President Roosevelt's Campaign To Incite War in Europe:
The Secret Polish Documents
Major ceremonies were held in 1982
to mark the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. With the exceptions of Washington and Lincoln,
he was glorified and eulogized as no other president in American history. Even conservative President Ronald Reagan joined
the chorus of applause. In early 1983, newspapers and television networks remembered the fiftieth anniversary of Roosevelt's
inauguration with numerous laudatory tributes.
And yet, with
each passing year more and more new evidence comes to light which contradicts the glowing image of Roosevelt portrayed by
the mass media and politicians.
Much has already been written
about Roosevelt's campaign of deception and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the Second World
War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in violation
of American neutrality and international law, his acts of war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S.
citizens by British intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his provocations and ultimatums against Japan
which brought on the attack against Pearl Harbor -- all this is extensively documented and reasonably well known.
Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility for the outbreak
of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the
outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland
into war against Germany in 1938 and 1939.
not only criminally involved America in a war which had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before
history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.
paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was
captured in September 1939. These documents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in bringing on the Second World War.
They also reveal the forces behind the President which pushed for war.
While a few historians have quoted sentences and even paragraphs from these documents, their importance has not
been fully appreciated. There are three reasons for this, I believe. First, for many years their authenticity was not indisputably
established. Second, a complete collection of the documents has not been available in English. And third, the translation
of those documents which has been available in English until now is deficient and unacceptably bad.
When the Germans took Warsaw in late September 1939, they seized a mass of documents from
the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In a letter of 8 April 1983, Dr. Karl Otto Braun of Munich informed me that the
documents were captured by an SS brigade led by Freiherr von Kuensberg, whom Braun knew personally. In a surprise attack,
the brigade captured the center of Warsaw ahead of the regular German army. Von Kuensberg told Braun that his men took control
of the Polish Foreign Ministry just as Ministry officials were in the process of burning incriminating documents. Dr. Braun
was an official of the German Foreign Office between 1938 and 1945.
The German Foreign Office chose Hans Adolf von Moltke, formerly the Reich's Ambassador in Warsaw, to head a special
Archive Commission to examine the collection and sort out those documents which might be suitable for publication. At the
end of March 1940, 16 of these were published in book form under the title Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des
Krieges ["Polish Documents on the Pre-History of the War"]. The Foreign Office edition was subtitled "German
White Book No. 3." The book was immediately published in various foreign language editions in Berlin and some other
European capitals. An American edition was published in New York by Howell, Soskin and Company as The German White Paper.
Historian C. Hartley Grattan contributed a remarkably cautious and reserved foreword.
The translation of the documents for the U.S. White Paper edition was inexcusably bad.
Whole sentences and parts of sentences were missing and portions were grossly mistranslated. H. Keith Thompson explained
to me why this was so during a conversation on 22 March 1983 and in a letter of 13 May 1983. A poor first draft English-language
translation had been prepared in Berlin and sent to America. It was given to George Sylvester Viereck, a prominent pro-German
American publicist and literary advisor to the German Library of Information in New York City. Thompson knew Viereck intimately
and served as his chief aide and re-writer. Viereck had hurriedly redrafted the translation from Berlin into more readable
prose but without any opportunity of comparing it to the original Polish text (which he could not read in any case) or even
the official German-language version. In making stylistic changes for the sake of readability, the meaning of the original
documents was thereby inadvertently distorted.
was also discussed at a small dinner for Lawrence Dennis hosted by Thompson at Viereck's apartment in the Hotel Belleclaire
in New York City in 1956. Viereck explained that he had been a highly paid literary consultant to the German government,
responsible for the propaganda effect of publications, and could not be concerned with the translation groundwork normally
done by clerks. Even the most careful translation of complicated documents is apt to distort the original meaning, and literary
editing is certain to do so, Viereck said. Thompson agreed with that view.
In preparing the English-language text for this essay, I have carefully examined the official German translation
and various other translations, and compared them with facsimiles of the original Polish documents.
The German government considered the captured Polish documents to be of tremendous importance. On Friday, 29 March,
the Reich Ministry of Propaganda confidentially informed the daily press of the reason for releasing the documents:
These extraordinary documents, which may be published beginning with the first
edition on Saturday, will create a first-class political sensation, since they in fact prove the degree of America's responsibility
for the outbreak of the present war. America's responsibility must not, of course, be stressed in commentaries; the documents
must be left to speak for themselves, and they speak clearly enough.
of Propaganda specifically asks that sufficient space be reserved for the publication of these documents, which is of supreme
importance to the Reich and the German people.
We inform you in confidence that
the purpose of publishing these documents is to strengthen the American isolationists and to place Roosevelt in an untenable
position, especially in view of the fact that he is standing for re-election. It is however not at all necessary for us
to point Roosevelt's responsibility; his enemies in America will take care of that.
The German Foreign Office made the documents public on Friday, 29 March 1940. In Berlin,
journalists from around the world, including the United States, were given facsimile copies of the original Polish documents
and translations in German. journalists were permitted to examine the original documents themselves, along with an enormous
pile of other documents from the Polish Foreign Ministry.
release of the documents was an international media sensation. American newspapers gave the story large front page headline
coverage and published lengthy excerpts from the documents. But the impact was much less than the German government had
Leading U.S. government officials wasted no time
in vehemently denouncing the documents as not authentic. Secretary of State Cordell Hull stated: "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." William Bullitt, the U.S. Ambassador to Paris who was particulary incriminated
by the documents, announced: "I have never made to anyone the statements attributed to me." And Count Jerzy Potocki,
the Polish Ambassador in Washington whose confidential reports to Warsaw were the most revealing, declared: "I deny
the allegations attributed to my reports. I never had any conversations with Ambassador Bullitt on America's participation
These categorical public denials by the
highest officials had the effect of almost completely undercutting the anticipated impact of the documents. It must be remembered
that this was several decades before the experiences of the Vietnam war and Watergate had taught another generation of Americans
to be highly skeptical of such official denials. In 1940, the vast majority of the American people trusted their political
leaders to tell them the truth.
After all, if the
documents made public to the world by the German government were in fact authentic and genuine, it would mean that the great
leader of the American democracy was a man who lied to his own people and broke his own country's laws, while the German
government told the truth. To accept that would be quite a lot to expect of any nation, but especially of the trusting American
Comment from Capitol Hill generally echoed the official
government view. Senator Key Pittman, the Democratic Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, called the documents "unmitigated
falsehood designed to create dissension in the United States." Senator Claude Peper, Democrat of Florida, declared:
"It's German propaganda and shouldn't affect our policies in the least." Only a few were not impressed with the
official denials. Representative Hamilton Fish of New York, the ranking Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee,
called for a Congressional investigation and declared in a radio address: "If these charges were true, it would constitute
a treasonable act. If President Roosevelt has entered into secret understandings or commitments with foreign governments
to involve us in war, he should be impeached."
newspapers stressed the high-level denials in reporting the release of the documents. The New York Times headline
read: U.S. BRANDS AS FALSE NAZI DOCUMENTS CHARGING WE FOSTERED WAR IN EUROPE AND PROMISED TO JOIN ALLIES IF NEEDED. The Baltimore
Sun headlined: NAZI DOCUMENTS LAYING WAR BLAME ON U.S. ARE ASSAILED IN WASHINGTON.
Although the book of Polish documents was labeled "first series," no further
volumes ever appeared. From time to time the German government would make public additional documents from the Polish archives.
These were published in book form in 1943 along with numerous other documents captured by the Germans from the French Foreign
Ministry and other European archives, under the title Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik
des Praesidenten der Vereinigten Staaten ["Roosevelt's Way Into War: Secret Documents on the War Policy of the President
of the United States"].
An important unanswered question
is: Where are the original Polish documents today? Unless they were destroyed in the conflagration of the war, they presumably
fell into either American or Soviet hands in 1945. In view of recent U.S. government policy on secret archival material,
it is very unlikely that they would still be secret today if they had been acquired by the United States. My guess is that
if they were not destroyed, they are now either in Moscow or at the East German Central State Archives in Potsdam.
It is particularly important to keep in mind that these secret reports were written by
top level Polish ambassadors, that is, by men who though not at all friendly to Germany nonetheless understood the realities
of European Politics far better than those who made policy in the United States.
For example, the Polish ambassadors realized that behind all their rhetoric about democracy and human rights, and
expressions of love for the United States, the Jews who agitated for war against Germany were actually doing nothing other
than ruthlessly furthering their own purely sectarian interests. Many centuries of experience in living closely with the
Jews had made the Poles far more aware than most nationalities of the special character of this people.
The Poles viewed the Munich Settlement of 1938 very differently than did Roosevelt and
his circle. The President bitterly attacked the Munich agreement, which gave self-determination to the three and a half
million Germans of Czechoslovakia and settled a major European crisis, as a shameful and humiliating capitulation to German
blackmail. Although wary of German might, the Polish government supported the Munich agreement, in part because a small
Polish territory which had been a part of Czechoslovakia against the wishes of its inhabitants was united with Poland as
a result of the Settlement.
The Polish envoys held the makers
of American foreign policy in something approaching contempt. President Roosevelt was considered a master political artist
who knew how to mold American public opinion, but very little about the true state of affairs in Europe. As Poland's Ambassador
to Washington emphasized in his reports to Warsaw, Roosevelt pushed America into war in order to distract attention from
his failures as President in domestic policy.
It is beyond
the scope of this paper to go into the complexities of German-Polish relations between 1933 and 1939 and the reasons for
the German attack against Poland at dawn on the first day of September 1939. However, it should be noted that Poland had
refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called
Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror
and dispossession against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule. In my view, if ever a military action
was justified, it was the German campaign against Poland in 1939.
Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of a fateful blank check guarantee of military
backing from Britain -- a pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless Poles. Considering the lightning
swiftness of the victorious German campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government did not fear war
with Germany. Poland's leaders foolishly believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced that their
troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It
is also important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between Germany and Poland was only transformed into
a Europe-wide conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against Germany.
After the war the Allied-appointed judges at the International Military Tribunal staged at Nuremberg
refused to admit the Polish documents as evidence for the German defense. Had these pieces of evidence been admitted, the
Nuremberg undertaking might have been less a victors' show trial and more a genuinely impartial court of international justice.
Authenticity Beyond Doubt
There is now absolutely no question that the documents from the Polish Foreign Ministry in Warsaw made public by
the German government are genuine and authentic.
C. Tansill, professor of American diplomatic history at Georgetown University, considered them genuine. "... 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," he wrote. Historian and sociologist Harry Elmer Barnes confirmed
this assessment: "Both Professor Tansill and myself have independently established the thorough authenticity of these
documents." In America's Second Crusade, William H. Chamberlin reported: "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."
More importantly, Edward
Raczynski, the Polish Ambassador in London from 1934 to 1945, confirmed the authenticity of the documents in his diary,
which was published in 1963 under the title In Allied London. In his entry for 20 June 1940, he wrote:
The Germans published in April a White Book containing documents from the
archives of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, consisting of reports from Potocki in Washington, Lukasiewicz 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 originals and not merely copies.
In this 'First Series' of documents I found three reports from this Embassy, two by myself and the third
signed by me but written by Balinski. I read them with some apprehension, but they contained nothing liable to compromise
myself or the Embassy or to impair relations with our British hosts.
In 1970 their authenticity was reconfirmed with the publication of Diplomat in Paris 1936-1939.
This important work consists of the official papers and memoirs of Juliusz Lukasiewicz, the former Polish Ambassador to Paris
who authored several of the secret diplomatic reports made public by the German government. The collection was edited by
Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, a former Polish diplomat and cabinet member, and later Professor Emeritus of Wellesley and Ripon colleges.
Professor Jedrzejewicz considered the documents made public by the Germans absolutely genuine. He quoted extensively from
several of them.
Mr. Tyler G. Kent has also vouched for the
authenticity of the documents. He states that while working at the U.S. embassy in London in 1939 and 1940, he saw copies
of U.S. diplomatic messages in the files which corresponded to the Polish documents and which confirmed their accuracy.
Two Key Diplomats
Two American diplomats who played especially crucial roles in the European crisis of 1938-1939 are mentioned often
in the Polish documents. The first of these was William C. Bullitt. Although his official position was U.S. Ambassador to
France, he was in reality much more than that. He was Roosevelt's "super envoy" and personal deputy in Europe.
Like Roosevelt, Bullitt "rose from the rich." He was born into an important
Philadelphia banking family, one of the city's wealthiest. His mother's grandfather, Jonathan Horwitz, was a German Jew who
had come to the United States from Berlin. In 1919 Bullitt was an assistant to President Wilson at the Versailles peace
conference. That same year, Wilson and British Prime Minister Lloyd George sent him to Russia to meet with Lenin and determine
if the new Bolshevik government deserved recognition by the Allies. Bullitt met with Lenin and other top Soviet leaders
and upon his return urged recognition of the new regime. But he had a falling-out with Wilson and left diplomatic service.
In 1923 he married Louise Bryant Reed, the widow of American Communist leader John Reed. In Europe Bullitt collaborated
with Sigmund Freud on a psychoanalytical biography of Wilson. When Roosevelt became President in 1933, he brought Bullitt
back into diplomatic life.
In November 1933, Roosevelt
sent Bullitt to Moscow as the first U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union. His initial enthusiasm for the Soviet system gave
way to a deep distrust of Stalin and Communism. In 1936 the President transferred him to Paris. He served there as Roosevelt's
key European diplomat until 1940 when Churchill's assumption of leadership in Britain and the defeat of France made his
special role superfluous.
In the Spring of 1938, all U.S.
envoys in Europe were subordinated to Bullitt by an internal directive of the State Department. As the European situation
worsened in 1939, Roosevelt often spoke with his man in Paris by telephone, sometimes daily, frequently giving him precisely
detailed and ultra-confidential instructions on how to conduct America's foreign policy. Not even Secretary of State Cordell
Hull was privy to many of the letters and communications between Bullitt and Roosevelt.
In France, the New York Times noted, Bullitt "was acclaimed there as 'the Champagne
Ambassador' on account of the lavishness of his parties, but he was far more than the envoy to Paris: He was President Roosevelt's
intimate adviser on European affairs, with telephone access to the President at any hour."
Bullitt and Roosevelt were fond of each other and saw eye to eye on foreign policy issues. Both were aristocrats and thorough
internationalists who shared definite views on how to remake the world and a conviction that they were destined to bring
about that grand reorganization.
these teammates," the Saturday Evening Post reported in March 1939,
there is a close, hearty friendship and a strong temperamental affinity. The President is known to rely upon Bullitt's
judgment so heavily that the ambassador's mailed and cabled reports from abroad are supplemented several times a week by
a chat by transatlantic telephone. In addition, Bullitt returns to the United States several times each year to take part
in White House councils, to the displeasure of the State Department, which considers him a prima donna.
In the whole roster of the State Department the President could not have found an adviser who would have
been so responsive to his own champagne personality as Bullitt. Both men, born patricians, have the same basic enthusiasm
for remolding society ...
In Europe, Bullitt
spoke with the voice and the authority of President Roosevelt himself.
The second most important American diplomat in Europe was Joseph P. Kennedy, Roosevelt's Ambassador at the Court
of St. James. Like Bullitt he was a wealthy banker. But this Boston Catholic of Irish ancestry was otherwise a very different
sort of man. Roosevelt sent Kennedy, an important Democratic party figure and father of a future President, to Britain for
purely political reasons. Roosevelt disliked and distrusted Kennedy, and this sentiment grew as Kennedy opposed the President's
war policies more and more vehemently. Moreover, Kennedy despised his counterpart in Paris. In a letter to his wife, he
wrote: "I talk to Bullitt occasionally. He is more rattlebrained than ever. His judgment is pathetic and I am afraid
of his influence on F.D.R. because they think alike on many things."
Here now are extensive excerpts from
the Polish documents themselves. They are given in chronological order. They are remarkably lucid for diplomatic reports
and speak eloquently for themselves.
* * * * *
On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington,
Count Jerzy Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role in making American foreign policy:
The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department
is becoming ever more powerful ...
... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating
a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming
more and more apparent.
in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have
also created real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and communism and have above all raised the banner
of burning hatred against Nazism.
This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated
everywhere and by every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living
under the arrogance of Hitler which wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean of blood.
In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly come up against the inexorable and
convinced view that war is inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency
towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is growing steadily but
surely in public opinion here that the Germans and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be subdued
by the 'democratic world.'
On 21 November 1938,
Ambassador Potocki sent a report to Warsaw which discussed in some detail a conversation between himself and Bullitt, who
happened to be back in Washington:
The day before
yesterday I had a long conversation with Ambassador Bullitt, who is here on vacation. He began by remarking that friendly
relations existed between himself and [Polish] Ambassador Lukasiewicz in Paris, whose company he greatly enjoyed.
Since Bullitt regularly informs President Roosevelt about the international situation in Europe, and particularly
about Russia, great attention is given to his reports by President Roosevelt and the State Department. Bullitt speaks energetically
and interestingly. Nonetheless, his reaction to events in Europe resembles the view of a journalist more than that of a
About Germany and Chancellor Hitler he spoke with great vehemence
and strong hatred. He said that only force, and ultimately a war would put an end to the insane future German expansionism.
To my question asking how he visualized this coming war, he replied that above all the United States, France
and England must rearm tremendously in order to be in a position to oppose German power.
Only then, when the moment is ripe, declared Bullitt further, will one be ready for the final decision. I asked
him in what way a conflict could arise, since Germany would probably not attack England and France first. I simply could
not see the connecting point in this whole combination.
Bullitt replied that the
democratic countries absolutely needed another two years until they were fully armed. In the meantime, Germany would probably
have advanced with its expansion in an easterly direction. It would be the wish of the democratic countries that armed conflict
would break out there, in the East between the German Reich and Russia. As the Soviet Union's potential strength is not yet
known, it might happen that Germany would have moved too far away from its base, and would be condemned to wage a long and
weakening war. Only then would the democratic countries attack Germany, Bullitt declared, and force her to capitulate.
In reply to my question whether the United States would take part in such a war, he said, 'Undoubtedly
yes, but only after Great Britain and France had let loose first!' Feeling in the United States was so intense against Nazism
and Hitlerism, that a psychosis already prevails today among Americans similar to that before America's declaration of war
against Germany in 1917.
Bullitt did not give the impression of being very well
informed about the situation in Eastern Europe, and he conversed in a rather superficial way.
Ambassador Potocki's report from Washington of 9 January 1939 dealt in large part with
President Roosevelt's annual address to Congress:
Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial governments, above all Germany and Japan, only understand a policy
of force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most
recent measures of the United States.
The American public is subject to an ever
more alarming propaganda which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the specter of the danger of war.
Because of this the Americans have strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison with last year.
Of all the documents in this collection, the most revealing is probably the secret report
by Ambassador Potocki of 12 January 1939 which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This report is given
here in full:
The feeling now prevailing in the
United States is marked by a growing hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with
Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100 percent 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.
Right now most Americans
regard Chancellor Hitler and Nazism as the greatest evil and greatest danger threatening the world. The situation here provides
an excellent platform for public speakers of all kinds, for emigrants from Germany and Czechoslovakia who don't spare any
words to incite the public here with every kind of slander. They praise American liberty which they contrast with the totalitarian
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 excluded. If mentioned at all,
it is only in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet Russia were working with the bloc of
democratic states. Thanks to the clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on the side of Red
Besides this propaganda, a 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 unavoidable. At the same time
the American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war, America must also take an active part in order to
defend the slogans of freedom and democracy in the world.
President Roosevelt was
the first 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 domestic political problems, especially the problem of the struggle between capital
and labor. Second, by creating a war psychosis and by spreading rumors about danger threatening Europe, he wanted to get
the American people to accept an enormous armament program which exceeds the defense requirements of the United States.
Regarding the first point, it must be said that the internal situation on the labor market is steadily
growing worse. The unemployed today already number twelve 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 there have only been the usual strikes and local unrest. But how long this kind
of government aid can be kept up cannot be predicted. 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 political player and an expert of the American mentality, speedily steered
public attention away from the domestic situation to fasten it on foreign policy. The way to achieve this was simple. One
needed, on the one hand, to conjure up a war menace hanging over the world because of Chancellor Hitler, and, on the other
hand, to create a specter by babbling about an attack of the totalitarian states against the United States. The Munich pact
came to President Roosevelt as a godsend. He portrayed it as a capitulation of France and England to bellicose German militarism.
As people say 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 Nazism is further kindled by the brutal policy against the Jews in Germany and by the émigré problem.
In this action, various 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 President 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-makers. These groups of people who occupy the
highest positions in the American government and want to pose as representatives of 'true Americanism' and 'defenders of
democracy' are, in the last analysis, connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its race, to portray the President
of the United States as the 'idealist' champion on human rights was a very clever move. In this manner they have 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 masterly manner. Roosevelt has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy,
and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving very
consciously. With regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public attention from anti-Semitism, which
is constantly growing in the United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion and individual liberty
against the onslaught of Fascism.
On 16 January
1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with Roosevelt's
personal envoy, William Bullitt:
The day before
yesterday, I had a longer discussion with Ambassador Bullitt in the Embassy where he called on me. Bullitt leaves on the
21st of this month for Paris, from where he has been absent for almost three months. He is sailing with a whole 'trunk' full
of instructions, conversations, and directives from President Roosevelt, the State Department and Senators who belong to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
In talking with Bullitt I had the impression
that he had received from President Roosevelt a very precise definition of the attitude taken by the United States towards
the present European crisis. He will present this material at the Quai d'Orsay [the French Foreign Ministry] and will make
use of it in discussions with European statesmen. The contents of these directives, as Bullitt explained them to me in the
course of a conversation lasting half an hour, were:
1. The vitalizing of foreign
policy under the leadership of President Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian countries.
2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be carried out at an accelerated pace and
will consume the colossal sum of 1.25 billion dollars.
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 get into any discussions aiming at any kind of territorial changes.
They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon 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.
The Polish Ambassador to Paris,
Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a top secret report to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning of February 1939
which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as explained to him by William Bullitt:
A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt returned to Paris after
a three months' leave in America. Meanwhile, I have had two conversations with him which enable me to inform you of his
views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of Washington's policy.
international situation is regarded by official circles as extremely serious and in constant danger of armed conflict. Those
in authority 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 should Britain and France be defeated, the Germans would endanger the real 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 some time after the outbreak of the war. As Ambassador Bullitt
expressed it: 'Should war break out we shall certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish it.'
On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and perceptive report on Roosevelt's
foreign policy to his government in Warsaw. This document was first made public when leading German newspapers published
it in German translation, along with a facsimile reproduction of the first page of the Polish original, in their editions
of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador's
report with this observation:
The document itself
needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does not concern us, whether the internal American situation as reported by
the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be decided by the American people alone. But in the interest of
historical truth it is important for us to show that the warmongering activities of American diplomacy, especially in Europe,
are once again revealed and proven by this document. It still remains a secret just who, and for what motives, have driven
American diplomacy to this course. In any case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe and America. Europe was
plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the hostility of great nations which normally have no differences with
the American people and, indeed, have not been in conflict but have lived for generations as friends and want to remain
This report was not one of the Polish documents
which was released in March 1940 and published as part of the "German White Book No. 3" (or the German White
Paper). However, it was published in 1943 as part of the collection entitled "Roosevelt's Way Into War." As
far as I can determine, this English translation is the first that has ever appeared. Ambassador Potocki's secret report
of 7 March 1939 is here given in full:
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 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 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.
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 in 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 senators were especially upset over the remarks by 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 rather 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
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 one 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 preceding 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 war as in 1917 is not great. That's because the majority of 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.
Juliusz Lukasiewicz, Poland's Ambassador to France, reported to Warsaw on 29 March 1939 about further conversations
with U.S. envoy Bullitt in Paris. Lukasiewicz discussed Roosevelt's efforts to get both Poland and Britain to adopt a totally
uncompromising policy towards Germany, even in the face of strong sentiment for peace. The report concludes with these words:
... I consider it my duty to inform you of all the aforesaid because I believe
that collaboration with Ambassador Bullitt in such difficult and complicated times may prove useful to us. In any case it
is absolutely certain that he agrees entirely with our point of view and is prepared for the most extensive friendly collaboration
In order to strengthen the efforts of the American Ambassador in London
[Joseph Kennedy], I called the attention of Ambassador Bullitt to the fact that it is not impossible that the British may
treat the efforts of the United States with well-concealed contempt. He answered that I am probably right, but that nevertheless
the United States has at its disposal the means to really bring pressure on England. He would be giving serious consideration
to mobilizing these means.
The Polish Ambassador
in London, Count Edward Raczynski, reported to Warsaw on 29 March 1939 on the continuing European crisis and on a conversation
he had with Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, his American counterpart. Kennedy's remarks to Raczynski confirmed Bullitt's reputation
in diplomatic circles as an indiscreet big mouth:
asked Mr. Kennedy point blank about the conference which he is supposed to have had recently with [British Prime Minister]
Mr. Chamberlain concerning Poland. Kennedy was surprised and declared categorically that a conversation of such special significance
never took place. At the same time, and thereby contradicting his own assertion to a certain extent, Kennedy expressed displeasure
and surprise that his colleagues in Paris and Warsaw [William Bullitt and Anthony Biddle] 'who are not, as himself, in a
position to get a clear picture of conditions in England' should talk so openly about this conversation.
Mr. Kennedy-who made me understand that his views were based on a series of conversations with the most
important authorities here-declared that he was convinced that should Poland decide in favor of armed resistance against
Germany, especially with regard to Danzig, it would draw England in its wake.
This concludes the excerpts from the Polish reports.
* * * * *
The Path To
While the Polish documents alone are conclusive
proof of Roosevelt's treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for posterity that a substantial body
of irrefutable complementary evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the dispatches to Warsaw.
The secret policy was confirmed after the war with the release of a confidential diplomatic
report by the British Ambassador to Washington, Sir Ronald Lindsay. During his three years of service in Washington, the
veteran diplomat had developed little regard for America's leaders. He considered Roosevelt an amiable and impressionable
lightweight, and warned the British Foreign Office that it should not tell William Bullitt anything beyond what it wouldn't
mind reading later in an American newspaper.
On 19 September
1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in Europe -- Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at
the White House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt
"emphasized the necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he himself would tell nobody of
the interview. I gathered not even the State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before Roosevelt
got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very secret part of his communication and it must not be known
to anyone that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the Ambassador that if news of the conversation
was ever made public, it could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was a cynically brazen but harebrained
scheme to violate the U.S. Constitution and dupe the American people.
The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves forced to war" against Germany, the
United States would ultimately also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and France should impose
a total blockade against Germany without actually declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by
it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military response, but it would also free Britain and France from having
to actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and
on the desire to wage hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of life and property, and yet bring
the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but "bombing from the air
was not the method of hostilities which caused really great loss of life."
The important point was to "call it defensive measures or anything plausible but avoid actual declaration of
war." That way, Roosevelt believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against Germany, including
shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a non-declared
conflict. "This method of conducting war by blockade would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United
States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay reported.
The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt
administration was already committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late 1938. "On this and many
other occasions," Phillips wrote, "I would like 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
Carl J. Burckhardt, the League of Nations
High Commissioner to Danzig, reported in his postwar memoirs on a remarkable conversation held at the end of 1938 with Anthony
Drexel Biddle, the American Ambassador to Poland. Biddle was a rich banker with close ties to the Morgan financial empire.
A thoroughgoing internationalist, he was an ideological colleague of President Roosevelt and a good friend of William Bullitt.
Burckhardt, a Swiss professor, served as High Commissioner between 1937 and 1939.
Nine months before the outbreak of armed conflict, on 2 December 1938, Biddle told Burckhardt
with remarkable satisfaction that the Poles were ready to wage war over Danzig.
They would counter the motorized strength of the German army with agile maneuverability. 'In April,' he [Biddle] declared,
'a new crisis would break out. Not since the torpedoing of the Lusitania [in 1915] had such a religious hatred against Germany
reigned in America as today! Chamberlain and Daladier [the moderate British and French leaders] would be blown away by public
opinion. This was a holy war!,
British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have
been made without strong pressure from the White House.
14 March 1939, Slovakia declared itself an independent republic, thereby dissolving the state known as Czechoslovakia. That
same day, Czechoslovak President Emil Hacha signed a formal agreement with Hitler establishing a German protectorate over
Bohemia and Moravia, the Czech portion of the federation. The British government initially accepted the new situation, but
then Roosevelt intervened.
In their nationally syndicated
column of 14 April 1939, the usually very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen reported
that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a virtual ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British
government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen, who completely supported Roosevelt's move, "the
President warned that Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the sale of airplanes, if the Munich
policy continued." Chamberlain gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy of cooperation with Germany
in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself to war
in case of German-Polish hostilities.
to the creation of the German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia was to telephone Roosevelt and, in an "almost hysterical"
voice, urge him to make a dramatic denunciation of Germany and immediately ask Congress to repeal the Neutrality Act.
In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt reported from Paris
on another conversation with Ambassador Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law prohibited direct
financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able to
supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The Polish Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible
for Poland to obtain financial help and aeroplanes 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."
On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand,
chief European correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy in Paris and told him: "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."
In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939, Roosevelt assured the former President
of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain and France in the anticipated
In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed
to the British that the United States should establish "a patrol over the waters of the Western Atlantic with a view
to denying them to the German Navy in the event of war." The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted that
"although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain objections, we assented informally as the patrol was
to be operated in our interests."
Many years after
the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's role as Roosevelt's deputy in pushing his
country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971, Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt
in 1939 did everything he could to make France enter the war." An important confirmation of the crucial role of
Roosevelt and the Jews in pushing Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first U.S. Secretary
of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he wrote:
Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British
Prime Minister] 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 [William] 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.
When Ambassador Potocki was back in Warsaw on leave from his post in Washington, he spoke with Count
Jan Szembek, the Polish Foreign Ministry Under-Secretary, about the growing danger of war. In his diary entry of 6 July
1939, Szembek recorded Potocki's astonishment at the calm mood in Poland. In comparison with the war psychosis that had gripped
the West, Poland seemed like a rest home.
"In the West,"
the Ambassador told Szembek, "there are all kinds of elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists,
the arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because they have found a place which can be set on fire:
Danzig; and a nation that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs. They are indifferent to the
destruction of our country. Indeed, since everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that as well."
On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities, Chamberlain's closest
advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for President
Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now
turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the American President to "put pressure on the Poles"
to change course at this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone Kennedy told the State Department that
the British "felt that they could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that we could." Presented
with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate plea
out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost all hope. "The futility of it all," Chamberlain
had told Kennedy, "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."
Roosevelt liked to present himself to the American people and the world as a man of peace. To a considerable degree,
that is still his image today. But Roosevelt cynically rejected genuine opportunities to act for peace when they were presented.
In 1938 he refused even to answer requests by French Foreign Minister Bonnet on 8 and
12 September to consider arbitrating the Czech-German dispute. And a year later, after the outbreak of war, a melancholy
Ambassador Kennedy beseeched Roosevelt to act boldly for peace. "It seems to me that this situation may crystallize
to a point where the President can be the savior of the world," Kennedy cabled on 11 September from London. "The
British government as such certainly cannot accept any agreement with Hitler, but there may be a point when the President
himself may work out plans for world peace. Now this opportunity may never arise, but as a fairly practical fellow all my
life, I believe that it is entirely conceivable that the President can get himself in a spot where he can save the world
But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to
save the peace of Europe. To a close political crony, he called Kennedy's plea "the silliest message to me that I have
ever received." He complained to Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in the neck: "Joe
has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser ... If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would
start working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to get everybody to accept it."
Infuriated at Kennedy's stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or at least limit
the conflict that had broken out, Roosevelt instructed his Ambassador with a "personal" and "strictly confidential"
telegram on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of the question. The Roosevelt government,
it declared, "sees no opportunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the President of the United States.
The people [sic] of the United States would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that would consolidate
or make possible a survival of a regime of force and aggression."
Hamilton Fish Warns The Nation
the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the most vigorous and prophetic American voice of warning against
President Roosevelt's campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York.
In a series of hard-hitting radio speeches, Fish rallied considerable public opinion against Roosevelt's deceptive war policy.
Here are only a few excerpts from some of those addresses.
6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:
The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress and the world [given two days before] has
unnecessarily alarmed the American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda emanating from high New Deal
officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to such speeches
is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.
All the totalitarian nations
referred to by President Roosevelt ... haven't the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin America.
I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life, liberty and happiness of our people.
The time has come to call a halt to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers, Communists, and hysterical
internationalists, who want us to quarantine the world with American blood and money.
[Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people
off their own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions
that exists only in his own imagination.
5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:
The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers are constantly inciting them to disregard the
Munich Pact and resort to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in foreign lands the old nations of Europe
would compose their own quarrels by arbitration and the processes of peace, but apparently we won't let them.
Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company network on 5 April with
The youth of America are again being
prepared for another blood bath in Europe in order to make the world safe for democracy.
If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and
where the population is 90 percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations and incite our people
to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the Versailles
Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to
be wars of liberation.
The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are
scrapped the better for the peace of the world.
I believe that if the areas that
are distinctly German in population are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there will be no war
in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of
Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.
New Deal spokesmen have stirred
up war hysteria into a veritable frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare the minds of our
people for war, who are already suffering from a bad case of war jitters.
Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which
has given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the jitters.
accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal
policies, with 12 million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.
we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging
us to go to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.
Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers,
munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our participation in a new world war.
On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:
It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of foreign entanglements
and the rotten mess and war madness of Europe and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is impelling
us to armed conflict.
What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are
forced into a foreign war by internationalists and interventionists at Washington, who seem to be more interested in solving
world problems rather than our own.
In his radio
address of 26 May, Fish stated:
should remember that the Congress has the sole power to declare war and formulate the foreign policies of the United States.
The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the official organ to carry out the policies determined by the
Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed almost
daily by the internationalists and interventionists in America that we must participate in the next world war.
On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company radio network:
If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in defense
of the munitions makers, war profiteers, Communists, to cover up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for
a third term.
It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to
war over Danzig, power politics, foreign colonies, or the imperialistic wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.
Powers Behind The President
President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe without help from powerful allies. Behind him
stood the self-serving international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction of Germany. The principal organization
which drummed up public support for U.S. involvement in the European war prior to the Pearl Harbor attack was the cleverly
named "Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies." President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and
top administration officials consulted frequently with Committee leaders.
Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper publisher, William Allen White, the Committee
was actually organized by powerful financial interests which stood to profit tremendously from loans to embattled Britain
and from shrewd investments in giant war industries in the United States.
At the end of
1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a detailed examination of the Committee which exposed the base interests
behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:
has powerful connections with banks, insurance companies, financial investing firms, and industrial concerns. These in turn
exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well as on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One
of the powerful influences used by the group is the '400' and social set. The story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public
The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British Empire
helped plan the organization and donated its first expense money.
Some of the important figures active in the Committee were revealed by Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a paid war propagandist
for the British government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S. Allen of the Pearson and Allen syndicated column;
Henry R. Luce, the influential publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella LaGuardia,
the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of New York City; Herbert Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with important financial holdings
in war industries; and Frank Altschul, an officer in the Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings
in munitions and military supply companies.
If the Committee
succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned, "American boys will spill their blood for profiteers, politicians
and 'paytriots.' If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans
killed in a needless war."
In March 1941 a list
of most of the Committee's financial backers was made public. It revealed the nature of the forces eager to bring America
into the European war. Powerful international banking interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas
W. Lamont and others of the great Morgan banking house were listed. Other important names from the New York financial world
included Mr. and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm Forbes. Chicago department store owner
and publisher Marshall Field was a contributor, as was William Averill Harriman, the railroad and investment millionaire
who later served as Roosevelt's ambassador in Moscow.
Jewish names made up a substantial portion of the long list. Hollywood film czar Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there,
along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which
had been set up by the head of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System, contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert
H. Lehman, wife of the New York Governor, was also on the list.
Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry, Roosevelt's policies make little sense. As Jewish
historian Lucy Dawidowicz noted: "Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle more Jews than any other President
before or after him. Felix Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen,
Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were his friends and trusted aides." This is perhaps not so remarkable in light
of Roosevelt's reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.
his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American aviator hero and peace leader, nailed the coalition that
was pushing the United States into war:
for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to it, but the Administration seems to have 'the bit in its teeth'
and [is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the country are behind war, and they control a huge
part of our press and radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the 'intellectuals,' and the 'Anglophiles,'
and the British agents who are allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many others.
Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh's apprehensions about Jewish power. Before the outbreak
of war he privately expressed concerns about "the Jews who dominate our press" and world Jewry in general, which
he considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the beginning of hostilities, Kennedy lamented "the growing
Jewish influence in the press and in Washington demanding continuance of the war."
Betrayal, Failure, Delusion
Roosevelt's efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against Germany succeeded all too well. The result
was untold death and misery and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had intended and planned, the Polish
and French leaders expected the American president to at least make good on his assurances of backing in case of war. But
Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of peace sentiment of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving
his own people, Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had promised support.
Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as they were in late 1939 about
staying out of war in Europe. When hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94 percent of the American
people against involvement in war. That figure rose to 96.5 percent in December before it began to decline slowly to about
80 percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is hardly an issue that even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)
Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular feeling on this issue.
That is why he lied repeatedly to the American people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S. out
of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to plunge Europe and America into war.
In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to the growing fears
of millions of Americans who suspected that their President had secretly pledged United States support to Britain in its
war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part on the publication in March of the captured Polish
documents. The speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to the nation on network radio. In the most emphatic
language possible, Roosevelt categorically denied that he had
ledged in some way the participation of the United States in some foreign war. I give to you and to the people of
this country this most solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding in any shape or form, direct
or indirect, with any Government or any other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any war or for
any other purpose.
We now know, of course,
that this pious declaration was just another one of Roosevelt's many brazen, bald-faced lies to the American people.
Roosevelt's policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal. The Constitution
of the United States grants authority only to the Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several major
laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe. Roosevelt continually violated his oath as President
to uphold the Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the public demand for his impeachment would very probably
have been unstoppable.
The Watergate episode has made many
Americans deeply conscious of the fact that their presidents can act criminally. That affair forced Richard Nixon to resign
his presidency, and he is still widely regarded as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name will never receive
the respect that normally goes to every American president. But Nixon's crimes pale into insignificance when compared to
those of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon's lies compared to those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary cover-up compared
to an illegal and secret campaign to bring about a major war?
who defend Roosevelt's record argue that he lied to the American people for their own good -- that he broke the law for
lofty principles. His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was noble, while similar deception by presidents
Johnson and Nixon, to name two, is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard. And the argument doesn't speak
very well for the democratic system. It implies that the people are too dumb to understand their own best interests. It
further suggests that the best form of government is a kind of benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.
Roosevelt's hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate -- almost personal. This
was due in no small part to an abiding envy and jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in their
personal characters but also in their records as national leaders.
Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were astonishingly similar. Both assumed the leadership
of their respective countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous challenge of mass unemployment during
a catastrophic worldwide economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military alliance during the most
destructive war in history. Both men died while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945, just before
the end of the Second World War in Europe. But the enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more remarkable.
Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His was a life utterly
free of material worry. He took part in the First World War from an office in Washington as UnderSecretary of the Navy.
Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provinicial family. As a young man he worked as an impoverished manual
laborer. He served in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the Western battleground. He was wounded
many times and decorated for bravery.
In spite of his charming
manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt proved unable to master the great challenges facing America. Even after four years
of his presidency, millions remained unemployed, undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with all
the resources for incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor
and capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country's deep, festering racial problems which erupted repeatedly in riots
and armed conflict. The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied his people behind a radical program that transformed
Germany within a few years from an economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into Europe's powerhouse. Germany underwent
a social, cultural and economic rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the personalities of Roosevelt
and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast between two diametrically different social-political systems and ideologies.
And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a cynical politician
and front man for powerful alien interests. Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely believed that
he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring Britain and France into war against Germany. Like Wilson before him,
and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called upon by destiny to reshape the world according to
his vision of an egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was convinced, as so many American leaders have been, that the
world could be saved from itself by remodeling it after the United States.
Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex of different nations, races and cultures which
must mutually respect each others' separate collective identities in order to live together in peace, but rather according
to a selfrighteous missionary perspective that divides the globe into morally good and evil countries. In that scheme of
things, America is the providentially permanent leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view just happens to
correspond to the economic and political interests of those who wield power in the United States.
President Roosevelt's War
In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically predicted that one day the Second World War would
be remembered as Roosevelt's war. "If we are ever involved in this war, it will be called by future historians by only
one title, 'the President's War,' because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5 October 1937] has
been toward war.
The great American historian, Harry Elmer
Barnes, believed that war could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for Roosevelt's meddling. "Indeed,
there is fairly conclusive evidence that, but for Mr. Roosevelt's pressure on Britain, France and Poland, and his commitments
to them before September 1939, especially to Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur, William C. Bullitt,
there would probably have been no world war in 1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter." In Revisionism:
A Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:
had a major responsibility, both direct and indirect, for the outbreak of war in Europe. He began to exert pressure on France
to stand up to Hitler as early as the German reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was making his
strongly isolationist speeches in the campaign of 1936. This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to
the coming of the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum after the quarantine speech of October 1937. As the
crisis approached between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles to stand firm against any demands
by Germany, and urged the English and French to back up the Poles unflinchingly.
is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September 1939 had it not been for Roosevelt's encouragement and his
assurances that, in the event of war, the United States would enter on the side of Britain just as soon as he could swing
American public opinion around to support intervention.
Roosevelt had abandoned
all semblance of neutrality, even before war broke out in 1939, and moved as speedily as was safe and feasible in the face
of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve this country in the European conflict.
One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt's place in history came from
the pen of the great Swedish explorer and author, Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:
The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be explained because
of the foundation laid by the peace treaties of 1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the First World
War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great Britain and France. The decisive push came from the other side
of the Atlantic Ocean.
Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly.
He slanders as undemocratic and un-American those who admonish him in the name of peace and the preservation of the American
way of life. He has made democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about freedom of speech and silences
those who don't hold his opinion.
He talks about freedom of religion and makes an
alliance with Bolshevism.
He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten
million of his own people with work, bread or shelter. He talks about freedom from the fear of war while working for war,
not only for his own people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis powers when it might have united
with them, and he thereby drove millions to their deaths.
This war will go down
in history as the war of President Roosevelt.
orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace cannot conceal forever his crucial role in pushing Europe into
war in 1939.
* * * *
It is now more than forty years since the events described here took
place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past. But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered
war in Europe is very pertinent -- particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the past have never been more important
than in this nuclear age. For unless at least an aware minority understands how and why wars are made, we will remain powerless
to restrain the warmongers of our own era.
- See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the
War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948); William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade (Chicago:
Regnery, 1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, 'Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic
R. Sanborn, Design for War (New York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid (New
York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy:
Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
- Saul Friedlander, Prelude
to Downfall: Hitler and the United States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress, House, Special
Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
- Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
- New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
- Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
- New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
Baltimore Sun, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
- A French-language edition was published in 1944
under the title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.
- Tansill, "The United States
and the Road to War in Europe," in Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell, Idaho:
Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented],
1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.
- Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism (N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This
booklet is reprinted in Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New York Times, 1972),
and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979).
- Chamberlin, p. 60.
- Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld
and Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
- Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and Secret
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.
- Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W. Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
- Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942),
- Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
- Jack Alexander, "He Rose From the Rich," Saturday Evening Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see
continuation in issue of 18 March 1939.) Bullitt's public views on the European scene and what should be America's attitude
toward it can be found in his Report to the American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside Press], 1940),
the text of a speech he delivered, with the President's blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society
in Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France. For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist
hysterics, this anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar propensities of many other interventionists
in government and the press in those days.
- Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt
(New York: Norton, 1980), pp. 203-04.
- Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American
Foreign Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See also pp. 164-65.
- Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay, Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest
L. Woodward), Third series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941
(New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27; Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Ori-, gins of World War II (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
- William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly,
Mass.: privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
- Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission
1937-1939 (Munich: Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
- Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, "Washington
Daily Merry-Go-Round," Washington Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A facsimile reprint of this column appears
in Conrad Grieb (ed.), American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner Books, 1979), pp. 132-33.
See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41.
- Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1956), p. 232.
- U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of
the United States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 122.
Wiegand Says-," Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944, p. 2.
- Edvard Benes,
Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
- Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (New York: Vantage, 1976; Torrance,
Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1980), p. 62.
- James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis
and E.S. Duffield), The Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been privately informed by
a colleague who has examined the original manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references to Jews
were deleted from the published version.
- Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan,
1952), pp. 475-76.
- David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253; A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish
Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback], 1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.
- Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington:
1956), p. 424.
- The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were published in the Congressional
Record Appendix (Washington) as follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939) same, pp. 846-47;
(5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21 April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp. 2288-89;
(8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
- Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against
American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
- Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December 1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See
also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part 17, pp. 5808-14.
- New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
- Lucy Dawidowicz, "American Jews and the Holocaust," The New York Times Magazine,
18 April 1982, p. 102.
- "FDR 'had a Jewish great-grandmother'" Jewish Chronicle
(London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
- Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles
A. Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
- Koskoff, pp. 282, 212.
The role of the American press in fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject that deserves much
more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay
by Professor Hans A. Muenster, "Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA" in Kriegsschuld und Presse, published
in 1944 by the German Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
- An excellent essay relating
and contrasting American public opinion measurements to Roosevelt's foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is Harry Elmer Barnes,
Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in 1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
- Lash, p. 240.
York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
- Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical
Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition
(N.p.: privately published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
- Harry Elmer Barnes, "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," Rampart Journal of Individualist
Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp. 29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to Peace
and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No. 12], 1980).Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente
(Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.
Listed here are the published editions of the Polish
documents, the most important sources touching on the questions of their authenticity and content, and essential recent
sources on what President Roosevelt was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the prelude to war. Full
citations for all references in the article will be found in the notes.
Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.
Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret. [Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William
C. Bullitt.] Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Germany. Foreign Office Archive
Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der Vereinigten Staaten.
Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.
Germany. Foreign Office. The German
White Paper. [White Book No. 3.] New York: Howell, Soskin and Co., 1940.
Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des Krieges. [White Book No. 3.] Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.
Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat
in Paris 1936-1939. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die Weltherrschaft. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942.This item was
first presented at the Fourth IHR Conference in Chicago, September 1982. It was first published in The Journal of Historical
Review, Summer 1983 (Vol. 4, No. 2), pages 135-172.
Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and
'The Unnecessary War'. New York: Crown, 2008.
William H. Chamberlain,
America's Second Crusade. Chicago: 1950.
Benjamin Colby, 'Twas
a Famous Victory. New Rochelle: 1979.
Matthew DeFraga, "March
1939: America's Guarantee to Britain," Ex Post Facto: Journal of the History Students at San Francisco State University.
1998, Vol. VII.
( http://userwww.sfsu.edu/epf/journal_archive/volume_VII,_1998/defraga_m.pdf )
Hamilton Fish, Tragic Deception: FDR and America’s Involvement
in World War II. Devin-Adair, 1983.
Thomas Fleming, The New Dealers'
War: Franklin Roosevelt and the War Within World War II. New York: Basic Books, 2001.
J. F. C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World. New York: 1987. Vol. 3, esp. pp. 372-375, 411-419.
Germany, Auswärtiges Amt [German Foreign Office]. Documents on the Events Preceding
the Outbreak of the War. New York: 1940.
Adolf Hitler. Reichstag
speech of Dec. 11, 1941. (Declaration of war against the USA)
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html )
David L. Hoggan. The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed.
Herbert C. Hoover, Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s
Secret History of the Second World War and its Aftermath (George H. Nash, ed.). Stanford Univ., 2011.
Friedrich Stieve. What the World Rejected: Hitler's Peace Offers 1933-1939
( http://ihr.org/other/what-the-world-rejected.html )
Viktor Suvorov (pseud.), The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design
to Start World War II. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2008
Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War. New York: 1983.
Toland, Adolf Hitler. Doubleday & Co., 1976.
"Roosevelt's 'Secret Map' Speech," The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1985 (Vol. 6, No. 1), pp.
Mark Weber, "The 'Good War' Myth of World War Two." May 2008.
( http://www.ihr.org/news/weber_ww2_may08.html )