interrogation room, during which some of the warders pushed me from behind, and others were to either side, who occasionally knocked me down with tripping and kicks. In front of the door of the interrogation room, I was forced to run in place until the beginning of the interview, which the warders forced to an ever-higher tempo by kicks in the ass and curses and threats. All this happened under the gaze of the sergeant posted at the scene. The way back to my cell consisted of the same gauntlet, wherein I was often knocked down by tripping, and ran headlong into the wall. On the second day, a chair was brought into my cell. I had to site down to be 'shaved.' Even though I was shackled, two warders held me down on the chair while a third pulled my head back unmercifully by the hair so that I fell backward several times....
A fourth warder smeared my face with something that burned like acid while he slapped my face back and forth. After he had thoroughly 'lathered' me, he scraped my face with a dull razor so roughly that my blood dripped onto my jacket. During this procedure, his helpers continually spewed violent threats and imprecations in my face.
Finally, as though on command, everyone in the cell—there must have been eight or ten of them—set upon me, yanked me up, and pummeled me blindly, bound and defenseless as I was. Blows of fists rained down on my head and kicks hit me in every part of my body. Tottering on my legs, I careened from corner to corner until I collapsed unconscious from a massive blow or kick to the area of the stomach.
When I came to, all was quiet in my cell. I lay on a plank bed and I noticed that two doctors were attending me, one of whom took my pulse. My handcuffs were off. I passed out again.
I was only able to guess how long all this had taken after night had fallen. Since it was almost dark when I woke up, it must have been around eight o’clock; the beating must have begun around five. Someone handed me a cup of strong coffee and then I was brought to my last interview, this time without having to run a gauntlet. This interrogation lasted until long past midnight. The interrogating officer, noting my condition, inquired as to how it had come about. I gave him a brief account of the above. He stood up outraged and apologized in the name of the British Army. Then he left the room for a long while to—as he assured me—arrange with the commandant for punishment of the perpetrators. The affray had caused me the loss of an incisor and a molar.
The next morning at 7 o’clock I was transported, bound, in a truck to Nuremberg.”
The second report comes from the hand of the Nenndorfer Heinrich Steinmeyer and his wife Marie. The report was published in 1952 in in the magazine Quick and further circulates in Bad Nenndorf in various reproductions. Heinrich Steinmeyer was an inmate of the prison and died in 1948 from the effects of his imprisonment.
“British Interrogation Camp Bad Nenndorf 1945 – 1947
[…] the bathhouse [was] hermetically sealed away from the rest of the world. Except for the British officers, who automatically had clearance, and those British warders to whom clearance had been issued, no one knew of the existence of any such prison as this one. The Germans, of course, least of all, since whoever was consigned to this inferno was immediately rendered mute, invisible, obliterated.
No reports ever came out to next of kin from Bad Nenndorf. The British authorities, who were situated in Herford, gave information neither to next of kin, to the Red Cross which had been tipped off, nor even to the Quakers, who wished mercifully to provide aid. They even denied, when specific identification of a prisoner was submitted, that the man was even in Nenndorf…
[The tiled walls of the cells] became […] a great source of fun for the British watchstanders, and a source of misery for the prisoners because the soldiers systematically smeared the walls with feces and the prisoners then had to clean the walls spotlessly with their fingers or a toothbrush. The individual cells were never heated and in the bitter cold winter of 1946-47, the water faucet in the dayroom froze up. The floors and walls were icy cold. One plank bed. No sack of straw. Two sheets. And all night long, the electric light was on, and every hour the guard noisily opened the door and two times every night came officer’s rounds. The prisoners had to get up, stand still and give their number. For twenty minutes, one had to hear the slamming of the doors, the tramping of the guards, the bellowing of the accompanying soldiers.
This Is How They Passed Their Days …
The guard staff were a hand-picked motley crew of thugs who probably possessed but little feeling, and certainly never any sympathy whatsoever. They were all members of a penal company who had to atone for a criminal offense, and here worked out their obligated tours of duty. And they made their remaining time as entertaining and pleasant for themselves as they possibly could. Now and then they had wild disputes among themselves and the prisoners then heard some of the grievances the boys nursed, and they realized in whose hands they lay. Sodomy, thievery, fraud, burglary, attempted murder, desertion. The threat to the prisoners lay in the fact that for every one of these brigands, a shining reward lay in the offing. A fierce struggle for survival drove them back and forth.
Each had earlier held a military rank. And each had a chance to win their honor back. But to the detriment of the inmates, this opportunity lay in subjecting the inmates to the roughest and most-brutal treatment possible. For this reason, the boys worked up the most-sadistic, private methods each of them could by which to torture the prisoners.
Every prisoner at Nenndorf reported that, after having fallen asleep with great effort, he was then awakened in great disturbance. In between were days, one like the other.
Rising time was 4:30. If the sergeant was in a bad mood, he came around at 3:30 or 4:00. The prisoners stumbled out of bed—that is, from their plank beds. Five minutes later, both sheets were to be drawn drum-tight across the bed. During the day, none was to sit, nor to lie. If any poor sod happened to sit or lie for a second or two—denial of food.
The day consisted of pacing back and forth in their cells from 4 in the morning to 9:30 at night, or standing against the wall. They stood against the wall until they felt they would go crazy.
Every prisoner knew within minutes of his arrival at Nenndorf that he was lost here, since 5 minutes after his arrival he stood in the intake room, where a sergeant tore the clothes from his body. It may be said of the Nenndorf garb that every arrival looked like a clown—jacket too small, pants too wide or too narrow, and everything stiff with dirt. Laundry was never done. In the issuance of shoes, the sergeant in charge was not satisfied unless the size of shoes issued was at least four sizes too large. That sounds harmless enough, but it gave rise to unimaginable torture. There were no shoelaces, our shoes just hung on our feet, and since every step we took outside our cells had to be on the double, we constantly stumbled and fell, the while driven onward with screams and pokes with rifle butts. After 3-4 hours: weak tea and perhaps a little porridge. After this, standing or pacing in the cell until one again thought oneself driven to madness.
The Man with the Uppercut
Before the evening officer’s rounds, we had to take off our jackets, pants, and shoes and lay them in front of our cells, standing behind them in shirt and underpants. The commandant of Nenndorf, whose name no one will ever forget, Colonel Stevens, took pleasure in conducting the evening harangue. Rotund with broad shoulders and a face that was always dark red and many campaign ribbons on his chest, he looked askance at the pitiable, half-frozen forms in their underclothes with his small, cold eyes. Now and then he would randomly shout at one or another. This inarticulate yelp contained a question, which the prisoner invariably could not understand. Colonel Stevens would never wait for an answer, but rather immediately strike the man under the chin with his fist.
Then began a vicious ceremony under the gaze of the watchstanders. As soon as this tour was over, two or three prisoners were fetched from their cells. They had to sluice water, that had been placed specifically for this fiendish routine, down the long corridor and just so that the insensate bodies of the prisoners were soaked in the filthy froth. So their clothes, if they could be called clothes, lay until dawn in the swill until they awoke and had to clutch the totally besmirched and frozen rags against their bodies.
Of course there were interviews and interrogations. A huge number of witnesses have testified that British officers punched and kicked German army officers, officers of the Waffen SS and party functionaries mercilessly until they received the testimony they desired. Every prisoner in his cell either held his ears shut or trembled in every fiber of his body or ran uncontrollably back and forth in his narrow space whenever the deafening yelling, screaming, howling, crying and babbling of the tortured prisoners inescapably echoed down the corridor from the interrogation rooms, punctuated by the ferocious curses of the British interrogation officers.
Experiences in Hell
SS Obersturmbannführer Dr. Oebsger-Roeder was beaten unconscious by several British officers on Good Friday 1946, such that he had to be carried back to his cell. It took months for his grave injuries to heal.
SS Sturmbannführer Dr. Hahnke, chief of legations in the cultural-political section of the foreign ministry was so badly beaten up that for the rest of his life he had a game leg.
The last head of the film department of the propaganda ministry, Parbel, not only was flogged upon his arrival, but was consigned by a British major, a former German, to the feared and notorious Cell 12. In this place, buckets of water were continually poured so that the prisoner, barefoot in only a shirt and pants, had to either stand or pace back and forth all night in the wet. The poor soul spent fully eight days and nights in this hell and his condition even moved the minimal pity of one of the warders, who secretly took him out, gave him shoes and let him rest for an hour on the seat of the privy.
Captain Langham presided over most of the beating incidents. His name is unforgettable to Nenndorfers. He made sure that the unconscious were taken to the shower, there to be revived so that the beatings could resume.
Most of the torturers were sergeants. It speaks for the gallows humor of the prisoners that in the midst of this misery, they made up nicknames for one and another of these hangmen. One of these was called Henry VIII because he was bursting at the seams and continually roaring with a purple face. Another was called Red-eye for reasons that require no explanation. Another was called Smiley, and he was the worst of the beasts since he would appear in their cells in the middle of the night wearing an ice-cold smile, sweep them out of their bunks and make them do strenuous exercises until they were half-broken.
Escape attempts were hopeless, but nonetheless two prisoners who lived in the day room tried it: one of them got away; the other was caught near the camp in the search that ensued the detection of their absence, in which the entire guard staff took part. The unfortunate was interrogated at length and was so beaten that he finally gave away who had supplied him with civilian clothes. This was a miner who worked during the day in Barsinghausen, and on whose door the fugitive knocked one night. As the miner hesitated, his wife said to him, 'Help him, for Christ’s sake.' The miner was detained a few weeks and what this man, an old Social Democrat, had to undergo in that period was cruel in the extreme. He had to throw up at every meal; by the time of his release he also was a complete wreck. The escapee himself was beaten thoroughly and then his handcuffs were chained to the shackles on his legs so that to get around, he had to walk or stagger completely bent over. Many saw him in this condition.
No Nenndorfer will ever forget the British 'military doctor' assigned to look after them, Captain Smith. A haggard, grizzled, emaciated figure that personified resignation. He would glance into each cell, listen absent-mindedly when anyone complained about this or that, and then growl, ‘No personal remark.’ (Nothing to report.)
Anyone who had a toothache was entirely neglected, and many had toothaches from being struck repeatedly in the mouth. There was no dentist. The dentures of Dr. H. C. Winkler, that venerable Mayor Winkler, who had directed the film industry and financed other major enterprises of the Third Reich, broke when he was thrown into jail at the age of 72. He could no longer chew. Captain Smith listened to the old man, who finally said he would starve to death. Smith responded drily, ‘Then you’ll starve to death.’
Oh, You Holy Christmastime
Anyone who spent Christmastime 1945 in Bad Nenndorf will never forget it their whole life.
The prisoners employed in the kitchen had scrimped and expended the most strenuous efforts to produce a little cheer on that evening. They had managed to produce ginger bread from their meager resources. And on that Christmas Eve, a faint glimmer of light in the thick fog of mutual hostility appeared. One of the guards, of Polish descent, visited each cell and to its occupant wished a 'Merry Christmas' in his heavily accented English.
His own people had received gross mistreatment in the war, perhaps he himself, maybe even by some of those that night confined in this prison, but this night, he spoke from his heart.
He had no inkling what a wave of Hell was about to break over the heads of the prisoners in a few hours. The entire British staff, falling-down drunk, wandered from cell to cell and beat, punched, and kicked anything that came between their fists and their boots, the whole night through. A night of much
A Certain Type Must Be Eliminated
Verbatim quotation from an interrogation: ‘We know very well that you and your friends weren’t Nazis. But you’re out of luck. You’re of a type that we want to eliminate even more than we do the Nazis.’
It was the mill of collective guilt
But there were also God’s mills, which grind slowly but surely what is cried to Heaven to spread it by rumor throughout the rest of the world. Prisoners who were released, spoke. And it became clear that in Nenndorf, things happened at the hands of the English that were as bad as, even worse than, since they were committed in the name of liberation and democracy, things for which Germans at Nuremberg were hanged or sentenced to prison. Many of the prisoners had been sworn to silence. But many were not silent.
The ball started rolling. The Catholic camp chaplain of Civil Internment Camp III in Fallingbostel, Vicar Magar, heard the rumors and sought particulars of another Nenndorfer, Mr. Parbel, which he immediately passed on to the bishop of Hildesheim. And within a few weeks, this venerated dignitary came to Nenndorf and held mass in full regalia and delivered himself of the most scathing condemnation of the torture huts operated by the Britons as described by several prisoners. He swore to relay the information in full force to Cardinal Griffy in England.
On the first Pentecost of 1947, the deputized member of Parliament Stokes stood at the door of Bad Nenndorf and demanded admittance. The British officers, feigning all innocence, had to let him in. The deputy went from cell to cell and made report of all. What he saw was enough: pitiful, beaten, half-starved, sick, intimidated, broken shells of persons.
On the same evening, the British guard staff, who had for more than a year plagued and tortured the defenseless, came on the run with friendly but distracted faces from cell to cell and shared out their own rations of cigarettes, chocolate and bon-bons. But the ball was still rolling…
Senior officers of the London constabulary Scotland Yard appeared and gathered evidence as to the conditions theretofore. They made no secret of the fact that they were preparing for a trial of the commandant and guard staff of the English interrogation camp […]
Acquittal for the Torturers: 'I Didn’t Know,' and 'I Followed Orders'
The trial in London went on and on. The defendants included the commandant of Camp Bad Nenndorf, Colonel Stevens, one of the most-brutal interrogation officers, First Lieutenant Langham, the camp doctor Captain Smith and some other offenders. It was embarrassing for Lieutenant Langham in that he was shown to be a former citizen of Germany. But much more was amiss. The commandant of the camp Colonel Stevens was let off on the grounds that he didn’t know about the brutality […] Even the sergeants Red-Eye, Henry VIII and Smiley were acquitted, and on no less than the excuse that they were just carrying out orders [...] The only sentence arising from the trials was that passed on Captain Smith. His sentence consisted of his being discharged from the British Army. It was no punishment, since Captain Smith was an old man, long ready for departure, long since not an active military doctor, and he fastened upon this basis for mitigation […]”
Defiant Resistance: Germany's WW2 Home Guard
During the final months of World War II in Europe, beleaguered Germany adopted ever more desperate measures to resist the Soviet-American takeover of their nation and Europe. As this colorized footage shows, that included the formation of a national militia or home guard - the "Volkssturm" - which called up all still-available able-bodied men to defend the homeland. Civilians, including women and Hitler Youth teenagers, were also trained and armed. Many fought with the anti-tank "Panzerfaust," an early RPG. Many Volkssturm men played an important role in defending the German capital against the Soviets. Runtime: 4:52 mins. No narration.
Summer, 1945: Germany, Japan and the Harvest of Hate by Thomas Goodrich.
World War II: A Reading List
Compiled by David Gordon - Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute, and editor of The Mises Review.
The dominant view of World War II is that it was the “good war.” Hitler bears exclusive responsibility for the onset of war, because he aimed to conquer Europe, if not the entire world. The United States tried to avoid entering the war but was forced into the fight by the surprise Japanese attack on the American fleet at Pearl Harbor.
The authors on this list dissent. For them, Responsibility for the war was mixed, and Roosevelt provoked Japan’s attack. Allied conduct of the war, furthermore, was characterized by grave ethical misconduct.
Alperovitz, Gar. The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb Comprehensive study that shows dropping the atomic bombs was not needed to bring about Japanese surrender.
Baker, Nicholson Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization Stresses the violations of the norms of civilized war in World War II, with full attention to the role of Winston Churchill.
Barnes, Harry Elmer, ed. Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace A collection of essays by leading revisionist historians, concentrating on Franklin Roosevelt’s policies.
Beard, Charles A. President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941 Beard, one of the foremost twentieth-century American historians, argues that Roosevelt provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Buchanan, Patrick J.Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. Argues that the British guarantee to Poland in March 1939 was a mistake, because there was no feasible means of fulfilling it.
Chamberlin, William H., America’s Second Crusade A highly critical account of American policy during World War I. America failed to learn the lesson of intervention in World War I.
Crocker, George, Roosevelt’s Road to Russia Emphasizes the extent to which American involvement in the war led to a pro-Soviet policy.
Cowling, Maurice, The Impact of Hitler A detailed study of British cabinet politics in the 1930s, countering the view that Chamberlain sought peace at any price with Hitler.
Doenecke, Justus Storm on the Horizon: The Challenge to American Intervention, 1939-1941. A detailed study of the American anti-war movement, showing the diversity of arguments used to oppose Roosevelt’s bellicose policies.
Fussell, Paul. Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War Vivid portrayal of the deleterious effects of the war on human psychology and behavior. Refutes the romanticized picture of the “good war.”
Garrett, Garet. [ed. Bruce Ramsey] Defend America First: The Antiwar Editorials of the Saturday Evening Post, 1939-1942. Garrett, a leading figure of the Old Right, argued that coming to the aid of the Allies would weaken America. We should concentrate on home defense.
Glaser, Kurt, Czecho-Slovakia, A Critical History. A good account of the minorities problem in Czechoslovakia. Emphasizes the unrealistic policies of the Beneš government.
Greaves, Bettina, Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy. A detailed account of Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor, based on the research of Percy Greaves.
Hoover, Herbert. Freedom Betrayed. A very detailed account of Roosevelt’s foreign policy by his predecessor in the White House. Based on careful documentation.
Jaksch, Wenzel, Europe’s Road to Potsdam. An account of the Sudeten situation in the 1930s, critical of Czech policies under Beneš. The author was head of the Sudeten Social Democrats.
Kirschbaum, Joseph M. Slovakia: Nation at the Crossroads of Central Europe. An informed account of Slovak policies in the 1930s. Good on the breakup of the Czech state after the Munich Conference.
Klein, Burton H. Germany’s Economic Preparations for War. Argues that Germany in the 1930s did not plan for a long war. The author is a leading Chicago School economist.
Kubek, Anthony, How the Far East Was Lost. The first chapter, based on pioneering work by Stephen H. Johnsson, shows the influence of pro-Communist officials in pushing for US provocation of Japan before Pearl Harbor.
Mahl, Thomas E. Desperate Deception : British Cover Operations in the United States. 1939-1944 An account of British propaganda and intelligence activities aimed at involving America on the side of Britain in the war.
Morgenstern, George. Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War One of the first revisionist studies of Pearl Harbor and still one of the best. Highly detailed and very well written.
Neilson, Francis, The Churchill Legend. Includes a devastating analysis of Churchill’s multi-volume history of the war.
Newman, Simon March 1939: The British Guarantee to Poland British policy under Chamberlain was not based on weakness but on a long term strategy of confronting Hitler.
Raico, Ralph, Great Wars and Great Leaders. Written by a great classical liberal historian, the book includes a mordant account of Winston Churchill.
Russett, Bruce, No Clear and Present Danger. Argues that the prospect of an Axis dominated Europe failed to pose a sufficient threat to the United States to justify American intervention
Sanborn, Frederic, Design for War. Contains material on the US efforts to provoke a Japanese attack not readily available elsewhere. The author was a distinguished international lawyer.
Sargent, Porter, Getting US Into War. Stresses the role of British propaganda in pushing America toward war.
Schroeder, Paul, Axis Alliance and Japanese-American Realtions 1941. Contends that America foreign policy toward Japan was unduly rigid.
Schultze-Rhonhof, Gerd. 1939–The War That Had Many Fathers. Detailed account of German foreign policy in the 1930’s, arguing that responsibility for the war does not rest exclusively on Hitler. The author is a retired German general.
Sledge, E.B. With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa A searing personal memoir of the horrors of war.
Stinnett, Robert B. Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt deliberately sought war with Japan and denied information to the Army and Navy commanders at Pearl Harbor.
Suvorov, Viktor The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II. Contends that Stalin was preparing to launch an invasion of Germany, but Hitler beat him to the punch.
Tansill, Charles C. Back Door to War. A comprehensive survey by one of the leading twentieth-century American diplomatic historians. Shows how Roosevelt succeeded in involving the US in war in Europe by provoking war with Japan. Contains valuable material on the European diplomatic situation in the 1930s.
Taylor, A.J. P. The Origins of the Second World War. Argues that World War II came about through accident and miscalculation rather than by design.
Topitsch, Ernst, Stalin’s War. Topitisch, a philosopher sympathetic to the Vienna Circle logical positivists, contends that Stalin sought a European war and that Hitler’s invasion of Russia in 1941 preempted a Soviet attack.
Trachtenberg, Marc The Craft of International History: A Guide to Method. The book contains a careful analysis supporting the “back door to war“ theory, i.e., that Roosevelt sought war with Japan in order to secure American entry into the war in Europe.
Veale, F. J. P. Advance to Barbarism. Discusses the Allied responsibility for mass saturation bombing.