Orderly and Humane?: World War II as the 'Good War'

... The 1939-45 conflict is still wreathed in delusions, delusions often employed to try to justify modern wars which are
alleged to have comparably 'good' aims. The belief in its goodness is in fact ludicrous. Our main ally (rejected at the beginning
with lofty scorn, embraced later with desperate, insincere enthusiasm) was one of the most murderous tyrants in human history ...
During and immediately after the war, as I have discussed here, we employed methods which would have disgusted our
forebears and which ought to disgust us, but which were so frightful that we
still lie to ourselves about them, or hide them from our consciousness.

Click on this text to watch HOLOCAUST: Shifting the Blame, Part 1



The Soviet Union Conspired to Foment World War II and Infiltrate the U.S. Government


Stalin’s Plans


Soviet Dictator Joseph Stalin adopted three Five-Year Plans beginning in 1927 designed to make the Soviet Union

the greatest military power in the world. Stalin also conspired to start a major war in Europe by drawing Great Britain

and France into war against Germany and other countries. Stalin’s plan was to eliminate one enemy with the hands

of another. If Germany entered into a war with Great Britain and France, other countries would enter into the war

and great destruction would follow. The Soviet Union could then invade Europe and easily take over the entire continent.[1]


Stalin first attempted to start a major war in Europe during the civil war in Spain in 1936.  Stalin’s political agents, propagandists,

diplomats and spies in Spain all screamed in outrage that children were dying in Spain while Great Britain and France

did nothing. However, Stalin’s agents were not able to spread the war beyond Spain’s borders. By the end of 1938,

Stalin stopped all anti-Hitler propaganda to calm Hitler and to encourage him to attack Poland.[2]


Stalin eventually forced war in Europe with the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. British and French delegations

had arrived in Moscow on August 11, 1939, to discuss joint action against Germany. During the course of these talks,

British and French delegates told the Soviets that if Germany attacked Poland, Great Britain and France would declare

war against Germany. This was the information Stalin needed to know. On August 19, 1939, Stalin stopped the talks with

Great Britain and France, and told the German ambassador in Moscow that he wanted to reach an agreement with Germany.[3]


On that same day, August 19, 1939, a secret meeting of the Politburo took place.

The following are some excerpts from Joseph Stalin’s speech:


If we accept Germany’s proposal about the conclusion of a pact regarding invasion, she will of course attack Poland,

and France and England’s involvement in this war will be inevitable. Western Europe will be subjected to serious

disorders and disturbances. Under these conditions, we will have many chances to stay on the sidelines of the

conflict, and we will be able to count on our advantageous entrance into the war…It is in the interest of the USSR—the

motherland of workers—that the war unfolds between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French block. It is

necessary to do everything within our powers to make this war last as long as possible, in order to exhaust the two sides.

It is precisely for this reason that we must agree to signing the pact, proposed by Germany,

and work on making this war, once declared, last a maximum amount of time.[4]


On August 23, 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement which led to the

destruction and division of Poland and the beginning of World War II in Europe. The nations of Western Europe

became mired in a destructive war while the Soviet Union remained neutral. Stalin’s role in unleashing World War II

was quickly and thoroughly forgotten. Stalin even received an historically unprecedented amount

of aid from the United States and Great Britain after Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union.[5]


American historian John Mosier writes about the Allied aid given to the Soviet Union:


His resources were being augmented daily by the vast flow of British and American aid coming into the USSR.

In the first half of 1943, Stalin had received 1,775,000 tons of aid; in the second half of the year he received 3,274,000 tons,

a considerable increase. Given that aid, and his willingness to see his citizenry slaughtered, the struggle would be bitter…[6]


Debates on the importance of Allied aid to Stalin have essentially been comparing the numbers of actual

working armored vehicles that the British and Americans loaded onto ships and transported to the USSR with

the theoretical numbers of armored vehicles that the tank factories claimed they had produced in order to satisfy

Stalin’s demands. Even on that comparison, however, the shipments were substantial: 12,575 British and

American tanks were sent to the Red Army, enough to equip 273 tank brigades based on the theoretical Soviet

organizational charts of December 1941, an armored force substantially larger than the one Stalin had lost in the first six months of the war.[7]


Why Hitler Signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement


The Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement is remarkable in that Hitler repeatedly stated he hated

Communism and did not trust the leaders of the Soviet Union. Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:


It must never be forgotten that the present rulers of Russia are blood-stained criminals, that here we have the

dregs of humanity which, favored by the circumstances of a tragic moment, overran a great State, degraded and

extirpated millions of educated people out of sheer blood-lust, and that now for nearly 10 years they have ruled

with such a savage tyranny as was never known before. It must not be forgotten that these rulers belong to a

people in whom the most bestial cruelty is allied with a capacity for artful mendacity and believes itself today

more than ever called to impose its sanguinary despotism on the rest of the world. It must not be forgotten that

the international Jew, who is today the absolute master of Russia, does not look upon Germany as an ally but

as a State condemned to the same doom as Russia. One does not form an alliance with a partner whose only

aim is the destruction of his fellow partner. Above all, one does not enter into alliances with people for

whom no treaty is sacred; because they do not move about this earth as men of honor and sincerity but as the

representatives of lies and deception, thievery and plunder and robbery. The man who thinks that he can bind

himself by treaty with parasites is like the tree that believes it can form a profitable bargain with the ivy that surrounds it.[8]


Hitler also wrote in Mein Kampf: “Therefore the fact of forming an alliance with Russia would

be the signal for a new war. And the result of that would be the end of Germany.”[9]


Hitler repeated his distrust of the Soviet Union in a conversation on March 3, 1938 with British Ambassador Nevile

Henderson. Hitler stated in this conversation that any limitations on arms depended on the Soviet Union. Hitler noted

that the problem was rendered particularly difficult “by the fact that one could place as much confidence in the faith in

treaties of a barbarous creature like the Soviet Union as in the comprehension of mathematical formulae by a savage.

Any agreement with the U.S.S.R. was quite worthless….” Hitler added that it was impossible,

for example, to have faith in any Soviet agreement not to use poison gas.[10]


Hitler’s statements in Mein Kampf and to Nevile Henderson were prescient. Stalin had been planning to take over

all of Europe ever since the 1920s. Stalin and the Soviet Union could not be trusted to uphold any peace agreement.

However, Hitler entered into the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement because Hitler was desperate to end the atrocities

being committed against the ethnic Germans in Poland. Hitler was hoping that the Molotov-Ribbentrop

agreement would prevent Great Britain and France from declaring war against Germany.[11]


Hitler also signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement because the negotiations that had been ongoing between

Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union had taken on a threatening character for Germany. Hitler was confronted

with the alternative of being encircled by this massive alliance coalition or ending it via diplomatic channels.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact prevented Germany from being encircled by these three powers.[12] 


Stalin stayed out of the war in Europe he had conspired to instigate. Stalin kept the war in Europe going by supplying

much needed-supplies to Germany. However, Hitler’s swift, surgical victory over France prevented the massive

destruction in Europe Stalin had hoped for. Soviet Foreign Affairs Minister Vyacheslav Molotov was sent to Germany

in November 1940 to announce the Soviet Union’s new territorial demands in Europe. These new territorial

demands effectively ended the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. Hitler was forced to launch a

preemptive attack on June 22, 1941, to prevent the Soviet Union from conquering all of Europe.[13]


The Soviet war effort in the European theater of World War II was enormous. Most historians underestimate the

incredible power of the Soviet military. British historian Norman Davies writes: “…the Soviet war effort was so

overwhelming that impartial historians in the future are unlikely to rate the British and American contribution to the

European theatre as much more than a supporting role. The proportions were not ‘Fifty-fifty’, as many imply when

talking of the final onslaught on Nazi Germany from East and West. Sooner or later people will have to

adjust to the fact that the Soviet role was enormous and the Western role was respectable but modest.”[14]


A crucial factor that prevented the Soviet takeover of Europe was the more than 400,000 non-German Europeans

who volunteered to fight on the Eastern Front. Combined with 600,000 German troops, the 1,000,000-man Waffen SS

represented the first truly pan-European army ever to exist. The heroism of these non-German volunteers who joined

the Waffen SS prevented the planned Soviet conquest of Europe. In this regard, Waffen SS Gen. Leon Degrelle wrote:


If the Waffen-SS had not existed, Europe would have been overrun entirely by the Soviets by 1944. They would

have reached Paris long before the Americans. Waffen-SS heroism stopped the Soviet juggernaut at Moscow,

Cherkov, Cherkassy and Tarnopol. The Soviets lost more than 12 months. Without SS resistance the Soviets

would have been in Normandy before Eisenhower. The people showed deep gratitude to

the young men who sacrificed their lives.[15]


The Soviet Union Infiltrated the U.S. Government


The Soviet Union also conspired to have Japan attack the United States. Harry Dexter White, later proven to be a

Soviet agent, carried out a mission to provoke Japan into war with the United States. When Secretary of State Cordell Hull

allowed the peacemakers in Roosevelt’s administration to put together a modus vivendi that had real potential,

White drafted a 10-point proposal that the Japanese were certain to reject. White passed a copy of his proposal

to Hull, and this final American offer—the so-called “Hull Note”—was presented to the Japanese on November 26, 1941.[16]


The Hull Note, which was based on two memoranda from White, was a declaration of war as far as the Japanese

were concerned. The Hull Note destroyed any possible peace settlement with the Japanese, and led to

the Japanese attack on the US fleet at Pearl Harbor. In this regard, American historian John Koster writes:


Harry Dexter White, acting under orders of Soviet intelligence, pulled the strings by which Cordell Hull and

[State Department expert on Far Eastern Affairs] Stanley Hornbeck handed the Japanese an ultimatum that

was tantamount to a declaration of war—when both the Japanese cabinet and the U.S. military were desperately

eager for peace.…Harry Dexter White knew exactly what he was doing. The man himself remains a

mystery, but the documents speak for themselves. Harry Dexter White gave us Pearl Harbor.[17]


The Soviets had also planted numerous other agents in the Roosevelt administration. For example, Harold Glasser,

a member of Morgenthau’s Treasury staff, provided intelligence from the War Department and the White House to the

Soviets. The Soviet NKVD deemed Glasser’s reports so important that 74 reports generated from his material went

directly to Stalin. American historian Robert Wilcox writes of the Soviet infiltration of the U.S. government and its effect on Roosevelt:


These spies, plus the hundreds in other U.S. agencies at the time, including the military and  OSS, permeated

the administration in Washington, and, ultimately, the White House, surrounding FDR. He was basically in the

Soviets’ pocket. He admired Stalin, sought his favor. Right or wrong, he thought the Soviet Union indispensable

in the war, crucial to bringing world peace after it, and he wanted the Soviets handled with kid gloves.

FDR was star struck. The Russians hardly could have done better if he was a Soviet spy.[18]  


The opening of the Soviet archives in 1995 revealed that more than 300 communist members or supporters had

infiltrated the American government. Working in Lend-Lease, the Treasury Department, the State Department,

the office of the president, the office of the vice president, and even American intelligence operations, these agents

constantly tried to shift U.S. policy in a pro-Soviet direction. During World War II several of these Soviet agents were

well positioned to influence American policy. Especially at the Tehran and Yalta meetings toward the end of

World War II, the Soviet spies were able to influence Roosevelt to make huge concessions to the Soviet Union.[19] 


The Soviet Union Allowed to Control Eastern Europe


In addition to instigating the war in Europe, the Allied leaders intentionally allowed the Soviet Union to take over

Berlin and Eastern Europe. The Supreme Allied Commander in the West, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, had no intention

of occupying Berlin. According to Nikita Khrushchev’s memoirs, “Stalin said that

if it hadn’t been for Eisenhower, we wouldn’t have succeeded in capturing Berlin.”[20]


Stalin wanted his troops to reach as far into Europe as possible to enable the Soviet Union to control more of Europe

after the war was over. Stalin knew that once Soviet troops had a stronghold in Eastern Europe, it would be almost

impossible to dislodge them. Soviet hegemony could not be dislodged unless Roosevelt wanted to take on the Soviet

Union after fighting Germany. Stalin said in private: “Whoever occupies a territory imposes on

it his own social system. Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach.”[21]


The United States could easily have prevented the Soviet Union from marching as far west into Europe as it did.

After defeating Germany in North Africa, the Americans and British went into Sicily and then Italy. Churchill favored

an advance up the Italian or Balkan peninsulas into central Europe. Such a march would be quicker in reaching

Berlin, but Roosevelt and Stalin opposed this strategy at the Tehran Conference in November 1943. In general sessions

at Tehran with Churchill present, Roosevelt opposed strengthening the Italian campaign. Instead,

Roosevelt wanted troops in Italy to go to France for the larger cross-Channel attack planned for 1944.[22]


Gen. Mark Clark, the American commander in Italy, later commented on Roosevelt’s decision: “The weakening

of the campaign in Italy in order to invade Southern France, instead of pushing on into the Balkans, was one of the

outstanding mistakes of the war….Stalin knew exactly what he wanted…

and the thing he wanted most was to keep us out of the Balkans.”[23]


The Allied military leaders also intentionally prevented Gen. George Patton from quickly defeating Germany in

Western Europe. In August 1944, Patton’s Third Army was presented with an opportunity to encircle the

Germans at Falaise, France. However, Gens. Omar Bradley and Dwight Eisenhower ordered Patton to stop at

Argentan and not complete the encirclement of the Germans, which most historians agree Patton could have done.

As a result, probably 100,000 or more German soldiers escaped to later fight U.S.

troops in December 1944 in the last-ditch counterattack known as the Battle of the Bulge.[24]


Patton wrote in his diary concerning the halt that prevented the encirclement of Germans at Falaise: “This halt [was]

a great mistake. [Bradley’s] motto seems to be, ‘In case of doubt, halt.’ I wish I were supreme commander.”[25]


Maj. Gen. Richard Rohmer, who was a Canadian fighter pilot at the time, wrote that if the gap had closed it “could

have brought the surrender of the Third Reich, whose senior generals were now desperately concerned about the

ominous shadow of the great Russian Bear rising on the eastern horizon of the Fatherland.” Even Col. Ralph Ingersoll,

Gen. Bradley’s own historian, wrote, “The failure to close the Argentan-Falaise gap was the loss of the

greatest single opportunity of the war.”[26]


By August 31, 1944, Patton had put Falaise behind him and quickly advanced his tanks to the Meuse River, only

63 miles from the German border and 140 miles from the Rhine River. The German army Patton was chasing was

disorganized and in disarray; nothing could stop Patton from roaring into Germany. However, on August 31, the

Third Army’s gasoline allotment was suddenly cut by 140,000 gallons per day. This was a huge chunk of the

350,000 to 400,000 gallons per day the Third Army had been consuming. Patton’s advance

was halted even though the way ahead was open and largely undefended by the German army in retreat.


Siegfried Westphal, Gen. von Rundstedt’s chief of staff, later described the condition of the German army on the

day Patton was stopped: “The overall situation in the West [for the Germans] was serious in the extreme. The

Allies could have punched through at any point with ease.” The halt of the Third-Army blitzkrieg allowed the Germans

to reposition and revitalize. With the knowledge that they were defending their home soil, the Germans found a

new purpose for fighting. They were not just waging a war, but were defending their families from what they regarded as revenge-seeking hordes.[27]


Germany took advantage of the overall Allied slowdown and reorganized her troops into a major fighting force.

Germany’s counterattack in the Battle of the Bulge took Allied forces completely by surprise. The Germans

created a “bulge” in the overextended American line, and the Allies ran the risk of being cut off and possibly annihilated

or thrown back into the sea. Patton had to pull back his Third Army in the east and begin another full-scale attack

on the southern flank of the German forces. Patton’s troops arrived in a matter of

days and were the crucial factor in pushing the German bulge back into Germany.[28]


Patton was re-enthused after the Battle of the Bulge and wanted to quickly take his Third Army into the heart of Germany.

The German Army had no more reserves and was definitely on its last legs. However, once again Patton was held

back by Gen Eisenhower and the Joint Chiefs of Staff led by Gen. George Marshall. Patton was dumbfounded.

Patton wrote: “I’ll be damned if I see why we have divisions if not to use them. One would think people

would like to win a war…we will be criticized by history, and rightly so, for having sat still so long.”[29]


The Western Allies were still in a position to easily capture Berlin. However, Eisenhower ordered a halt of American

troops at the Elbe River, thereby in effect presenting a gift to the Soviet Union of central Germany and much of Europe.

One American staff officer bitterly commented: “No German force could have stopped us.

The only thing that stood between [the] Ninth Army and Berlin was Eisenhower.”[30]


On May 8, 1945, the day the war in Europe officially ended, Patton spoke his mind in an “off-the-record” press briefing.

With tears in his eyes, Patton recalled those “who gave their lives in what they believed was the final fight in the cause of freedom.”

Patton continued:


I wonder how [they] will speak today when they know that for the first time in centuries we have opened Central

and Western Europe to the forces of Genghis Khan. I wonder how they feel now that they know there will be no

peace in our times and that Americans, some not yet born, will have to fight the Russians tomorrow, or 10, 15

or 20 years from tomorrow. We have spent the last months since the Battle of the Bulge and the crossing of the

Rhine stalling; waiting for Montgomery to get ready to attack in the North; occupying useless real estate and

killing a few lousy Huns when we should have been in Berlin and Prague. And this Third Army could have been.

Today we should be telling the Russians to go to hell instead of hearing them tell us to pull back. We should be

telling them if they didn’t like it to go to hell and invite them to fight. We’ve defeated one aggressor

against mankind and established a second far worse, more evil and more dedicated than the first.[31]


A few days later Patton shocked everyone at a Paris hotel gathering by saying basically the same things. At a later

gathering in Berlin, when asked to drink a toast with a Soviet general, Patton told his translator, “tell that Russian

sonovabitch that from the way they’re acting here, I regard them as enemies

and I’d rather cut my throat than have a drink with one of my enemies!”[32]


Patton became known among U.S. and Soviet leaders as a bona-fide menace and a threat to world peace. In addition,

Patton was viewed as insubordinate, uncontrollable, and, in the eyes of some, treasonous. U.S. Maj. Douglas

Bazata claims he was given the order to assassinate Patton by the Office of Strategic Services, an American

military-espionage unit. Bazata says he shot Patton during a planned auto wreck of Patton’s vehicle on

December 9, 1945. Patton later died in a hospital on December 21, 1945 under very suspicious circumstances.[33]





The US fought in World War II supposedly to stop fascist aggression and to create democratic institutions in the

liberated nations of Europe. However, within a remarkably short period after the end of the war, the Soviet Union

ruthlessly subjected Eastern Europe to its totalitarian control. The Red Army brought Moscow-trained secret

policemen into every Soviet-occupied country, put local communists in control of the national media, and dismantled

youth groups and other civic organizations. The Soviets also brutally arrested, murdered and

deported people whom they believed to be anti-Soviet, and enforced a policy of ethnic cleansing.[34]     


A war allegedly fought for democracy and freedom had turned into a totalitarian nightmare for the people of the

Eastern European nations. This result was not accidental. The historical record indicates that the Soviet Union

actively conspired to instigate World War II. The U.S. government was also infiltrated by high-level Soviet agents

who influenced Franklin Roosevelt to make huge concessions to the Soviet Union at the Tehran and Yalta Conferences.

Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower also prevented Gen. Patton and other U.S. forces from

taking over Berlin and the rest of Eastern Europe before the Soviets could do so. 


The Allies had planned a long and devastating war resulting in the complete destruction of Germany. This is indicated

by a conversation on November 21, 1938 between U.S. Ambassador to France William Bullitt and Polish Ambassador

Jerzy Potocki. According to what military experts told Bullitt during the fall crisis of 1938, a war lasting at least six

years would break out in Europe. In the military experts’ opinion the war would result in the complete destruction

of Europe, with communism reigning in every European state. The benefits would accrue to the Soviet Union at the

conclusion of the war. Bullitt, who enjoyed the special confidence of President Roosevelt, also told Potocki that the

United States would take part in the war after Great Britain and France had made the first move.[35] The complete

destruction of Germany and the communist takeover of Eastern Europe occurred exactly as Bullitt had predicted.



[1] Suvorov, Viktor, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II, Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2008, pp. 23-24, 28-31.

[2] Ibid., pp. 98-104.

[3] Ibid., 106-108.

[4] Ibid., p. 109.

[5] Ibid., pp. 111-112.

[6] Mosier, John, Hitler vs. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010, pp. 277-278.

[7] Ibid., pp. 347-348.

[8] Hitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf, translated by James Murphy, London: Hurst and Blackett Ltd., 1939, p. 364.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Henderson, Sir Nevile, Failure of a Mission, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1940, p. 115.

[11] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 472.

[12] Walendy, Udo, Truth for Germany: The Guilt Question of the Second World War, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2013, pp. 385-386.

[13] Suvorov, Viktor, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II, Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2008, pp. 182-183.

[14] Davies, Norman, No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, New York: Viking Penguin, 2007, p. 483.

[15] Degrelle, Leon Gen., Hitler Democrat, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2012, p. 11.  

[16] Koster, John, Operation Snow, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2012, pp. 135-137, 169.

[17] Ibid., p. 215.

[18] Wilcox, Robert K., Target: Patton, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2008, pp. 250-251.

[19] Folsom, Burton W. Jr. and Anita, FDR Goes to War, New York: Threshold Editions, 2011, pp. 242, 245.

[20] Nadaeu, Remi, Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt Divide Europe, New York: Praeger, 1990, p. 163.

[21] Fleming, Thomas, The New Dealers’ War: FDR and the War within World War II, New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 318.

[22] Folsom, Burton W. Jr. and Anita, FDR Goes to War, New York: Threshold Editions, 2011, pp. 237-238.

[23] Ibid., pp. 238-239.

[24] Wilcox, Robert K., Target: Patton, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2008, pp. 284-288.

[25] Blumenson, Martin, ed., The Patton Papers, 1940-1945, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974, pp. 508, 511.

[26] Wilcox, Robert K., Target: Patton, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2008, p. 288.

[27] Ibid., pp. 290-298.

[28] Ibid., pp. 300-301.

[29] Ibid., p. 313.

[30] Lucas, James, Last Days of the Reich—The Collapse of Nazi Germany, May 1945, London: Arms and Armour Press, 1986, p. 196.

[31] Wilcox, Robert K., Target: Patton, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2008, pp. 331-332.

[32] Ibid., p. 333.

[33] Ibid., pp. 342, 391.

[34] Applebaum, Anne, Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, New York: Doubleday, 2012, pp. 192-193.

[35] 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 forward by C. Hartley Grattan, New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, 1940, pp. 19-21.


President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Jewish Cabal

by VNN research staff

Some of these Jews were directly responsible for plunging America into WWII by deliberately alienating America
from anti-Communist countries such as Germany and Japan long before the outbreak of hostilities.
These Jews also pioneered the idea of Big Egalitarian Government in America; some of them were later discovered to
have been spies for the Soviet Union.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (photo at right), president of the United States of America, 1933-1945, was himself partly of Dutch-Jewish ancestry.

1. Bernard M. Baruch -- a financier and adviser to FDR.
2. Felix Frankfurter -- Supreme Court Justice; a key player in FDR's New Deal system.
3. David E. Lilienthal -- director of Tennessee Valley Authority, adviser. The TVA changed the relationship of government-to-business in America.
4. David Niles -- presidential aide.
5. Louis Brandeis -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice; confidante of FDR; "Father" of New Deal.
6. Samuel I. Rosenman -- official speechwriter for FDR.
7. Henry Morgenthau Jr. -- Secretary of the Treasury, "unofficial" presidential adviser. Father of the Morgenthau Plan to re-structure Germany/Europe after WWII.
8. Benjamin V. Cohen -- State Department official, adviser to FDR.
9. Rabbi Stephen Wise -- close pal of FDR, spokesman for the American Zionist movement, head of The American Jewish Congress.
10. Frances Perkins -- Secretary of Labor; allegedly Jewish/adopted at birth; unconfirmed.
11. Sidney Hillman -- presidential adviser.
12. Anna Rosenberg -- longtime labor adviser to FDR, and manpower adviser with the Manpower Consulting Committee of the Army and Navy Munitions Board and the War Manpower Commission.
13. Herbert H. Lehman -- Governor of New York, 1933-1942, Director of U.S. Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations, Department of State, 1942-1943; Director-General of UNRRA, 1944 - 1946, pal of FDR.
14. Herbert Feis -- U.S. State Department official, economist, and an adviser on international economic affairs.
15. R. S. Hecht -- financial adviser to FDR.
16. Nathan Margold -- Department of the Interior Solicitor, legal adviser.
17. Jesse I. Straus -- adviser to FDR.
18. H. J. Laski -- "unofficial foreign adviser" to FDR.
19. E. W. Goldenweiser -- Federal Reserve Director.
20. Charles E. Wyzanski -- U.S. Labor department legal adviser.
21. Samuel Untermyer -- lawyer, "unofficial public ownership adviser" to FDR.
22. Jacob Viner -- Tax expert at the U.S. Treasury Department, assistant to the Treasury Secretary.
23. Edward Filene -- businessman, philanthropist, unofficial presidential adviser.
24. David Dubinsky -- Labor leader, president of International Ladies Garment Workers Union.
25. William C. Bullitt -- part-Jewish, ambassador to USSR [is claimed to be Jonathan Horwitz's grandson; unconfirmed].
26. Mordecai Ezekiel -- Agriculture Department economist.
27. Abe Fortas -- Assistant director of Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of the Interior Undersecretary.
28. Isador Lubin -- Commissioner of Labor Statistics, unofficial labor economist to FDR.
29. Harry Dexter White [Weiss] -- Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; a key founder of the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank; adviser, close pal of Henry Morgenthau. Co-wrote the Morgenthau Plan.
30. Alexander Holtzoff -- Special assistant, U.S. Attorney General's Office until 1945; [presumed to be Jewish; unconfirmed].
31. David Weintraub -- official in the Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations; helped create the United Nations; Secretary, Committee on Supplies, 1944-1946.
32. Nathan Gregory Silvermaster -- Agriculture Department official and head of the Near East Division of the Board of Economic Warfare; helped create the United Nations.
33. Harold Glasser -- Treasury Department director of the division of monetary research. Treasury spokesman on the affairs of United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration.
34. Irving Kaplan -- U.S. Treasury Department official, pal of David Weintraub.
35. Solomon Adler -- Treasury Department representative in China during World War II.
36. Benjamin Cardozo -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
37. Leo Wolman -- chairman of the National Recovery Administration's Labor advisery Board; labor economist.
38. Rose Schneiderman -- labor organizer; on the advisery board of the National Recovery Administration.
39. Jerome Frank -- general counsel to the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Justice, U.S. Court o Appeals, 1941-57.
40. Gerard Swope -- key player in the creation of the N.R.A. [National Recovery Administration]
41. Herbert Bayard Swope -- brother of Gerard
42. Lucien Koch -- consumer division, N.R.A. [apparently-Jewish]
43. J. David Stern -- Federal Reserve Board, appointed by FDR
44. Nathan Straus -- housing adviser
45. Charles Michaelson -- Democratic [DNC] publicity man
46. Lawrence Steinhardt -- ambassador to Soviet Union
47. Harry Guggenheim -- heir to Guggenheim fortune, adviser on aviation
48. Arthur Garfield Hays -- adviser on civil liberties
49. David Lasser -- head of Worker's Alliance, labor activist
50. Max Zaritsky -- labor adviser
51. James Warburg -- millionaire, early backer of New Deal before backing out
52. Louis Kirstein -- associate of E. Filene
53. Charles Wyzanski, Jr. -- counsel, Dept. of Labor
54. Charles Taussig -- early New Deal adviser
55. Jacob Baker -- assistant to W.P.A. head Harry Hopkins; assistant head of W.P.A. [Works Progress Admin.]
56. Louis H. Bean -- Dept. of Agriculture official
57. Abraham Fox -- research director, Tariff Commission
58. Benedict Wolf -- National Labor Relations Board [NLRB]
59. William Leiserson -- NLRB
60. David J. Saposs -- NLRB
61. A. H. Meyers -- NLRB [New England division]
62. L. H. Seltzer -- head economist at the Treasury Dept.
63. Edward Berman -- Dept. of Labor official
64. Jacob Perlman -- Dept. of Labor official
65. Morris L. Jacobson -- chief statistician of the Government Research Project
66. Jack Levin -- assistant general manager, Rural Electrification Authority
67. Harold Loeb -- economic consultant, N.R.P.
68. William Seagle -- council, Petroleum Labor Policy Board

69. Herman A. Gray -- policy committee, National Housing Conference
70. Alexander Sachs -- rep. of Lehman Bros., early New Deal consultant
71. Paul Mazur -- rep. of Lehman Bros., early consultant for New Deal
72. Henry Alsberg -- head of the Writer's Project under the W.P.A.
73. Lincoln Rothschild -- New Deal art administrator



The Lies About World War II
Paul Craig Roberts 
In the aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has no one to speak for it.
  Historians on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that demonized
the enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors.  People want to enjoy and feel
good about their victory, not learn that their side was responsible for the war or that the war
could have been avoided except for the hidden agendas of their own leaders. Historians are
also constrained by the unavailability of information. To hide mistakes, corruption, and crimes,
governments lock up documents for decades.  Memoirs of participants are not yet written. 
Diaries are lost or withheld from fear of retribution.  It is expensive and time consuming to
locate witnesses, especially those on the losing side, and to convince them to answer questions.
  Any account that challenges the “happy account” requires a great deal of confirmation from
official documents, interviews, letters, diaries, and memoirs, and even that won’t be enough. 
For the history of World War II in Europe, these documents can be spread from New Zealand
and Australia across Canada and the US through Great Britain and Europe and into Russia. 
A historian on the track of the truth faces long years of strenuous investigation and development
of the acumen to judge and assimilate the evidence he uncovers into a truthful picture of what
transpired. The truth is always immensely different from the victor’s war propaganda.

As I reported recently, Harry Elmer Barnes was the first American historian to provide a
history of the first world war that was based on primary sources.  His truthful account differed
so substantially from the war propaganda that he was called every name in the book. 

Truth is seldom welcomed.  David Irving, without any doubt the best historian of the European
part of World War II, learned at his great expense that challenging myths does not go unpunished.
  Nevertheless, Irving persevered. If you want to escape from the lies about World War II that
still direct our disastrous course, you only need to study two books by David Irving: Hitler’s War
 and the first volume of his Churchill biography, Churchill’s War: The Struggle for Power .
Irving is the historian who spent decades tracking down diaries, survivors, and demanding
release of official documents. He is the historian who found the Rommel diary and Goebbles’
diaries, the historian who gained entry into the Soviet archives, and so on.  He is familiar with
more actual facts about the second world war than the rest of the historians combined. The
famous British military historian, Sir John Keegan, wrote in the Times Literary Supplement:
“Two books stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War: Chester Wilmot’s 
The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War.

Despite many such accolades, today Irving is demonized and has to publish his own books.

I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists. 
You simply cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.

In what follows, I am going to present what is my impression from reading these two magisterial
works.  Irving himself is very scant on opinions.  He only provides the facts from official documents,
recorded intercepts, diaries, letters and interviews. 

World War II was Churchill’s War, not Hitler’s war.  Irving provides documented facts from
which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion. Churchill got his war, for which he longed,
because of the Versailles Treaty that stripped Germany of German territory and unjustly
and irresponsibly imposed humiliation on Germany. 

Hitler and Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German
Workers’ Party) are the most demonized entities in history. Any person who finds any
good in Hitler or Germany is instantly demonized.  The person becomes an outcast
regardless of the facts. Irving is very much aware of this. Every time his factual account
of Hitler starts to display a person too much different from the demonized image, Irving
throws in some negative language about Hitler.

Similarly for Winston Churchill.  Every time Irving’s factual account displays a person
quite different from the worshiped icon, Irving throws in some appreciative language.
This is what a historian has to do to survive telling the truth.

To be clear, in what follows, I am merely reporting what seems to me to be the conclusion
from the documented facts presented in these two works of scholarship.  I am merely
reporting what I understand Irving’s research to have established.  You read the books
and arrive at your own conclusion.

World War II was initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany,
not by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. The utter rout and collapse of the British
and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was
unprepared to fight and of the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who
quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany’s mercy.

Germany’s mercy was substantial. Hitler left a large part of France and the French colonies
unoccupied and secure from war under a semi-independent government under Petain. 
For his service in protecting a semblance of French independence, Petain was sentenced
to death by Charles de Gaulle after the war for collaboration with Germany, an unjust charge.  

In Britain, Churchill was out of power.  He figured a war would put him back in power. 
No Britisher could match Churchill’s rhetoric and orations.  Or determination. Churchill
desired power, and he wanted to reproduce the amazing military feats of his distinguished
ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, whose biography Churchill was writing and who
defeated after years of military struggle France’s powerful Sun King, Louis XIV, the ruler of Europe.

In contrast to the British aristocrat, Hitler was a man of the people.  He acted for the German
people.  The Versailles Treaty had dismembered Germany. Parts of Germany were confiscated
and given to France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. As Germany had not
actually lost the war, being the occupiers of foreign territory when Germany agreed to a
deceptive armistice, the loss of approximately 7 million German people to Poland and
Czechoslovakia, where Germans were abused, was not considered a fair outcome.

Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together again.  He succeeded without war until
it came to Poland. Hitler’s demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the
Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure on British prime minister Chamberlain
that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British guarantee
to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German territory and populations.  

The British had no way of making good on the guarantee, but the Polish military dictatorship
lacked the intelligence to realize that.  Consequently, the Polish Dictatorship refused Germany’s request.

From this mistake of Chamberlain and the stupid Polish dictatorship, came the Ribbentrop/Molotov
agreement that Germany and the Soviet Union would split Poland between themselves. 
When Hitler attacked Poland, Britain and the hapless French declared war on Germany
because of the unenforceable British guarantee.  But the British and French were careful
not to declare war on the Soviet Union for occupying the eastern half of Poland.

Thus Britain was responsible for World War II, first by stupidly interfering in German/Polish
negotiations, and second by declaring war on Germany.

Churchill was focused on war with Germany, which he intended for years preceding the war. 
But Hitler didn’t want any war with Britain or with France, and never intended to invade Britain.
The invasion threat was a chimera conjured up by Churchill to unite England behind him.
Hitler expressed his view that the British Empire was essential for order in the world, and
that in its absence Europeans would lose their world supremacy.  After Germany’s rout
of the French and British armies, Hitler offered an extraordinarily generous peace to Britain.
  He said he wanted nothing from Britain but the return of Germany’s colonies. 
He committed the German military to the defense of the British Empire, and said he would
reconstitute both Polish and Czech states and leave them to their own discretion.  He told
his associates that defeat of the British Empire would do nothing for Germany and everything for
Bolshevik Russia and Japan.

Winston Churchill kept Hitler’s peace offers as secret as he could and succeeded in his
efforts to block any peace.  Churchill wanted war, largely it appears, for his own glory. 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt slyly encouraged Churchill in his war but without making any
commitment in Britain’s behalf. Roosevelt knew that the war would achieve his own aim
of bankrupting Britain and destroying the British Empire, and that the US dollar would
inherit the powerful position from the British pound of being the world’s reserve currency.
Once Churchill had trapped Britain in a war she could not win on her own, FDR began
doling out bits of aid in exchange for extremely high prices—for example, 60 outdated
and largely useless US destroyers for British naval bases in the Atlantic.  FDR delayed
Lend-Lease until desperate Britain had turned over $22,000 million of British gold plus
$42 million in gold Britain had in South Africa.  Then began the forced sell-off of British
overseas investments.  For example, the British-owned Viscose Company, which was
worth $125 million in 1940 dollars, had no debts and held $40 million in government bonds,
was sold to the House of Morgan for $37 million. It was such an act of thievery that the
British eventually got about two-thirds of the company’s value to hand over to Washington
in payment for war munitions. American aid was also “conditional on Britain dismantling
the system of Imperial preference anchored in the Ottawa agreement of 1932.”  For
Cordell Hull, American aid was “a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire.”  Churchill
saw it coming, but he was too far in to do anything but plead with FDR: It would be wrong,
Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, if “Great  Britain were to be divested of all saleable assets
so that after the victory was won with our  blood, civilization saved, and the time gained
for the United States to be fully armed against all eventualities, we should stand stripped
to the bone.”

A long essay could be written about how Roosevelt stripped Britain of her assets and
world power. Irving writes that in an era of gangster statesmen, Churchill was not in
Roosevelt’s league. The survival of the British Empire was not a priority for FDR. He
regarded Churchill as a pushover—unreliable and drunk most of the time. Irving reports
that FDR’s policy was to pay out just enough to give Churchill “the kind of support a
rope gives a hanging man.”  Roosevelt pursued “his subversion of the Empire throughout
the war.”  Eventually Churchill realized that Washington was at war with Britain more
fiercely than was Hitler.  The great irony was that Hitler had offered Churchill peace and
the survival of the Empire. When it was too late, Churchill came to Hitler’s conclusion that
the conflict with Germany was a “most unnecessary” war. Pat Buchanan sees it that way also.

Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas of British cities.  It was Churchill who initiated
this war crime, later emulated by the Americans.  Churchill kept the British bombing of
German civilians secret from the British people and worked to prevent Red Cross monitoring
of air raids so no one would learn he was bombing civilian residential areas, not war production.
The purpose of Churchill’s bombing—first incendiary bombs to set everything afire and then
high explosives to prevent firefighters from controlling the blazes—was to provoke a German
attack on London, which Churchill reckoned would bind the British people to him and create
sympathy in the US for Britain that would help Churchill pull America into the war.  One
British raid murdered 50,000 people in Hamburg, and a subsequent attack on Hamburg
netted 40,000 civilian deaths.  Churchill also ordered that poison gas be added to the
firebombing of German civilian residential areas and that Rome be bombed into ashes.
The British Air Force refused both orders. At the very end of the war the British and
Americans destroyed the beautiful baroque city of Dresden, burning and suffocating
100,000 people in the attack. After months of firebombing attacks on Germany, including
Berlin, Hitler gave in to his generals and replied in kind. Churchill succeeded. 
The story became “the London Blitz,” not the British blitz of Germany.

Like Hitler in Germany, Churchill took over the direction of the war.  He functioned more
as a dictator who ignored the armed services than as a prime minister advised by the
country’s military leaders.  Both leaders might have been correct in their assessment
of their commanding officers, but Hitler was a much better war strategist than Churchill,
for whom nothing ever worked.  To Churchill’s WW I Gallipoli misadventure was now
added the introduction of British troops into Norway, Greece, Crete, Syria—all ridiculous
decisions and failures—and the Dakar fiasco.  Churchill also turned on the French,
destroying the French fleet and lives of 1,600 French sailors because of his personal
fear, unfounded, that Hitler would violate his treaty with the French and seize the fleet.
Any one of these Churchillian mishaps could have resulted in a no confidence vote, but
with Chamberlain and Halifax out of the way there was no alternative leadership.  Indeed,
the lack of leadership is the reason neither the cabinet nor the military could stand up to
Churchill, a person of iron determination.

Hitler also was a person of iron determination, and he wore out both himself and Germany
with his determination. He never wanted war with England and France.  This was Churchill’s
doing, not Hitler’s.  Like Churchill, who had the British people behind him, Hitler had the
German people behind him, because he stood for Germany and had reconstructed Germany
from the rape and ruin of the Versailles Treaty.  But Hitler, not an aristocrat like Churchill,
but of low and ordinary origins, never had the loyalty of many of the aristocratic Prussian
military officers, those with “von” before their name.  He was afflicted with traitors in the
Abwehr, his military intelligence, including its director, Adm. Canaris.  On the Russian front
in the final year, Hitler was betrayed by generals who opened avenues for the Russians into
undefended Berlin.  

Hitler’s worst mistakes were his alliance with Italy and his decision to invade Russia.  He
was also mistaken to let the British go at Dunkirk. He let them go because he did not want
to ruin the chance for ending the war by humiliating the British by the loss of their entire army. 
But with Churchill there was no chance for peace. By not destroying the British army, Hitler
boosted Churchill who turned the evacuation into British heroics that sustained the willingness
to fight on.  

It is unclear why Hitler invaded Russia.  One possible reason is poor or intentionally
deceptive information from the Abwehr on Russian military capability. Hitler later said
to his associates that he never would have invaded if he had known of the enormous
size of the Russian army and the extraordinary capability of the Soviets to produce
tanks and aircraft.  Some historians have concluded that the reason Hitler invaded
Russia was that he concluded that the British would not agree to end the war because
they expected Russia to enter the war on Britain’s side.  Therefore, Hitler decided to
foreclose that possibility by conquering Russia.  A Russian has written that Hitler
attacked because Stalin was preparing to attack Germany. Stalin did have considerable
forces far forward, but It would make more sense for Stalin to wait until the West
devoured itself in mutual bloodletting, step in afterwards and scoop it all up if he wanted.
Or perhaps Stalin was positioning to occupy part of Eastern Europe in order to put more
buffer between the Soviet Union and Germany.

Whatever the reason for the invasion, what defeated Hitler was the earliest Russian
winter in 30 years. It stopped everything in its tracks before the well planned and
succeeding encirclement could be completed.  The harsh winter that immobilized the
Germans gave Stalin time to recover.  

Because of Hitler’s alliance with Mussolini, who lacked an effective fighting force,
resources needed on the Russian front were twice drained off in order to rescue Italy. 
Because of Mussolini’s misadventures, Hitler had to drain troops, tanks, and air planes
from the Russian invasion to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa and to occupy
Crete. Hitler made this mistake out of loyalty to Mussolini.  Later in the war when
Russian counterattacks were pushing the Germans out of Russia, Hitler had to divert
precious military resources to rescue Mussolini from arrest and to occupy Italy to prevent
her surrender.  Germany simply lacked the manpower and military resources to fight
on a 1,000 mile front in Russia, and also in Greece and North Africa, occupy part of
France, and man defenses against a US/British invasion of Normandy and Italy. 

The German Army was a magnificent fighting force, but it was overwhelmed by too many
fronts, too little equipment, and careless communications.  The Germans never caught
on despite much evidence that the British could read their encryption.  Thus, efforts to
supply Rommel in North Africa were prevented by the British navy. 

Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust.  He does document the
massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that
the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story. 

No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever
been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews.  This is
extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have
required massive organization, budgets and resources. What documents do show
is Hitler’s plan to relocate European Jews to Madagascar after the war’s end. 
With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending
the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that
Hitler was going to leave to Stalin.  There are documented orders given by Hitler
preventing massacres of Jews.  Hitler said over and over that “the Jewish problem”
would be settled after the war.

It seems that most of the massacres of Jews were committed by German political
administrators of occupied territories in the east to whom Jews from Germany and
France were sent for relocation. Instead of dealing with the inconvenience, some of
the administrators lined them up and shot them into open trenches.  Other Jews fell
victim to the anger of Russian villagers who had long suffered under Jewish Bolshevik

The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a
Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory.
Germany was desperate for a work force.  A significant percentage of German
war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German
lines on the Russian front. War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a
work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported
after war’s end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany
desperately needed whatever work force it could get.

Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations
but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases.
Refugees were from all over, and they brought diseases and germs with them. 
The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead bodies that are said to be evidence
of organized extermination of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and
starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of
medicines and food for labor camps. The great noble Western victors themselves
bombed the labor camps and contributed to the deaths of inmates.

The two books on which I have reported total 1,663 pages, and there are two more
volumes of the Churchill biography.  This massive, documented historical information
seemed likely to pass into the Memory Hole as it is inconsistent with both the
self-righteousness of the West and the human capital of court historians.  The facts
are too costly to be known. But historians have started adding to their own accounts
the information uncovered by Irving. It takes a brave historian to praise him, but they can cite him and plagiarize him.
It is amazing how much power Zionists have gotten from the Holocaust. Norman
Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry. There is ample evidence that Jews along
with many others suffered, but Zionists insist that it was an unique experience limited to Jews.

In his Introduction to Hitler’s War Irving reports that despite the widespread sales of
his book, the initial praise from accomplished historians and the fact that the book
was required reading at military academies from Sandhurst to West Point, “I have
had my home smashed into by thugs, my family terrorized, my name smeared, my
printers [publishers] firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by tiny, democratic
Austria—an illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were
punished; at the behest of disaffected academics and influential citizens [Zionists],
in subsequent years, I was deported from Canada (in 1992), and refused entry to
Australia, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa and other civilized countries around he
world. Internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this
book to be taken off their shelves.”

So much for free thought and truth in the Western world.  Nothing is so little regarded
in the West as free thought, free expression, and truth.  In the West explanations are
controlled in order to advance the agendas of the ruling interest groups. As David Irving
has learned, woe to anyone who gets in the way.
  The Eastern Front: The Soviet-German War 
Charles Lutton - Institute for Historical Review

... In the United States, Britain, and other Western countries, there has been much self-congratulation about how "we" won the Second World War. Yet, it was on the Eastern Front that the outcome of the war was decided. Had the best of Hitler's forces not been fighting the Soviets, it is unlikely that there would have been any Allied victory in 1945, or anytime foreseeable thereafter ... The Soviet Union proved to be a far more resilient opponent than predicted ... Even through the last weeks of the war, German regular troops and officers were, on average, superior to their opponents in the East and the West. The Wehrmacht was simply overwhelmed by the forces of the Soviet Union and her Western Allies.
The Eastern Front: Memoirs of a Waffen SS Volunteer

A gripping first-person memoir of soldierly sacrifice, heroism and fierce combat against
numerically superior Soviet forces during World War II, by a charismatic Belgian writer and
politician turned front-line infantryman. New, revised IHR edition, with index and photos.
Here is the epic story of the Walloon Legion, a volunteer Belgian unit of the World War II
pan-European SS force, as told - in absorbing prose -- by the legendary Degrelle. Captures
the grit, terror and glory of Europe's crusade against Communism.
(Also available from the IHR in both hardcover and paperback editions.)

Time to Face the Truth About World War II

... Stalin knew that Germany's invasion of Poland would cause Britain and France to declare war on Germany. Stalin
expected to pick up the pieces after Germany, Britain and France had exhausted themselves and were ripe for invasion
and Communist revolution ... Soviet propaganda later tried to cover up Stalin's plan to attack Europe, claiming his forces
were outmoded and unprepared, and generals incompetent ... But, contends Suvorov, had Hitler not attacked first in 1941,
Stalin's 30-million man army, backed by mammoth industrial production, would have overwhelmed all of Europe in a 1941
surprise blitz. Suvorov's unstated conclusion: Hitler saved Western Europe from Stalin ... Hitler, in his own warped thinking,
believed he was actually doing good for mankind. Stalin had no such illusions. His only interest was raw power.
Exposing Stalin's Plan to Conquer Europe 
Daniel Michaels - Institute for Historical Review

... Thus, when German forces struck [the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941], the bulk of Red ground and air forces were
concentrated along the Soviet western borders facing contiguous European countries, especially the German Reich
and Romania, in final readiness for an assault on Europe. In his second book on the origins of the war, "M Day"
(for "Mobilization Day"), Suvorov details how, between late 1939 and the summer of 1941, Stalin methodically and
systematically built up the best armed, most powerful military force in the world -- actually the world's first superpower --
for his planned conquest of Europe. Suvorov explains how Stalin's drastic conversion of the country's economy for war actually made war inevitable.
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

                                                                                                                          By Willis A. Carto.
WHAT FOLLOWS IS AN ATTEMPT to set the historical record straight, without influence from
the powers that be. By this phrase, I do not exclude the influence and power of organized Jewry,
which is heavily involved in the sad history of the Aryan West. Further, I believe that liberals who
do not recognize this influence are a part, knowing it or not, of the cosmopolitan array dedicated to
exterminating our race forever.(1)
It is now 67 years after the holocaust known as World War II. Perhaps it is time to look
at it truthfully. America is in big trouble. The unpayable national debt is only a small
part of it. Fact is, the white world is in big trouble. Not only America, but Europe—the
homeland of the white race—is facing mortal danger. It’s life or death for the white
race—the race that for all its faults created Western civilization.(2)
The so-called victors of World War II won that costly struggle for the survival of Stalinist
Russia and killed the very movement in Europe that was specifically dedicated
to—and was accomplishing—the destruction of Communist Russia—the National Socialist
movement created and led by Adolf Hitler.
Worse, the Allies—Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin then proceeded to perpetrate crimes
upon the survivors unparalleled in Europe since Genghis Khan. Probably 3 million innocent
Europeans perished from torture, murder, exposure and starvation after the hostilities ended.(3)
These atrocities were directed by the Allied supreme commander, Dwight Eisenhower,
a protégé of financier Bernard Baruch,(4) known at the time as “king of the Jews.” It
was Baruch who influenced Roosevelt to promote Eisenhower, a desk bureaucrat
who had never seen combat, over the heads of 1,109 officers superior to him in
experience, competence and seniority to take supreme command of the hostilities.
Ike’s superior was in fact not FDR but the “king of the Jews.”
At least 55 million people were killed in Europe in this war, not counting at least
60 million who were killed by the Communists for political or racial reasons in the
Soviet Union before and during WWII. This number includes the gifted and handsome
Russian aristocracy. Of these martyrs, almost all were non-Jewish Aryan.(5)
The Allied supreme commander, Eisenhower, illegally crowded a million captured
German soldiers into open fields surrounded by barbwire in subfreezing weather.
Without shelter, without food, without even toilet facilities, they died in misery.
Civilians who tried to feed them were shot, on direct orders from Ike.
Of course, Wehrmacht soldiers who surrendered to the Russians fared as badly—
most died in Siberia or were tortured. The Soviet Union never signed the Geneva
Conventions. See Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago.
James Bacque, in his Other Losses, documents this horror with the appalling facts.
Giles MacDonogh—heavily prejudiced against Germans—cannot deny what happened
in his After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation. Dr. Austin App has written more than
one short booklet about American atrocities visited upon helpless German civilians.
(See bibliography at end of article.)
Edward L. van Roden served in World War II as chief of the Military Justice Division
for the European theater. Van Roden was appointed in 1948 to an extraordinary commission
charged with investigating the claims of abuse during U.S. trials in Germany. Here is an
excerpt of what van Roden wrote:
American investigators at the U.S. court in Dachau, Germany used the following
methods to obtain confessions: Beatings and brutal kickings. Knocking out teeth
and breaking jaws. Mock trials. Solitary confinement. Posturing as priests. Very
limited rations. Spiritual deprivation. Promises of acquittal…. We won the war,
but some of us want to go on killing. That seems to me wicked…. The American
prohibition of hearsay evidence had been suspended. Second-and third-hand testimony
was admitted….
Lt. Perl of the prosecution pleaded that it was difficult to obtain complete evidence.
Perl told the court. “We had a tough case to crack, and we had to use persuasive
methods.” He admitted to the court that the persuasive methods included various
“expedients including some violence and mock trials.” He further told the court that
the cases rested on statements obtained by such methods.
The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had
first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months. They were
confined between four walls, with no windows and no opportunity of exercise. Two
meals a day were shoved in to them through a slot in the door. They were not allowed
to talk to anyone. They had no communication with their families or any minister or priest
during that time….
Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused’s head and then punch him
in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses. Many
of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken.
All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in
the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with American
investigators. Perl admitted use of mock trials and persuasive methods including
violence and said the court was free to decide the weight to be attached to evidence
thus received. But it all went in.
One 18-year-old defendant, after a series of beatings, was writing a statement being
dictated to him. When they reached the 16th page, the boy was locked up for the night.
In the early morning, Germans in nearby cells heard him muttering: “I will not utter
another lie.” When the jailer came in later to get him to finish his false statement,
he found the German hanging from a cell bar, dead. However, the statement that
the German had hanged himself to escape signing was offered and received in
evidence in the trial of the others.
One of the most remarkable persons in European history was born in the small town
of Linz, Austria, on April 20, 1889. From boyhood his friends knew that he was
special. His closest friend was August Kubizek, whose book The Young Hitler I Knew is a
fount of information concerning this person, and it is highly recommended for
interested parties.
Kubizek relates incidents where Hitler would—as if seeing visions—tell his friend
how he intended to rebuild Linz and his architectural plans for the entire area.
Art was Hitler’s chosen calling and he supported himself before World War I in
Vienna by selling his. A Texan, Billy Price, has published a book containing about
a thousand of these interesting pencil sketches and watercolors.
Many of Hitler’s attributes are acknowledged, such as his incredible memory, his
physical courage, his speaking ability, his ability to charm persons on a
one-on-one basis and his political acumen.
What writers who are unfriendly do not wish to recognize, however, are his profound and
detailed knowledge of history and historical personalities, his strong sense of fairness,
his pronounced interest in art and architecture, his talent as a first-class military strategist,
his idealism and his justified determination to redress the punitive Versailles Treaty that
had crippled Germany after World War I.
In 1919, with the outbreak of war, Hitler enlisted in the German army and by so doing
made the political statement that he detested the Austrian royal leadership and considered
himself German.
Hitler’s military record is outstanding. This was before tactical commanders could use
telephone or radio to issue orders or otherwise communicate to coordinate the army’s
units. To get messages from commanders to commander required a soldier of
uncommon dependability and courage. Hitler volunteered for this job and went
through every major battle during that harrowing period, repeatedly going through
the worst of the fighting. He was gassed in 1914 and wounded in the leg in 1916.
These battles includeYpres (Oct. 14-17, 1914), Neure Chapelle (March 10-13, 1915),
Arras (April 9 June 16, 1917), Passchendalle (July-Nov., 1917) and Somme (Oct. 1916).
In contrast, neither Roosevelt nor Churchill ever served a day in combat. Churchill
was a newspaper reporter and was captured in South Africa in 1899 by Boers, but all
he did was to hold up his arms and surrender.
After the war, the British blockaded Germany in order to starve to death as many
Germans as possible. Realizing that only leadership could meet this mortal crisis,
Hitler looked around for a political movement, a movement with capable leadership
that he could support .After considerable effort, he found a fledgling party, the
National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche
Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP). He joined as member No. 7. Meanwhile, at least 763,000
Germans were purposefully starved to death.
Soon, he discovered that he had a talent for public speaking and political leadership.
The subsequent story of the growth of the NSDAP is fantastic. Before long, meetings
at which Hitler spoke were attended by thousands. Communists—who were well
organized—tried to break up the meetings and the outdoor rallies using brutal
violence but the NS membership was always ready for these tactics and, in
defending their right to exist, developed their own street army, the Sturmabteilung (SA).
Many German workingmen who had been beguiled by the well-financed Communists
gravitated to the NSDAP with its strong message of nationalism and patriotism.
Britain’s traditional policy regarding the continent was “balance of power,” meaning
that it would support the weaker nation or coalition on the mainland and play off
the power combines against each other, thus freeing Britain to further aggrandize
itself on the 17/20ths of the globe it then controlled.
In spite of these facts, Hitler had no animus against Britain, and he made it clear
in his Mein Kampf as well as in many speeches and in his foreign policy that he
wanted peace with this nation, whose Anglo-Saxon and Keltic peoples were so
closely related to Germans. Let the British rule their empire on which the Sun
never set and give him a free hand on the continent so that he could turn his
attention to the vital job of keeping the Soviet Union at bay. Hitler knew that
Stalin’s strategy was to conquer Europe (including the British Isles) and add it
to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Hitler was far too smart to
entertain any idea of “conquering the world.” His motives, in other words, were good.
Hitler wanted peace, but his sin was that he recognized the corrosive, destructive
influence of the Rothschild-Zionist-Jewish presence in Europe and tried to do
something about it. In their eyes, this was intolerable, and the British declaration
of war against Germany on Sept. 3, 1939 was the answer to the perceived problem.
Today there are few if any historians who do not agree that the Versailles Treaty
imposed on Germany after World War I was extremely one-sided and practically
guaranteed another war.
Following its traditional policy, on Sept. 3, 1939, England allied itself with Communist
Russia and declared war on a Germany that did everything possible to avoid
hostilities. Rothschild-Jewish pressure on England was irresistible. And while
Roosevelt was promising America over and over again in his fireside chats,
“I say to you again and again and again that your boys will not be sent to a foreign war,”
he was scheming with Churchill to do precisely that.
Before the war, Jewish organizations—supported by the international press—screamed
that Hitler was exterminating Jews by the millions. This is exactly what the Jews
claimed during World War I, and they used the same number then: 6 million.
[See The First Holocaust by Don Heddesheimer.]
Of course, this was a blatant lie. True, Hitler imprisoned some minorities who were
opposed to his policies, including Communists and religious zealots, to avoid
sabotage of the German war effort, exactly as FDR imprisoned the Japanese in
camps across the United States.
The Big Lie of the so-called “Holocaust” has netted Jews not only billions of
dollars in U.S. and German coin but additional billions in German goods, such
as highly advanced submarines and weapons, not to mention a very valuable
piece of real estate in Palestine plus the tearful sympathy of American and European
media and politicians.
Hitler’s war aims were to defend Germany from England’s (and later, America’s)
invasion and to exterminate Soviet Communism. He and the German foreign minister,
von Ribbentrop, made every conceivable diplomatic effort to placate England, Hitler
finally resorting to sending his deputy Rudolf Hess as a last-ditch effort for peace
in the West. When Hess arrived in Britain in May 1941, Churchill refused to see
him. Hess was locked up for the rest of the war and the rest of his life. Failing
to die naturally, he was murdered by a British assassin in his cell in 1987 at
Spandau Prison at the age of 92.
Why would America enter the European war when no interests of the country were
remotely threatened? The simple answer is that the Roosevelt administration
was heavily laden with Jews, as has been documented by Elizabeth Dilling in her
books and newsletters of 1934 and later. And Roosevelt was guaranteed a third
and fourth term.
Mrs. Dilling, a concert-level harpist, mother and socialite in Chicago, traveled to
Russia in 1931 to see the great Communist experiment for herself. Deeply shocked
by what she saw, and the conditions the people had to endure, she dedicated her
life to exposing Communism, especially its influence in America. In 1936 she
wrote The Roosevelt Red Record and Its Background, and in it listed over 100 extreme
liberals/Communists in the Roosevelt administration, most of them Jewish.
Numerous times Hitler warned Britain that entering the hostilities would bankrupt
England and cost it its empire. Hitler regarded the British Empire, like the
Catholic Church, as an element of world stability. His words were lost in the
Jewish cacophony for war. The Britons Oswald Moseley, John Amery, Arnold
Leese and others made similar arguments directly to the British people.
Hitler’s far-seeing strategy was anathema to the lords of England as well as to
the powerful Rothschild-Jewish entity that ruled the Bank of England and its
separate enclave, the City of London, which most definitely is not that big
metropolis on the Thames River but another entity entirely—the financial hub
of the Rothschild world empire.
Meanwhile, for the most part, the American media was conditioning the public for
war, to the extent of telling gullible taxpayers to draw their window shades at
night so as to not permit light from the lights inside their houses to be seen and
so guide Nazi bombers to them. Yes, we had blackouts in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Fort Wayne was 4,000 miles from Germany, making a round trip of 8,000
miles—a feat impossible for any airplane of the day. But what citizen would
bother to dispute the facts reported in their daily paper? Would the “free press”
lie so blatantly?
Unfortunately, white Americans have a messianic complex and publicists can
easily manipulate them into spending billions for crusades for everlasting peace
if they support an internationalist foreign policy, so profitable for the war makers.
Who wants to be called an isolationist? Thus, today we have troops in 135
countries around the globe interfering in the domestic affairs of people
who wish to be left alone. This is worse than useless; it sows seeds of mistrust
and hatred and manufactures terrorists and more war. But it also feeds the
profits of corporations that manufacture tanks, guns, planes, ships and other
war materiel. Bankers love war and debt financing, and war pays the salaries
of thousands of bureaucrats who work in the Pentagon and offices around the globe.
There are at least 8,000 bureaucrats employed in the Pentagon. Many drive
200 miles each day to and from work. While the rest of America wallows in
unemployment and recession, the Washington, D.C. area is prosperous.
War and debt mean prosperity for millions, no matter that our bipartisan foreign
policy is programmed for defeat and national bankruptcy.
FDR wanted a third and then a fourth term, and he knew the only way this could
be accomplished would be to get America into war. As stated, with Churchill, he
plotted exactly that.
Tyler Kent, an American citizen, was a code clerk stationed in London. He
transmitted communications between Churchill and Roosevelt and was very
alarmed, seeing that the two were plotting war. He kept copies, planning to
give them to senators, such as Burton K. Wheeler, who were leaders in the
effort to keep America out of war. His plan was discovered, and he was
arrested by Churchill’s orders and illegally kept in a British jail without trial
for the duration of the war. Nothing could be permitted to stand in the way of war.
Knowing that Hitler had no intention of attacking the U.S. or even England,
Roosevelt adopted a devilish scheme: He would take “the back door to war”
(the title of Dr. Charles Callan Tansill’s magnum opus) and get the Japanese to attack the U.S.
Japan needed oil, and the closest was in the South Pacific. FDR knew that
was the pressure point to bend Japan to his will—to leave no other option to
Japan but to attack the United States.
FDR’s scheme—with which Churchill was totally familiar—worked. Roosevelt
knew that the Japanese would do almost anything to avoid war with the U.S.
because American code breakers were monitoring all of Japan’s secret
communications between Tokyo and their diplomats. Through its Ambassador
Kichisaburo Nomura, Prince Konoye and Minister of Foreign Affairs Yosuke
Matsuoka, Japan made every effort to ensure friendly relations with the U.S.
FDR knew well in advance that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor,
and he cheerfully sacrificed the lives of 3,000 men, four battleships and much
more, including the reputations of Adm. Husband Kimmel and Gen. Walter Short,
who he criminally blamed for the attack, permitting his treason to go unknown
and unpunished. As Roosevelt said, Dec. 7, 1941 is indeed “a day which will live
in infamy”—Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s infamous treason.
Roosevelt knew that the American people were overwhelmingly opposed
to war. His plan was not merely a contemptuous repudiation of the electorate,
but done with full knowledge that the war would cost millions of American,
German and other lives. But his unnatural lust for a third term seized him.
His partner in this crime was Winston Churchill, prime minister of Great Britain.
In his sober moments, which were very few, Churchill was a master of words.
Churchill loved war and killing for the sport of it.
By 1938, when he was 64 years old, Churchill had so lived beyond his means
that his creditors prepared to foreclose on him. He was faced with the prospect
of the forced sale of his luxurious country estate, Chartwell.
At this hour of crisis a dark and mysterious figure entered Churchill’s life. He
was Henry Strakosch, a multimillionaire Jew who had acquired a fortune
speculating in South African mining ventures after his family had migrated
to that country from eastern Austria. Strakosch stepped forward and advanced
Churchill a loan of 150,000 pounds sterling just in time to save his estate from
the auctioneer. In the years that followed, Strakosch served as Churchill’s
adviser and confidant but miraculously managed to avoid the spotlight of
publicity, which thenceforth illuminated Churchill’s again-rising political career.
It must be said that hard thought was never Churchill’s forte because he was
always either drunk or nearly so. Alcoholism was not the only eccentric
characteristic of this strange man, who would often greet visitors stark naked.
But Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin were the warlords of World War II,
and to them must go the primary responsibility for the results—the greatest
disaster in the history of Europe and the white race.
Every time he was told that German bombers were en route, and even though
he initiated the policy of bombing civilians, a policy Hitler abhorred, Churchill fled
London.  The two leaders were both manifestly unfit for power. FDR was sick in body and mind, and Churchill was a sot.
British and American bombers carpeted German cities with millions of explosives
and incendiary bombs. They made little effort to target railheads, factories, docks
or military installations. They deliberately killed millions of civilians. The flames of
a burning Hamburg were a mile high. According to David Irving, Dresden—an
undefended art city—was totally destroyed along with at least 18,375 inhabitants,
mostly children, women, and cripples, 16,130 were injured and 350,000 people
made homeless; 35,000 were missing. No one knows how many of these were killed.
Such mass murder (genocide) is supposedly outlawed by the Geneva Convention,
but that meant nothing to Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. In one leaflet headlined Kill, 
Soviet propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg incited Soviet soldiers to treat Germans as subhuman.
The final paragraph concludes:
The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to us
the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We
shall not speak anymore. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not
killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day…
If you cannot kill your German with a bullet kill him with your bayonet. If there is
calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German
in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian
and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another there is nothing
more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not
count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you.
Kill the German—that is your grandmother’s request. Kill the German—that is
your child’s prayer. Kill the German—that is your motherland’s loud request. Do not miss. Kill.
The war that followed—as was World War I—must be seen as a civil war in the
West; 8.5 million American, British and continental European troops were killed
in WWI and 43 million in WWII. The civilian count in WWI is about 13 million
and 38 million in WWII. The dysgenic effect of these needless wars is incalculable.
Before birth control became feasible and popular, losses like this would be made
up naturally by the high birth rate. But not today.
Many millions of white children of the dead have never been born. Their absence
has to a large extent been made up by non-white immigrants into America and Europe,
both legal and illegal, and the influx of nonwhites grows daily. No more is America a
white, Aryan nation; in fact, today the dialog regarding immigration forbids the factor
of race from even being mentioned in our Jewish-controlled media. The Marxist rule of
political correctness is the norm.
Lenin, Stalin and the other (mostly Jewish) leaders in Communist Russia murdered
some 60 million Russians, particularly the pro-Western Aryan aristocracy, symbolized
by the Christian royal family of Czar Nicholas. Regardless of persons like Tom Brokaw
(who refers to WWII as “the good war,” it was unnecessary, and all belligerents—
Great Britain, America and Russia included lost. American Francis Yockey pointed
out that to win a war, a power must gain resources, strength and prosperity.
Since 1939, all three major powers who started and fought it have declined
into a pit of escalating inflation, unpayable debt, national bankruptcy, loss of
national character, the immigration of millions of aliens and a highly questionable future.
The mass killing of Germans and other Europeans has paved the way for the legal
and illegal immigration of not only Muslims but black Africans, even to countries
as far removed from Africa as Finland. This has vastly increased the welfare budget
and crime. European cities that once were clean and orderly today are ridden
with trash and derelicts. A former resident of London reports that the streets resemble
those in Nairobi, Kenya. Manfred Roeder reports that the EU plans to bring to
Europe some 60 million more black Africans. Any plan to halt this torrent to Europe
of this plague is attacked by the media as “Hitlerism.”
To most Americans, war is an exciting game. They watch the suffering and the action
safely on television, radio, newspapers and magazines with the “Tom Brokaws” exulting.
But what do they profit? Death, debt and the ever-tightening yoke of Jewish political
and economic supremacy.
Any sensible white person, if aware at all of what is happening, has to acknowledge
the truth. His race, which is responsible for Western civilization, is on the defensive
and retreating before an army of racial and cultural aliens.
The racial crisis cannot be ignored further. Whites must brave the Bronx cheers and
profanity from liberals and Jews and face the problem squarely or civilization is lost.
The future for the U.S. seems clear: The McCarran-Walter immigration law has been
repealed and no more are immigrants let into America mainly from Europe. Today,
America is taking in millions of non-whites from everywhere, legal and illegal. These
invaders have no cultural or racial compatibility with the Aryan whites who founded,
civilized and developed this continent. Without racial and cultural homogeneity, there
can be no rational government in any country, only efforts to arbitrate among groups
until the inevitable anarchy.
Is the future therefore hopeless? Is the white race doomed? Of course not, just
the opposite. Today, whites are confronted with major difficulties, and that is good,
not bad. The problems we have are a trumpet call to awaken. At last we have a
challenge. It is literally life or death for our kind. Political liberalism is a thing of
the past. Jewish influence is intolerable and must be quashed by whatever
means. We mean to survive and that means only this: Unconditional defeat for
our enemies and unconditional victory for the next phase of white aggrandizement.
APP, DR. AUSTIN: History’s Most Terrifying Peace, 1946.
The Six Million Swindle 1973, Boniface Press.
A Straight Look at the Third Reich, 1975, Boniface Press.
BACQUE, JAMES: Other Losses, 1999, Little Brown & Co.
BARNES, HARRY ELMER: In Quest of Truth and Justice, 1972, Ralph Myles.
Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, 1953, Caxton Printers.
Pearl Harbor: After a Quarter Century, 1968, Inst. for Historical Review.
BAUR, HANS: Hitler at My Side, 1968, Eichler Publ. Co. chief pilot and friend to Adolf Hitler,
was a WWI ace, pioneer mail pilot, Lufthansa flight captain, companion to the Fuehrer
in the Soviets after WWII. What a life. His autobiography is an adventure story.
BEARSE, RAY & READ, ANTHONY: Conspirator, 1992, Papermac.
CHAMBERLIN, WILLIAM HENRY: America’s Second Crusade, 1950, Henry
COLBY, BENJAMIN: Twas a Famous Victory, 1974, Arlington House.
COLE, WAYNE S.: Charles Lindbergh and the Battle Against American
Intervention in World War II, 1974, Harcourt Brace.
CROCKER, GEORGE N.: Roosevelt’s Road to Russia, 1959, Henry Regnery.
DOENECKE, JUSTUS D.: Not to the Swift, 1979, Associated University Presses
DUKE, DAVID: Jewish Supremacism, 2003, Free Speech Press.
EGGLESTON, GEORGE T.: Roosevelt, Churchill and the World War II Opposition, 1979 Devin-Adair.
EPSTEIN, JULIUS: Operation Keelhaul, 1973, Devin-Adair.
GANNON, MICHAEL: Pearl Harbor Betrayed, 2001, Henry Holt.
GREAVES, PERCY L.: Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy, 2010, Ludwig Mises Institute.
GRENFELL, CAPT. RUSSELL, R.N.: Unconditional Hatred, 1958, Devin-Adair.
HEDDESHEIMER, DON: The First Holocaust, TBR, 2011.
IRVING, DAVID: Destruction of Dresden, 1963, Holt, Rinehart. The War Path, 1978 the Viking Press.
Churchill’s War 1987, Veritas Publishing.
Hitler’s War, 1977, Macmillian.
The War Between the Generals, 1981, Penguin Books.
Hess, the Missing Years, 1987, Macmillian.
Apocalypse 1945, Parforce.
KEMP, ARTHUR: March of the Titans, 2000, Ostara Press.
KUBIZEK, AUGUST: The Young Hitler I Knew, Greenhill Books, 2006.
LEESE, ARNOLD S.: The Jewish War of Survival, 1945, Historical Review Press.
LINGE, HEINZ: With Hitler to the End, 2009, Skyhorse.
MACDONOGH, GILES: After the Reich, 2007, Basic Books.
MARTIN JAMES J.: Revisionist Viewpoints, 1971, Ralph Myles.
NEILSON, FRANCIS: The Makers of War, 1950, C.C. Nelson.
How Diplomats Make War, 1952, Henry Regnery.
SNOW, JOHN H.: The Case of Tyler Kent, 1982, Long House.
STURDZA, PRINCE MICHEL: The Suicide of Europe, 1968, Western Islands.
TANSILL, CHARLES CALLAN: Back Door to War, 1952, Henry Holt.
THOMAS, W. HUGH: The Murder of Rudolf Hess, 1979, by author.
WEDEMEYER REPORTS: Gen. Albert Wedemeyer, 1958, Henry Holt.
  1. In whatever civilization they have lived for some 3,000 years, the Jews have always considered themselves separate and
  2. distinct from their host people. Their Talmud, as well as the Old Testament, is authority enough for this. Thus, historians and
  3.  observers cannot logically consider them as an integral part of the community.
  4. Arthur Kemp’s classic March of the Titans: A History of the White Race is strongly recommended.
  5. Bibliography and see Dr. Austin App’s writings.
  6. According to respected historian Eustace Mullins, Bernard Baruch was the force behind the creation of the atomic bomb.
  7.  He lived in Manhattan. Hence the name “Manhattan Project.”
  8. See the Sept./Oct. 2008 issue of THE BARNES REVIEW for “Russia & the Jews” by Udo Walendy, “Nobel Prize Winner’s
  9.  Writings Still Banned” which describes the prejudice against Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a Russian. Solzhenitsyn was
  10.  imprisoned for a total of 11 years by Stalin for his anti-Communist writings including his factual histories of the support
  11.  that Jews gave to the system. His writings in the U.S. are difficult if not impossible to be found.

Click on this text to listen to and watch Ernst Zundel on the Predictions of a German Dictator...

A great war leaves the country with three armies - an army of cripples,
an army of mourners, and an army of thieves.
                                                              ~German proverb

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.


Poland Seeks Compensation From Germany For WWII Atrocities: Should They Be Saying Sorry Instead?


A Blank Check & Forked Tongues: How Britain & Poland Started WWII & Blamed Hitler & Germans For Eternity!


Ethnic Germans: A Forgotten Genocide

HITLER'S SINCERE PEACE LETTER TO FRENCH PRESIDENT http://tomatobubble.com/id723.html

The True reason why Hitler attacked Zionist Poland https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3V3D1aio_U





Hitler: They Used Poland As A Dummy






Click on this text to hear Tom Goodrich (author of HELLSTORM) and Ryan Dawson discuss WWII...




According to our mainstream history books, “the Good Guys” banded together to stop the worst scourge in global history.

There is just one problem with this official version of the history-changing event known as World War II. It’s a lie!

So, how much do we really know about that crucial event and the decades of complex European history preceding it?

Why, and for whom, were the 20th century’s worldwide wars actually 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 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.[1]


Some of the secret Polish documents were first published in the United States as The German White Paper. Probably

the most-revealing document in the collection is a secret report dated January 12, 1939 by Jerzy Potocki, the Polish

ambassador to the United States. This report discusses the domestic situation in the

United States. I quote (a translation of) Ambassador Potocki’s report in full:


There is a feeling now prevalent in the United States marked by growing hatred of Fascism, and above all of Chancellor

Hitler and everything connected with National Socialism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control

almost 100% [of the] radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents

Germany as black as possible--above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited--this propaganda

is nevertheless extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe.


At the present moment most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and National Socialism as the greatest evil and

greatest peril threatening the world. The situation here provides an excellent platform for public speakers of all

kinds, for emigrants from Germany and Czechoslovakia who with a great many words and with most various

calumnies incite the public. They praise American liberty which they contrast with the totalitarian states.


It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National

Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely eliminated. Soviet Russia, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in a friendly

manner and things are presented in such a way that it would seem that the Soviet Union were cooperating with

the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the clever propaganda the sympathies of the American public are

completely on the side of Red Spain.


This propaganda, this war psychosis is being artificially created. The American people are told that peace in

Europe is hanging only by a thread and that war is inevitable. At the same time the American people are unequivocally

told that in case of a world war, America also must take an active part in order to defend the slogans of liberty and

democracy in the world. President Roosevelt was the first one to express hatred against Fascism. In doing so he

was serving a double purpose; first he wanted to divert the attention of the American people from difficult and

intricate domestic problems, especially from the problem of the struggle between capital and labor. Second, by

creating a war psychosis and by spreading rumors concerning dangers threatening Europe, he wanted to induce

the American people to accept an enormous armament program which far exceeds United States defense requirements.


Regarding the first point, it must be said that the internal situation on the labor market is growing worse constantly.

The unemployed today already number 12 million. Federal and state expenditures are increasing daily. Only the huge

sums, running into billions, which the treasury expends for emergency labor projects, are keeping a certain amount

of peace in the country. Thus far only the usual strikes and local unrest have taken place. But how long this government

aid can be kept up it is difficult to predict today. The excitement and indignation of public opinion, and the serious

conflict between private enterprises and enormous trusts on the one hand, and with labor on the other,

have made many enemies for Roosevelt and are causing him many sleepless nights.


As to point two, I can only say that President Roosevelt, as a clever player of politics and a connoisseur of American

mentality, speedily steered public attention away from the domestic situation in order to fasten it on foreign policy.

The way to achieve this was simple. One needed, on the one hand, to enhance the war menace overhanging the

world on account of Chancellor Hitler, and, on the other hand, to create a specter by talking about the attack of

the totalitarian states on the United States. The Munich pact came to President Roosevelt as a godsend. He

described it as the capitulation of France and England to bellicose German militarism. As was said here: Hitler

compelled Chamberlain at pistol-point. Hence, France and England had no choice and had to conclude a shameful peace.


The prevalent hatred against everything which is in any way connected with German National Socialism is further

kindled by the brutal attitude against the Jews in Germany and by the émigré problem. In this action Jewish intellectuals

participated; for instance, Bernard Baruch; the Governor of New York State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge

of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter; Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau, and others who are personal friends

of Roosevelt. They want the President to become the champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech,

and the man who in the future will punish trouble-mongers. These groups, people who want to pose as representatives

of “Americanism” and “defenders of democracy” in the last analysis, are connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.


For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its race, to put the President of the

United States at this “ideal” post of champion of human rights, was a clever move. In this manner they created a

dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile camps. The

entire issue is worked out in a mysterious manner. Roosevelt has been forcing the foundation for vitalizing American

foreign policy, and simultaneously has been procuring enormous stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are

striving consciously. With regard to domestic policy, it is extremely convenient to divert public attention from

anti-Semitism which is ever growing in the United States, by talking about the necessity

of defending faith and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.[2]


On January 16, 1939, Potocki reported to the Warsaw Foreign Ministry a conversation he had with American

Ambassador to France William Bullitt. Bullitt was in Washington on a leave of absence from

Paris. Potocki reported that Bullitt stated the main objectives of the Roosevelt administration were:


  1. The vitalizing foreign policy, under the leadership of President

Roosevelt, severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian countries.


  2. The United States preparation for war on sea, land and air which will be carried

out at an accelerated speed and will consume the colossal sum of $1,250 million.


  3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain must put [an] end to any sort of compromise

with the totalitarian countries. They must not let themselves in for any discussions aiming at any kind of territorial changes.


  4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will leave the policy of isolation and be prepared to

intervene actively on the side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to

place its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.”[3]


Juliusz (Jules) Łukasiewicz, the Polish ambassador to France, sent a top-secret report from Paris to the Polish Foreign

Ministry at the beginning of February 1939. This report outlined the

U.S. policy toward Europe as explained to him by William Bullitt:


A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, W. Bullitt, returned to Paris after having spent three months

holiday in America. Meanwhile, I had two conversations with him which enable me to inform Monsieur

Minister on his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of Washington’s policy….


The international situation is regarded by official quarters as extremely serious and being in danger of armed

conflict. Competent quarters are of the opinion that if war should break out between Britain and France on the

one hand and Germany and Italy on the other, and Britain and France should be defeated, the Germans would

become dangerous to the realistic interests of the United States on the American continent. For this reason,

one can foresee right from the beginning the participation of the United States in the war on the side of France

and Britain, naturally after some time had elapsed after the beginning of the war. Ambassador Bullitt expressed

this as follows: “Should war break out we shall certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall end it.”[4] 


On March 7, 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent another remarkably perceptive report on

Roosevelt’s foreign policy to the Polish government. I quote Potocki’s report in full:


The foreign policy of the United States right now concerns not only the government, but the entire American

public as well. The most important elements are the public statements of President Roosevelt. In almost every

public speech he refers more or less explicitly to the necessity of activating foreign policy against the chaos

of views and ideologies in Europe. These statements are picked up by the press and then cleverly filtered into

the minds of average Americans in such a way as to strengthen their already formed opinions. The same

theme is constantly repeated, namely, the danger of war in Europe and saving the democracies from inundation

by enemy fascism. In all of these public statements there is normally only a single

theme, that is, the danger from Nazism and Nazi Germany to world peace.


As a result of these speeches, the public is called upon to support rearmament and the spending of enormous

sums for the navy and the air force. The unmistakable idea behind this is that in case of an armed conflict the United

States cannot stay out but must take an active part in the maneuvers. As a result of the effective speeches of

President Roosevelt, which are supported by the press, the American public is today being conscientiously

manipulated to hate everything that smacks of totalitarianism and fascism. But it is interesting that the USSR is not

included in all of this. The American public considers Russia more in the camp of the democratic states. This was

also the case during the Spanish civil war when the so-called Loyalists were regarded as defenders of the democratic idea.


The State Department operates without attracting a great deal of attention, although it is known that Secretary

of State [Cordell] Hull and President Roosevelt swear allegiance to the same ideas. However, Hull shows more

reserve than Roosevelt, and he loves to make a distinction between Nazism and Chancellor Hitler on the one hand,

and the German people on the other. He considers this form of dictatorial government a temporary “necessary evil.”

In contrast, the State Department is unbelievably interested in the USSR and its internal situation and openly worries

itself over its weaknesses and decline. The main reason for the United States interest in the Russians is the

situation in the Far East. The current government would be glad to see the Red Army emerge as the victor in a

conflict with Japan. That’s why the sympathies of the government are clearly on the side of

China, which recently received considerable financial aid amounting to 25 million dollars.


Eager attention is given to all information from the diplomatic posts as well as to the special emissaries of the

President who serve as ambassadors of the United States. The President frequently calls his representatives

from abroad to Washington for personal exchanges of views and to give them special information and instructions.

The arrival of the envoys and ambassadors is always shrouded in secrecy and very little surfaces in the press about

the results of their visits. The State Department also takes care to avoid giving out any kind of information about the

course of these interviews. The practical way in which the President makes foreign policy is most effective. He gives

personal instructions to his representatives abroad, most of whom are his personal friends. In this way the United

States is led down a dangerous path in world politics with the explicit intention of abandoning the comfortable policy

of isolation. The President regards the foreign policy of his country as a means of satisfying his own personal ambition.

He listens carefully and happily to his echo in the other capitals of the world. In domestic as well as foreign policy, the

Congress of the United States is the only object that stands in the way of the President and his government in carrying

out his decisions quickly and ambitiously. One hundred and fifty years ago, the Constitution of the United States

gave the highest prerogatives to the American parliament which may criticize or reject the law of the White House. 


The foreign policy of President Roosevelt has recently been the subject of intense discussion in the lower house

and in the Senate, and this has caused excitement. The so-called Isolationists, of whom there are many in both

houses, have come out strongly against the President. The representatives and the senators were especially upset

over the remarks of the President, which were published in the press, in which he said that the borders of the United

States lie on the Rhine. But President Roosevelt is a superb political player and understands completely the

power of the American parliament. He has his own people there, and he knows

how to withdraw from an uncomfortable situation at the right moment.


Very intelligently and cleverly he ties together the question of foreign policy with the issues of American rearmament.

He particularly stresses the necessity of spending enormous sums in order to maintain a defensive peace. He says

specifically that the United States is not arming in order to intervene or to go to the aid of England or France in case

of war, but because of the need to show strength and military preparedness in case of an armed conflict

in Europe. In his view this conflict is becoming ever more acute and is completely unavoidable.


Since the issue is presented this way, the houses of Congress have no cause to object. To the contrary, the

houses accepted an armament program of more than 1 billion dollars. (The normal budget is 550 million, the

emergency 552 million dollars). However, under the cloak of a rearmament policy, President Roosevelt continues

to push forward his foreign policy, which unofficially shows the world that in case of war the United

States will come out on the side of the democratic states with all military and financial power.


In conclusion it can be said that the technical and moral preparation of the American people for participation in a

war--if one should break out in Europe--is proceeding rapidly. It appears that the United States will come to the aid

of France and Great Britain with all its resources right from the beginning. However, I know the American public

and the representatives and senators who all have the final word, and I am of the opinion that the possibility that

America will enter the war as in 1917 is not great. That’s because the majority of the states in the mid-West and

West, where the rural element predominates, want to avoid involvement in European disputes at all costs. They

remember the declaration of the Versailles Treaty and the well-known phrase that the war was to save the world

for democracy. Neither the Versailles Treaty nor that slogan have reconciled the United States to that war. For

millions there remains only a bitter aftertaste because of unpaid billions which the European states still owe America.[5]


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.”[6]


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.”[7] Historian

Harry Elmer Barnes also stated, “Both Professor Tansill and myself have independently established the

thorough authenticity of these documents.”[8]


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.”[9]


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. [10]


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.[11]


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.”[12] 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.




While the secret Polish documents alone indicate that Roosevelt was preparing the American public for war against

Germany, a large amount of complementary evidence confirms the conspiracy reported by the Polish ambassadors.

The diary of James V. Forrestal, the first U.S. secretary of defense, also reveals that Roosevelt

and his administration helped start World War II. Forrestal’s entry on December 27, 1945 stated:


Played golf today with Joe Kennedy [Roosevelt’s Ambassador to Great Britain in the years immediately before

the war]. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said

Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going

to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England

if it had not been for Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down

about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for

the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight;

Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the

world Jews had forced England into the war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939

the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside. Kennedy’s response always was that

putting iron up his backside did no good unless the British had some iron with which to fight, and they did not….


What Kennedy told me in this conversation jibes substantially with the remarks Clarence Dillon had made to

me already, to the general effect that Roosevelt had asked him in some manner to communicate privately with

the British to the end that Chamberlain should have greater firmness in his dealings with Germany. Dillon told

me that at Roosevelt’s request he had talked with Lord Lothian in the same general sense as Kennedy reported

Roosevelt having urged him to do with Chamberlain. Lothian presumably

was to communicate to Chamberlain the gist of his conversation with Dillon.


Looking backward there is undoubtedly foundation for Kennedy’s

belief that Hitler’s attack could have been deflected to Russia….”[13]


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.[14]


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.[15]


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.[16]


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:


President Roosevelt wrote a note to William Bullitt [in the summer of 1939], then Ambassador to France, directing

him to advise the French Government that if, in the event of a Nazi attack upon Poland, France and England did

not go to Poland’s aid, those countries could expect no help from America if a general war developed. On the

other hand, if France and England immediately declared war on Germany, they could expect “all aid” from the United States.


F.D.R.’s instructions to Bullitt were to send this word along to “Joe” and “Tony,” meaning Ambassadors Kennedy,

in London, and Biddle, in Warsaw, respectively. F.D.R. wanted Daladier, Chamberlain and Josef Beck to know

of these instructions to Bullitt. Bullitt merely sent his note from F.D.R. to Kennedy in the diplomatic pouch from

Paris. Kennedy followed Bullitt’s idea and forwarded it to Biddle. When the Nazis grabbed Warsaw and Beck

disappeared, they must have come into possession of the F.D.R. note. The

man who wrote the report I sent you saw it in Berlin in October, 1939.[17]


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.”[18]


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.[19]  


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.[20]


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.”[21]    


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.”[22]


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.[23]


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.”[24] 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.”[25]       


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.[26]


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.[27]


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.”[28]


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.”[29]


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.[30]


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.”[31]




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.



[1] 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.

[2] 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.

[3] Ibid., pp. 32-33.

[4] 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.

[5] 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.

[6] 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).

[7] Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, p. 60 (footnote 14).

[8] Barnes, Harry Elmer, The Court Historians versus Revisionism, N.p.: privately printed, 1952, p. 10.

[9] Raczynski, Edward, In Allied London, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963, p. 51.

[10] 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.  

[11] Ibid., pp. 137-139.

[12] New York Times, March 30, 1940, p. 1.

[13] Forrestal, James V., The Forrestal Diaries, edited by Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield, New York: Vanguard Press,

1951, pp. 121-122.

[14] 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.  

[15] Dallek, Robert, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy 1932-1945, New York: Oxford University Press, 1979, pp. 31, 164-165.

[16] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 518-519.

[17] 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.

[18] Phillips, William, Ventures in Diplomacy, North Beverly, Mass.: privately published, 1952, pp. 220-221.

[19] Barnes, Harry Elmer, Barnes against the Blackout, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1991, p. 208.

[20] Burckhardt, Carl, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939, Munich: Callwey, 1960, p. 225.

[21] Sherwood, Robert E., Roosevelt and Hopkins, an Intimate History, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948, p. 113.

[22] Fish, Hamilton, FDR The Other Side of the Coin: How We Were Tricked into World War II, New York: Vantage Press, 1976, p. 62.

[23] Beneš, Edvard, Memoirs of Dr. Edvard Beneš, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954, pp. 79-80.

[24] “Von Wiegand Says-,” Chicago-Herald American, Oct. 8, 1944, p. 2.

[25] Chicago-Herald American, April 23, 1944, p. 18.

[26] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 250.

[27] Moffat, Jay P., The Moffat Papers 1919-1943, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956, p. 232.

[28] Pearson, Drew and Allen, Robert S., “Washington Daily Merry-Go-Round,” Washington Times-Herald, April 14, 1939, p. 16.

[29] U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I, Washington: 1956, p. 122. 

[30] Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, pp. 101-102.

[31] 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

... 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

Edited by Lasha Darkmoon



It was these three powerful individuals, the winners of WWII, who decided to carve up

the world between them by manufacturing pretexts for a catastrophic world war that

would claim 60-80 million lives, roughly 3 per cent of the world’s population, and

reduce Germany to a wasteland of rubble. Behind them, lurking in the shadows,

stood their Jewish Puppet Masters, egging them on and telling them exactly what they had to do.


Here are the highly toxic and politically incorrect views of four key diplomats who were close

to the events leading up to World War II. Ponder them carefully and ask yourselves: Could they all have been mistaken?


Joseph P. Kennedy, US Ambassador to Britain during the years immediately preceding World War II,

was the father of the famous American Kennedy dynasty. James Forrestal, the first

US Secretary of Defense (1947-1949), quotes him as saying “Chamberlain [the British Prime Minister]

stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.” (The Forrestal Diaries, Cassell 1952, p.129).


Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office

in January 1939, is quoted approvingly by the highly respected British military historian

Major-General JFC Fuller. Concerning public opinion in America, Count Potocki says:


Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands. Their propaganda is so

effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe. 


It is interesting to observe that in this carefully thought-out campaign no reference

at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a

friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the

democratic group of countries.


Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the

dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world

into two warlike camps. President Roosevelt has been given the power to create

huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.”

— JFC Fuller, The Decisive Battles of the Western World, vol 3, pp 372-374.


Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out,

found anti-Semitism in Germany “understandable.” This was because before the advent of the

Nazis “the stage, the press, medicine and law were crowded with Jews. Among the few

with money to splurge, a high proportion were Jews. The leaders of the Bolshevist movement

in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the

spreading resentment and hatred.”

— Hugh Wilson, American diplomat, quoted in Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh, Hodder, 1976.


Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Berlin “said further that the hostile attitude

[toward Germany] in Great Britain was the work of Jews, which was what Hitler

thought himself.” (AJP Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, Penguin 1987, p. 324).


 “One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred.” — Hugh Wilson, American ambassador in Berlin, c.1938


Is this negative attitude toward international Jewry attributable to a groundless antisemitism—to

a hatred of Jews for no valid or justifiable reason? A knowledge of the economic background

to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding of this complex question.


At the end of the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked into paying massive

reparations to France and other economic competitors and former belligerent countries

by the terms of the iniquitous Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the meddling of liberal

American President Woodrow Wilson, himself acting under Jewish advice. [See Paul Johnson, 

A History of the Modern World (1983), p.24; and H. Nicholson, Peacemaking, 1919 (1933), pp. 13-16]


Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the Great War of 1914-1918 in spite

of the fact that “Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine

efforts, though too belated, to avert one.” (Professor Sydney B. Fay, The Origins of the World War (Vol. 2, p. 552).


As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations made by the Versailles Treaty,

by 1923 the situation in Germany became desperate. Inflation on an astronomical scale

became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were engaged to print

money around the clock. (See this picture). In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks

to the dollar; by 1924, it  had become roughly 5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually

destroyed the German middle classes, reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero.

(See Arthur Koestler, The God that Failed, p. 28).


According to distinguished British historian Sir Arthur Bryant:

It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance

who were best able to seize such opportunities. They did so with such effect that,

even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution,

they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like

A THIRD OF THE PROPERTY IN THE REICH. Most of it came into their hands during the hyperinflation.


To those who had lost their all, this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice.




many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and




The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned

professions in spite of constituting LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF THE POPULATION.


The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically

controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a

large part of the press—all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in

a civilized country is formed. The largest newspaper combine in the

country, with a daily circulation of four millions, was a Jewish monopoly.





At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a

discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against

a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination. It was the contrast between

the wealth enjoyed—and lavishly displayed—by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the

poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly

a force in the new Europe.


Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.


— Sir Arthur Bryant, Unfinished Victory, 1940 pp. 136-144, emphasis added.

The caption to a famous anti-Semitic German cartoon headed sarcastically “The Land of Freedom”,

referring to Germany under the Jewish heel, has a caption in German that translates as:

“When one is ruled by the Jews, freedom is only an empty dream.” (See the 1939 cartoon here).


—  §  —


Strangely enough, a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984,

Sarah Gordon’s Hitler, Germans and the “Jewish Question”, essentially confirms what

Sir Arthur Bryant says above. Sarah Gordon, incidentally, is Jewish, so this is a rare

example of a Jew actually admitting that anti-Semitism could have a rational basis:


“Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at

no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.

Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private

service. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in

1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish

banks. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal

businesses. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin,

where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange.

By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions,

85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of

their “race”. At least a quarter of full professors and instructors at German

universities had Jewish origins. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25%

of the law and medical students. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre

directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.

In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of

Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents.”


Arthur Koestler, also Jewish, confirms the Jewish over-involvement in German publishing:

“Ullstein’s was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind in Europe, and

probably in the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these

the venerable Vossische Zeitung, founded in the eighteenth century, and the BZ am

Mittag, an evening paper. Apart from these, Ullstein’s published more than a dozen

weekly and monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own travel agency,

and were one of the leading book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers

Ullstein: they were five, like the original Rothschild brothers, and like them also, they were Jews.”

— The God that Failed (1950), ed. R.H.S. Crossman, p. 31.


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:

“In the all-important administration of Prussia, any number

of strategic positions came into the hands of Hebrews.





The Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration that same considerable

part that they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the

Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual and cultural life of the country. And

thereby the impression was strengthened that Germany, a country with a mission

of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners.


No one who lived through the period from 1919 to 1926 is likely to forget the

sexual promiscuity that prevailed. Throughout a town like Berlin, hotels and

pensions made vast fortunes by letting rooms by the hour or day to baggageless,

unregistered guests. Hundreds of cabarets, pleasure resorts and the like served

for purposes of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper mood.”

(“Germany Puts The Clock Back”, pp. 153-4, emphasis added)


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:

“I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on

the window panes the word “Jew” in dripping red letters. The Kurfürstendamm was to

me a revelation. I knew that Jews were prominent in business life, but

I did not know that they almost monopolized important branches of it.


Germany had one Jew to one hundred gentiles, said the statistics; but the

fashionable Kurfürstendamm, according to the dripping red l

egends, had about one gentile shop to ninety-nine Jewish ones.

— Douglas Reed, Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3, emphasis added.


In Reed’s book Disgrace Abounding (1939), he notes:

“In the Berlin (of the pre-Hitler years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or

Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and stage actors were Jews, the plays

performed were often by German, Austrian or Hungarian Jews and were staged by

Jewish film producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers…


The Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs.

They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular

trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it. It is not true that Jews are better

journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin

papers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish.”


(Douglas Reed, Disgrace Abounding, 1939, pp. 238-9).


Jewish writer Edwin Black gives a similar picture. “In Berlin alone,” he states, “about 75

percent of the attorneys and nearly as many of the doctors were Jewish.” (The Transfer Agreement (1984),  p. 58)


“I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing

on the window panes the word JEW in dripping red letters.” — Douglas Reed, 1938.

  Note that 99 out of 100 shops in the High Street were owned by Jews,

and yet Jews made up less than one percent of the population.


To cap it all, Jews were perceived as dangerous enemies of Germany after Samuel Untermeyer,

the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation, declared war on Germany on

August 6, 1933. (See Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement: the Untold Story of the

Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Palestine (1984), pp. 272-277). According to Black,

“The one man who most embodied the potential death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermeyer” (p. 369).


This was the culmination of a worldwide boycott of German goods led by international Jewish organizations.


The London Daily Express on March 24, 1933 carried the headline “Judea Declares War on Germany”.

 The boycott was particularly motivated by the German imposition of the Nuremberg Laws,

which ironically were similar in intent and content to the Jewish cultural exclusivism practiced

so visibly in present-day Israel. At a single stroke, this headline disproves the lie  that Germany

initiated World War II. International Jewry is here clearly seen declaring war on Germany as

early as 1933. It would take the Jews another six years to cajole their Anglo-American

stooges to go to war on their behalf.


Next time you hear anyone claim falsely that “Germany started World War Two”,

send them a copy of this headline picture from The Daily Express, dated March 24, 1933:







Hitler saw the tremendous danger posed to Germany by Communism. He appreciated the

desperate need to eliminate this threat, a fact that earned him the immense hatred and

animosity of the Jewish organisations and the media and politicians of the west which they

could influence. After all, according to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant, although Jews

formed less than five percent of Russia’s population, they formed more than fifty percent

of its revolutionaries. According to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant in his book The Jews (1977, chapter 8):


“It must be added that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe

in the final decades of the last century and the first decades of this one,

stemmed from prosperous Jewish families.. They were perhaps typified by

the father of revolution, Karl Marx. Thus when, after the chaos of World War I,

revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm:

Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia; Bela Kun in Hungary;

Kurt Eisner in Bavaria; and, most improbable of all, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin.


To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy,

especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks

in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a

preponderance of Jews. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner

cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev

(Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews.”


Other authors agree with this assessment , including

Jewish historian Sarah Gordon, already cited once above:


There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish

intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously neglect one of the

genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War 1….


The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable,

and this was a very serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years.


It is clear then that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists led

many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation.”


— Sarah Gordon, Hitler, Germans and the ‘Jewish Question’, Princeton University Press (1984), p 23. (Emphasis added)


Martin Bernal in Back Athena (vol 1), pp.367-387 reinforces the above:


“The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism came after the critical role of Jews in

International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic

crises of the 1920s and 30s. Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and

North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian

Revolution.. Such feelings were not restricted to Germany, or to vulgar extremists

like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism

became the norm in ‘nice society’, and ‘nice society’ included the universities.”


Is it any wonder that Hitler, along with millions of others all over Europe,

should join the growing ranks of the anti-Semites?


It is clear that the Jews were almost universally hated, not because they Jews, but

because of their obnoxiously pushy behavior and the fact that they were in the forefront

of dangerous revolutionaries dedicated to the downfall of their host countries. You cannot

move into someone else’s house and take it over and expect to be loved by your victims.


—  §  —


Hitler came to power in Germany with two main aims, the rectification of the unjust

provisions of the Versailles Treaty and the destruction of the Soviet/ Communist threat

to Germany. Strangely enough, contrary to the mythology created by those who had an

opposing ethnic agenda, he had no plans or desire for a larger war of conquest. Professor

AJP Taylor proved this in his book The Origins of the Second World War, much to

the annoyance of the professional court historians. Taylor says: “The state of German

armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general

war, and probably not intending war at all” (p.267). And again: “Even in 1939 the German

army was not equipped for a prolonged war; in 1940 the German land forces

were inferior to the French in everything except leadership” (p. 104-5).


British historian Basil Liddell Hart confirms this assessment. He writes: “Britain and France

declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler wanted peace with Britain, as

the German generals admitted. (Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill, 1948, Pan Books 1983).


David Irving wraps it all up in the foreword to his book The Warpath (1978) where he refers

to “the discovery that at no time did this man (Hitler) pose or  intend  a real threat to Britain or the Empire.”


I think all this proves, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the chief aggressors in World War II

were the Anglo-Americans—as indeed they were arguably the chief aggressors in

World War I and most of the wars that have plagued the world during the 20th century

and up to the present time. As for the moneyed international Jews, these were demonstrably

the Puppet Masters jerking the strings of the three great leaders of the Western World—Churchhill,

Roosevelt and Stalin—who went to war at their behest and on their behalf.


It is not without significance that each of the legendary figures mentioned above has been

accused at some time or other of enjoying exceptionally strong Jewish connections.


Of one thing we can be reasonably sure: whenever there is a major new war or revolution

being planned which requires heavy financial backing—the Russian Revolution is a perfect

example—the hidden hand of international Jewry is almost certain to be behind it. 

Partout où il y a de l’argent, il y a des Juifs, said Montesquieu.

— “Wherever there is money, there you will find the Jew.”


And wherever there is war, the most profitable money spinning activity known to man, there

also you are likely to find the Eternal Jew—Der Ewige Jude—counting his gold coins over a mound of corpses.





                                               THE WORST DISASTER VISITED UPON CIVILISATION

SHARE NEWS CENSORED BY MEDIA Donation dependent please share our stories and

purchase from our bookstore.  Русский: В правой колонке главной страницы есть

опция выбора языка. Deutsche Es gibt eine Sprachauswahloption auf der rechten Seite der Homepage.


MASSIVE bombing raids by Allied forces during World War II sent shockwaves to the edge

of space, according to new research. Scientists at the University of Reading in the UK have

revealed that shockwaves from huge bombs travelled through the Earth’s atmosphere.

The bombing even weakened the Earth’s electrified upper

atmosphere, the ionosphere, 1000 kilometres away.


DEATH OF A CITY by historian Michael Walsh discloses dreadful accounts of what it was

like to live and perish in an RAF firestorm. This information has been hidden from the public

since Britain’s unelected war lord Winston Churchill rejected numerous German peace offers.

! Base Treachery


Michael Walsh says, victors’ spin claims the bombing campaign was initiated by the German side.

However, J. M. Spaight, Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry disagrees: “Hitler only undertook

the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly three months after the

RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets.”

Another myth used to justify total destruction of great German cities was retaliation for their

bombing of Coventry. By the morning of August 3, 1943, over 6,000 square acres of Hamburg

had been gutted compared to just 100 acres in Coventry over the entire

course of the war, a city essential to Churchill’s war campaign.


Poison Gas

During just 10 days 100,000 citizens of Hamburg were put to the flame. For every one of

the 380 persons who died in Coventry, again during the entire course of the war, no less

than 300 Hamburg citizens died during that satanic week of senseless Allied carpet bombing.

Starved 4 millon Voted greatest Briton

Many are the accounts of the RAF bombing campaigns from the Allied perpetrators

anaesthetised by time and distance. But, what was it like to be in Hamburg during the RAF raids?


An official German document states:

“For weeks afterwards eyewitnesses were unable

to report without succumbing to their nerves and weeping hysterically. They would try

to speak, then would break down and cry: ‘I can’t stand seeing it again; I can’t stand it.”


Many weeks later, a woman who did survive was interviewed. She had still not recovered

from the experience: “I saw people killed by falling bricks and heard the screams of others

dying in the fire. I dragged my best friend from a burning building and she died in my arms.

I saw others who went stark mad. The shock to the nerves and the soul, one can never erase.”


The Police President of Hamburg reported: “Its horror is revealed in the howling and raging

of the firestorms, the hellish noise of exploding bombs and the death cries of martyred human

beings as well as the big silence after the raids. Speech is impotent to portray the measure

of the horror, which shook the people for ten days and nights and the traces of

which were written indelibly on the face of the city and its inhabitants.


“No flight of imagination will ever succeed in measuring and describing the gruesome scenes

of horror in the many buried air raid shelters. Posterity can only bow its head in honour of

the fate of these innocents, sacrificed by the murderous lust of a sadistic enemy.”


Martin Caidin is one of the world’s leading authorities on military science subjects. The

high-ranking U.S. Government official was an expert on bombing effects. He described

the bombing of Hamburg as: “Standing out as the worst of the disasters

visited upon civilisation during the insanity of the Second World War.”


The air above Hamburg was the pure flame. Six square miles of Hamburg was engulfed in

the world’s greatest fire. Merely looking at the blinding heat and light could

terrorise and destroy the mind. There were no longer individual blazes.


The winds relentlessly fed the flames and were sucked in at higher and higher speeds. Even

out in the suburbs, it was like no ordinary wind. Such winds as we all experience each day of

our lives swirl in eddies and gusts. They blow this way at one corner and another way at the

next corner. But these winds showed no variation in direction or speed. The winds flowed into

the city at a constant speed. During the early stages, these

winds had reached forty and then fifty miles per hour.


Riches of the West 1


Ninety minutes after the first bombs were dropped trees on the outskirts of the city were

beginning to lose their leaves. It was as though some giant supernatural vacuum cleaner

was plucking them. Small branches were snapped and street debris was vacuumed up as

though by some unseen hand. The rubbish swirled away and bounced

off the shells of buildings but always sucked in one direction.


Outside the city’s perimeter, tens of thousands of people gathered to witness that which no

man had witnessed before them. A whole city had become a throbbing inferno of intense heat.

Stunned onlookers gazed with their eyes transfixed as a column

of flame a mile wide reached the inner limits of space.


What can we do to roast Germans - Copy

The winds reached supernatural speeds and they were to soon exceed tornado or

hurricane velocities. The shrieking gales flattened flames. The tornadoes turned the city

into one gigantic flame thrower or blow torch.  Flames, many hundreds of feet long,

were caught in the blast of wind. It seared through streets where thousands of people

still huddled in the open as they hid behind partly demolished walls,

cowering in alleys. These unfortunates were incinerated.


The martyr’s shrieks of terror and pain mingled and were lost in the screaming winds and

crackling firestorm. It will never be known how many such people simply disappeared as

though they had never walked the earth. Not even a few charred bones marked their presence

on earth. It is estimated that winds feeding the blazing city reached speeds as high as 150

miles per hour and perhaps more. Twice that of hurricane force winds and at such speeds,

some trees three feet in diameter, were sucked out of the ground and hurled into the flames.


Declares war but blames Hitler

During the RAF’s firestorm of Hamburg, temperatures reached 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit.

At such temperatures, lead becomes a bubbling fluid as liquid as water. Balks of wood simply

explode without necessarily coming in contact with flame; metal, rubber, and glass melts.


Flames were hurled three miles into the sky and its gases reached as high again and more.

It was a sight so spectacular and horrifying that the well-known effect of an atom-bomb

explosion becomes relatively lesser. As the fire’s superheated gases boiled upwards,

they passed through a stratum of cold air high above the city. The debris in the soaring flames

and smoke attracted moisture and caused a meteorological reaction. The natural elements

combined to reject the debris which was transformed and fell to the earth once

more in big greasy black rain blobs.


Churchill on Palestinians

This again raises the question, were the Allied atrocities committed during World War II

so horrifyingly unique in world history that the myth of the Holocaust

was invented for the Allies to hide their crimes behind.


Alice Yalta 2


The Sinking of the 'Wilhelm Gustloff': A Little-Known World War II Tragedy

... Many, however, have never heard of the sinking of MV (Motor Vessel) Wilhelm Gustloff, which was
torpedoed in the Baltic Sea in 1945. Thousands more lives were lost than the Titanic -- including thousands
of women and children ... The S-13 fired three torpedoes, all of which struck the Gustloff. Panic ensued
as the ship started to list. Lifeboats were covered with ice and only a few were able to be launched.
Many passengers were trapped below or already dead from the explosions. Those who couldn't
get in the few lifeboats and rafts took their chances in the sea, where most died of exposure.
The Wilhelm Gustloff slid beneath the surface less than 40 minutes after being struck.

History's Little Known Naval Disasters
Institute for Historical Review

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 Review

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 - Video

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 Review

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.”

Leni Riefenstahl


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 t

hem 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---

Click on this text to watch an interview with a former Waffen SS soldier (1985)


Why Did America Bomb France in World War II?

... Rouen was not the only French victim of Allied bombs, nor was it even the worst. Some 1,570 French cities and towns
were bombed or hit by artillery fire by Anglo-American forces between June 1940 and May 1945. As an example of the
devastation, it is estimated that 95 percent of Saint-Lô was destroyed; Carentan and Caen, too, were virtually flattened.
Some figures show that 432,000 homes and apartments across France were destroyed and another 890,000 homes were
damaged. The number of French civilians killed and injured before, during, and after their liberation has long been a matter
of heated debate in France. One French historian estimates that more than 50,000 men, women, and children died ...
The total number of dead could be as high as 70,000; more than 100,000 were wounded.   

Parisians Jeer, Harass Allied Prisoners, 1944

Remarkable footage of Parisians venting anger against Allied prisoners of war. Shortly after the Allied D-Day invasion
of Normandy in June 1944, British and American soldiers who had been captured by German forces are marched through
Paris, under German guard, apparently for transfer to a railroad station. Large crowds gather to watch. While most look
on silently, some women and men jeer, harass, assault and even spit at the prisoners. German soldiers and
French police keep Parisians from even more violent abuse of the PoWs. Silent footage. Runtime: 2:18 mins.

How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America Into War
William Henry Chamberlin

... American involvement in war with Germany was preceded by a long series of steps
[by FDR, including] ... the orders to American warships to shoot at sight at German submarines,
formally announced on September 11 [1941]. The beginning of actual hostilities may be dated
from this time rather than from the German declaration of war, which followed Pearl Harbor ...
The promises to "keep America out of foreign wars" were a deliberate hoax on the American
people, perpetrated for the purpose of insuring Roosevelt's re-election and thereby enabling
him to proceed with his plan of gradually edging the United States into war.

Life Magazine Prepares Americans for War 
Life magazine (1938)

Ten months before the outbreak of war in Europe, the most influential US illustrated weekly
magazine was psychologically preparing Americans for war with alarmist claims that Germany
threatened the United States. This major article in the October 31, 1938, issue of Life magazine,
headlined "America Gets Ready to Fight Germany, Italy, Japan," told readers that Germany
and Italy "covet ... the rich resources of South America," and warned that "fascist fleets and
legions may swarm across the Atlantic." In fact, at the time Hitler and all other high-level German
officials fervently sought to avoid any conflict with the US, Britain or France. But President
Franklin Roosevelt was secretly pushing for war. In September 1939 Britain and France --
encouraged by the US -- declared war against Germany.

Wartime Bombings of Neutral Switzerland

By Joachim Hoffmann


For some time now it has become common to beat up on prototypically democratic Switzerland

in a sometimes unfriendly and occasionally almost hateful way.

Apparently this is being done for political motives.


To this end, certain regrettable events during the Second World War are strongly emphasized,

without in all fairness mentioning the difficult circumstances under which the Swiss Confederation

had to maintain its neutrality and sovereignty toward not only the Axis powers,

and especially Germany, but also toward the western Allies.


Above all the United States, which is in the forefront of the accusatory critics, should permit

itself to be reminded of the great extent to which, for years, it violated Swiss neutrality. From

1943 onwards American war planes flew at will over the neutral country, sometimes

in flight formations, in attacks on targets in the German Reich.


Time and again they also carried out offensive operations against Swiss territory. Thus,

on April 1, 1944, Schaffhausen was the victim of an intense American air attack, with

considerable human losses and heavy destruction of property. Passenger and freight rail

cars, viaducts and train stations were also repeatedly bombed or fired upon, such as in

Chiasso and Basel, resulting in numerous fatalities and extensive material damage. On

February 22, 1945, alone 18 Swiss lost their lives, and 50 were wounded, some severely,

in American bombing attacks and air raids on the northern part of the country.


In the aftermath of the American air attacks on Basel and Zürich on March 5, 1945, which

once again caused considerable human losses and material damage, the government in

Washington was notified in a strongly worded protest of the routine flouting of Swiss neutrality,

and of the steadily increasing number of border violations, and that such bombings were

intolerable. The situation had become so tense that Washington directed the supreme commander

of the United States Army Air Force in Europe, General Spaatz, and his chief of staff,

to go to Bern [the Swiss capital] in person to apologize and promise reform.


Among the various US airplanes that came down on Swiss territory were no fewer than 160

large four-motor B-17 "flying fortress" bombers and B-24 "Liberators," either because the

crews wanted to avoid being taken prisoner in Germany, or were deserters who simply

wanted to get out of military service, or because they were forced

to land or were shot down by Swiss flyers or air defense forces.


War planes of other countries also repeatedly carried out offensive operations against

Switzerland, including, on a large scale, by the British Royal Air Force, and also, not so

seriously but still considerable, by the German Luftwaffe, and even on occasion by French planes.


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.




As witnesses:






WWII - EUROPA - The Last Battle

https://youtu.be/WqREtbt__O8 part 1

As featured on National Radio and suddenly
banned by Amazon... (after receiving more than 300 5-star reviews!)

We all know the story about World War II. The one about how "The Good Guys"
banded together to stop Adolf Hitler and the big bad Germans (and Japanese) from taking over the world.
There is just one problem with this official version of the history-changing event known as World War II.
It's a LIE!
Can you handle the truth about what really happened?

Click on this text to watch a five minute trailer about "THE BAD WAR" on Youtube...







(Stolen from Germany after World War I)


The August 28th headline of the Hitler-hating New York Times confirmed that Hitler sought to avoid war with Britain & France.




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

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

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


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



AUGUST 25, 1939


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.


NevilleChamberlain.jpg  photo 0331-polishguarantee1.jpg

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

AUGUST 31, 1939




Overestimating their strength, underestimating German strength, and knowing that France and the UK would now be forced to back them, Polish-Jewish terrorists cross the border and attack a German radio station in Silesia, Germany. It is actually the latest in a string of deliberate border instigations against Germany.

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

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


gliwic002.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hntojuBOgo0/SOfcKpsay5I/AAAAAAAADms/hLXxl0pCLKM/s400/JewishPartisans.gif

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.






"I lived in Germany during the 1980's when many people who lived during the war were still alive. I sought out anyone who lived near Poland in 1939 and was lucky enough to meet several people. One was a customs official who said it was so bad on the border they were armed and also had grenades in their office ready for attacks. Another told me his farm animals were often stolen by Polish (Jewish?) terrorists. Another told of his niece being raped by a Pole (Jew?) who crossed the border. He told me in 1940 they caught the man and showed me a copy of the death order signed by Heydrich, in which he ordered the man put to death.

 This is just one of many stories told to me by German civilians who witnessed these border incursions just like had happened in 1919-1928. One thing many people fail to see is that Poland openly attacked Germany right after World War I, which led to many border battles. Once Germany started pressing Poland to work out a solution to the corridor, the attacks started again. .And one thing that is clear to me is that Germany did not make up these attacks."  

- G.H.  Ohio, USA


SEPTEMBER 17, 1939


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!
3332.jpg http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/dhtml_slides/09/german_invasion_of_poland/img/slide_3.gif
The Soviets executed 10,000 Polish Army officers at Katyn Forest. They would later try to blame it on the Germans.

SEPTEMBER 17, 1939


Within a few weeks, the German-Polish War is already over. Hitler receives a hero’s welcome upon his arrival in liberated Danzig. Hitler addresses the Danzig crowd:

“No power on earth would have borne this     condition as long as Germany. I do not know what England would have said about a similar peace solution (Versailles) at its expense or how America or France would have accepted it.

 I attempted to find a tolerable solution - even for this problem. I submitted this attempt to the Polish rulers in the form of verbal proposals. .You know these proposals. They were more than moderate. I do not know what mental condition the Polish Government was in when it refused these proposals. …….As an answer, Poland gave the order for the first mobilization. Thereupon wild terror was initiated, and my request to the Polish Foreign Minister to visit me in Berlin once more to discuss these questions was refused. Instead of going to Berlin, he went to London.” 


hitler-tr62a.jpg http://www.tomek.strony.ug.edu.pl/pocztowki/hitler_dluga_700.jpg

Hitler receives a hero's welsome in Danzig

OCTOBER 1939 - MAY 1940



The German-Polish War has ended quickly. There is nothing that the Allies can do help their Polish puppet. The French actually invade Germany on September 7th, advancing 8 km before stopping.  The quiet period between the end of the Polish war until May 1940, is dubbed by a US Senator as "The Phony War."   

During this time, Hitler pleads for the Allies to withdraw their war declarations. Towards France he declares: ."I have always expressed to France my desire to bury forever our ancient enmity and bring together these two nations, both of which have such glorious pasts." 

To the British, Hitler says: “I have devoted no less effort to the achievement of Anglo-German friendship. At no time and in no place have I ever acted contrary to British interests….Why should this war in the West be fought?”

Hitler’s pleas for peace are ignored as the allies amass 600,000 troops in Northern France! Plans are openly discussed to advance eastward upon Germany, via Belgium and Holland, as well as establishing operations in neutral Norway and Denmark, with or without their consent.
















As Hitler continues to plead for peace, the British government deploys its army and frightens its people.



Stalin's War Against His Own Troops

The Tragic Fate of Soviet Prisoners of War in German Captivity

By Yuri Teplyakov


At dawn on June 22, 1941, began the mightiest military offensive in history: the

German-led Axis attack against the Soviet Union. During the first 18 months of the

campaign, about three million Soviet soldiers were taken prisoner. By the end of the

conflict four years later, more than five million Soviet troops are estimated to have

fallen into German hands. Most of these unfortunate men died in German captivity.


A major reason for this was the unusual nature of the war on the eastern front, particularly

during the first year -- June 1941-June 1942 -- when vastly greater numbers of prisoners

fell into German hands than could possibly be accommodated adequately. However,

and as Russian journalist Teplyakov explains in the following article, much of the

blame for the terrible fate of the Soviet soldiers in German captivity

was due to the inflexibly cruel policy of Soviet dictator 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 [1944] 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 ...


J. Stalin


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 awayyour 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 t

o choose the form of government under which they will live."


The other clauses have fared no better. The restrictions imposed on German and Japanese

industry, trade, and shipping cannot be reconciled with the promise "to further the enjoyment

by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on

equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world."



President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill sing "Onward Christian Soldiers" during their August 10, 1941, meeting on board a British battleship anchored off of Newfoundland.


In the great conflict then raging between Germany and the other Axis nations, on one side, and the British Empire and Soviet Russia, on the other, the United States was officially still neutral. Nevertheless, and violating both international law and repeated pledges to the American people, Roosevelt had already plunged the United States into the war. At this meeting he publicly committed the US to "the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny." Just weeks earlier, and on his order, US forces had occupied Iceland.

At this meeting Roosevelt and Churchill announced the "Atlantic Charter," which proclaimed "the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live." The Allied leaders were never sincere about such pledges. Britain was already violating it in the case of India and other imperial dominions, and later Roosevelt and Churchill would betray it in the case of Poland, Hungary and other European 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.


Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin at the February 1945 Yalta Conference. At this meeting, the Allied coalition leaders decided the fate of millions of people around the world.


(4) The policy of "getting along" with Stalin on a basis of all-out appeasement.

The Soviet dictator was given everything he wanted in the way of munitions and

supplies and was asked for nothing in return, not even an honest fulfillment of

the Atlantic Charter, of which he was a cosignatory. The disastrous bankruptcy

of this policy is evident from one look at the geographical, political, and

moral map of the world today.


(5) Failure to invade the Balkans, as Churchill repeatedly urged. This mistake was the

result partly of the policy of appeasing Stalin and partly of the narrowly military conception

of the war which dominated the thinking of the War Department. There was a tendency

to regard the war as a kind of bigger football game, in which victory was all that mattered.


(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.

(The "debate" is based upon actual quotes arranged mostly in chronological order)
Compiled by Mike King
* A skeptical reader might suspect that the quotes below were cherry-picked out of context and arranged for propaganda purposes. This is an understandable, though mistaken suspicion. We therefore invite you, after 'the debate', to also read 'The British Mad Dog' and 'The Bad War' . Both works will provide a full and truthful explanation of Hitler, Churchill and World War II.
Prime Minister Churchill. We begin with you...


Image result for churchill

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.


Nov., 1935

I appeal to reason in international affairs. I want to show that the idea of eternal enmity is wrong. We are not hereditary enemies. 
Feb., 1936
Image result for churchill

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.

Oct., 1938


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. 

Oct., 1939

Image result for churchill
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. 
May, 1940

In 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.

July, 1940

Image result for churchill

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...

June, 1940


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.

Sep., 1939

Image result for churchill

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.

May, 1940

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.

May, 1940

Image result for churchill
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.
July, 1941


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?


May, 1941

Image result for churchill

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.

June, 1940



(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.

December, 1941

Image result for churchill

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.


Image result for churchill

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.
Image result for churchill


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).



Image result for churchill

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.


Image result for churchill

I consider that it will be found much better by all Parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history.


...despite all setbacks, (this war) will one day go down in history as the most glorious and heroic manifestation of the struggle for existence of a nation.



British Torture at Bad Nenndorf

By Johannes Heyne

Bad Nenndorf is a bathing resort in the fringe of the uplands of the River Weser's watershed
where people with joint ailments are treated with mud baths and soaks in sulfurous waters.
On the grounds of the spa suffused with sulfur fumes stands a stately mud-bath house from
the 19th Century. At the entrance, cure-seekers are greeted by the goddess Hygeia. Late
in the 1920s, the bathhouse was extended into a massive complex with innumerable bathing huts.


War-Criminal Headquarters

After the end of the war, Bad Nenndorf wound up in the British Zone of occupation. In
violation of the Hague Convention for Land Warfare, the occupiers subjugated the civil
order and persecuted civilians, in particular political leaders, of the conquered land.
In the Potsdam Protocol of August 2, 1945, the following is proclaimed:[1]

War criminals and those who have participated in planning or carrying out Nazi enterprises
involving or resulting in atrocities or war crimes shall be arrested and brought to judgment.
Nazi leaders, influential Nazi supporters and high officials of Nazi organizations and
institutions and any other persons dangerous to the occupation or its objectives shall
be arrested and interned.

In accordance therewith, the area surrounding the mud-bath house was designated a
Civil Internment Camp[2] in early August 1945. 1200 residents of the area had to vacate
their houses. The area was fenced off with barbed wire. The mud-bath house received
a new function: registration center and prison for Germans who were to be charged as
war criminals. In the bathing huts, the fixtures were removed and the tubs in the
floors cemented over. From this resulted functional prison cells with tiled walls.
NSDAP functionaries, members of the SS, officers from every branch of the Wehrmacht,
diplomats and industrialists were confined in the cells in order to be "prepared" for the coming
war-criminal trials. But here also were kept defecting Soviet officers and mere illegal immigrants
who were suspected of being spies for the Soviet Union-that same
Soviet Union that was still an ally of Great Britain in 1945 and 1946.
The guard staff consisted of members of a British punishment company, who hoped by
faithful performance in this assignment to recover the ranks that they had been stripped of.

Report of Victim Oswald Pohl

There are only two reports of conditions in the mud-bath house at Bad Nenndorf. One report comes from the head of the Wirtschafts- und
Verwaltungshauptamt of the SS (Economic and Administrative Main Office), SS General Oswald Pohl, who was confined for a time at
Camp Bad Nenndorf at the end of May 1945. In the last communication before his execution, he wrote:[3]

The mud-bath house at Bad Nenndorf

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.”



Another Report


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[4] 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 r

ags 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 prisoner

s 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 […]”



The Volkssturm: Last-Ditch Militia of the Third Reich

On October 18, 1944 - the 131st anniversary of the Battle of the Nations' victory over Napoleon in 1813 - Reichsführer
SS Heinrich Himmler stepped up to a microphone to make a national radio address announcing the formation of the
Nazi Party-controlled Volkssturm [VS], or People's Militia ... The average age of those who served (the national oath-taking
was conducted on November 12, 1944) was between 45 and 52 ... Of those men who were called up, most were
white-collar workers ... VS casualty rates were sometimes as high as 70 to 80 percent, while other units panicked and fled.
In the East, some 650,000 VS men saw action ... In the West, some 150,000 VS men served
and had helped to man the West Wall fortifications, as well as hold the Upper Rhine ...

Defiant Resistance: Germany's WW2 Home Guard

During the final months of World War II in Europe, beleaguered Germany adopted ever more desperate measures to resist the Soviet-American takeover of their nation and Europe. As this colorized footage shows, that included the formation of a national militia or home guard - the "Volkssturm" - which called up all still-available able-bodied men to defend the homeland. Civilians, including women and Hitler Youth teenagers, were also trained and armed. Many fought with the anti-tank "Panzerfaust," an early RPG. Many Volkssturm men played an important role in defending the German capital against the Soviets. Runtime: 4:52 mins. No narration.

German Home Guard Called Up to Defend the Homeland

Wartime newsreel report on the German militia or home guard ("Volkssturm"), which deployed all remaining able-bodied
men to defend the homeland during the final months of World World War II in Europe.
Czech-language narration, with German subtitles. Runtime: 2:47 mins.



Summer, 1945: Germany, Japan and the Harvest of Hate

by Thomas Goodrich.

“We Americans have the dangerous tendency in our international thinking to take a
holier-than-thou attitude toward other nations. We consider ourselves to be more noble and
decent than other peoples, and consequently in a better position to decide what is right
and wrong in the world. What kind of war do civilians suppose we fought, anyway? We
shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy
civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in
the Pacific boiled the flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts,
or carved their bones into letter openers…. [W]e mutilated the bodies of enemy dead, cutting
off their ears and kicking out their gold teeth for souvenirs, and buried them with their testicles
in their mouths…. We topped off our saturation bombing and burning of enemy civilians
by dropping atomic bombs on two nearly defenseless cities, thereby setting an all-time
record for instantaneous mass slaughter. As victors we are privileged to try our defeated
opponents for their crimes against humanity; but we should be realistic enough to appreciate
that if we were on trial for breaking international laws, we should be found guilty on a dozen counts.
We fought a dishonorable war, because morality had a low priority in battle.
The tougher the fighting, the less room for decency, and in Pacific contests we saw
mankind reach the blackest depths of bestiality.” —- Edgar Jones, WWII Veteran

The Morgenthau Plan and the Problem of Policy Perversion
Anthony Kubek - Institute for Historical Review

The Morgenthau Diaries consist of 900 volumes located at Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, New York. As a consultant to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, I was assigned to examine all documents dealing with Germany, particularly ones related to the Morgenthau Plan for the destruction of Germany following the Second World War. The Subcommittee was interested in the role of Dr. Harry Dexter White, the main architect of the Plan ... The objective of the Morgenthau Plan was to de-industrialize Germany and diminish its people to a pastoral existence once the war was won ... Anyone who studies the Morgenthau Diaries can hardly fail to be deeply impressed by the tremendous power which accumulated in the grasping hands of Dr. Harry Dexter White, who in 1953 was identified by Edgar Hoover as a Soviet agent.
Why is Revisionism Important? / The Vengeful 'Morgenthau Plan'  
Institute for Historical Review - Video

Mark Weber, historian and director of the IHR, speaks about the importance of historical revisionism, and Prof. Anthony Kubek speaks about the `Morgenthau Plan' for a brutal and vindictive Allied occupation of Germany after the end of World War II. From the Ninth IHR Conference (1989).




After a Century of Chaos, Totalitarianism, and War, Versailles Treaty Still Haunts the World 

A century ago, in July 1919, Germany began its journey to the lowest reaches of Hades ... The treaty signed on June 28 in the famous Hall of Mirrors at the Versailles palace, however, proved to be but a brief interlude of peace ... Variously the Big Three or Four (U.S., United Kingdom, France, and sometimes Italy) sought to remake the world. They battled each other over their respective shares of the plunder, such as dividing Germany's colonies and one-time Ottoman possessions, and concocting a system to hinder Berlin's recovery ... Most wars are stupid, unnecessary, and harmful to all sides. Some are the result of hubris ... The centennial of the Versailles Treaty should remind us of the necessity of ending any conflict with a good peace - and, more importantly, of not starting a bad war.
The Treaty of Versailles: Eleven Facts About the 20th Century's Most Controversial Peace Agreement   

It was June 28, 1919. Envoys, statesmen and diplomats from the world's leading powers had gathered in Versailles Palaces' famous Hall of Mirrors to ink the treaty that would formally end the First World War ... Millions were dead, ancient dynasties were in ruins and political upheaval was sweeping the continent. The treaty, which was the result of six months of peace talks in Paris, was intended to do more than just formally resolve hostilities between the Allies and Germany, it would lay the foundation for a more peaceful and just world ... The settlement ultimately failed to live up to its more noble ambitions and helped set the stage for a second even deadlier conflict 20 years later. To mark the 100th anniversary of the Treaty of Versailles, here are 11 key facts about the agreement and its impact on history.



World War II: A Reading List

Compiled by David Gordon - Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute, and editor of The Mises Review.



The dominant view of World War II is that it was the “good war.” Hitler bears exclusive responsibility for the onset of war, because he aimed to conquer Europe, if not the entire world. The United States tried to avoid entering the war but was forced into the fight by the surprise Japanese attack on the American fleet at Pearl Harbor.

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.






The Ethnic European REAL HISTORY survives on book royalties donated by author

Michael Walsh and supporters of real history. OUR AIMS: To replace victor’s spin with

real history, to enlighten, inspire and to educate, with your help

to share our features as widely as possible.

Rommel inspecting panzer Lehr division. Normandy 1944.

Field-Marshall Erwin Rommel (1891 ~ 1944) was a German general and military theorist.

Popularly known as the Desert Fox, the career serviceman served as field marshal in the

Wehrmacht (Defense Force) of the Third Reich during World War II, as well as earlier

serving in the Reichswehr of the Weimar Republic,

and the army of Imperial Germany (1871 ~ 1918).


Rommel was a highly decorated officer in World War I and was awarded the Pour le Mérite 

for his actions on the Italian Front. In 1937 he published his classic book on military

tactics, Infantry Attacks, drawing on his experiences from World War I.


In World War II, he distinguished himself as the commander of the 7th Panzer Division 

during the 1940 invasion of France. His leadership of German and Italian forces in

the North African campaign established his reputation as one of the ablest tank

commanders of the war and earned him the nickname der Wüstenfuchs, the Desert Fox.

Among his British adversaries, he earned a strong reputation for chivalry, and the

North African campaign has often been called a “War Without Hate”. He later commanded

the German forces opposing the Allied cross-channel invasion of Normandy in June 1944.


The propaganda of the victors falsely claims that in 1944, Rommel was implicated in

the 20 July plot to assassinate Germany’s twice-elected President-Chancellor Adolf Hitler.

The story goes that due to Rommel’s status as a national hero, Hitler desired to eliminate

him quietly instead of immediately executing him, as many other plotters were.


Rommel was given a choice between committing suicide, in return for assurances that his

reputation would remain intact and that his family would not be persecuted following his death,

or facing a trial that would result in his disgrace and execution; he chose the former and

committed suicide using a cyanide pill. Rommel was given a state funeral, and it was announced that

 “he had succumbed to his injuries from the strafing of his staff car in Normandy.” 

This last hyphenated account is the only correct account.


Rommel (2)

The victors’ story of German General Erwin Rommel’s death was a fabricated one

constructed by the Allies at the end of the war. Rommel was arguably Germany’s best

general of World War II, as well as a famously humane and kind man, and a devout Christian,

thus the need to fabricate the circumstances of what happened to him. In fact, the Field-Marshal

died as a result of major injuries from a lowly Allied assassination attempt,

not due to his being made to commit suicide by Adolf Hitler.


The bogus official story that’s gone down as history was the result of the interrogation and torture

(torture was a standard operating procedure with the Allies) of his captured 16-year-old son,

Manfred, by the French in one of their camps in April 1945. Strangely, the resulting type-written

so-called personal account was in English, which was also a language

Manfred Rommel did not even speak.



General Rommel passed away on the 14th October 1944 from a heart attack brought

on by three skull fractures suffered when a Canadian Spitfire strafed his car off the road

three months earlier. He made no apologies for his service to the Reich: “I served my Fatherland

to the best of my ability and would do so again.” Credit The Hidden World.

Ernst Rommel




'National Narcissism': Britons, Americans and Russians All Think Their Country was Responsible for Winning WWII 

People in Britain, America and Russia all greatly overestimate their country's contribution to defeating Adolf Hitler,
according to new research. A survey found people from each country think it was responsible for contributing more
than half to the victory - the UK (51%), the US (54%) and Russia (75%). Experts say that this is vastly more than
the proportion of credit afforded to them by the rest of the world in a phenomenon dubbed 'national narcissism.' For
the UK, the average plunges to 19 per cent in the eyes of those from seven other Allied countries - and Germany,
Italy and Japan, who fought against them. For Russia it crashes to 20 per cent while America
enjoys a 27 per cent share of the credit US - still way below the country's own self-belief in victory.
It Was Stalin's Soviet Union That Defeated the Axis 

... Americans and Canadians like to believe they won the war in Europe and give insufficient recognition to the decisive
Soviet role.  Most Europeans would rather not think about the matter ... Were it not for the USSR's victory, Nazi
Germany might be alive and well today. Let's do the numbers. The Soviet armed forces destroyed 507 German
divisions and 100 allied Axis divisions (according to Soviet figures) ... The Red Army accounted for 75-80 percent
of Axis casualties in World War II ... No one likes to admit it was Stalin who defeated Nazi Germany. Stalin killed far
more people than Adolf Hitler ... At that time, both Roosevelt and Churchill lavished praise and thanks on the Soviet Union,
admitting its "gigantic effort" in defeating Hitler's Germany. Today, however,
we have chosen to forget who really won the war in Europe.