by Andrew Hamilton
Peterson, compiler of A Treasury of the World’s Great Speeches (1965),
believed that “eloquent speech” (oratory) originated deep in the prehistoric
past among men “who cast spells over their fellows with the magic of words.
At first it was not words so much as the rhythm, the sounds, the incantation that was
a part of ritual. Chiefs, priests, medicine men, millenniums before the heroes of Homer, must have risen to power through
skill in speech as well as skill in arms.”
believed the magic of the spoken word was the primary propaganda weapon. Historian David Irving called
Hitler’s power of elemental oratory “his greatest gift.”
In the Beginning Was the Word
1941, Raoul de Roussy Sales, the compiler of a book of extracts of Hitler’s speeches, wrote, “He is essentially
a speechmaker, and although today it is his deeds and his conquests that most impress the world, it should not be forgotten
that he started as a soap-box orator and spoke his way to power.”
Post-WWI Germany suffered from disintegrative social and political tendencies.
Jews briefly succeeded in establishing embryonic Communist dictatorships, nearly pitching the entire
country into a totalitarian bloodbath of Russian-style proportions. Historian John Toland described the German capital as
without electricity, its trolley cars and subways stopped, garbage rotting in the streets, and shops and offices closed.
Only Berlin’s night life went on unimpeded, in darkness or candlelight.
It was corruption out of an overdone movie with heavily rouged girl prostitutes of eleven competing with whip-toting Amazons
in high lacquered boots. There were cafes for every taste and perversion — homosexuals, lesbians, exhibitionists,
sadists, masochists. Nudity had become boring and art itself was plumbing the nadir of obscenity, disillusionment and cynicism.
(Adolf Hitler, 1976, p. 100)
If I didn’t
live in the United States of America I might think he was exaggerating.
Upon joining the miniscule German Workers’ Party (DAP; Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) in 1919, Hitler
quickly became its dominant figure and main speaker.
“large” meeting he addressed was held in the smoky basement of the Hofbräuhaus in Munich on October 16,
1919. There he spoke from behind a crude lectern atop a table for half an hour to an audience of seventy.
According to biographer John Toland, “Abandoning all restraint, he let emotion take
over and by the time he sat down to loud applause sweat covered his face. He was exhausted but elated ‘and what before
I had simply felt deep down in my heart, without being able to put it to the test, proved to be true; I could speak!’”
(quoting Mein Kampf).
Toland characterized this
event as “a turning point” in Hitler’s career and in the historical trajectory of the German Workers’
Party, soon to be renamed the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP).
Hitler later wrote in the party newspaper the Völkischer Beobachter, “When
I closed the meeting, I was not alone in thinking that now a wolf had been born, destined to burst in upon the herd of seducers
of the people.”
The name Adolf, derived from Old High
German, literally meant “noble wolf.” From that day forward “wolf” had a special meaning for him,
as a nickname among close friends, his pseudonym, and the name for most of his military headquarters.
A month later Hitler spoke to 130 students, shopkeepers, and army officers in another Munich
beer hall, the Eberlbräu.
Inasmuch as the speech was
only the unknown Hitler’s second public address for the tiny party, two points are worth noting.
First, a government spy was present. Incorrectly identifying Hitler as a merchant,
he reported that the orator “held forth in an outstanding manner” and was destined to become “a professional
Second, Jews, Leftists, and Communists
were well-organized in advance to use violence to suppress a speech targeting only 130 people, the content
of which would not be circulated to a larger audience via newspapers or magazines (the mass media of the day). Their intention
was to stop the meeting and intimidate the participants so that even a tiny audience could not hear Hitler’s message,
knowing few would risk doing so ever again.
Currently, for example, World War II historian
David Irving is in the midst of a speaking tour of the US, one of the few remaining European countries where free speech
has not (yet) been formally outlawed as “hate,” “terrorism,” “Holocaust denial,”
or “defaming the memory of the dead.”
A few days ago he spoke to a handful of people
at a hotel in Oklahoma City. Irving and his listeners are forced to meet furtively in private, indeed, under conditions
of utmost secrecy, otherwise armed, Leftist “antifa” thugs who stalk the writer across the United States will
criminally break up the meetings.
Even so, elsewhere in the
hotel that evening “thirty men dressed in black with bandanas and masks,” wielding illegal weapons, stormed in,
“found a birthday party for a Dr. Kunz’s family, and mistakenly smashed into that.” The crime, Irving
says, was planned and led by the owner of a Tulsa wholesale computer firm.
But these masked stalkers and domestic terrorists will receive little more than a slap on the wrist from the System,
if that. In essence, police, prosecutors, and courts smirk about it, as they have done for more than half a century now.
There is no great mystery about why our race is in the peril it’s in. It is not a
mysterious puzzle. It is a lie to say that “we did it to ourselves.” The real reason
is plain: violence, hatred, force, power, and government-approved criminality designed to suppress civil liberties.
But at the Eberlbräu in 1919, Hitler had alerted his military contingent in advance,
and within minutes after hecklers began interrupting, the Leftists “flew down the stairs with gashed heads.”
(Mein Kampf )
After a few more meetings speaking
to similar-sized crowds, Hitler insisted that the German Workers’ Party transform itself from a small ideological
discussion and writing group into a true political party.
the final days of December 1919 he and party founder Anton Drexler drafted a 25-point program that Hitler presented to the
“public” for ratification.
This important meeting
took place on February 24, 1920 in the Festsaal, or Festival Room, of Munich’s Hofbräuhaus, a great hall on the
third floor jammed with hundreds of people.
“particularly pleased” that more than half the crowd consisted of Communists or Independent Socialist Party members.
He was convinced he could win over the “true idealists” among them while making short work of the hard core
Unaccustomed to speaking to such a large audience,
his voice was loud one moment and weak the next. But he spoke so simply and clearly that even those at the farthest tables
could hear him.
Hitler began quietly, outlining the history
of the previous ten years. But as his narrative reached the post-WWI Communist revolutions, his eyes flashed, passion crept
into his voice, and he began to gesture.
Soon, angry shouts
erupted from all corners of the great hall as thugs hurled heavy beer mugs at Hitler. Immediately his army supporters, forerunners
of the SA, armed with whips and rubber truncheons, sprang into action, hustling the troublemakers outside.
Throughout 1920, at weekly or two-week intervals, Hitler continued to deliver speeches
in Munich beer halls. Summaries of many of these speeches survive in lengthy secret police reports which contain accurate
head counts. The audiences ranged in size from 1,200 to 3,500 people.
According to hostile German biographer Joachim Fest, by 1922 “he began holding series of eight, ten, or twelve
rallies on a single evening, at each of which he would appear as the principal speaker.” (Hitler, 1973, p.
158) Though these numbers seem difficult to credit, they are what Fest reports.
On August 16, 1922 Hitler addressed his largest audience to date, a crowd of 40,000 in Munich’s great central
By Hitler’s own account, it took him two full
years of hectic speaking to perfect his craft and become master of the art of oratory.
He could speak with spellbinding force both extemporaneously and from personally drafted scripts
that he revised two, three, four, or even five times late into the night, occupying three secretaries taking dictation directly
Like many expert public speakers, Hitler
practiced tirelessly. He carefully rehearsed gestures, often in front of a mirror, designed to generate particular responses
from his audiences.
He also experimented with his own image,
asking his personal photographer Heinrich Hoffmann to take photographs for him to review. Then he’d examine them,
deciding, “No, that looks silly” or “I’m never going to do that again.”
A handful of these photos exist showing Hitler practicing gestures to one of his speeches.
He never intended for them to be published.
A psychic and emotional synthesis occurs between
orators and their listeners. The orator’s stream of speech fuses individual members of the audience into Gustave Le
Bon’s crowd. It is this crowd that the orator actually interacts with.
“Hitler was an actor of prodigious talents who could raise the temperature of the
audience to flash-point, and at this point they were no longer separate individuals; they were all fused into the mass.”
(Robert Payne, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, 1973, p. 156) The bigger the audience, the easier it was
to manipulate it in such a manner.
Hitler paid close attention
to his audiences.
At the time, Communism, socialism, and the
class struggle were fundamental to political discourse everywhere.
So, in his early days, Hitler’s primary appeal was to the working and lower middle classes. He actively discouraged
attendance or participation by the middle class (the bourgeoisie).
“The political attitude of that class is marked by the sign of cowardice. It exclusively concerns itself with
order and tranquility. [He might better have said “conformity” and “blind obedience to authority.”]
I aimed, instead, to awaken the enthusiasm of the working-class world to my ideas.” (Table Talk, April 8,
Contempt for the middle class was a recurring theme
in Hitler’s writing, thinking, and private remarks.
trappings of his meetings were carefully calculated to exert certain effects upon the audience.
Hitler personally tested the acoustics of the important Munich meeting halls, determining
the best places to stand, how loudly or softly he could speak and still be heard, the atmosphere, ventilation, and tactical
layout of the rooms.
Detailed party guidelines were drawn
up pertaining to such matters, specifying among other things that a hall should always be too small, and that a third of
the audience should consist of party followers.
in the halls — impressively adorned with dramatic red, white and black swastika banners — was made genial with
free beer, sausages, pretzels, folk singing, and music.
measures created receptive listeners.
At the appropriate psychological
moment, Hitler would make a dramatic entrance — sometimes late, to intensify anticipation. He would silently survey
the audience for a full minute or more before beginning to speak, further heightening tension.
After he’d carefully gauged the mood of the crowd he started talking slowly and
quietly, feeling out the audience the way an actor would, adapting his manner and speech to its needs, building emotion slowly.
People sat motionless, eyes riveted upon him.
an actor’s ability to suddenly throw on the extra generators and become absolutely charged with energy. Before the
end of his talk he had roused the people to a pitch of almost uncontrollable excitement.
Organized anti-White opposition, including loud heckling, hurling of heavy beer mugs stockpiled
under tables as weapons, and the use of table and chair legs as clubs to beat pro-German speakers and attendees, was frequent.
Hitler handled this life-and-death problem for the movement by forming a protective service
and, whenever possible, roughly chucking disruptors unceremoniously from the hall.
At a November 4, 1921 speech at the Hofbräuhaus, there were about 700 Communists in a crowd
of 2,200. At a prearranged signal they attacked with fists, a hail of flying beer mugs, and chair legs. After a fierce hand-to-hand
battle, Hitler’s 42 security men expelled all 700 of them from the hall, which looked as if it had been hit by a bomb.
The meeting organizer then leaped onto a table, shouting, “The meeting continues!
The speaker has the floor!”
The result of this process
seems to have been a sort of culling or winnowing. Hitler was not simply speaking to the choir. In contrast to the tens
of thousands who came to the mass meetings, at the beginning of 1922 there were still only 6,000 registered party members.
Many Communists and socialists unsympathetic to the movement remained. But the organized
hardcore were physically ejected as soon as they began disrupting proceedings.
The remaining Leftists were often hostile and continued heckling. But Hitler drew energy from such public hostility
— the very social rejection that causes most Whites to shrink in fear. His powerful oratory ultimately won many Leftists
to his side.
Hitler also sent his own people to enroll in
courses in public speaking at schools organized by opposition groups. “Thanks to this,” he said, “we obtained
a good insight into the arguments which would be used by those sent to heckle at our meetings, and we were thus in a position
to silence them the moment they opened their mouths.” (Table Talk, April 8, 1942)
He scattered party members throughout his audiences with orders to interrupt his speeches
along prearranged lines to suggest spontaneous public (group) approval, “and these interruptions greatly strengthened
the force of my own arguments.” (Table Talk, April 8, 1942)
By way of analogy, consider laugh tracks on TV, or the carefully-rehearsed tone of voice and facial expressions
used by newscasters to elicit specific instinctive reactions of approval or disapproval from the passive viewing audience.
Early on, Hitler attended the meetings of his main rivals to study their techniques. His critical judgment was that
the speakers delivered their speeches “in the style of a witty newspaper article or of a scientific treatise, avoided
all strong words, and here and there threw in some feeble professional joke.” (Mein Kampf)
Hitler, in contrast, spoke with a primitive force and unabashed emotion that
set him apart from intellectuals who appealed to reason. Underlying his rhetorical theory was the Ciceronian maxim that
man is moved more by passion than by reason.
Hitler was a
daring and original speaker, according to biographer Joachim Fest. “His courage in voicing ‘forbidden’
opinions was extraordinary. Precisely that gave him the aura of manliness, of fierceness, and sovereign contempt, which
befitted the image of the Great Leader.” (Hitler, 1973, p. 159)
“They say we’re a bunch of anti-Semitic rowdies,” Hitler proclaimed in one speech. “So we
are, we want to stir up a storm! We don’t want people to sleep, but to know a thunderstorm is brewing!”
Oratory is characterized by a gravitational force extending beyond the ideas expressed
or the specific words used to articulate them.
Of Hitler it
has been said, “It wasn’t as though he were using words, it was as though the emotions came direct without words.
There was a rawness about it, a power.” (The Fatal Attraction of Hitler, BBC TV, 1989) Such speeches are,
in a sense, a form of magical art.
Perhaps that is why one
reader of translations of portions of Hitler’s speeches said that it was “like reading lyrics from songs without
Fest described religious-style “awakenings”
and “conversions” experienced by his listeners.
Luedecke, a 32-year-old businessman who later became a leading member of Hitler’s entourage, described the spell cast
by Hitler’s oratory: “The intense will of the man, the passion of his sincerity seemed to flow from him into
me. I experienced an exaltation that could be likened only to religious conversion.” (Fest, p. 162)
On Hitler’s part, the “violent physical effort” required for speaking
engendered “profuse perspiration” and even weight loss.
His half-German, half-American WASP foreign press secretary Ernst “Putzi” Hanfstaengl recalled his first
meeting with Hitler after one such speech. Hitler’s exhaustion resembled that of “a great artist at the end
of a grueling concert”; his face and hair were soaked and his starched collar wilted.
Hitler himself said,
Whenever I have to make a speech of great importance I am always soaking wet at the end, and I find I have lost
four or six pounds in weight. And in Bavaria [southern Germany, including Munich, his initial political base during the
early years discussed here], where, in addition to my usual mineral water, local custom insists that I drink two or three
bottles of beer, I lose as much as eight pounds. (Table Talk, July 8, 1942)
As Scottish philosopher David Hume noted in his essay “Of Eloquence” (1742),
great oratory entails unleashing restraints and taking great risks — letting go — in front
of an audience. The speaker taps into something deep and true within, and lets it explode.
Hitler did this. As Egon Hanfstaengl, son of Ernst, who had known Hitler intimately when he was
a little boy in Germany in the early 1920s, explained in 1989,
had that ability which is needed to make people stop thinking critically and just emote. The ability derived from his readiness
to throw himself totally open, to appear as it were bare and naked before his audience, to tear open his heart
and display it. (Interview in The Fatal Attraction of Hitler)
Attraction of Hitler, BBC TV documentary, 1989.
Joachim C. Fest, Hitler,
trans. from German by Richard and Clara Winston (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973).
Robert Payne, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (New York: Praeger, 1973; pbk., Popular Library,
1973). References to the paperback edition.
Table Talk. References
to the paperback edition of Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1941–1944 (New York: Farrar, Straus
and Young, 1953; pbk., New York: Signet Books, 1961).
John Toland, Adolf
Hitler (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1976).
Click on this text to hear Hitler explain why he took action against the JEWS - True then, True now
“It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany
wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and
solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests.
Nor had I ever wished that after the appalling first World War, there would ever
be a second against either England or America.” -
Adolf Hitler (April 1945).
Click on this text to hear what Hitler Said On The Outbreak Of World War 2
Click on this text to examine SOME KEY SPEECHES OF ADOLF HITLER - COMPLETE TEXT IN ENGLISH AND GERMAN
Hitler’s 1932 Election Campaign 'Stump Speech'
How the National Socialists Won Broad Support in Hard-Fought Contests for Votes
Foreword by Mark Weber
For Germans 1932 was a year of mass unemployment,
economic paralysis, and a broken, unresponsive political system. The world economic downturn, known in the US as the Great
Depression, had shattered production and business life. This was also a year of intense campaigning in four fiercely fought
nationwide elections – two for the Reichstag or parliament, and a two-part presidential contest.
The most pressing issue in these campaigns was, of course, the economic calamity that
had brought widespread misery and put millions out of work. Because the “establishment” political parties were
utterly unable to get a grip on the nation’s economic ills, growing numbers of citizens turned with hope to the radical
Communists or National Socialists.
During this final year
of Germany’s liberal democratic “Weimar Republic” system, one inept administration after another tried
to tackle the nation’s daunting problems. Lacking popular support or backing from a majority in the Reichstag, each
President-appointed Chancellor governed only by authority of the constitution’s “emergency decree” clause.
In the 1932 presidential election campaign, Germany’s “establishment”
parties, including the leftist Social Democrats and several “centrist” parties, supported Paul von Hindenburg
– the 84-year-old incumbent who had served as Reichspräsident since 1925. His most formidable challenger
was Adolf Hitler, the 43-year-old leader of the National Socialists. No candidate in the March 13 election received an outright
majority, although 30 percent voted for Hitler, and 13 percent for the Communist Party leader. This set off a new round
of feverish campaigning for the April 10 run-off election, in which von Hindenburg garnered 53 percent of the votes, thereby
remaining President. Hitler increased his share of votes, gaining 37 percent of the total.
Adding to the year’s fatiguing round of electioneering were contests for provincial legislatures.
In the April 24 elections in several German regions or states, the National Socialists emerged as the most popular party.
The victory of Hitler’s movement was most significant in Prussia – by far the largest German Land or
state, with three–fifths of the nation’s population.
the fiercely contested Reichstag election of July 31, in which 84 percent of eligible voters cast ballots, the National Socialists
emerged as the largest party, by far, with 37 percent of the total. In second place came the Social Democrats, with 22 percent,
followed by the Communist Party with 15 percent. In the hard-fought November 6 Reichstag election, the National Socialists
once again came out as Germany’s most popular party, with 33 percent of the total. The Social Democrats trailed in
second place with 20 percent, followed by the Communists with 17 percent.
The most dedicated activists in these decisive election contests were unquestionably the supporters of Hitler’s
National Socialist Party (NSDAP). In countless well organized meetings, through production and distribution of millions
of posters, flyers and brochures, and in a wide range of daily, weekly and monthly Party newspapers and magazines, the movement’s
legions of speakers, artists, writers and other volunteers reached out to voters in cities, towns and villages across the
country. “Thanks to the extraordinary talents of its leader, the wide appeal of its propaganda, and the success of
its tactics in dealing with the Mittelstand [middle class] organizations,” wrote American historian Gordon
Craig, “the National Socialist party exuded strength and confidence ...”
A crucial factor in the party’s appeal was its emphatic call for national unity and unselfish
devotion to the common good. This was unusual at the time. “In contrast to almost all of the other parties in the
Weimar period,” noted Prof. Craig, “the National Socialist party did not direct its propaganda towards a single
social or economic class or grouping of interests.” By conscientiously reaching out to all Germans – regardless
of class, region or religious outlook – the Hitler movement became the country’s first “modern” political
Hitler also worked harder than any other political
leader. He crisscrossed the country by airplane (the first politician anywhere to do so) to address large meetings, sometimes
several in a single day. During 1932 he gave a total of 209 public speeches. On one day, July 27, Hitler addressed a rally
of 60,000 people in Brandenburg, and then to nearly as many in Potsdam, and in the evening he spoke to 120,000 gathered
in a large stadium in Berlin, while an additional 100,000 heard his voice outside on loudspeakers. On July 20 poor weather
delayed his arrival by airplane and auto to address a mass rally in Stralsund, which was to begin at 9:00 in the evening.
At midnight the outdoor gathering of some 20,000 people was told that Hitler would arrive at 1:30 a.m. Still they waited.
It wasn’t until 2:15 in the morning that he was finally able to address the large crowd.
Hitler’s rare ability to present his views clearly and convincingly to both individuals
and large audiences, and to win the confidence and loyalty of exceptionally talented men as devoted colleagues, were crucial
to his success in building and maintaining a vast, professionally run national organization. “Among all of the prominent
figures in the Weimar period,” wrote Prof. Craig of Stanford University, “he [Hitler] is the only one of whom
it can be said unequivocally that he possessed political genius.”
Hitler has often been portrayed as a ranting demagogue who won support with simplistic slogans, empty promises and
crude appeals to feelings of resentment, fear and envy. That image is not accurate. If it had corresponded to reality, the
National Socialists would not have won the support of so many German voters – who were among the best informed, best
educated and most discerning in the world.
In fact, the message
of Hitler’s movement was more substantive and self-consistent than that of any other German political formation. Of
the many parties that competed for votes in the 1932 elections, only the National Socialists presented a comprehensive program
to tackle the economic crisis that laid out specific measures (which were later implemented after taking power).
The National Socialists stressed that only a new outlook that rejected narrow, sectarian
self-interest and put the needs of the entire nation first would enable the German people to build a healthy new order of
social stability, economic security, prosperity, and enduring well-being for all.
Two weeks before the July 1932 Reichstag elections, the National Socialist Party issued a phonograph
record with a recorded address by its leader. Some 50,000 discs with this Hitler “stump speech,” titled “Appeal
to the Nation,” were made and widely distributed. This effort was all the more needed because Germany’s government-controlled
broadcasting system took care to ban Hitler’s voice from the radio.
This talk, which is a little more than eight minutes in length, is the only recorded address made by Hitler for
the 1932 election campaign. In it he speaks emphatically but clearly, re-emphasizing points he made in many other speeches
that year. He sharply criticizes the other political parties for their failure to deal with the nation’s economic
woes, as well as for their narrow focus and divisive goals. Only the National Socialists, he emphasizes, are committed body
and soul to the well-being of all Germans.
Here is my translation
of the full text of Hitler’s 1932 election campaign “Appeal to the Nation”:
* * * * *
More than 13 years have been allotted by fate to test and evaluate those who
are in power today. But they themselves have handed down the most severe verdict possible by acknowledging in their own propaganda
the failure of their efforts. At one time they wanted to govern Germany better in the future than in the past. Today, however,
the only real result of their style of governing is for them merely to observe that Germany and the German people still
live. During the days of November 1918 [when a liberal democratic republic replaced the monarchy], they solemnly pledged
to lead our people, and especially the German worker, into a better economic future. Today – after they have had nearly
14 years to fulfill their promises – they are not able to cite the well-being of a single German occupational class
as witness to the quality of their efforts.
The German farmer
is impoverished. The middle class is ruined. The social hopes of many millions have been destroyed. One third of all German
men and women of working age is unemployed, and thus without income. The national government, the municipalities, and the
states are heavily in debt, finances across the board are in disorder, and all the treasuries are empty.
What more could they possibly have destroyed? The worse thing, though, is the destruction
of faith in our nation, the elimination of all hope and all confidence. In 13 years they have had no success at all in mobilizing
the strengths that slumber in our people. To the contrary! Because they fear an awakened nation, they have played off one
group of people against another: the city against the countryside, the salaried workers against the government employees,
those who work with their hands against those who work with their heads, the Bavarians against the Prussians, the Catholics
against the Protestants, and so forth and vice versa.
activism of our people has been used up only domestically. With regard to the outside world, all that’s left are fantasies:
fantastic hopes in a conscience of cultured humanity, international law, a world conscience, ambassadorial conferences,
the League of Nations, the Second International, the Third International, proletarian solidarity, and so forth – and
the world has treated us accordingly.
Thus Germany has slowly
declined, and only a lunatic can hope that the forces that brought about this decline in the first place could now bring
about a resurrection. If the established political parties seriously want to save Germany, why have they not done so already?
If they really wanted to save Germany, why has that not happened? If the leaders of those parties had honest intentions,
then their programs must have been deficient. If, however, their programs were correct, then either their intentions were
not sincere, or they were too ignorant or too weak.
after 13 years, during which period they have destroyed everything in Germany, the time has finally arrived for their own
elimination. Whether or not today’s parliamentary political parties survive is not important. What is essential, though,
is to make sure that the German nation is not completely destroyed.
To remove these parties is therefore a duty – for in order to secure their own existence, they must again
and again tear the nation apart. For years they have tried to persuade the German worker that he alone could save himself.
For years the farmer was told that only his organization would help him. The middle class was to be snatched from the jaws
of ruin by the middle class parties, and the economy by the parties of business. The Catholic was to seek his refuge with
the Center party, and the Protestant in the Christian Socialist People’s Service. In the end even the house owners
had their own political representation, just as did the tenants, the salaried workers, and the civil servants. These efforts
to split up the nation into classes, walks of life, occupational groups, and religious beliefs, leading in that way, bit
by bit, to a future of economic happiness have now, however, failed completely.
Even on the day our National Socialist movement was founded, we were already governed by the conviction that the
destiny of the German individual is inseparably bound up with the destiny of the entire nation. When Germany declines, the
worker will not flourish in social well-being, and neither will the entrepreneur. Nor will the farmers or the middle class
be able to save themselves.
No, the ruin of the Reich,
the decline of the nation, means the ruin and the decline of all! And no religious faction and no single German ethnic group
will be able to escape sharing the same general fate.
on the day our National Socialist movement was founded, it had already long been clear to us that the proletariat would not
be the victor over the bourgeoisie, and the bourgeoisie would not be the victor over the proletariat, but rather that [in
such a clash] international high finance would then ultimately be the sole victor over both. And that is what has come to
Recognizing this decline, 13 years ago a handful of
people and I organized a new movement which, in its very name [National Socialist] proclaims the new national community.
There is no such thing as a socialism that does not have the power of the spirit at its disposal; and no such thing as social
well-being that is not protected by, and even finds its prerequisite in, the power of a nation. And there is no such thing
as a nation – and thus no such thing as nationalism – unless the army of millions who work with their brains
are joined by the army of millions who work with their fists, along with the army of millions of farmers.
As long as nationalism and socialism march as separate ideas, they will be defeated by
their united opponents. On the day when both ideas are fused together into one, they will be invincible!
And who will deny that, during a time when everything in Germany is breaking apart and
going bad, when everything in the business world and political life is coming to a standstill or even to an end, a single
organization has experienced a tremendous and wonderful upturn? With seven men I began this task of German unification 13
years ago, and today more than 13 million are standing in our ranks. However, it is not the number that counts, but their
Thirteen million people of all professions and
occupational groups – 13 million workers, farmers, and intellectuals; 13 million Catholics and Protestants; members
of all German regions and ethnic groups – have formed an unbreakable alliance. And 13 million have recognized that
the future of all lies only in the shared struggle and in the shared successes of all.
Millions of farmers have now realized that the important thing is not that they recognize the necessity
of their own existence, but rather that it is necessary to enlighten people in other walks of life and occupational groups
about the German farmer, and to win them over for him.
today millions of workers likewise realize that, in spite of all the theories, their future lies not in some [Marxist] Internationale,
but rather in the realization on the part of their compatriots that, without German farmers and German workers, there simply
is no German strength. And millions of bourgeois intellectuals have likewise come to realize the insignificance of their
own views if the masses of millions comprising the rest of the nation do not finally comprehend the importance of the German
Thirteen years ago we National Socialists
were mocked and derided. Today our opponents are no longer laughing. A faithful community of people has arisen that will
gradually overcome the prejudices of class madness and the snobbery of social standing. A faithful community of people that
is resolved to take up the fight for the preservation of our people, not because it is made up of Bavarians or Prussians,
or people from Württemberg or Saxony, or because they are Catholics or Protestants, workers or civil servants, middle
class or salaried workers, and so forth, but because they are all Germans.
Together with this feeling of unbreakable solidarity, mutual respect has grown, and from this respect has come understanding,
and from that understanding the tremendous power that moves us all. We National Socialists therefore march into every election
campaign with the single commitment that we will, the following day, once again take up our work for the inner reorganization
of our national community. For we are not fighting for elective posts or ministerial positions, but rather for the German
man and woman, whom we want to, and will, join together once again into an indivisible community of destiny.
The Almighty, Who so far has allowed us to rise from seven men to 13 million in 13 years,
will further allow these 13 million to once again become a German folk. It is in this people that we believe, for this people
we fight; and it is to this people that we are willing, as thousands of comrades before us, if necessary, to commit ourselves
body and soul.
If the nation does its duty, then the day
must inevitably come that restores to us a Reich in honor and freedom, work and bread!
The original text
of this speech is posted at:
An audio recording is posted at:
The battle in the midst of which Germany finds itself today is the second act of
decisive struggle which will determine the future of our race, of
You often hear the term balance of power
these days: the balance of power in Europe. In particular of late, you will have had occasion to read that the cause for
this battle lies with the threatened disruption of this balance of power in Europe.
Now what is the meaning of this thesis? Germany’s racial core consists of a mass of Volk of
over eighty million men. Throughout the centuries, albeit in lesser numbers, this mass of Volk formed the center of gravity
Over the past 300 years, this center of gravity
in terms of the Volk’s mass has lost its significance in power politics.
At the end of the Thirty Years’ War, the political unity of this mass began to disintegrate and to evolve
into a conglomerate of small, individual states.
it lost its inner value-and, in particular, the impact in terms of power normally attributed to the center of gravity in
Europe. The Peace of Munster- it established at least the vision of the political divisiveness of the German nation. Hence,
it created the prerequisites for the rise of other powers to hegemony on the world stage-to a degree far beyond the numeric
significance and value of these other races. Without this fragmentation of Germany, this political atomization, the rise
of England as a world power over the past three hundred years would not have been conceivable. Without this, France would
never have become what it became later, after overcoming its political, internal multifariousness, and what it would still
like to be today. Broadly speaking, these two world powers are nothing other than the result of the elimination of the German
nation as a factor in power politics. By the same token, the political impotence of the German nation remains a prerequisite
to their continued existence in the future, as well. Hence, a balance of power has established itself in Europe devoid of
a foundation in terms of the masses. The strongest European nation by far has rendered this exaggerated significance possible
through its political fragmentation. Without this fragmentation, Germany undoubtedly would still constitute the determining
factor in Europe as was the case earlier. And thus came about a state of affairs called the balance of power in Europe. Its
mission is to eliminate the strongest European force as a factor in power politics by fostering its internal fragmentation.
For us Germans, the question arises: is a modification of this state of affairs necessary?
Today, we need not reply to this any more. Its answer lies in the natural drive of all living beings. Its political answer
goes back to the time when at the moment of collapse, or rather when the collapse of the Old Reich was imminent, a rebirth
already became evident in the creation of a new cell, that of the Brandenburg-Prussia of the day.
Yet, beyond this, there is another compelling reason to seek a modification in this
balance of power in Europe. The problem presents itself in the following manner to us Germans. There are two decisive elements
in the life of a Volk. One the one hand, there is a variable: the Volk’s numbers; and, on the other hand, there is
the Lebensraum as a given-a fact which does not change by itself. The Volk’s numbers and the Lebensraum exist interdependently
and this interdependence is of fateful significance in the lives of peoples. Man lives not by theories alone. He lives not
by phrases, nor does he live by programs. Man lives by what the Lebensraum at his disposal affords him in terms of foodstuffs
and raw material, and by what he is then able, thanks to his industriousness, to reap from it through his work. Nonetheless,
the Lebensraum is of primary importance, of course. For while a Volk of great industry may be able to fashion a bearable
existence from even the most modest of Lebensraums, there will come a time when the discrepancy between the Volk’s
numbers and the Lebensraum becomes too great. This then leads to a restriction of life, even to an ending of life.
And thus, ever since there has been a history of man, this history has consisted of nothing
other than the attempt to bring into harmony the naturally increasing numbers of a Volk with the Lebensraum. This meant
either to adapt the Lebensraum to the Volk’s numbers or to adapt the Volk’s numbers to the Lebensraum. These
are the two ways of establishing a tolerable relationship here.
will begin with the first alternative: people adapt to the Lebensraum. This can occur naturally as the insufficient Lebensraum
cannot provide for people.
Weak peoples then begin to capitulate
in the face of necessity and to abandon the foundation of their existence. This means that they start to reduce their numbers,
primarily due to need.
There is yet another way of adapting
the Volk’s numbers to the Lebensraum. It is called emigration. In both ways, Germany has lost human material of immense
value throughout the centuries. In centuries past already, need had been great in the German lands. Often this has led to
a virtual decimation of men. The second way robbed us of yet more German blood.
Throughout centuries, pressured by insufficient Lebensraum of their own, German men left their homeland and helped
to build up those foreign states which now face us as enemies.
third way was found of adapting the Volk’s numbers to the given Lebensraum. It is called: voluntary reduction of birth
rates. After the first way-that of hunger-no longer appeared tolerable and the second way-that of emigration-was blockaded
by the Peace Treaties of Versailles, people turned to the third way in increasing numbers. It was even hailed as a virtue
to voluntarily limit the strength of one’s own Volk, to reduce the Volk’s numbers. I need not tell you where
this led. In the end, the result of all these attempts was that the potential for natural selection in a people was severely
And, in the end, it begins to surrender its forces
to better peoples. For it is emigration above all which, like a magnet, draws the active element out of a race, a Volk,
and leaves behind only the weak, the cowardly, the meek. And if such a state of affairs is allowed to persist over the centuries,
then a formerly important people will slowly but surely lose its steel and turn into a weak, a cowardly mass of men, willing
to accept any fate.
This is the first way of establishing
balance between a Volk’s numbers and the Lebensraum. This way, no matter what the circumstances, will always lead
to the destruction of a Volk. In the future, this will lead to a reduction of such a Volk in comparison to those peoples
who choose the second way, namely, not to adapt the Volk’s numbers to the Lebensraum, but rather to adapt the Lebensraum
to the Volk’s numbers. This is the way chosen by all vigorous nations of this earth. It is the natural way since Providence
has placed man upon this earth and has given him this earth as his playground, as the basis for his existence. Providence
has not initiated man in its designs. It has not assigned peoples certain Lebensraume. Instead Nature has placed these beings
on this earth and has given them freedom. He who wants to live asserts himself.
He who cannot assert himself does not deserve to live. He will perish. This is an iron, yet also a just principle.
The earth is not there for cowardly peoples, not for weak ones, not for lazy ones. The earth is there for him who takes
it and who industriously labors upon it and thereby fashions his life. That is the will of Providence. That is why it has
placed man upon this earth, along with the other beings, and has paved the way for him, has freed him to make his own decisions,
to lead his own struggle for survival.
And should he fail
in this struggle, should he become weak in asserting his existence, then Providence will not rush to his aid. Instead, it
will sentence him to death. And rightly so. Other men will come. The space will not remain empty. What the one man loses,
another will take. And life continues in accordance with its own eternal rhythm without consideration for the weakling.
The earth is a challenge cup. It is a challenge cup which passes into the hands of those
peoples who deserve it, who prove themselves strong enough in their struggle for existence, who secure the basis for their
own existence. It is a challenge cup which is taken from those peoples who become weak, who are not willing, at the risk
of the life of one generation, to secure the life of later generations. The right to this soil is given equally to all these
peoples. On this earth, no Englishman has more rights than a Frenchman, no Frenchman has more rights than a Russian, no
Russian has more rights than a German, no German has more rights than an Italian, and so on. Strength (Kraft) determines
right on this soil. And strength is nothing other than an expression of a healthy sense of self-assertion. Peoples who start
to lose this strength are no longer healthy and therefore lose their right to this earth. And to be able to exercise this
strength, which is first of all a question of will, it is necessary to create certain organizational prerequisites. Foremost
amongst these is the inner unity of a Volk. In Germany, we have witnessed the long, almost tragic evolution which was necessary
to lead us from inner political conflicts once more to the core not of a new philosophy of state, but to the creation of
a new state.
The core which gave us not only political
unity, but above all the foundation of ethnic unity. Hereby it created the prerequisites for the inner unity of the German
nation. What has come to pass in this realm within these seven years is the greatest of chapters in German history. Not
only have countless political forms, old, no longer viable structures, been broken down, but also, in the realm of society,
the birth of a new Volksgemeinschaft and hence of a new German Volk became apparent. In the course of the last years, we
were able to observe how the toughness and the power of resistance of this new formation passed the test. I do not doubt
that it will hold its own in emerging victoriously from this greatest trial in German history. And hence out of this social
and moral revolution grew the new German Volksstaat.
1933, this new German Volksstaat has undergone change, strengthened its inner formation, through numerous acts of a lawgiving
And thus, this Volksstaat has now begun to create
the elements necessary for its external liberation. What has been attained in this area within these seven years, is one
of the greatest chapters in German history. In these seven years-I feel free to avow this openly before history-we have
not wasted a single month in securing that power, without possession of which a people is doomed in its search for justice
on this earth.
Its lack has shown us how helpless a Volk
is when it depends upon the insight or mercy, the compassion or goodwill of other peoples whom it must implore and for which
it must beg. And thus the Greater German Reich has fashioned its own arms. And with the increases in its arms and its power,
the Greater German Reich itself has been strengthened. And today, we find ourselves in the midst of a great historic conflict,
the second phase in a gigantic struggle. The initial phase we once lost not because our arms were bad by themselves, rather
we lost it because the leadership failed and the German Volk in its inner formation was not yet prepared to see through
such a struggle, as it lacked inner cohesion and strength. I have striven to make up for this within twenty years’
time. And, so I believe, I succeeded. Whereas once the German soldier fought a lonely battle at the front, today he knows
behind him the united force of a uniformly led and orientated Volk. This Volk today expects of the German soldier that he
fulfill the mission of his life. The German soldier today can rest assured that the Volk standing behind him will recognize
his needs and fulfill his wants.
And then comes the question
which will plague every small skeptic, every apprehensive man, one time or another, and which might well make you ill-atease
also in the most trying of hours: “Is it actually possible to win this fight?” And, from the depths of my convictions,
I would like to give you the following reply. I give it to you not as a pale theoretician, not as a man who is a stranger
to the demands facing you at present. I face them myself. I am acquainted with all the needs, all the worries, all the cares,
and all the hardships, which you will encounter and which some of you have already encountered.
I have experienced them all myself. And in spite of this, after the greatest of collapses
then suffered, I already immediately knew the answer to this question.
I found it for myself. At no moment was there any doubt in my heart that Germany would survive and that it would
win this most difficult of struggles in its history.
for this belief lie not with some sort of fanatical hope, rather they are founded in recognition. For one, the numbers of
the Volk. Even the most expert and most worthy of peoples can fail in their struggle for survival if the discrepancy of
their numbers is too great and too obvious in view of the tasks faced and especially, of the forces of the environment.
Antiquity furnishes us with two great, tragic examples: Sparta and Hellas. They were both doomed to failure in the end because
the world in which they lived was numerically so superior to them that even the most successful of struggles was bound to
tax their forces beyond measure.
When we look at today’s
Germany in light of this consideration, then, my young friends, we recognize a fact which occasions great joy: certainly,
there is a British Empire, but there are only forty-six million Englishmen in the motherland. There is a huge American state,
but amongst its 130 million inhabitants, there are barely sixty-five million true Anglo-Saxons, and that’s that. The
rest are Negroes, Jews, Latins, Irishmen, and Germans, and so on.
There is a huge Russian
state. However, it has not even sixty million true Great Russians as its bearers. The rest consists of, in part, greatly
There is also France, spanning over nine million
square kilometers of earth and with more than 100 million men, but amongst them are perhaps at most thirtyseven million
true Frenchmen who must uphold this structure.
we stand, my young friends, a state of a total of 82 million German Teutons (deutsche Germanen). At present, we are the
ethnically most numerous political structure of one race which exists on this earth, with the exception of China. This fact
is not new. In former times as well, the German Volk determined, thanks to the force of its numbers, Europe’s destiny.
And now there arises a second question, one of equal decisiveness, namely, that of the
value of the Volk. For all of us know that numbers by themselves are not in the final instance decisive. And here, my young
friends, we are able these days to proudly acknowledge: there is no Volk better on this earth than the German one. Believe
me, in the days and months of the collapse of 1918, one thought uplifted me, put me back on my feet again, and returned
to me my faith in Germany. It made me strong internally to begin and to take up this gigantic struggle. It was the conviction
that even the World War had not proven us to be second class. On the contrary, it had proved us to be undoubtedly the best
Volk, especially insofar as this was a question of soldierly virtues. And this is apparent again these days. Here is a Volk
which in terms of numbers is the strongest state people on this earth. And beyond this, it is also the best Volk in terms
of value, for this value in the end becomes apparent in the soldier. A Volk which does not cherish soldierly virtues is
like straw on this earth; it will be blown away by the wind. However, a Volk which possesses as much metal as the German
one needs only to develop its values and to apply these subsequently. Then no one can take its future from it.
There is yet another factor which must give all of us internal confidence: it is the
ability of our Volk, also its economic ability. Here as well, great feats have been accomplished. The German Volk has wrought
a miracle economically within these barely seven years. You all know of our great plans. They were inspired but by one thought.
Above all reigned the thought of the resurrection of the German Wehrmacht, the increasing
independence of our economy, its freedom from exterior influences, its stability in the event of a blockade. These were
the principles which moved us from day one to implement all these plans, which in the final instance found their realization
in the Four-Year Plan. We have an economy in Germany today which ranks at the top of the world economy in particular as
far as production in realms of vital importance to the war is concerned.
There is something else, too: the German organization. It is today’s organization of our Volkswesen, of our
Volksgemeinschaft. Said organization which today encompasses the entire German Volk, which reaches into every home, into
every village, and there again into every farmstead, into every factory, into every craftsman’s shop. There is no
German who is not integrated into this gigantic organization. We have created a miracle instrument which enables us to issue
a single directive and to drive it home into even the most remote hut within a few hours.
No Volk in the world today possesses a better form of organization than the German Volk; most do
not even possess one nearly as good. A state of affairs which is accepted as a matter of course in other countries even
today, we have long overcome. You need only think of the parliamentarian theatrics in these states and, as soldiers, apply
this mentally to a company or a battalion.
You will laugh
at the idea of being able to hold your own in battle with such a lot. With such peoples, you cannot score successes in the
long run. And this is better, too: we are the state which has created the most profound harmony between political organization
and its military implementation; the state in which soldierly principles have been applied in the buildup of the Wehrmacht
and which, in turn, have already found their political translation therein. And thus we can say that between the Wehrmacht
and its principles on the one hand, and the political organization and the constructive elements therein on the other hand,
there exists complete harmony. To this we must add the German soldier as a warrior. His equipment-today we have the best-equipped
soldier of the world in our Army and in our Luftwaffe.
secondly, the German soldier and his training. When today we hear of so low-relatively low216-losses across the board, which
stand in no relation to the losses which I myself had the opportunity to witness in the World War, then we owe this to the
improved training of the individual soldier. But also we owe it to the leadership experienced in war, the more thorough
training. Surely, today we have the best Wehrmacht there is in the world at this time.
And finally, and this ought to be almost at the top of the list, there is one more thing which ought
to reinforce us in our belief in victory: trust in the German leadership; in the leadership on top and way down. Trust in
a leadership that knows only the thought of winning this battle, which subordinates all other concerns to this, which is
suffused with the fanatical will to do everything and to risk everything for success in this battle, which unlike the pitiful
leadership of the World War does not stumble over threads or is unable to step across lines drawn in crayon.
Instead the German Volk and above all you, as soldiers and future officers, must know
that at the helm of the Reich there stands a leadership which night and day knows only the one thought: to force the victory
under all circumstances! And to risk everything for it. And beyond this, you must know that this leadership naturally can
only accomplish what is provided for by the highest echelons of leadership. And that you yourselves form part of this total
leadership. Every one of you will have to struggle with the same problems which are not spared the supreme leadership of
today either. For when I look back upon the war myself, then I have not forgotten those difficult hours full of worries,
the gnawing fear of death, and all those other sentiments which man experiences in face of these most horrendous stresses
placed upon nerves and willpower, of physical strain. I have not forgotten these-yet, still, how easy do all the decisions
of the soldier then appear to me as opposed to the decisions which one later has to take upon oneself in positions of responsible
How easy all of this is when it is merely a
question of one’s own life as opposed to holding, in the final instance, the nation’s life and destiny in one’s
Whatever situation you may encounter individually,
never forget one thing: Every decision you make, every action you order, every stand you occupy, all this will not be any
more difficult than the same decisions, the same stands, the same willpower asked of those who in other places have to bear
the responsibility, and have to bear it overall. In this respect, a great community of leadership must take hold in which
every one occupies his place, is ready to fulfill his mission, is ready to rejoice in taking on responsibility in the one
thought: It is of no import whether the individual among us lives-what must live is our Volk! We now stand in the midst
of the most decisive struggle for Germany’s entire future. Of what importance is it should the individual amongst
us, every individual included, leave the stage? What is decisive is that our Volk can assert itself. And it will only then
be able to assert itself when its leadership, at every instance, is willing to fanatically do everything for the one goal:
To win this struggle. And believe me, my young friends, the individual man is always brave and valiant; the musketeer, he
is always decent basically, he looks up to his leaders, he sees his company commander before him, his platoon leader. And
let no one forget: The German is no such scoundrel (Hundsfott) that he will ever abandon his company commander. He would
never do such a thing. He will follow his leader, but his leader must make it easy for him through his dedication, his daring,
his courage. Such a leader will then always find a following and will chain it to himself-whatever his position may be,
at the top or at the head of a group or platoon, or company. It will always be the same.
The result: he will love him who leads him! And even if life is wonderful and the sacrifice of life
ever so hard, my young friends, many generations lived before us. That we are here today we do not owe to their peaceful
existence, but to their placing at risk their own lives in the struggle. For the soil upon which we stand today was not given
us by the Good Lord as a gift. It had to be gained in battle. And time and time again, there were Germans to be found who
were willing to place their lives at risk in the past so that life might be given to later generations. And it is not as
though placing one’s life at risk was any easier then than it is today. It was just as bitter and just as difficult.
When we speak of the dead of the World War, then we should never forget that every single
one of these two million gave his life for the future of the nation just as this may be asked of us and of you individually
at one point.
Another thing yet is certain: the more determined
a Volk is in taking up a fight, the more ruthlessly it acts, the less the sacrifices will be! And thus, I expect of you
in this era of an approaching great, world-historic decision that you shall first be valiant, courageous, and exemplary
officers, that you shall be comradely and loyal not only amongst yourselves, but also with the men placed in your care. Today
you have a Volk-not mercenaries, not vagrants caught along country roads. Rather Volksgenossen are entrusted to your leadership.
And this you may never forget. These Volksgenossen will all the more attach themselves to you, the more they feel they can
see in you true leaders of the German Volk, of the Volk in arms. Expand your horizon, for the soldier needs-beyond heroics
and courage and enthusiasm-the true foundations of knowledge. Here, too, knowledge is power. Above all, apply this expertise
and knowledge in the care for the Volksgenossen entrusted to you. It is because of the absolute authority this state grants
you that you are obligated to carefully attend to this authority in the service of the leadership of the men entrusted to
you. To be a leader means to truly care for all those with whose care one has been entrusted. Above all, be a man in the
hours of great trial. Persevere and above all be persistent.
great victories of world history were accorded to that party which commanded the last battalion on the battlefield, i.e.
the men who knew how to carry their heads high to the last minute. It is not as though the dice fell during the first minute
of any battle. It is not as though one could say in the first minute already: naturally there will be success for the one
side, it will carry the victory, no one can deny it, while on the other side, there will be only destruction. Great world-historic
decisions seldom look like successes from the start. Many times the struggle is a difficult one and victory appears elusive.
In the end, it will bestow its favors upon him whose persistence, whose fanatical, indestructible stand makes him the more
deserving one. And here we Germans can look with pride to one soldier who has entered the halls of history as an immortal.
If there are men who doubt success or the possibility of success, then all we can say
to them is: today Germany fights as the strongest military state against a front of enemies inferior to it in terms of numbers
and value. Once a man, with a state of 2.7 million, dared to attack the monarchy in the Reich of the day and, after three
wars against a European coalition of over forty million men, he carried the victory in the end. His were not only victories.
What was so wonderful in all this was his attitude in the most critical of situations, his attitude when he faced defeat.
Everyone can suffer a defeat now and then. What is decisive is his character, how he takes it, and immediately goes on the
offensive again. This, my young friends, must be instilled in your flesh and blood, and this you must instill in your soldiers:
we may be defeated once perhaps, but vanquished-never! And in the end, the victory will be ours-one way or another!
I can look back upon a most eventful life. It was not as though this struggle for power
in Germany, for the new Movement, had consisted of only victories.
You need only read the prophecies of my opponents. Who believed in my carrying the victory? Who believed in the
certainty of the outcome of this struggle? It was a question of a great deal of persistence to overcome all these defeats,
these blows, to emerge from them only to take power in the end. And in these last years as well-there have been many worries
in countless realms.
Many setbacks. The mass of the people
may well not even have realized all of this, for the leadership has learned to come to terms with these [setbacks].
It is one of the most uplifting tasks of leadership to allow one’s followers to
mark only the victory; and to take upon oneself the entire responsibility at critical moments; to step in front of one’s
followers to shield them against this responsibility.
now I ask of you to be aware at every hour that in your hand lies the honor of a great Volk, the honor not only of your generation
but that of generations past. At every hour, not only the eyes of millions of your living contemporaries follow you, but
also the eyes of those who closed them before us upon this earth. They look upon you through the past and hence through
immortality and they will seek to determine whether and to what extent you are fulfilling those duties which other men before
us so gloriously fulfilled. They expect of us that posterity should have no more cause to be ashamed of us than we have cause
to be ashamed of the great eras of our past. When we hold up this sacred banner of honor and hence of a sense of duty, and
when we with faithful hearts follow this flag, then the goal we all pursue can be nothing other than the victory of Greater
Hitler's Normal Speaking Voice
His Decision to Attack the USSR
Recording, with English
text translation, of Hitler speaking during a luncheon with Finnish leaders.
This is the only recording of the German leader talking at length in his normal,
conversational voice. Hitler visited
Finland on June 4, 1942, to meet with that country’s
military commander, Marshal Mannerheim, President Ryti, and Prime Minister Rangell.
(Finland and Germany were World War II allies against the Soviet
Union.) An engineer
Finnish broadcasting company YLE had placed a microphone near where the
men shared a meal in a railroad dining car, and thereby recorded a portion of their
lengthy conversation. This is the only known recording of Hitler
speaking in his “normal,”
voice. Here’s a portion, along with an English translation.
Hitler talks about his fateful decision to strike against the USSR. Runtime: 11:22 mins.
The German Leader’s
Reply to the American President’s Public Challenge
Of the many speeches made by Adolf
Hitler during his lifetime, certainly one of the most important
was his address of April 28,
1939. It was also very probably the most eagerly anticipated and closely
followed speech of
the time, with many millions of people around the world
listening to it live on radio or reading
of it the next day in newspapers.
American journalist and
historian William L. Shirer, a harsh critic of the Third Reich who was
reporting from Europe
for CBS radio at the time, later described this Hitler speech as “probably
the most brilliant
oration he ever gave, certainly the greatest this writer ever heard from him.”
is also important as a detailed, well-organized presentation of the German leader’s
of his country’s place in the world, and as a lucid review of his government’s foreign
objectives and achievements during the first six years of his administration.
The speech was a response to a much-publicized message to Hitler – with a similar one to Italian
leader Benito Mussolini – issued two weeks earlier by President Franklin Roosevelt. In it, the
American leader issued a provocative challenge, calling on Hitler to promise that he would no
attack 31 countries, which he named.
Made public on the evening of April 14,
the president’s message was given wide attention in
newspapers around the globe. Roosevelt
and his inner circle anticipated that the American
public would be pleased with his seeming
concern for world peace, and expected that this
much-publicized challenge would embarrass the
German leader. Harold Ickes, a high-level
official in the Roosevelt administration, praised
the president’s message
as “a brilliant move” that “has put both Hitler
and Mussolini in a hole.”
Along with many other newspapers
across the country, the daily Evening Star of Washington, DC,
initiative, declaring in an editorial that “the overwhelming majority” of
rejoice in their President’s constructive move for peace.” But not everyone was so
impressed. Many regarded the message as arrogant and potentially dangerous meddling in
issues that did not involve any vital American interest, and which Roosevelt did not
understand. As US historian Robert Dallek has observed, the message strengthened
of those who believed that the President was seeking to
deflect attention from persistent problems
at home by meddling abroad.
The influential Protestant journal,
Christian Century, remarked that, in issuing his challenge, President Roosevelt “had taken his stand before
the axis dictators like some frontier sheriff at the head of a posse.” An important Roman Catholic journal, Commonweal,
regarded the message as one-sided, noting that it had ignored “the wrongs committed by post-war England and France,
what they had contributed to the impoverishment of the Axis powers ...” British historian Leonard Mosley later characterized
it as “ham-handed,” while German historian Joachim Fest called the message a piece of “naïve demagoguery.”
Because Roosevelt’s challenge had generated such broad
international attention, the announcement a few days later that the German leader would respond to it in an address to a
specially summoned session of the Reichstag in Berlin understandably increased interest in Hitler’s reply. Especially
in the US and Europe, many people keenly anticipated the “second round” in this duel of words between two major
Dramatic recent developments in Europe and
growing fear of a war involving the major European powers naturally heightened interest in what Hitler would say. Some months
earlier, the ethnically German “Sudetenland” region of Czechoslovakia had been incorporated into the German
Reich – which now also included Austria – in accord with the Munich Agreement of the “Four Power”
leaders of Britain, France, Germany and Italy. Then, just a few weeks before Roosevelt sent his message to Hitler, Germany
had surprised the world by suddenly taking control of the Czech lands, adding them to the Reich as the “Protectorate
of Bohemia-Moravia.” Especially in the US, influential newspapers, magazines and radio commentators portrayed Hitler’s
takeover of Prague as an act of brazen aggression, one that proved that the German leader was so untrustworthy and insatiable
that he must be regarded as a grave threat to peace and security. The German government’s recent demand that Poland
permit Danzig to return to the Reich was widely cited as further evidence that Hitler threatened world peace.
Under these circumstances, Hitler naturally devoted considerable attention in his address
to those topical issues and fears. But while it was meant for a global audience and readership, the German leader directed
his speech above all to his own people.
Unlike Franklin Roosevelt,
Hitler did not rely on speechwriters. The words he spoke were his own. To be sure, in preparing this address and similarly
detailed speeches, he turned to various government officials and agencies for the statistics and other specific data he intended
to cite. However, the ideas, arguments, turns of phrase, tone and structure of this address were entirely Hitler’s.
In preparing the text of an important address, he would typically dictate a first draft to one or more secretaries, and
then make revisions and changes until a satisfactory final text was produced – a process that could require considerable
time and attention.
Broadcast on radio stations around the
world, Hitler’s two-hour Reichstag address of Friday afternoon, April 28, was heard by millions of listeners. In the
US, all three major radio networks broadcast it live, with running English-language translation. The next day, Hitler’s
speech was the leading news item on the front page of every major American daily newspaper, and many published lengthy excerpts
from it. “Interest in the speech surpasses anything so far known,” the German embassy in Washington reported
Astute observers realized that Roosevelt had greatly
underestimated the shrewdness and rhetorical skill of the German leader. “Hitler had all the better of the argument,”
remarked US Senator Hiram Johnson of California, a prominent “progressive” lawmaker. “Roosevelt put his
chin out and got a resounding whack.” US Senator Gerald Nye commented simply, “He asked for it.”
James MacGregor Burns, a prominent American historian and an ardent admirer of Franklin
Roosevelt, later wrote of the exchange: “While neither the President nor [US Secretary of State] Hull had been optimistic
about the outcome, in his first widely publicized encounter with Hitler, Roosevelt had come off a clear second best.”
John Toland, another well-regarded US historian, called Hitler’s response “a remarkable display of mental gymnastics.”
The German leader “took up the President’s message point by point, demolishing each like a schoolmaster.”
In his carefully prepared address, the German leader largely succeeded in portraying the
American president’s initiative as a pretentious and impertinent maneuver – one that, moreover, demonstrated
a simplistic and superficial view of geopolitical realities, a skewed sense of justice, and a deficient understanding of
Although it was given prominent play in the US media,
the attitude of the American press toward Hitler’s speech was generally dismissive and disparaging. Typical was the
view of the Evening Star of Washington, DC. In an editorial, the influential daily denigrated the address as “crafty
and cunning,” while New York City’s Brooklyn Eagle called it “rambling, confused.” Along
with most US newspapers, the two dailies ignored the German leader’s plea for justice, equity and even-handedness,
and the specifics of his detailed critique of Roosevelt’s message. Even more unfriendly than the attitude expressed
in the editorial columns of the country’s newspapers was the snide, belittling and often viciously hostile portrayal
of Hitler in editorial cartoons. By early 1939, most of the American media had adopted a scathing and belligerent attitude
toward National Socialist Germany and its leader. Hitler was routinely portrayed as so malign and duplicitous that anything
he said was simply not worthy of respectful or serious consideration.
This attitude was noted, for example, by the Polish ambassador in Washington, Jerzy Potocki. In a confidential dispatch
of January 12, 1939, he reported to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw:
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
... 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 ... 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.”
To most discerning
observers, it was obvious that the American president’s message was more a publicity stunt than a serious initiative
for peace. For one thing, he addressed this appeal only to the leaders of Germany and Italy. He made no similar request
to leaders in any other country. And given America’s own record of military intervention in foreign countries, it’s
difficult to accept that Roosevelt himself actually believed his assertion that the only valid or justifiable reason why
any country should go to war would be in “the cause of self-evident home defense.” Over the years, US forces
have attacked numerous countries that presented no clear or present danger to the US, or any threat to vital American interests.
Roosevelt’s listing of countries that supposedly might be threatened by Germany
is all the more remarkable given how events unfolded over the next few years. Finland, the first country on the President’s
list, was in fact attacked seven months later – not by Germany, but rather by the Soviet Union. During World War II,
Finland was an ally of Hitler’s Germany, while the Soviet Union was an important military partner of the US. Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania were the next countries on the President’s list. These three Baltic nations were subjugated by
force in 1940 – not by German troops, but by the Red Army. Later during World War II, President Roosevelt accepted
Stalin’s brutal incorporation of those three countries into the USSR.
Poland was also on the President’s list. But when Soviet troops attacked Poland from the East in September
1939, neither Britain, France nor the US did anything to counter the aggression. After Soviet forces took control of all
of Poland in 1944-1945, the US accepted the Soviet subjugation of the country.
Britain and France were naturally also on Roosevelt’s list. But just a few months after his message to Hitler,
those two countries went to war against Germany – with the leaders in London and Paris citing the German attack against
Poland as their reason for the move. At least two countries on Roosevelt’s list – Syria and Palestine –
were hardly in danger of attack by Germany, especially given that, as Hitler pointed out, they were already under military
subjugation by “democratic” countries.
mention of Palestine in his message prompted a particularly sharp rejoinder by Hitler about British oppression of that country.
Palestinians were enraged not only by Britain’s uninvited rule, he noted, but also by the support given by British
leaders to the Jewish “interlopers” who were trying to impose Zionist control in their country. Roosevelt either
knew nothing about the actual status of Palestine, or his supposed concern for its freedom was a sham. He was, of course,
hardly the only American politician to support Zionist subjugation of Palestine while at the same time proclaiming his love
of freedom and democracy.
Iran, the final country listed
in the President’s message, was later invaded – but not by Germany. When British and Soviet forces attacked
and occupied that neutral country in August 1941, President Roosevelt not only rejected a plea for help from Iran’s
government, he justified and supported the brutal takeover of that country.
The cause of world peace, Roosevelt said in his message to Hitler, would be “greatly advanced” if world
leaders were to provide “a frank statement relating to the present and future policy of governments.” This was
sheer hypocrisy. During this period – months before the outbreak of war in Europe in September 1939 – the President
was himself covertly pressing for conflict against Germany.
a secret meeting seven months earlier, he had told the British ambassador, Ronald Lindsay, that if Britain and France “would
find themselves forced to war” against Germany, the United States would ultimately also join. Roosevelt went on to
explain during their White House meeting on September 19, 1938, that it would require some clever maneuvering to make good
on this pledge. The President went on to urge the envoy to persuade his government in London to impose an economic embargo
against Germany with the hope and expectation that the German leadership would respond by openly going to war against Britain,
which would then enable the US to join the anticipated war against Germany with a minimum of protest from the American public.
In November 1938, the Polish ambassador to Washington reported to Warsaw that William
Bullitt, a high-level US diplomat and a particularly trusted colleague of President Roosevelt, had assured him that the US
would “undoubtedly” enter a war against Germany, “but only after Great Britain and France had made the
first move.” In January 1939, Polish ambassador Potocki reported on another confidential conversation with Bullitt,
who assured him that the United States would be prepared “to intervene actively on the side of Britain and France in
case of war” against Germany. Bullitt went on to confide that the US was ready to “place its whole wealth of
money and raw materials at their disposal.”
A few weeks
later, the Polish ambassador in Paris, Jules Lukasiewicz, confidentially informed Warsaw of a talk with William Bullitt,
the US ambassador to France. The American envoy had assured him that if hostilities should break out, one could “foresee
right from the beginning the participation of the United States in the war on the side of France and Britain.”
These pledges were kept secret because the President and his close advisors knew that
American public opinion strongly opposed US involvement in another war in Europe. In that more trusting era, Americans believed
their president to be sincere in his public assurances of the government’s peaceful intentions, and trusted his promise
to keep their country out of any war that might break out in Europe.
The historic April 1939 exchange between Roosevelt and Hitler is important in helping to better understand the foreign
policy outlook and goals of those two influential twentieth-century leaders, and how very differently each viewed recent
history and his own country’s role in the world.
exchange was highlighted in the US government’s widely-viewed World War II “Why We Fight” film series.
It showed Hitler reading the list of countries that allegedly were threatened with attack or invasion by Germany, to which
the Reichstag audience responded – at first with silence and then with laughter. The narrator told viewers that Hitler
treated the President’s public challenge as a “huge joke.” In fact, the audience laughed because they
quite understandably regarded as ludicrous the notion that German forces might attack or invade such countries as Spain,
Ireland, Syria or Iran.
Far from regarding it as a “huge
joke,” Hitler made an effort to respond to every point of the President’s telegram. Roosevelt, for his part,
declined to reply to Hitler’s detailed address, much less respond to the German leader’s specific points. Roosevelt
ignored even Hitler’s appeal to the US government to fulfill the solemn pledges it had made twenty years earlier to
Germany and the world.
In the months that followed, American
policy toward Germany became increasingly hostile. In 1940 and 1941 the President sought ever more openly to persuade the
skeptical American public to support Britain and Soviet Russia in war against Germany. The worsening US-German relations
culminated in Hitler’s Reichstag address of December 11, 1941 – four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor, and the mutual declarations of war of those two countries – in which he reviewed the record of America’s
increasingly overt acts of aggression against Germany. After stating that his patience with US belligerency and lawlessness
had finally reached an end, Hitler announced that his nation was now joining Japan in war against the United States.
Here below is the full text of President Roosevelt’s April 1939 message to Hitler,
followed by a specially prepared translation of the complete text of the Reichstag address by the German leader in response.
Endnotes have been added to provide context and to help to clarify unfamiliar references. A list of items for suggested
further reading is also provided.
-- Mark Weber, October 2020
President Roosevelt’s Message
The following is the text of the message sent by President Roosevelt to Chancellor Adolf Hitler on April 14,
You realize, I am sure, that throughout the world
hundreds of millions of human beings are living today in constant fear of a new war or even a series of wars.
The existence of this fear — and the possibility of such a conflict-are of definite
concern to the people of the United States for whom I speak, as they must also be to the peoples of the other nations of
the entire Western Hemisphere. All of them know that any major war, even if it were to be confined to other continents, must
bear heavily on them during its continuance and also for generations to come.
Because of the fact that after the acute tension in which the world has been living during the past few weeks there
would seem to be at least a momentary relaxation — because no troops are at this moment on the march — this
may be an opportune moment for me to send you this message.
a previous occasion I have addressed you in behalf of the settlement of political, economic, and social problems by peaceful
methods and without resort to arms.
But the tide of events
seems to have reverted to the threat of arms. If such threats continue, it seems inevitable that much of the world must
become involved in common ruin. All the world, victor nations, vanquished nations, and neutral nations, will suffer.
I refuse to believe that the world is, of necessity, such a prisoner of destiny. On the
contrary, it is clear that the leaders of great nations have it in their power to liberate their peoples from the disaster
that impends. It is equally clear that in their own minds and in their own hearts the peoples themselves desire that their
fears be ended.
It is, however, unfortunately necessary to
take cognizance of recent facts.
Three nations in Europe and
one in Africa have seen their independent existence terminated. A vast territory in another independent Nation of the Far
East has been occupied by a neighboring State. Reports, which we trust are not true, insist that further acts of aggression
are contemplated against still other independent nations. Plainly the world is moving toward the moment when this situation
must end in catastrophe unless a more rational way of guiding events is found.
You have repeatedly asserted that you and the German people have no desire for war. If this is true there need be
Nothing can persuade the peoples of the earth that
any governing power has any right or need to inflict the consequences of war on its own or any other people save in the
cause of self-evident home defense.
In making this statement
we as Americans speak not through selfishness or fear or weakness. If we speak now it is with the voice of strength and
with friendship for mankind. It is still clear to me that international problems can be solved at the council table.
It is therefore no answer to the plea for peaceful discussion for one side to plead that
unless they receive assurances beforehand that the verdict will be theirs, they will not lay aside their arms. In conference
rooms, as in courts, it is necessary that both sides enter upon the discussion in good faith, assuming that substantial justice
will accrue to both; and it is customary and necessary that they leave their arms outside the room where they confer.
I am convinced that the cause of world peace would be greatly advanced if the nations
of the world were to obtain a frank statement relating to the present and future policy of governments.
Because the United States, as one of the Nations of the Western Hemisphere, is not involved
in the immediate controversies which have arisen in Europe, I trust that you may be willing to make such a statement of
policy to me as head of a Nation far removed from Europe in order that I, acting only with the responsibility and obligation
of a friendly intermediary, may communicate such declaration to other nations now apprehensive as to the course which the
policy of your government may take.
Are you willing to give
assurance that your armed forces will not attack or invade the territory or possessions of the following independent nations:
Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain and Ireland, France,
Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Russia, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey,
Iraq, the Arabias, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Iran.
an assurance clearly must apply not only to the present day but also to a future sufficiently long to give every opportunity
to work by peaceful methods for a more permanent peace. I therefore suggest that you construe the word “future”
to apply to a minimum period of assured non-aggression – ten years at the least, a quarter of a century, if we dare
look that far ahead.
If such assurance is given by your government,
I shall immediately transmit it to the governments of the nations I have named and I shall simultaneously inquire whether,
as I am reasonably sure, each of the nations enumerated will in turn give like assurance for transmission to you.
Reciprocal assurances such as I have outlined will bring to the world an immediate measure
I propose that if it is given, two essential problems
shall promptly be discussed in the resulting peaceful surroundings, and in those discussions the government of the United
States will gladly take part.
The discussions which I have
in mind relate to the most effective and immediate manner through which the peoples of the world can obtain progressive
relief from the crushing burden of armament which is each day bringing them more closely to the brink of economic disaster.
Simultaneously the government of the United States would
be prepared to take part in discussions looking toward the most practical manner of opening up avenues of international
trade to the end that every Nation of the earth may be enabled to buy and sell on equal terms in the world market as well
as to possess assurance of obtaining the materials and products of peaceful economic life.
At the same time, those governments other than the United States which are directly interested could undertake such
political discussions as they may consider necessary or desirable.
We recognize complex world problems which affect all humanity but we know that study and discussion of them must
be held in an atmosphere of peace. Such an atmosphere of peace cannot exist if negotiations are overshadowed by the threat
of force or by the fear of war.
I think you will not misunderstand
the spirit of frankness in which I send you this message. Heads of great governments in this hour are literally responsible
for the fate of humanity in the coming years. They cannot fail to hear the prayers of their peoples to be protected from
the foreseeable chaos of war. History will hold them accountable for the lives and the happiness of all – even unto
I hope that your answer will make it possible for
humanity to lose fear and regain security for many years to come.
similar message is being addressed to the Chief of the Italian government.
The following is the text of the address delivered
by Chancellor Hitler on April 28, 1939,
at a specially summoned session of the German
Members of the German Reichstag!
The President of the United States of America has addressed a telegram to me, the curious
contents of which you are already familiar. Before I, the addressee, actually received this document, the rest of the world
had already been informed of it by radio and newspaper reports. Numerous commentaries in the organs of the democratic world
press had already happily enlightened us as to the fact that this telegram was a tactically clever document, designed to
impose upon the states, in which the people govern, the responsibility for the warlike measures adopted by the plutocratic
Therefore I decided to summon the German Reichstag
so that you, as Reichstag deputies, would have the opportunity to be the first to hear my answer, and of either confirming
or rejecting it. In addition, I also considered it appropriate to act in accord with the method of procedure chosen by President
Roosevelt and, for my part, to inform the rest of the world of my answer in our own way. I also wish to use this occasion
to give expression to the feelings with which the tremendous historical happenings of the month of March inspire me. I can
express my deepest feelings only in the form of humble thanks to Providence which called upon me, and permitted me, once
an unknown soldier of the [world] war [of 1914-1918], to rise to be the Leader of my people, so dear to me.
Providence showed me the way to free our people from the depths of its misery without
bloodshed and to lead it upward once again. Providence granted that I might fulfill my life’s task to raise my German
people from of the depths of defeat and to liberate it from the bonds of the most outrageous dictate of all times. That alone
has been the goal of my efforts.
Since the day on which
I entered political life, I have lived for no other idea than that of winning back the freedom of the German nation, restoring
the power and strength of the Reich, overcoming the internal discord of our people, repairing its isolation from the rest
of the world, and safeguarding the maintenance of its independent economic and political life.
I have intended only to restore that which others once broke by force. I have desired
only to make good that which satanic malice or human stupidity destroyed or ruined. I have, therefore, taken no step
that violated the rights of others, but have only restored the right that was violated twenty years ago.
The Greater German Reich today contains no territory that was not from the earliest times
a part of this Reich, bound up with it, or subject to its sovereignty. Long before an American continent had been discovered
– not to say settled – by white people, this Reich existed, not merely with its present extent, but with many
additional regions and provinces that have since been lost.
years ago, when the bloodshed of the [First World] war came to an end, millions of minds were filled with the ardent hope
that a peace of reason and justice would reward and bless the nations that were hostages of the fearful scourge of the [First]
World War. I say “reward,” for all those men and women – whatever the conclusions arrived at by historians
– bore no responsibility for these fearful happenings. In some countries there may still be politicians who even at
that time might be considered responsible for that most horrible slaughter of all times, but the great mass of fighting
soldiers of every country and nation were by no means guilty, but rather deserving of pity.
Hitler is saluted at this special session of the German Reichstag on April 28, 1939.
On this occasion, the Chancellor delivered a widely anticipated address in response to a much-publicized challenge by American
president Franklin Roosevelt. Millions around the world listened on radio to Hitler’s two hour speech as he delivered
it. In the US, all three major radio networks broadcast it live, with running English-language translation. The next day,
it was the leading news item on the front page of every major American daily newspaper.
As you know, I myself had never played a part in politics before the war. Like millions
of others, I only carried out such duties as I was called upon to fulfill as a decent citizen and soldier. It was therefore
with an absolutely clear conscience that I was able to take up the cause of the freedom and future of my people, both during
and after the war. And I can therefore speak in the name of millions and millions of others who are equally blameless when
I declare that all those, who had only fought for their nation in loyal fulfillment of their duty, were entitled to a peace
of reason and justice, so that humanity might at last set to work to make good by joint effort the losses which all had
But those millions were cheated of that peace;
for not only did the German people, and the other peoples fighting on our side suffer through the peace treaties, but these
treaties had a destructive impact on the victors as well.
politics should be controlled by men who had not themselves fought in the war was recognized for the first time as a misfortune.
Hatred was unknown to the soldiers, but not to those elderly politicians who had carefully preserved their own precious
lives from the horrors of war, and who now descended upon humanity in the guise of insane spirits of revenge.
Hatred, malice and unreason were the intellectual forebears of the dictated Treaty of
Versailles. / 1 Territories and states with a history going back a thousand years were arbitrarily broken up and dissolved.
People who have belonged together since time immemorial were torn asunder; economic conditions of life were ignored, while
the peoples themselves were dealt with as victors and vanquished, as masters possessing all rights or as slaves possessing
That document of Versailles has fortunately been set
down in black and white for generations to come, for otherwise it would have been regarded in the future as the grotesque
product of a wild and corrupt imagination. Nearly 115 million people were robbed of their right of self-determination, not
by victorious soldiers, but by mad politicians, and were arbitrarily removed from ancient communities and made part of new
ones without any consideration of blood, ancestry, common sense, or the economic conditions of life.
The results were appalling. Though at that time the statesmen were able to destroy a great
many things, there was one factor which could not be eliminated; the gigantic mass of people living in Central Europe, crowded
together in a confined area, can only secure their daily bread by the maximum of labor and resultant order.
But what did these statesmen of the so-called democratic empires know of these problems?
A flock of utterly stupid and ignorant people was let loose on humanity. In areas in which about 140 people per square kilometer
have to gain a livelihood, they simply destroyed the order that had been built up over nearly two thousand years of historical
development, and created disorder, without themselves being capable or desirous of solving the problems confronting the
communal life of these people – for which, moreover, as dictators of the new world order, they had at that time assumed
However, when this new world order turned
out to be a catastrophe, the democratic peace dictators, both American and European, were so cowardly that none of them
ventured to take the responsibility for what occurred. Each put the blame on the others, thus endeavoring to save himself
from the judgment of history. However, the people who were mistreated by their hatred and lack of reason were, unfortunately,
not in a position to join them in that exit.
It is impossible
to enumerate the stages of our own people’s sufferings. Robbed of the whole of its colonial possessions, / 2
deprived of all its financial resources, plundered by so-called reparations, and thus impoverished, our nation was driven
into the darkest period of its national misfortune. And it should be noted that this was not National Socialist Germany,
but democratic Germany / 3 – the Germany which was weak enough to trust even for a single moment the promises
of democratic statesmen.
The resulting misery and continuing
impoverishment began to bring our nation to political despair. Even decent and industrious people of Central Europe looked
to the possibility of deliverance in the complete destruction of the old order, which to them represented a curse.
Jewish parasites, on the one hand, plundered the nation ruthlessly and, on the other hand,
incited the people, reduced as it was to misery. As the misfortune of our nation became the aim and object of that race,
it was possible to breed among the growing army of unemployed suitable elements for the Bolshevik revolution.
The decay of political order and the confusion of public opinion by an irresponsible Jewish
press led to ever stronger shocks to economic life, and consequently to increasing misery and to greater readiness to accept
subversive Bolshevik ideas. The army of the Jewish world revolution, as the army of unemployed was called, finally rose to
almost seven million.
Germany had never before known such
conditions. In the area in which this great people and the old Habsburg states belonging to it lived, economic life, despite
all the difficulties of the struggle for existence involved by the excessive density of population, had not become more
uncertain in the course of time but, on the contrary, more and more secure.
Industriousness and diligence, great thrift, and a love of scrupulous order, though they did not enable the people
in this territory to accumulate excessive riches, did at any rate insure them against abject misery. The results of the
wretched peace forced upon them by the democratic dictators were thus all the more terrible for these people, who were condemned
at Versailles. Today we know the reason for this frightful outcome of the [First] World War.
Primarily, it was the greed for spoils. That which seldom pays in private life, could,
they believed, when enlarged a million-fold, be represented to mankind as a profitable experiment. If large nations were
plundered and the utmost squeezed out of them, it would then be possible to live a life of carefree idleness. Such was the
opinion of these economic dilettantes.
To that end, first
of all, the states themselves had to be dismembered. Germany had to be deprived of her colonial possessions, although, they
were without any value to the imperial democracies; the most important [German] regions of natural resources had to be invaded
and – if necessary – placed under the influence of the democracies; and above all, the unfortunate victims
of that democratic mistreatment of nations and people had to be prevented from ever recovering, let alone rising against
Thus was concocted the satanic plan to
burden generations with the curse of those dictates. For 60, 70, or 100 years, Germany was to pay sums so exorbitant that
the question of how they were actually to be raised must forever remain a mystery. To raise such sums in gold, in foreign
currency, or by way of regular payments in kind, would have been absolutely impossible without the bedazzled collectors of
this tribute being ruined as well.
As a matter of fact,
these democratic peace dictators basically destroyed the world economy with their Versailles madness. / 4 Their senseless
dismemberment of peoples and states led to the destruction of common production and trade interests which had become well
established in the course of hundreds of years, thereby forcing the development of autarchic tendencies, and with it the
destruction of the previous general conditions of the world economy.
Twenty years ago, when I signed my name in the book of political life as the seventh member of the then German Workers
Party / 5 in Munich, I saw the impact of those signs of decay all around me. The worst of it – as I have already
emphasized – was the utter despair of the masses that resulted therefrom, the disappearance among the educated classes
of all confidence in human reason, let alone in a sense of justice, and a predominance of brutal selfishness among all such
egotistically inclined creatures.
The extent to which, in
the course of what is now twenty years, I have been able to mold a nation from such chaotic disorganization into an organic
whole and to establish a new order, is already part of German history.
What I wish to make clear today, by way of introduction, is above all the goals of my political outlook and their
realization with regard to foreign policy.
One of the most
shameful acts of oppression ever committed is the dismemberment of the German nation and the political disintegration, provided
for in the Dictate of Versailles, of the area in which it had, after all, lived for thousands of years.
I have never, my Reichstag deputies, left any doubt that in point of fact it is scarcely
possible anywhere in Europe to arrive at an entirely satisfactory harmony of state and ethnic boundaries that would be satisfactory
to everyone concerned. On the one hand, the migration of peoples that gradually came to a standstill during the last few
centuries, and on the other, the development of large communities, have brought about a situation which, whatever way they
look at it, will necessarily be considered unsatisfactory in in some way or other by those concerned. It was, however, precisely
the way in which these ethnic-national and political developments were gradually stabilized in the last century that led
many to cling to the hope that in the end a compromise would be found between respect for the national life of the various
European peoples and the recognition of established political structures – a compromise by which, without destroying
the political order in Europe and with it the existing economic basis, nationalities could nevertheless be preserved.
Those hopes were destroyed by the [First] World War. The peace dictate of Versailles did
justice neither to the one principle nor to the other. Neither the right of self-determination was respected, nor was consideration
given to the political, let alone the economic necessities and conditions, for European development. Nevertheless, I have
never denied that – as I have already emphasized – there would have to be limits even to a revision of the Treaty
of Versailles. And I have always said so with the utmost frankness – not for any tactical reasons, but from my innermost
conviction. As the national leader of the German people, I have never left any doubt that, wherever the higher interests
of the European community are at stake, specific national interests must, if necessary, be relegated to second place.
And – as I have already emphasized – this is not for tactical reasons, for
I have never left any doubt that I am absolutely in earnest in this attitude. With regard to many territories that might
possibly be disputed, I have, therefore, come to final decisions, which I have proclaimed not only to the outside world,
but also to my own people, and I have seen to it that those decisions are respected.
I have not, as France did in 1870-1871, / 6 described the cession of Alsace-Lorraine as intolerable
for the future. Instead, I here made a distinction between the Saar territory and these two former Reich provinces. And
I have never changed my attitude, nor will I ever do so. I have not allowed this attitude to be modified or prejudiced inside
the country on any occasion, either in the press or in any other way. The return of the Saar territory / 7 has done
away with all territorial problems in Europe between France and Germany. I have, however, always regarded it as regrettable
that French statesmen have taken that attitude for granted. That’s not the way to look at the matter. It was not because
of fear of France that I expressed this attitude. As a former soldier, I see no reason whatsoever for any such fear. Moreover,
as regards the Saar territory I made it quite clear that we would not countenance any refusal to return it to Germany.
No, I have confirmed this attitude toward France as an expression of appreciation of the
need to attain peace in Europe, instead of sowing the seed of continual uncertainty and even tension by making unlimited
demands and continually asking for revision. If this tension has nevertheless now arisen, the responsibility does not lie
with Germany but with those international elements that systematically promote such tension in order to serve their capitalist
I have made binding declarations to a large number
of states. None of those states can complain that even a trace of a demand contrary thereto has ever been made of them by
Germany. No Scandinavian statesman, for example, can claim that a request has ever been put to him by the German government
or by German public opinion that is incompatible with the sovereignty or integrity of his country.
I was pleased that a number of European states availed themselves of these declarations
by the German government to express and emphasize their desire, as well, for absolute neutrality. This applies to Holland,
Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, and so forth. I have already mentioned France. I need not mention Italy, with which we are
united in the deepest and closest friendship, nor Hungary and Yugoslavia, with whom, as neighbors, our relations are fortunately
of the friendliest.
Furthermore, I have left no doubt from
the first moment of my political activity that there existed other circumstances that represent so mean and gross an outrage
of the right of self-determination of our people that we can never accept or endorse them. I have never written a single
line or made a single speech displaying a different attitude towards the states just mentioned. Moreover, with reference
to the other cases, I have never written a single line or made a single speech in which I have expressed any attitude contrary
to my actions.
One. Austria, the oldest eastern march [Ostmark]
of the German people, was once the buttress of the German Nation on the south-east of the Reich. The Germans of that country
are descended from settlers from all the German tribes, even though the Bavarian tribe contributed the major portion. Later
this Ostmark became the foundation of a centuries-old imperial realm, with Vienna as the capital of the German Reich
of that period.
That German Reich was finally broken up in the course of a gradual dissolution
by Napoleon, the Corsican, but continued to exist as a German federation, and not so long ago fought and suffered in the
greatest war of all time as a political entity that was the expression of the national feelings of the people, even if it
was no longer one united state. I myself am a child of that Ostmark.
Not only was the German Reich beaten down and Austria broken up into its component parts by the criminals of Versailles,
but Germans were also forbidden to acknowledge that community to which they had declared their adherence for more than a
thousand years. I have always regarded the elimination of this state of affairs as the greatest and most sacred task of
my life. I have never failed to proclaim this determination, and I have always been resolved to realize these ideas that
haunted me day and night.
I would have sinned against my
call by Providence had I failed in my own endeavor to lead my native country and my German people of the Ostmark
back to the Reich, / 8 and thus to the national community of the German people. In doing so, moreover, I have erased
the most disgraceful page of the Treaty of Versailles. I have established the right of self-determination once again, and
have done away with the democratic countries’ oppression of seven and a half million Germans. I have lifted the ban
that prevented them from voting on their own fate, and carried through the historic referendum. The result was not only what
I had expected, but also precisely what had been anticipated by the Versailles democratic oppressors of nations. For why
else had they forbidden a referendum on the question of Union [Anschluss]
Two. Bohemia and Moravia. When in the course of the migrations of peoples Germanic tribes began,
for reasons inexplicable to us, to migrate out of the territory that today is Bohemia and Moravia, a foreign Slavic people
made its way into this territory, and made a place for itself amongst the remaining Germans. Since that time the area occupied
by this Slavic people has been enclosed in the form of a horseshoe by Germans.
From an economic point of view an independent existence is, in the long run, impossible for these lands except in
the context of a close relationship with the German nation and the German economy. But apart from that, nearly four million
Germans lived in this territory of Bohemia and Moravia. A policy of national annihilation that set in, particularly after
the Treaty of Versailles, under pressure of the Czech majority, combined, too, with economic conditions and the rising tide
of distress, led to some emigration of those German, so that the Germans left in the territory were reduced to approximately
3,700,000. The population of the fringe of the territory is uniformly German, but there are also large German linguistic
enclaves in the interior.
The Czech nation is in its origin
foreign to us, but in the thousand years in which the two peoples have lived side by side, Czech culture has been significantly
formed and molded by German influences. The Czech economy is the result of its connection with the greater German economic
system. The capital of this country [Prague] was for a time a German imperial city, and it has the oldest German university.
/ 9 Numerous cathedrals, city halls, and residences of nobles and citizens alike bear witness to the German
The Czech people itself has in the course
of centuries alternated between close and more distant relations with the German people. Every close contact resulted in
a period in which both the German and the Czech nations flourished; every estrangement was calamitous in its consequences.
We are familiar with the merits and values of the German
nation, but the Czech nation, with the sum total of its skill and ability, its industry, its diligence, its love of its
native soil, and of its own national heritage, also deserves our respect. In fact, there were periods when this mutual respect
for the qualities of the other nation was a matter of course.
democratic peacemakers of Versailles can take the credit for having assigned to the Czech people the special role of a satellite
state, which could be used against Germany. For this purpose they arbitrarily adjudicated foreign national property to the
Czech state, which was utterly incapable of survival on the strength of the Czech national unit alone. That is, they did
violence to other nationalities in order to secure a basis for a state that was to be a latent threat to the German nation
in Central Europe.
For this state [Czechoslovakia], in which
the so-called predominant national element was actually in the minority, could be maintained only by means of a brutal violation
of the national units that made up the majority of the population. / 10 This violation was possible only in so far
as protection and assistance were granted by the European democracies. This assistance could naturally be expected only on
condition that this state was prepared loyally to adopt and play the role which had been assigned to at birth. But the purpose
of this role was none other than to prevent the consolidation of Central Europe, to provide a bridge into Europe for Bolshevik
aggression, and above all to act as a mercenary of the European democracies against Germany.
Everything then followed automatically. The more this state tried to fulfill the task
it had been set, the greater was the resistance put up by the national minorities. And the greater the resistance, the more
necessary it became to resort to oppression. This inevitable heightening of the inner contradictions led in its turn to
an increased dependence on the European democratic founders and benefactors of the state, for they alone were in a position
to maintain in the long run the economic existence of this unnatural and artificial creation. Germany was primarily interested
in one thing only, namely, to liberate the nearly four million Germans in this country from their intolerable situation,
and to make it possible for their return to their home country and to the thousand-year-old Reich.
It was only natural that this problem immediately brought up all the other aspects of
the nationalities problem. It was also natural that the withdrawal of the different national groups would deprive what was
left of the state of all capacity to survive – a fact of which the founders of the state had been well aware when
they planned it at Versailles. It was for this very reason that they had decided to do violence on the other minorities,
and forced these against their will to become part of this amateurishly constructed state.
I have, moreover, never left any doubt about my opinion and attitude on this matter. It
is true that, as long as Germany herself was powerless and defenseless, this oppression of almost four million Germans could
be carried out without the Reich offering any practical resistance. However, only a child in politics could have believed
that the German nation would remain forever in the condition that it was in 1919. Only as long as the international traitors,
supported from abroad, held the control of the German state, could one be sure of these disgraceful conditions being patiently
tolerated. From the moment when, after the victory of National Socialism, these traitors had to transfer their domicile
to the place from where they had received their subsidies, the solution of this problem was only a question of time. Moreover,
this was exclusively a matter involving the nationalities concerned, and not one concerning Western Europe.
It was certainly understandable that Western Europe was interested in the artificial state
that had been created for its interests. But that the nations surrounding this state should regard those interests as a
determining factor for them was a false conclusion, which some may perhaps have regretted. In so far as those interests involved
only the financial establishment of that state, Germany would have had no objection. But those financial interests were,
in the final analysis, also entirely subordinate to the power-political goals of the democracies.
The financial assistance given too this state was guided by a single consideration, namely
creation of a state armed to the teeth that could be a valuable bastion extending into the German Reich, which could constitute
a basis for military operations in connection with invasions of the Reich from the west, or at any rate serve as an air base.
What was expected from this state is shown most clearly by the observation of the French
Air Minister, M. Pierre Cot, who calmly stated / 11 that the function of this state in case of any conflict was to
be an air base for the landing and taking off of bombers, from which it would be possible to destroy the most important
German industrial centers in a few hours. It is, therefore, understandable that the German government for its part decided
to destroy this air base for bombers. It did not come to this decision out of hatred of the Czech people. Quite the contrary.
For in the course of the thousand years during which the German and Czech peoples have lived together, there were often
periods of close cooperation lasting hundreds of years, interrupted, to be sure, by only short periods of tension. In such
periods of tension the passions of the people struggling with each other on their ethnic front lines can very easily dim
the sense of justice, and thus give a false general picture. That’s a feature of every war. Only during the long epochs
of living together in harmony did the two peoples agree that they were both entitled to make a sacred claim for regard and
respect for their nationality.
In these years of struggle
my own attitude towards the Czech people has been solely confined to the guardianship of national and Reich interests, combined
with feelings of respect for the Czech people. One thing is certain however. Even if the democratic midwives of this state
had succeeded in attaining their ultimate goal, the German Reich would certainly not have been destroyed, although we might
have sustained heavy losses. No, the Czech people, by reason of its limited size and its position, would presumably have
had to endure much more terrible, and indeed – I am convinced – catastrophic consequences.
I am happy that it has proved possible, even if to the annoyance of democratic interests,
to prevent such a catastrophe in Central Europe, thanks to our own moderation and also to the good judgment of the Czech
people. That which the best and wisest Czechs have struggled for decades to attain, is as a matter of course granted to
this people in the National Socialist German Reich – namely, the right to their own nationality and the right to foster
this nationality and to revive it. National Socialist Germany has no notion of ever betraying the ethnic-racial principles
of which we are proud. They are beneficial not only to the German nation, but to the Czech people as well. What we demand
is the recognition of a historical necessity and of an economic exigency in which we all find ourselves. When I announced
the solution of this problem in the Reichstag on February 22, 1938, I was convinced that I was obeying the necessity of
a Central European situation.
Even in March 1938, I still
believed that by means of a gradual evolution it might prove possible to solve the problem of minorities in this state and,
at one time or another, by means of mutual cooperation to arrive at a common understanding that would be advantageous to
all interests concerned, politically as well as economically.
was only after Mr. Benes, who was completely in the hands of his democratic international financiers, turned the problem
into a military one and unleashed a wave of suppression over the Germans, while at the same time attempting by that mobilization
of which you all know, / 12 to inflict an international defeat on the German state, and to damage its prestige, that
it became clear to me that a solution by those means was no longer possible. For the false report at that time of a German
mobilization was quite obviously inspired from abroad and suggested to the Czechs in order to cause the German Reich such
a loss of prestige.
I do not need to repeat again that in
May of the past year Germany had not mobilized one single man, although we were all of the opinion that the very fate of
Mr. Schuschnigg / 13 should have shown all others the advisability of working for mutual understanding by means of
a more just treatment of national minorities.
I for my part
was at any rate prepared to attempt this kind of peaceful development with patience, though, if need be, the process might
last some years. However, it was exactly such a peaceful solution that was a thorn in the flesh of the agitators in the democracies.
They hate us Germans and would prefer to eradicate us completely.
What do the Czechs mean to them? They are nothing but means to an end. And what do they care for the fate of that small
and valiant nation? What concern to they have for the lives of hundreds of thousands of brave soldiers who would have been
sacrificed for their policy?
These Western European peace-mongers
were not concerned to work for peace but to cause bloodshed so as in that way to set the nations against one another and
thus cause still more blood to flow. For this reason they invented the story of German mobilization and misled Prague public
opinion with it. It was intended to provide an excuse for the Czech mobilization; and then by this means they hoped to be
able to exert the desired military pressure on the elections in Sudeten Germany / 14 which could no longer be avoided.
In their view there remained only two alternatives for Germany:
Either to accept this Czech mobilization and with it a disgraceful blow to her prestige, or to settle accounts with
Czechoslovakia. This would have meant a bloody war, perhaps entailing the mobilization of the peoples of Western Europe,
who had no interest in these matters, thereby involving them in the inevitable bloodlust and immersing humanity in a new
catastrophe in which some would have the honor of losing their lives and others the pleasure of making war profits.
You are acquainted, gentlemen, with the decisions I quickly made at the time:
1. To solve this question and, what’s more, by October 2, 1938, at the latest.
2. To prepare this solution by all the means required to leave no doubt that any attempt
at intervention would be met by the united force of the whole nation.
It was then that I decreed and ordered the strengthening of our western fortifications. / 15 By September
25, 1938, they were already in such a condition that their defensive strength was thirty to forty times greater than that
of the old “Siegfried Line” of the [First World] War. They are now mostly completed, and right now are being
extended with new defense lines outside of Aachen and Saarbrücken, which I ordered later. These, too, are very largely
ready for defense. Considering the scale of these, the greatest fortifications ever constructed, the German nation can feel
perfectly assured that no power in this world will ever succeed in breaking through that front.
When the first provocative attempt at utilizing the Czech mobilization had failed to produce
the desired result, the second phase began, in which the motives underlying a question that really concerned Central Europe
alone, became all the more obvious.
If the cry of “Never
another Munich” is raised in the world today, this simply confirms the fact that those warmongers regarded the
peaceful solution of the problem to be the most pernicious thing that ever happened. They are sorry no blood was shed –
not their blood, to be sure – for these agitators are, of course, never to be found where shots are being fired, but
rather where money is being made. No, it would be the blood of many nameless soldiers!
Moreover, there would have been no need for the Munich Conference, / 16 for that conference
was only made possible by the fact that the countries which had at first incited those concerned to resist at all costs,
were compelled later on, when the situation pressed for a solution in one way or another, to try to secure for themselves
a more or less respectable retreat; for without Munich – that is to say, without the interference of the countries
of Western Europe – a solution of the entire problem, if it had grown so acute at all, would very likely have been
the easiest thing in the world.
The Munich decision led to
the following results:
One. The return to the Reich of the
most essential parts of the [ethnic] German border settlements in Bohemia and Moravia. / 17
Two. The keeping open of the possibility of a solution of the other problems of that state –
that is, a return and separation, respectively, of the existing Hungarian and Slovak [ethnic] minorities;
Three. The guarantee question still remained open. As far as Germany and
Italy were concerned, a guarantee of [the continued existence of] that state [Czechoslovakia] had, from the outset, been
made dependent upon the consent of all interested parties bordering on that state – that is to say, contingent on
the actual solution of problems concerning the parties mentioned, which were still unsolved.
The following problems were still left open:
1. The return of the Magyar [ethnically Hungarian] districts to Hungary;
2. The return of the [ethnically]
Polish districts to Poland;
3. The solution of the Slovak question;
4. The solution of the [ethnic] Ukrainian
As you know, the negotiations between Hungary and
Czechoslovakia had scarcely begun when both the Czechoslovakian and the Hungarian negotiators made a request to Germany
and Italy, a country that stands side by side with Germany, to act as arbitrators in determining the new borders between
Slovakia, the Carpatho-Ukraine and Hungary. / 18 The countries concerned did not avail themselves of the opportunity
of appealing to the Four Powers. On the contrary, they expressly renounced that opportunity – that is, they declined
it. And that was quite understandable. All the people living in this area desired peace and quiet. Italy and Germany were
prepared to answer the call. Neither Britain nor France raised any objection to this arrangement, even though it constituted
a formal departure from the Munich Agreement. Nor could they have done so. It would have been madness for Paris or London
to have protested against an action on the part of Germany or Italy, which had been undertaken solely at the request of
the countries concerned.
The arbitration decision arrived
at by Germany and Italy proved – as always happens in such cases – entirely satisfactory to neither party. From
the outset the difficulty was that it had to be accepted voluntarily by both [affected] parties. As the arbitration decision
was being put into effect, the two states quickly raised strong objections after having accepted it. Hungary, prompted by
both general and specific interests, demanded the Carpatho-Ukraine region, / 19 while Poland demanded a common border
with Hungary. It was clear that, under such circumstances, even the remnant of the state that Versailles had brought into
being was doomed.
In fact, perhaps only a single country
was interested in the preservation of the earlier situation, and that was Romania. The man best authorized to speak on behalf
of that country told me personally how desirable it would be to have a direct connection with Germany, perhaps by way of
Ukraine and Slovakia. I mention this as an indication of the feeling of being menaced by Germany that the Romanian government
– according to American clairvoyants – was supposed to be suffering.
It was now clear that Germany could not undertake the task of permanently opposing a development,
much less to fight to maintain a state of affairs, for which we would never have made ourselves responsible. Thus, the stage
had been reached at which I decided to make a declaration in the name of the German government, to the effect that we had
no intention of any longer incurring any further reproach by opposing the common wishes of Poland and Hungary with regard
to their borders, simply in order to keep open a road of approach for Germany to Romania.
Since, moreover, the Czech government resorted once more to its old methods, and Slovakia
also gave expression to its desire for independence, / 20 the further maintenance of the state was now out of the
question. Czechoslovakia as constructed at Versailles had had its day. It collapsed not because Germany desired its breakup,
but because in the long run it is impossible to create and sustain artificial states at the conference table, for they are
incapable of survival. / 21 A few days before the dissolution of that state, in response to an inquiry by Britain
and France regarding a guarantee [of the existence of Czechoslovakia], Germany therefore refused to give such a guarantee,
because all the conditions for it laid down at Munich no longer existed.
On the contrary, after the entire structure of the state had begun to break up and had already practically dissolved,
the German government also finally decided to intervene. It did so only in fulfillment of an obvious duty. In that regard,
the following should be noted: On the occasion of the first visit to Munich of the Czech Foreign Minister, Mr. Chvalkovsky,
/ 22 the German government plainly expressed its views on the future of Czechoslovakia. I myself assured Mr. Chvalkovsky
on that occasion that provided that the large [ethnic] German minority remaining in Czechia was fairly treated, and provided
that a general settlement throughout the state were achieved, we would pledge a supportive attitude on Germany’s part,
and would assuredly place no obstacles in the way of the state.
I also made it clear beyond all doubt that if Czechia was to take any steps in line with the policies of the former president,
Dr. Benes, Germany would not put up with any developments along such lines, but would nip them in the bud. I also pointed
out at the same time that the maintenance of such a tremendous military arsenal in Central Europe for no reason or purpose
could only be regarded is a source of danger.
proved how justified my warning had been. A continually rising tide of underground propaganda and a gradual tendency of
Czech newspapers to relapse into their old ways made it obvious even to a simpleton that the old state of affairs would soon
be restored. The danger of a military conflict was all the greater as there was always the possibility that some madman
might gain control of those vast stores of war material. This involved the danger of explosions of unforeseeable extent.
As a proof of this, I am constrained, gentlemen, to give
you an idea of the truly gigantic extent of this international storehouse of explosives in Central Europe.
Since the occupation of this territory, / 23 the following items have been
taken over and secured: Air Force: airplanes, 1582; anti-aircraft guns, 501. Army: guns, light and heavy, 2175; trench mortars,
785; tanks, 469; machine guns, 43,876; pistols, 114,000; rifles, 1,090,000. Infantry munitions: more than 1,000,000,000 rounds;
Artillery and gas munitions: more than 3,000,000 rounds; All kinds of other war implements, such as, bridge-building equipment,
aircraft detectors, searchlights, distance measuring instruments, motor vehicles and special motor vehicles – in large
I believe that it’s a blessing for millions
and millions that, thanks to the last-minute insight of responsible men on the other side, I succeeded in averting such
an explosion, and found a solution that, I am convinced, has finally eliminated this problem as a source of danger in Central
Europe. The contention that this solution is contrary to the Munich Agreement can neither be justified not supported. Under
no circumstances could that Agreement be regarded as final, because it referred itself to other problems that required solution,
and which would have to be solved.
We cannot justly be reproached
for the fact that the parties concerned – and this is the key point – did not turn to the Four Powers, but only
to Italy and Germany, / 24 nor for the fact that the state as such finally collapsed of its own accord, and that
consequently Czechoslovakia ceased to exist. It was, however, entirely understandable that, long after ethnographic principles
had been violated, Germany should take its own measures to protect her thousand-year-old interests, which are not only political
but also economic in their nature.
The future will show whether
the solution that Germany has found is right or wrong. One thing is certain, however, namely that this solution is not subject
to British supervision or criticism. For Bohemia and Moravia, as the remnants of former Czechoslovakia, have nothing more
to do with the Munich Agreement. Just as British measures, say in Ireland, / 25 whether they be right or wrong, are
not subject to German supervision or criticism, the same principle holds good as well for these old German Electorates.
I entirely fail to understand how the agreement reached between
Mr. Chamberlain and myself at Munich / 26 can apply in this case, for the case of Czechoslovakia was dealt
with at the Munich Four Power Conference as far as it could be settled at all at that time. Beyond that, it was only provided
that if the interested parties should fail to come to an agreement, they would be entitled to appeal to the Four Powers,
who had agreed that in such an eventuality to meet for further consultation after the expiration of three months. However,
those interested parties did not appeal to the Four Powers at all, but only to Germany and Italy. That this was fully justified,
moreover, is proven by the fact that neither Britain nor France have raised any objections to it, but rather they themselves
accepted the arbitration decision made by Germany and Italy.
the agreement reached between Mr. Chamberlain and myself had nothing to do with this problem, but solely with questions concerning
relations between Britain and Germany. This is clearly shown by the fact that such questions are to be dealt with in the
future in the spirit of the Munich Agreement and of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement / 27 – that is, in
a friendly spirit by way of consultation. If, however, that agreement were to be applied to every future German activity
of a political nature, Britain, too, should not take any step – whether in Palestine or elsewhere – without
first consulting Germany. It is obvious that we do not expect that; likewise, we reject any similar expectation of us. If
Mr. Chamberlain now concludes from this that the Munich Agreement has become invalid because we have broken it, I will note
that view and draw the necessary conclusions.
whole of my political activity I have always stood for the idea of a close friendship and cooperation between Germany and
Britain. In my movement I found countless others of like mind. Perhaps they joined me because of my attitude in this regard.
This desire for Anglo-German friendship and cooperation conforms not merely to sentiments based on the [similar] heritage
of our two peoples, but also on my realization of the importance of the existence of the British Empire for the whole of
I have never left any doubt of my belief that
the existence of this empire is an inestimable factor of value for the whole of human culture and economic life. By whatever
means Great Britain has acquired her colonial territories – and I know that they were those of force and often brutality
– nevertheless I am well aware that no other empire has ever come into being in any other way, and that, in the final
analysis and from a historical perspective, it is not so much the methods that are taken into account as success, and not
the success of the methods as such, but rather the general good that those methods produce.
Now, there is no doubt that the Anglo-Saxon people has accomplished immense colonizing
work in the world. For this work I have sincere admiration. The thought of destroying that labor seemed and still seems
to me, from the higher point of view of humanity, as nothing but a manifestation of human wanton destructiveness. Yet, my
sincere respect for this achievement does not mean that I will neglect to secure the life of my own people.
I regard it as impossible to achieve a lasting friendship between the German and the Anglo-Saxon
peoples if the other side does not recognize that just as the preservation of the global British empire is regarded by Britons
as a vital purpose and goal, so likewise do Germans regard the freedom and preservation of the German Reich. A genuine lasting
friendship between these two nations is conceivable only on a basis of mutual respect.
The British people rule a great global empire. They built up this empire at a time when the German
people were internally weak. Germany had once been a great empire. At one time she ruled the Occident. In bloody wars and
religious conflicts, and as a result of internal political divisions, that empire declined in power and greatness and finally
fell into a deep sleep. But when that old Reich appeared to have reached its end, the seeds of its rebirth were springing
up. From Brandenburg and Prussia there arose a new Germany, the Second Reich, and out of it has at last grown the German
I also hope that all the British understand
that we do not possess the slightest feeling of inferiority to Britons. Our historical past is too tremendous for that Britain
has given the world many great men, and Germany no less. The severe struggle to maintain the life of our people has, in
the course of three centuries, cost a sacrifice in lives that far exceeds that which other peoples have had to make to maintain
If Germany, a country that was forever
being attacked, was not able to hold on to her possessions, but was compelled to sacrifice many of her provinces, that was
due solely to her political maldevelopment and the impotence that resulted from it. That condition has now been overcome.
Therefore, we Germans do not feel in the least inferior to the British nation. Our self-esteem is just as great as that of
an Englishman. The history of our people over almost two thousand years provides events and accomplishments enough to fill
us with justifiable pride.
Now, if Britain cannot understand
our point of view, thinking perchance that she may regard Germany as a vassal state, then our affection and friendship have
indeed been offered in vain. We shall not despair or lose heart on that account, but – relying on the consciousness
of our own strength and on the strength of our friends – we shall find ways and means to secure our independence without
impairing our dignity.
I have noted the statement of the
British Prime Minister to the effect that he is unable to put any trust in German assurances. / 28 Under these
circumstances I regard it as a matter of course that we should no longer expect him or the British people to accept a situation
that has become onerous to them and which is sustainable only on the basis of mutual confidence.
When Germany became National Socialist / 29 and thus paved the way for her national
resurrection, in pursuance of my unswerving policy of friendship with Britain, of my own accord I made a proposal for a
voluntary restriction of German naval armaments. / 30 That restriction was, however, based on one condition, namely
the will and the conviction that a war between Britain and Germany would never again be possible. That will and that conviction
I still hold today.
Now, however, I am compelled to state
that the policy of Britain, both unofficially and officially, permits no doubt that such a conviction is no longer shared
in London, and that, on the contrary, the opinion prevails there that no matter in what conflict Germany might one day be
entangled, Great Britain will always have to stand against Germany. Thus war against Germany is more or less taken for granted
I most profoundly regret such a development, for
the only claim I have ever made and shall continue to make of Britain is for the return of our colonies. But I always made
it very clear that this would never become a cause of military conflict. I have always held that the British, for whom those
colonies are of no value, would one day understand the German situation, and would then value German friendship higher than
the possession of territories that, while yielding no real profit whatever to them, are of vital importance for Germany.
Apart from that, however, I have never advanced a claim that might in
any way have interfered with British interests, or that might become a danger to the Empire, and thus might mean any harm
for Britain. I have always made sure that such demands as have been made have always been closely connected with Germany’s
vital territory, and with the inalienable property of the German nation.
Now that Britain, both in the press and officially, now expresses the view that Germany should be opposed under
all circumstances, and confirms this through the well-known policy of encirclement, the basis for the  Naval Treaty
has been removed. I have therefore resolved to send today a communication to that effect to the British government.
This is to us not a matter of practical material importance – for I still hope that
we shall be able to avoid an armaments race with Britain – but rather a matter of self-respect. If the British government,
however, wishes to enter once more into negotiations with Germany on this problem, no one would be happier than I at the
prospect of being able, after all, to come to a clear and straightforward understanding. Moreover, I know my people, and
I rely on them. We do not want anything that did not formerly belong to us, and no state will ever be robbed by us of its
property; but anyone who believes that he is able to attack Germany will find himself confronted with a measure of power
and resistance compared with which that of 1914 was negligible.
connection with that I wish to speak here and now of that matter that was chosen as the starting-point for the new campaign
against the Reich by those same circles that caused the mobilization of Czechoslovakia. I have already assured you, gentlemen,
at the beginning of my speech, that never, either in the case of Austria or in the case of Czechoslovakia, have I adopted
any attitude in my political life that is not compatible with events that have now happened. I therefore pointed out in
connection with the problem of the Memel Germans that this question, if it was not solved by Lithuania itself in a dignified
and generous manner, would one day have to be raised by Germany.
You know that the Memel territory was also once torn from the Reich quite arbitrarily by the Dictate of Versailles
and that finally, in the year 1923 – that is to say, in the midst of a period of complete peace – that
territory was occupied by Lithuania, and thus more or less confiscated. The fate of the Germans has since then been sheer
In the course of reincorporating Bohemia and
Moravia within the framework of the German Reich it was also possible for me to come to an agreement with the Lithuanian
government that allowed the return of that territory to Germany without any act of violence and without shedding blood.
/ 31 In this instance as well, I have not demanded one square mile more than we formerly possessed, but which
had been stolen from us.
This means, therefore, only that
a territory has returned to the German Reich which had been torn from us by the madmen who dictated peace at Versailles.
But this solution, I am convinced, will only prove advantageous with regard to relations between Germany and Lithuania.
That’s because Germany, as our attitude has proved, has no other interest than to live in peace and friendship with
that country, and to establish and foster economic relations with it.
In that connection I wish to make one point perfectly clear. The significance of economic agreements with Germany
lies not only in the fact that Germany is able as an exporter to meet almost all industrial needs, but also that, being
a very large consumer, it is at the same time also a purchaser of numerous products which alone enables other countries
to participate in international trade at all.
We are interested
not only in maintaining those economic markets, but even more in fostering them, because the existence of our people is to
a large extent dependent on them. So-called democratic statesmen regard it as a great political achievement to exclude a
nation from its markets, for example, by boycott, presumably in order to starve it out. I need not tell you that any nation
would assuredly rather fight than starve under such circumstances.
As far as Germany is concerned, it is in any case determined not to allow certain economically important markets
to be stolen from it by threats or brutal intervention. And that’s not only for our own sake, but it’s also
in the interest of our trading partners. Here, as in every business relationship, dependence is not one-sided but mutual.
How often do we have the pleasure of reading in amateurish
articles on economic affairs in the newspapers of the democracies that Germany, because it maintains close economic relations
with a country, makes that country dependent upon her. This is utterly absurd Jewish nonsense. For if Germany supplies an
agrarian country today with machines and receives foodstuffs in payment, the Reich as a consumer of foodstuffs is at least
as dependent, if not more dependent, on the agrarian country as the latter is dependent on us, from whom it receives industrial
products in payment.
Germany regards the Baltic states as
among its most important trade partners. For that reason it is in our interest that these countries should lead an independent,
orderly national life of their own. In our view, that’s a prerequisite for the internal economic development that
is in turn the condition upon which the exchange of goods depends. I am, therefore, happy that we have been able to dispose
also of the point of dispute between Lithuania and Germany. That removes the only obstacle in the way of a policy of friendship,
which can prove its worth – as I am convinced it will – not in mere political phrases but in practical economic
It was assuredly once more quite a blow to the
democratic world that there was no bloodshed – that 175,000 Germans were able to return to the homeland which they
loved above all else without a few hundred thousand others having to be shot for it. This deeply grieved the apostles of
humanitarianism. It was, therefore, no wonder that they immediately began to look for new possibilities for once again bringing
about a thorough disturbance of the European atmosphere. And so, as in the case of Czechoslovakia, they again resorted to
the assertion that Germany was taking military measures, and that it was supposed to be mobilizing. That mobilization was
said to be directed against Poland.
I want to say something
about German-Polish relations. In this case as well, the Peace Treaty of Versailles – of course, intentionally –
wounded Germany most severely. The peculiar way in which the Corridor, giving Poland access to the sea, was marked out,
was meant above all to prevent for all time the establishment of an understanding between Poland and Germany. This, as I
have already emphasized, is perhaps the most troublesome of all Germany’s problems.
Nevertheless, I have never ceased to uphold the view that the necessity of a free access to the
[Baltic] sea for the Polish state cannot be ignored. That is a general principle, equally valid for this case. Nations that
Providence has destined or, if you will, condemned, to live side by side, would be well advised not to make life still harder
for each other by artificial and unnecessary means. The late Marshal Pilsudski, who was of the same opinion, was therefore
prepared to go into the question of clarifying the atmosphere of German-Polish relations and finally to conclude an agreement
/ 32 whereby Germany and Poland expressed their intention of renouncing war altogether as a means of settling
the questions which concerned them both.
That agreement contained
one single exception, which was in effect a concession to Poland. It was laid down that the pacts of mutual assistance already
entered into by Poland – this applied to a pact with France – should not be affected by the agreement. But it
was obvious that this could apply only to the pact of mutual assistance already concluded beforehand, and not to whatever
new pacts might be concluded in the future. It is a fact that the German-Polish agreement resulted in a remarkable lessening
of tension in Europe. Nevertheless, there remained one question open between Germany and Poland which sooner or later, quite
naturally, would have to be solved – the question of the German city of Danzig. / 33
Danzig is a German city and wishes to belong to Germany. On the other hand this city has
contracts with Poland that, admittedly, were forced upon it by the dictators of the Peace of Versailles. Moreover, since
the League of Nations, formerly the greatest trouble maker, is now represented by a High Commissioner – incidentally
a man of extraordinary tact – the problem of Danzig must in any case come up for discussion, at any rate before that
calamitous League gradually reaches its end.
I regarded the
peaceful settlement of this problem as a further contribution to the ultimate easing of tension in Europe. For the easing
of tensions cannot be achieved through the agitation of insane warmongers, but only through the removal of the real elements
of danger. After the problem of Danzig had already been discussed several times some months ago, I made a concrete offer
to the Polish government. I now make this offer known to you, gentlemen, and you yourselves may judge whether this offer
did not represent the greatest concession imaginable in the interests of European peace.
As I have already pointed out, I have always seen the necessity of an access to the sea for that
country and have consequently taken that necessity into consideration. I am not a democratic statesman, but a National Socialist
and a realist. I considered it necessary, however, to make it clear to the government in Warsaw that, just as they desire
access to the sea, so Germany needs access to her province in the East. / 34
Now these are all difficult problems. It is not Germany that is responsible for them, however, but rather the jugglers
of Versailles who, either in their malice or their thoughtlessness, placed a hundred explosive charges round about in Europe,
all equipped with lighted fuses that would be difficult to extinguish.
These problems cannot be solved with old-fashioned ideas. I think rather that we should adopt new methods. Poland’s
access to the sea by way of the Corridor on the one hand, and a German route through the Corridor on the other, have no
military importance whatsoever. Their importance is exclusively psychological and economic. To attach military importance
to a traffic route of this kind, would be to show oneself completely ignorant of military affairs.
Consequently, I have caused the following proposals to be submitted to the Polish government:
1. Danzig to return as a Free State into the framework of
the German Reich.
2. Germany to obtain a route through the Corridor and
a railway line for herself with
the same extra-territorial status for Germany as the Corridor
itself has for Poland.
In return, Germany is prepared:
1 . To recognize all Polish economic rights in Danzig.
2. To insure Poland of a free harbor in Danzig of any size desired, with completely free access.
3. To accept at the same time the present boundaries between Germany and Poland, and to
regard them as final.
4. To conclude a twenty-five-year non-aggression
treaty with Poland, a treaty
therefore which would extend far beyond the duration of my own
5. To enter into a guarantee of the independence of the Slovak
state by Germany, Poland and
Hungary jointly – which means in practice, renunciation
of any exclusive German hegemony in this territory.
government has rejected my offer and has declared itself prepared only
To negotiate concerning the question of a substitute for the Commissioner of the League of Nations, and
2. To consider easing restrictions on [German non-stop] transit traffic through the Corridor.
This incomprehensible attitude of the Polish government was a matter of deep regret to
me. But that’s not all. The worst is that Poland, like Czechoslovakia a year ago, under the pressure of an international
campaign of lies, now believes that it must call up troops, even though Germany has not called up a single man, and had
no thought of taking any measures against Poland.
As I have
said, this is highly regrettable. Posterity will one day decide whether it was really right to refuse this proposal of mine.
As I have also said, it was an endeavor on my part to solve, by a compromise that is truly unique, a question intimately
affecting the German people – and to solve it to the advantage of both countries. I am convinced that this solution
would not have meant any giving, but only getting, on the part of Poland, for there should be no shadow of doubt that Danzig
never will become Polish.
Germany’s intention to attack
was a sheer invention of the international press. This, as you know, led to an offer of so-called guarantees and to an obligation
of the Polish government for mutual assistance. Under certain circumstances Poland would also be compelled by this to take
military action against Germany in the event of a conflict between Germany and any other power, if such conflict in turn
This obligation is contrary to the agreement
I made some time ago with Marshal Pilsudski, considering that in that agreement reference is made exclusively to existing
obligations, which meant at that time the obligations of Poland towards France, of which we were aware. The subsequent extension
of these obligations is contrary to the terms of the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact.
Under these circumstances I would not have entered into that pact. For what can be the value of
concluding non-aggression pacts if one partner makes a number of exceptions in the execution of them? The alternatives are
either collective security, which is nothing but collective insecurity and continuous danger of war, or clear cut agreements
that exclude fundamentally any use of arms between the contracting parties. I, therefore, regard the agreement that Marshal
Pilsudski and I once concluded as having been unilaterally infringed by Poland and therefore voided.
I have sent a communication to that effect to the Polish government. However, I can only
repeat at this point that my decision does not constitute a modification in principle of my attitude with regard to the
problems I have just mentioned. Should the Polish government wish to make fresh contractual arrangement determining its relations
with Germany, I can only welcome such an idea, provided, of course, that such an arrangement is based on absolutely
clear obligations binding both parties equally. Germany is perfectly willing at any time to undertake such obligations,
and also to fulfill them.
If these things have brought about
the outbreak of fresh unrest in Europe during the last few weeks, it is the well-known propaganda of international warmongers
that is solely responsible for it. This propaganda conducted by numerous organs of the democratic states endeavors, by constantly
building up nervous tension, and by inventing continual rumors, to make Europe ripe for a catastrophe – a catastrophe
by which it is hoped to bring about what has not yet been achieved, namely, the Bolshevik destruction of European civilization.
The hate of these mischief makers is all the more readily understandable because they
were deprived of one of the most critical danger spots in Europe, thanks to the heroism of one man and his nation, and –
I may say – thanks also to Italian and German volunteers. In recent weeks Germany has witnessed the victory of Nationalist
Spain with the most fervent sympathy and rejoicing. When I resolved to answer the plea of General Franco to approve assistance
from National Socialist Germany in countering the international support of the Bolshevik incendiaries, that step of Germany’s
was outrageously misrepresented and vilified by those same international agitators.
At the time it was claimed that Germany intended to establish herself in Spain, and that we were
considering seizing Spanish colonies; they even invented the infamous lie of the landing of 20,000 soldiers in Morocco.
In short, nothing was left undone to cast doubt on the idealism of our support and the support of Italy in an effort to find
material for renewed warmongering.
In a few weeks from now, the victorious
hero of Nationalist Spain will celebrate his festive entry into the capital of his country. The Spanish people will acclaim
him as their deliverer from unspeakable horrors and as the liberator from bands of incendiaries, of whom it is estimated
that they have more than 775,000 human lives on their conscience, by executions and murders alone. The inhabitants of whole
villages and towns were literally butchered while their benevolent patrons, the democratic humanitarian apostles of Western
Europe and America, remained silent.
In this, his triumphal
procession, the volunteers of our German legion will march, together with their Italian comrades, in the ranks of the valiant
Spanish soldiers. It is our hope to welcome them home soon afterwards. The German nation will then know how bravely its own
sons too have played their part on that soil, in the struggle for the freedom of a noble people. It was a struggle for the
salvation of European civilization, for if the subhuman forces of Bolshevism had proven victorious in Spain, they might
well have spread across the whole of Europe.
Hence the hatred
of those who are disappointed that Europe did not once more go up in fire and flames. For this very reason they are doubly
anxious to miss no opportunity of sowing the seeds of mistrust among the nations and stirring up elsewhere the war atmosphere
that they so much desire. Some of the lying statements fabricated in the past few weeks by these international warmongers
and published in numerous newspapers are just as childish as they are malicious. The first result – apart from
serving the internal political purposes of the democratic governments – is the spreading of a nervous hysteria which
even makes the landing of Martians seem possible in the land of unlimited possibilities. / 35 The real purpose, however,
is to prepare public opinion to regard the British encirclement policy as necessary and, consequently, to support it, should
the worst come to the worst.
The German people, on the other
hand, can go about their business with perfect tranquility. Their frontiers are guarded by the best army in the history
of Germany. The sky is protected by the most powerful air fleet, and our coasts are rendered unassailable by any enemy power.
In the west, the strongest defensive work of all times has been built.
But the decisive factors are the unity of the German nation as a whole, the confidence of all Germans in one another,
and in their fighting forces and – if I may say so – the faith of all in their leadership.
But the trust of the people and their leadership in our friends is no less. Foremost among
these is the state which is closest to us in every respect as a result of the common destinies that unite us. This year
Fascist Italy has once again shown the fullest understanding for Germany’s just interests. No one should be surprised
if we, for our part, have the same feelings for Italy’s vital needs. The bond that unites these two peoples cannot
be severed. All attempts to cast doubt on this are laughable. In any case, this is best confirmed by an article that appeared
a few days ago in a leading democratic newspaper, which stated that it should no longer be considered possible to separate
Italy and Germany in order to destroy them separately.
Thus the German
government fully understands and appreciates the justice of the action taken by its Italian friend in Albania and has, therefore,
welcomed it. Yes, it is not only the right, but also the duty of Fascism to secure for Italy, in the area unquestionably
allotted to her by nature and history, the maintenance of an order that is obviously the only basis and security for a really
flourishing human civilization.
After all, there can be
just as little room for doubt in the rest of the world concerning the civilizing work of Fascism as there is about that
of National Socialism. In both instances indisputable facts stand in contradistinction to the unfounded fibbing and unproved
claims of the other side. Fostering ever closer ties between Germany, Italy and Japan is the constant aim of the German
government. We regard the existence and maintenance of the freedom and independence of these three great powers as the strongest
factor for the future, making for the preservation of a truly human culture, a practical civilization and a just order in
As I mentioned at the beginning, on April 15,
1939, the world was informed of the contents of a telegram that I myself did not see until later. It is difficult to classify
this document or to place it in any known category. I will, therefore attempt, gentlemen, to present to you – and
so to the whole German people – an analysis of the contents of this remarkable piece of writing, and in your name and
in the name of the German people, to give appropriate answers to it.
1. Mr. Roosevelt is of the opinion that I, too, must realize that throughout the world hundreds of millions of human
beings are living in constant fear of a new war or even a series of wars. This, he says, is of concern to the people of
the United States, for whom he speaks, as it must also be to the peoples of the other nations of the entire Western Hemisphere.
Answer: In reply to this it must be said in the first place
that this fear of war has undoubtedly existed among humankind from time immemorial, and justifiably so.
For instance, after the Peace Treaty of Versailles, 14 wars were waged between 1919 and
1938 alone, in none of which Germany was involved, but in which states of the “Western Hemisphere,” in whose
name President Roosevelt also speaks, were certainly involved. In addition there were in that same period 26 violent interventions
and sanctions carried through by means of bloodshed and force. Germany played no part whatever in those either. Since 1918
the United States alone has carried out military interventions in six cases. Since 1918 Soviet Russia has engaged in ten
wars and military actions involving force and bloodshed. Again, Germany was involved in none of those, nor was it responsible
for any of them.
In my view, it would therefore be a mistake
to assume that the fear of war that concerns European and non-European nations can at this moment be traced back to actual
wars for which Germany could be considered responsible. The reason for this fear lies entirely in an unbridled agitation
on the part of the press, an agitation as mendacious as it is base – in the circulation of vile pamphlets against the
heads of foreign states, and in the artificial spreading of panic, which finally goes so far that interventions from another
planet are believed possible, leading to scenes of desperate fear. / 36
I believe that as soon as the governments responsible impose upon themselves and their organs of mass media the
necessary restraint and concern for the truth with regard to the relations of the various nations to one another, and in
particular with regard to the internal happenings in other countries, the fear of war will disappear at once, and the tranquility
which we all so much desire will become possible.
2. In his
telegram Mr. Roosevelt expresses the belief that every major war, even if it were confined to other continents, must have
serious consequences not only while it lasts, but for generations to come.
No one knows this better than the German people. For the Peace Treaty of Versailles imposed burdens on the German people
that could not have been paid off in a hundred years, although it has been proven conclusively by American scholars of international
law, historians and professors of history that Germany was no more to blame for the outbreak of the war than any other nation.
But I do not believe that every conflict must necessarily have
disastrous consequences for the whole world, that is for the entire planet, provided that it is not artificially and systematically
drawn into such conflicts through a network of pacts with nebulous obligations.
Given that in past centuries and – as I pointed out earlier in my response – in the course of the recent
decades as well, the world has experienced a continuous series of wars, if Mr. Roosevelt’s view is correct, the sum
total of the impact of all these wars would have already imposed a burden on humanity that it would have to bear for millions
of years to come.
3. Mr. Roosevelt declared that he had already
appealed to me on a former occasion / 38 for a peaceful settlement of political, economic and social problems, without
resort to arms.
Answer: I myself have always been an exponent
of this view / 39 and, as history proves, have settled requisite political, economic and social problems without
force of arms – without even resorting to arms. Unfortunately, however, this peaceful method of settlement has
been made more difficult by the agitation of politicians, statesmen and people in the press who were neither directly concerned
nor even affected by the problems in question.
4. Mr. Roosevelt
believes that the “tide of events” is once more bringing the threat of arms with it, and that if this threat
continues, a large part of the world is seemingly condemned to common ruin.
Answer: As far as Germany is concerned, I know nothing of this kind of threat to other nations, although every day
I read lies about such a threat in the democratic newspapers. Every day I read of German mobilizations, of the landing of
troops, of extortions – all this in connection with countries with which we are not only living absolutely peacefully,
but with whom we are also, in many cases, the closest of friends.
5. Mr. Roosevelt believes further that in case of war, victorious, vanquished and neutral nations will all suffer
Answer: In the course of my political career over
a period of twenty years, I have been an exponent of this conviction, at a time when responsible statesmen in America, unfortunately,
could not bring themselves to show the same understanding with regard to their role in the [First] World War and its consequences.
6. Mr. Roosevelt believes that in the end it lies with the
leaders of the great nations to protect their peoples from the impending disaster.
Answer: If that is true, then it is culpable neglect, not to use a stronger word, if the leaders
of nations in authority fail to control their mass media that agitates for war, and thereby save the world from the threatening
calamity of an armed conflict. Moreover, I cannot understand why these responsible leaders, instead of cultivating diplomatic
relations between nations, make them more difficult and indeed disturb them by such actions as the recall of ambassadors
without any reason. / 40
7. Mr. Roosevelt declares that
the independent existence of three nations in Europe and one in Africa has been terminated.
Answer: I do not know which three nations in Europe are meant. Should it refer to the
provinces reincorporated in the German Reich, I must draw the attention of Mr. Roosevelt to a mistake on his part about
These nations have not now sacrificed their
independent existence in Europe, but rather in 1918. At that time, in violation of solemn promises, their logical ties were
torn asunder and they were made into “nations” that they never wished to be and never had been. They were forced
into an independence that was no independence, but at most could only mean dependence upon an international foreign world
that they detested. / 41
Moreover, with regard to the assertion
that one nation in Africa has lost its freedom – that, too, is a mistake. It is not a question of one
nation in Africa having lost its freedom. / 42 On the contrary, nearly all the original inhabitants of that continent
have lost their freedom through being made subject to the sovereignty of other nations by bloodshed and force. Moroccans,
Berbers, Arabs, Negroes, and so forth, have all fallen victim to the swords of foreign might, which, however, were not marked
“Made in Germany”" but “Made by Democracies.”
8. Mr. Roosevelt then speaks of reports, which he admittedly does not believe to be correct, but which state that
still further acts of aggression are contemplated against other independent nations.
Answer: I consider every such unfounded insinuation as an attempt against the tranquility and peace
of the world. I also see in them an effort calculated to alarm smaller nations, or at least to put them on edge. In that
regard, if Mr. Roosevelt really has any specific instances in mind, I would ask him to name the states that are threatened
with aggression and to name the aggressor in question. It will then be a simple matter to quickly refute these preposterous
9. Mr. Roosevelt states that the world is
plainly moving towards the moment when this situation must end in catastrophe unless a rational way of guiding events is
found. He also declares that I have repeatedly asserted that I and the German people have no desire for war, and that if
that is true there need be no war.
My Answer: I would like
to once again point out, first of all, that I have not waged any war, and, secondly, that for years I have expressed my
abhorrence of war and, no less, of agitation for war, and, thirdly, that I do not know for what purpose I would wage a war
at all. I would appreciate it if Mr. Roosevelt would provide an explanation in this regard.
10. Mr. Roosevelt is further of the opinion that the peoples of the world cannot be persuaded
that any governing power has any right or need to inflict the consequences of war on its own or any other people, except
in the cause of self-evident home defense.
Answer: I should
think that every reasonable human being is of this opinion, but it seems to me that in almost every war both sides claim
that theirs is a case of unquestionable home defense. I do not believe there is an authority in this world, including President
Roosevelt himself, who could decide this question unequivocally.
There is hardly any doubt, for example, that America’s entry into the [First] World War was not a case of
“self-evident home defense.” / 43 To the contrary, an investigative committee supported by President Roosevelt
himself examined the causes of America’s entry into the World War, and concluded that the entry came about chiefly
for reasons that were exclusively capitalistic. / 44 Nevertheless, no practical conclusions have been drawn from that.
Let us hope, then, that at least the United States will in
the future act according to this noble principle itself, and will not go to war against any country except in the cause
of indisputable self-defense.
11. Mr. Roosevelt says further
that he does not speak from selfishness, weakness or fear, but with the voice of strength and friendship for mankind.
Answer: If this voice of strength and friendship for mankind had been raised by America
at the proper time, and particularly if it had had any practical value, then at least that treaty which was to become the
source of the greatest disruption of humanity in history, the Dictate of Versailles, could have been prevented.
12. Mr. Roosevelt declares further that it is clear to him that all international problems
can be solved at the conference table.
My answer: Theoretically
one ought to believe in this possibility, for common sense would in many cases easily determine the justice of demands,
on the one side, and the compelling need for accommodation, on the other.
For example: on the basis of common sense and the general principles of a higher human justice, indeed, according
to the laws of a divine will, all peoples ought to all have an equal share of the world’s goods. It ought not then
to happen that one people needs so much space to live in that it cannot get along with 15 inhabitants to the square kilometer,
while others are forced to sustain 140, 150 or even 200 on the same area. But in any event these fortunate peoples should
not curtail the existing space allotted to those who are already suffering, by robbing them of their colonies for instance.
I would therefore be more than happy if these problems could really find their solution at the conference table.
My skepticism, however, is based on the fact that it was America herself that gave the
sharpest expression of her distrust with regard to the effectiveness of conferences. For the greatest conference of all
time was without doubt the League of Nations. This authoritative body, representing all the peoples of the world, and created
in accordance with the intentions of an American President, was supposed to solve the problems of humanity at the conference
table. / 45 The first state, however, that shrank from this endeavor was the United States – the reason
being that President Wilson himself even then had the greatest doubts about the possibility of really being able to solve
decisive international problems at such a conference table.
honor your well-meant expression of opinion, Mr. Roosevelt, but contrary to your opinion stands the actual fact that in almost
twenty years of the activity of the greatest conference in the world, the League of Nations, it has proven impossible to
solve even a single really decisive international problem.
to [President] Wilson’s promise, Germany was prevented for many years by the Peace Treaty of Versailles from participating
in this great world conference. In spite of the most bitter experience there was one German government that believed that
there was no need to follow the example of the United States, and that it should therefore take a seat at this conference
table. / 46
It was not until after years of pointless participation
that I resolved to follow the example of America and likewise leave the largest conference in the world. Since then I have
solved my people’s problems, which, like all others, were, unfortunately not solved at the conference table of the
League of Nations – and I solved them without recourse to war in even a single instance. Apart from that, however,
and as already mentioned, numerous other problems have been brought before world conferences in recent years without any
solution having been found.
If, however, Mr. Roosevelt,
your belief that every problem can be solved at the conference table is true, then all nations, including the United States,
have been led over the past seven or eight hundred years either by blind men or by criminals.
For no statesmen, including those of the United States and especially her greatest, /
47 significantly shaped history at the conference table, but rather through applying the strength of his nation’s
people. The freedom of North America was not achieved at the conference table any more than was the conflict between the
Northern and Southern states decided there. I will not mention the innumerable conflicts that finally led to the subjugation
of the North American continent as a whole. I cite all this only to point out that your view, Mr. Roosevelt, although undoubtedly
deserving of all respect, is not confirmed by the history either of your own country or of the rest of the world.
13. Mr. Roosevelt also states that it is no answer to the appeal for peaceful discussion
for one side to assert that, unless they receive assurances beforehand that the outcome will be theirs, they will not set
aside their arms.
My answer: Do you believe, Mr. Roosevelt,
that if the ultimate fate of nations is in the balance, a government or the leaders of a people will lay down their arms
or surrender them before a conference, simply in the blind hope that the other members of the conference will be wise enough,
or clear-sighted enough, to reach the right decision?
Roosevelt, there has been only one country and one government that has acted in accordance with the recipe you extol in such
glowing terms: Germany. The German nation, trusting the solemn assurances of the American President Wilson, and in the confirmation
of those assurances by the Allies, once laid down its weapons and went unarmed to the conference table. However, as
soon as the German nation laid down its arms, there was no question of an invitation to a conference table, but rather,
and in violation of the assurances, it was made the victim of the worst breach of a promise ever known. Instead of the greatest
discord known to history being repaired around the conference table, the result was the world’s most cruelly dictated
treaty, which brought about even more terrible discord.
the representatives of the German nation, who had laid down their arms, trusting in the solemn assurances of an American
President, and who thus came unarmed, were not received, even though they had come to accept the terms of the dictated treaty.
After all, they were the representatives of a nation that for four years had held out with immeasurable heroism against
a whole world in the struggle for its freedom and independence.
were treated degradingly, similar to treatment that might have been accorded to chiefs of Sioux tribes. The German delegates
were insulted by the mob, stones were thrown at them, and they were taken like prisoners, not to the conference table of
the world, but rather before the tribunal of the victors; and there, at pistol point, were forced to accept the most shameful
subjection and plundering in history.
I can assure you,
Mr. Roosevelt, that I am steadfastly determined to see to it that not only now, but for all time to come, no German shall
ever again enter a conference defenseless, but that now and forever every representative of Germany must and shall have
behind him the united strength of the German nation, so help me God.
14. Mr. Roosevelt believes that in a conference room, as in a court, both sides must enter in good faith, with the
assumption that justice will in fact be rendered to both sides.
German representatives will never again enter a conference that for them is a tribunal. For who is to be the judge there?
At a conference there is no accused and no prosecutor, but two contending parties. If their own good sense does not bring
about a settlement between the two parties, they will never surrender themselves to the verdict of other powers whose interests
are wholly foreign to theirs.
Incidentally, the United States
itself declined to enter the League of Nations and to become the victim of a court that was able, merely by a majority vote,
to hand down a decision contrary to the interests of one side or the other. I would be grateful if Mr. Roosevelt would explain
just how the new World Court is to be organized. Who would be the judges? According to what procedure would they be
selected? On what responsibility would they act? And above all, to what authority could they held accountable?
15. Mr. Roosevelt believes that the cause of world peace would be greatly advanced if
the nations of the world were to give a frank statement relating to the present and future policy of their governments.
Answer: I have already done this, Mr. Roosevelt, in countless
public speeches. And in the course of this session of the German Reichstag, I have again – as far as that’s
possible in the space of two hours – made a statement of this kind.
I must, however, decline to give such an explanation to anyone other than to the people for whose existence and
life I am responsible, and who, in their turn, alone have the right to demand that I account to them. In any case, I explain
Germany’s policy publicly, so that the entire world can also hear it. But these explanations are without significance
for the outside world as long as it is possible for the press to falsify and cast suspicion on every statement, to call them
into question, or to drown them with new lies.
16. Mr. Roosevelt
believes that, because the United States, as one of the nations of the Western Hemisphere, is not directly involved in the
controversies that have arisen in Europe, I should therefore be willing to make such a statement of policy to him. as the
head of a nation so far removed from Europe.
Roosevelt therefore seriously believes that the cause of international peace would really be furthered if the nations of
the world were to make public statements on the current policies of their governments. But how is it that President Roosevelt
was moved to single out the German head of state to make a statement, without inviting the other governments to make such
a statement of their policy?
I believe that it is not appropriate
to make such a statement to the head of any foreign state, but rather that such statements should be made preferably to
the entire world, in accordance with President Wilson’s proposal for the abolition of secret diplomacy. / 48
Not only I have always been prepared to do that, but, as I have already said, I have quite often done so. Unfortunately,
it has been precisely the most important statements concerning the aims and intentions of German policy that, in many so-called
democratic states, have either been withheld from the people or have been distorted by the press.
If however, President Roosevelt believes that he is called upon to address such a request
specifically to Germany or Italy because America is so far removed from Europe, we for our part could, by the same right,
address to the President of the American Republic a query regarding the goals of American foreign policy, and the aims on
which this policy is based – with regard, for example, to the countries of Central and South America. In such a case,
Mr. Roosevelt would most likely refer to the Monroe Doctrine, and reject such a request as an interference in the internal
affairs of the American continent. / 49 We Germans support a similar doctrine for Europe – and, above all, for
the territory and interests of the Greater German Reich. In any case, I would of course never presume to address such a
challenge to the President of the United States of America, because I assume that such presumptuousness would rightly be
17. Mr. Roosevelt further declares that
he would then communicate information received by him concerning the political aims of Germany to other nations that are
now apprehensive regarding the course of our policy.
How has Mr. Roosevelt determined which nations consider themselves threatened by German policy, and which do not? Or is Mr.
Roosevelt in a position, with the enormous amount of work that certainly he must have to handle in his own country, to recognize
all the inner-most thoughts and feelings of other nations and their governments?
18. Finally, Mr. Roosevelt asks that assurances be given him that the German armed forces will not
attack, and above all, will not invade, the territory or possessions of the following independent nations. He then names
those to which he refers: Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain,
Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Russia,
Bulgaria, Turkey, Iraq, Arabia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Iran.
My answer: I have taken the trouble to ascertain from the states mentioned, firstly, whether they feel themselves
threatened, and, what is more important, secondly, whether this inquiry of Mr. Roosevelt was addressed to us at their suggestion,
or at least with their consent.
The reply was in all cases
negative, in some instances strongly so. It is true that among the states and nations mentioned there were some to which
these inquiries could not be made – Syria, for example – because they are at present not in possession of their
freedom, but are held under occupation by the military forces of democratic states, and consequently are deprived of their
Apart from this fact, however, all states bordering
on Germany have received much more binding assurances and, more importantly, more binding proposals than Mr. Roosevelt asked
from me in his curious telegram.
Should there be any doubt
as to the value of those general and specific statements which I have so often made, then any further statement of that
kind, even if addressed to Mr. Roosevelt, would be equally worthless. For in the final analysis it is not the value that
Mr. Roosevelt gives to such statements which is decisive, but the value given to such statements by the countries in question.
But I must also draw Mr. Roosevelt’s attention to one
or two mistakes in history. He mentions Ireland, for instance, and asks for a statement to the effect that Germany will
not attack Ireland. Now, I have just read a speech given by the Irish prime minister, de Valera, in which oddly enough,
and contrary to Mr. Roosevelt’s opinion, he does not charge Germany with oppressing Ireland, but reproaches Britain
with subjecting Ireland to continuous aggression. / 50
all due respect to Mr. Roosevelt’s insight into the needs and cares of other countries, it may nevertheless be assumed
that the Irish prime minister would certainly be more familiar with the dangers that threaten his country than would the
President of the American Republic.
Similarly the fact has
obviously escaped Mr. Roosevelt’s notice that Palestine is at present occupied not by German troops but by the British;
and that the country’s freedom is being restricted by the most brutal use of force, is being robbed of its independence,
and is suffering the cruelest mistreatment for the benefit of Jewish interlopers. The Arabs living in that country would
therefore certainly not have complained to Mr. Roosevelt of German aggression, but they are voicing a constant appeal to
the world, deploring the barbarous methods with which Britain is attempting to suppress a people that loves its freedom
and is merely trying to defend it.
This, too, is perhaps
a problem that in Mr. Roosevelt’s view should be solved at the conference table, that is, before a fair judge, and
not by brutal force, military methods, mass executions, burning down villages, blowing up houses, and so on. For one fact
is surely certain. In this case Britain is not defending herself against a threatened Arab attack, but as an uninvited interloper
is endeavoring to establish her power in a foreign territory that does not belong to her. / 51
A number of similar errors made by Mr. Roosevelt could be pointed out, quite aside from
the difficulty of military operations on the part of Germany in states and countries, some of which are two or five thousand
kilometers away from us.
Finally, I want to state the following:
The German government is, in spite of everything, prepared to give to
each of the states named an assurance of the kind desired by Mr. Roosevelt, on condition of absolute reciprocity, provided
that such state wishes it, and itself addresses to Germany a request for such an assurance, together with correspondingly
In the case of a number of the states
mentioned by Mr. Roosevelt, this question can probably be regarded as already settled, because we are already either allied
with them or at least united by close ties of friendship. As for the duration of these agreements, Germany is happily willing
to reach agreement with each individual state in accord with its wishes.
But I don’t want to let this opportunity pass without above all giving to the President of the United States
an assurance regarding those territories that, after all, would give him most cause for apprehension, namely the United
States itself and the other states of the American continent.
I here solemnly declare that all the assertions that have in any way been circulated about an intended German attack against
or intervention in American territory are rank frauds or gross falsehoods, quite apart from the fact that such assertions,
from a military perspective, could only be the product of silly fantasy. / 52
19. Mr. Roosevelt then goes on to declare in this connection that he regards the discussion of the most effective
and immediate manner in which the peoples of the world can obtain relief from the crushing burden of armaments, as the most
important issue of all.
Answer: Mr. Roosevelt perhaps does
not know that this problem, in so far as it concerns Germany, was once already completely solved. Between 1919 and 1923
the German Reich had already fully disarmed, as the Allied commissions expressly confirmed. This was the extent of the disarmament:
The following military equipment was destroyed:
59,000 artillery pieces,
6,000,000 rifles and carbines,
243,000 machine gun barrels,
28,000 gun carriages,
4,390 mortar carriages,
16,550,000 hand and
60,400.000 rounds of live ammunition,
491,000.000 rounds of small caliber ammunition,
metric tons shell jackets,
23,515 metric tons of cartridge cases,
37.600 metric tons of gunpowder,
unfilled rounds of ammunition,
212,000 telephone sets,
And so forth.
There were further destroyed: Sleds, mobile workshops, anti-aircraft carriages, special occasion carriages, steel
helmets, gas masks, munitions industry machinery, and rifle barrels.
following air force equipment was destroyed:
planes and bombers,
27,757 airplane engines.
to the navy, the following was destroyed:
26 capital battle ships,
4 coastal defense vessels,
4 armored cruisers,
19 small cruisers,
21 training and other special ships,
83 torpedo boats,
In addition, the
following were destroyed: Vehicles of all kinds, poison gas and some anti-gas protective equipment, fuel and explosives,
searchlights, gun sights, range finders, distance- and sound-measuring devices, optical instruments of all kinds, harnesses
and saddles, and so forth; all military air facilities and airship hangars, and so forth.
According to the solemn pledges given at one time to Germany, pledges that were even confirmed in
the Peace Treaty of Versailles, all that was supposed to be an advance measure that would then make it possible for the
rest of the world to likewise disarm without danger. / 53
this case, as in all others when Germany believed that promises would be kept, it was disgracefully deceived. As is well
known, all attempts to induce the other states to disarm, pursued in negotiations at the conference table over many years,
came to nothing. That disarmament would have been sensible and just, and furthermore would have fulfilled pledges already
I myself, Mr. Roosevelt, have made a number of practical
proposals for discussion, and in addition have tried to initiate discussions to at least make possible a general limitation
of armaments at the lowest possible level. / 54
a maximum strength of 200,000 men for all armies, as well as the abolition of all weapons of offense, of bombing planes,
of poison gas, and so forth and so on. Unfortunately, it proved impossible to make headway on these proposals with the rest
of the world, even though Germany herself was at the time completely disarmed.
I then proposed that armies have a maximum strength of 300,000 men. That proposal met with the same negative result.
I then made a number of detailed proposals for disarmament, in each case before the German Reichstag and thereby to the
entire world. It never occurred to anyone even to mention them. Instead, the rest of the world began still further increases
in their already enormous armaments.
It was only in 1934,
after the rejection of the last of my wide-ranging German proposals that armies be restricted to no more than 300,000 men,
that I gave the order for German rearmament, and this time on a comprehensive scale. Nevertheless, I do not want to be an
obstacle to any disarmament discussions in which you, Mr. Roosevelt, intend to participate. I would ask you, however, not
to appeal first to me and Germany but rather to the others. I have the benefit of actual experience behind me, and therefore
will tend to be skeptical until reality teaches me otherwise.
Mr. Roosevelt assures us further that he is prepared to take part in discussions to consider the most practical way of opening
avenues of international trade with the goal of enabling every nation of the world to buy and sell on equal terms in the
world market, as well as to be assured of access to raw materials and the products of peaceful economic life.
Answer: It is my belief, Mr. Roosevelt, that it is not so much a question of discussing
these problems theoretically as of removing with deeds the real barriers that exist in international trade. / 55 The
worst barriers, however, lie with the individual states themselves.
Experience shows, at any rate thus far, that the most important world economic conferences have failed simply because
the various countries have been unable to maintain order in their internal economic systems; or else because they brought
uncertainty into the international financial market through currency manipulations, and especially by causing continual
fluctuations in the value of their currencies in relation to one another.
It is likewise an intolerable burden for world economic relations that it should be possible in some countries,
for one ideological reason or another, to let loose a wild boycott agitation against other countries and their goods, and
thereby to practically eliminate them from the market. / 56
is my belief, Mr. Roosevelt, that it would be most commendable on your part, if you, with your great influence, would begin
in the United States with the removal of these barriers to a genuinely free world trade. For it is my conviction that if
the leaders of nations are not even able to bring order to production in their own countries, or of removing boycotts organized
for ideological reasons, which can do so much damage to international trade relations, there is much less prospect of achieving
any really fruitful step toward the improvement of economic relations by means of international agreements. There is no
other way to secure the equal right of all to buy and sell in the world market.
Further, the German nation has made very concrete proposals in this regard, and I would appreciate it if you, Mr.
Roosevelt, as one of the successors of the late President Wilson, would use your efforts to seeing that the promises, on
the basis of which Germany once laid down her arms and placed herself in the hands of the so-called victors, will at last
I am thinking less of the countless millions
extorted from Germany as so-called reparations than of the return of the territories stolen from Germany. Germany lost approximately
three million square kilometers of territory in and outside of Europe, even though the entire German colonial empire, in
contrast to the colonies of other nations, was not acquired by means of war but solely through treaties or purchase.
President Wilson solemnly pledged his word that Germany’s colonial claims would
receive the same just consideration as those of all others. / 57 Instead of that, however, the German possessions were
given to nations that already have the largest colonial empires in history, while our people were subjected to great misery,
today as well in the future.
It would be a noble act if President
Franklin Roosevelt were to redeem the promises made by President Woodrow Wilson. That, above all, would be a practical contribution
to the moral consolidation of the world and thereby to improving its economic conditions.
21. Mr. Roosevelt also stated in conclusion that the heads of all the great governments are in this
hour responsible for the fate of humanity, and that they cannot fail to hear the prayers of their peoples to be protected
from the foreseeable chaos of war. And I, too, would be held accountable for this.
Mr. President! I fully understand that the vastness of your nation and the immense wealth of your
country allows you to feel responsible for the fate of the entire world and for the fate of all nations. My sphere, Mr.
President, is considerably smaller and more modest. You have 135 million people on nine and half million square kilometers.
You have a country with enormous riches, and all natural resources, fertile enough to feed half a billion people, and to
provide them with every necessity.
I took on the leadership
of a state that was faced with complete ruin thanks to its trust in the promises of the outside world and to the poor governance
of its own democratic regime. In this state there are about 140 people per square kilometer – not 15, as in America.
The fertility of our country cannot be compared with that of yours. We lack countless natural resources, which nature has
bestowed on you in unlimited amounts.
Billions in German
savings in gold and foreign exchange that had been accumulated during many years of peace were extorted and taken from us.
We lost our colonies. In 1933 I had in my country seven million unemployed, several million part-time workers, millions
of impoverished farmers, trade destroyed, and commerce ruined; in short, general chaos.
Since then, Mr. Roosevelt, I have only been able to fully accomplish one single task. I cannot feel
myself responsible for the fate of the world, for that world took no interest in the pitiful fate of my own people.
I have regarded myself as called upon by Providence to serve my own people alone, and
to deliver them from their awful misery. Thus, for the past six-and-a-half years, I have lived day and night for the single
task of awakening the powers of my people in face of our desertion by the rest of the world, of developing these powers
to the utmost and of utilizing them for the salvation of our community.
I have conquered chaos in Germany, re-established order, immensely increased production in all fields of our national
economy, by strenuous efforts produced substitutes for numerous materials that we lack, prepared the way for new inventions,
developed transportation, caused magnificent roads to be built, canals to be dug, and created gigantic new factories. I
have striven no less to translate into practice the ideals of the social community, and to promote the education and culture
of my people.
I have succeeded in finding useful work once
more for all the seven million unemployed, who are so close to our hearts; in keeping the German farmer on his soil in spite
of all difficulties, and to save it for him; in causing German commerce to flourish once again; and in promoting transportation
to the utmost.
To protect them against the threats of the
outside world, I have not only united the German people politically, but have also rearmed them. I have likewise endeavored
to rid them of that Treaty, page by page, which in its 448 articles contains the vilest oppression that has ever been inflicted
on men and nations.
I have brought back to the Reich the
provinces stolen from us in 1919; I have led back to their native country millions of Germans who were torn away from us
and were in abject misery; I have reunited the territories that have been German throughout a thousand years of history
– and, Mr. Roosevelt, I have endeavored to accomplish all that without bloodshed and without bringing to
my people, or to others, the misery of war.
This I have
done, Mr. President, through my own efforts, even though 21 years ago, I was an unknown worker and soldier of my people –
and can therefore claim a place in history among those men who have done the utmost that can fairly and justly be asked
of a single individual.
You, Mr. Roosevelt, have an immeasurably
easier task in comparison. You became President of the United States in 1933 when I became Chancellor of the Reich. Thus,
from the very outset, you became head of one of the largest and wealthiest countries in the world.
It is your good fortune to have to sustain scarcely 15 people per square kilometer in
your country. At your disposal are the most abundant natural resources in the world. Your country is so vast and your fields
so fertile, that you can insure for each individual American at least ten times more of the good things of life than is
possible in Germany. Nature at least has given you the opportunity to do that.
Although the population of your country is scarcely one-third larger than that of Greater Germany, you have more
than fifteen times as much room. And so you have time and leisure – on the same huge scale as you have everything
else – to devote your attention to universal problems. Consequently the world is undoubtedly so small for you that
you perhaps believe that your intervention can be valuable and effective everywhere. In this way, therefore, your concerns
and your initiatives cover a much larger and wider field than mine.
For my world, Mr. President, is the one to which Providence has assigned me, and for which it is my duty to work.
Its area is much smaller. It comprises my people alone. But I believe I can thereby best serve that which is in the hearts
of all of us – justice, well-being, progress and peace for the entire human community.
1. The Versailles Treaty, signed in France on June 28, 1919 (“The Treaty of Peace
Between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany”)
colonial holdings in 1914, at the outbreak of the First World War, comprised a total area of 1,340,000 square miles, with
12 million people. In accord with the Versailles Treaty, all those lands were taken from Germany without compensation. They
were turned over to various countries, which were to administer them as “mandates” on behalf of the new League
The colonies and the countries to which they were
assigned were as follows:
German East Africa, 384,000 square
miles. Most of this large area was assigned to Britain, and today is the country of Tanzania. A smaller portion, assigned
to Belgium, is today where two countries, Rwanda and Burundi, are located;
German South-West Africa, 322,000 square miles. This was assigned to the Union of South Africa, and today is the
country of Namibia; Cameroon, 305,000 square miles. Part of this territory was assigned to France, and part to Britain.
Today most of the territory is the country of Cameroon, while a small portion is now part of Nigeria;
Togo, 34,000 square miles. Assigned to France and Britain. The portion of this territory
that was assigned to France is today the country of Togo, while a portion that was assigned to Britain is today part of
In the Pacific Ocean area: German New Guinea, the
Bismarck Archipelago, and the Solomon Islands, 93,000 square miles, were assigned to Australia; Samoa, 1000 square miles,
was assigned to New Zealand; The Caroline, Marianne, and Marshall Islands, 1000 square miles, were assigned to Japan. The
former German Pacific Ocean possessions are today part of Papau New Guinea, Palau, Nauru, Samoa, Marshall Islands, Federated
States of Micronesia, and Northern Mariana Islands.
Germany’s only possession was the Kiautschou Bay concession, 213 square miles, in the Shandong peninsula in China.
It included the city of Qingdao (Tsingtao).
3. The “Weimar
4. The Economic Consequences
of the Peace (1919), by the British economist John M. Keynes, is the best known and most influential critique of the
economic impact of the Versailles Treaty.
5. German Workers
Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), founded Jan. 5, 1919, in Munich. On Feb. 24, 1920, became the National Socialist German
Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP)
6. Franco-Prussian War, 1870-1871.
7. In the aftermath
of the First World War, the coal-rich Saar territory was separated from the rest of the German Reich and put under administration
of the new League of Nations. In accord with the Versailles Treaty, a plebiscite to determine the region’s future was
held under League auspices on Jan. 13, 1935. The population voted 90.4 percent to return to Germany. The region accordingly
returned to the Reich on March 1, 1935.
8. The Union or “Anschluss”
of Austria with the German Reich, March 13, 1938. In Austria, as well as in the rest of the German Reich, approval of the
Anschluss – as reflected in a national referendum – was nearly unanimous. Even foreign observers acknowledged
that the 99 percent “Yes” vote reflected popular sentiment.
Founded in Prague in 1348, Charles University is one of the oldest universities in Europe.
10. In 1938 the population of “Czechoslovakia” (sometimes “Czecho-Slovakia”) was 14,800,000
million. In this multi-ethnic state, Czechs were largest single group, with about 46 percent of the total population. The
3,200,000 Germans were about 28 percent, outnumbering the two million Slovaks, who were 13 percent. There were also smaller
Hungarian, Ruthenian/Ukrainian, Jewish and Polish minorities.
Chronicle (London), July 14, 1938. The newspaper quoted French Air Minister Pierre Cot as saying that in the case of
any conflict with Germany, Czechoslovakia would serve as “an aerodrome for the landing and taking-off of bombers,
from which it would be possible to destroy the most important German industrial centres in a few hours.” (Alfred M.
de Zayas, The German Expellees [St. Martin’s Press, 1993], pp. 20-21.)
12. May 21, 1938.
13. Kurt Schuschnigg (1897-1977), was Chancellor
of Austria from July 30, 1934, to March 11, 1938.
14. In the 1935 parliamentary
election, the Sudeten German Party won 68 percent of the votes of the country’s ethnic German population, and became
the single largest party in Czechoslovakia’s parliament. Support for the Party increased thereafter. In local elections
in the Sudetenland region in May and June 1938, the Party garnered between 80 and nearly 100 percent of the vote.
15. Known in Germany as the “Westwall,” this extensive defense fortification
has often been called the “Siegfried Line” in Britain and the US.
16. Taking part in the Munich “Four Power” Conference, Sept. 29, 1938, were German Chancellor Adolf
Hitler, Italian premier Benito Mussolini, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, and French premier Edouard Daladier.
17. Ethnically the population of the “Sudetenland” region was overwhelmingly
German. After the end of the Second World War, some three million of the region’s population was forcibly expelled.
The population of the area is now almost entirely Czech.
Taking part in the Vienna Conference, Nov. 2, 1938, were the foreign ministers of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Germany and Italy.
At the request of Czechoslovakia and Hungary, the German and Italian representatives acted as arbiters in determining the
boundary between Czechoslovakia and Hungary, based on ethnographic principles.
19. Until the end of the First World War, the Carpatho-Ukraine region in the east of the Czechoslovak Republic had
been part of the Kingdom of Hungary. The population was ethnically Ukrainian or “Ruthenian.” With the disintegration
of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, the region was reincorporated into Hungary. At the end of the Second World War, the region
was annexed by the Soviet Union. Today it is part of Ukraine.
On March 14, 1939, the Slovak parliament in Bratislava approved the independence of Slovakia.
21. At the end of the Second World War, some three million Germans were forcibly expelled
from the territory of restored Czechoslovakia. The country’s Hungarian population was also expelled, and the ethnically
Ukrainian eastern region of Carpatho-Ukraine was annexed by the Soviet Union. As a result, the population of Czechoslovakia
after 1950 was overwhelmingly Czech and Slovak. After the end of Soviet domination of the country in 1989, separatist feelings
grew. In 1992 the two nationalities agreed to a “divorce.” On Jan. 1, 1993, “Czechoslovakia” disappeared,
and two new countries emerged: the Czech Republic (Czechia) and Slovakia.
22. October 14, 1938
23. The Czech lands of Bohemia
and Moravia became a Protectorate of the Reich on March 15, 1939.
See endnote 18.
25. During the 1920s and 1930s, there was ongoing discord
between the Irish and British governments. A particularly contentious issue involved the largely Protestant region of Northern
Ireland. The Irish government in Dublin regarded continued British control of that region as an illicit occupation.
26. On September 30, 1938, the day after the Munich Conference, German Chancellor Hitler
and British Prime Minister Chamberlain signed and issued a joint statement. It declared:
“We, the German Führer and Chancellor and the British Prime Minister, have had a further
meeting today and are agreed in recognising that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for the
two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic
of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation
shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to
continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference and thus contribute to assure the peace of Europe.”
27. The Anglo-German Naval Treaty was signed in London on June 18, 1935. It put into effect
a proposal by Germany to limit the strength of the German fleet to 35 percent of that of the British fleet. This agreement
abrogated the provision of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles that forbid Germany from any having any significant naval force.
It was therefore a clear recognition by the British government that the Treaty of Versailles, or at least that portion of
it, was no longer valid or binding. With this 1935 agreement, Britain in effect repudiated and “violated” the
Versailles Treaty. Categories of ships and armaments were defined by the 1935 Treaty, which were more specifically specified
in a follow-up agreement in London on July 17, 1937. The German Note to the British government of April 28, 1939, declared
Germany’s intention no longer to maintain the quantitative conditions of the treaty, but also stated that it would
continue to observe the qualitative clauses, in order to avoid an international naval armaments race.
28. Speech by Chamberlain in Birmingham, March 17, 1939. In this address, the Prime Minister
said that Germany now seemed bent on domination of Europe and was seeking to dominate the world by force. Reliance on German
assurances was no longer possible, he also suggested.
of a British cabinet meeting the next day were more explicit: “The Prime Minister said that up till a week ago we had
proceeded on the assumption that we should be able to continue with our policy of getting on to better terms with the Dictator
Powers, and that although those powers had aims, those aims were limited … He had now come definitely to the conclusion
that Herr Hitler's attitude made it impossible to continue on the old basis … No reliance could be placed on any
of the assurances given by the Nazi leaders … he regarded his speech [in Birmingham of March 17] as a challenge to
Germany on the issue whether or not Germany intended to dominate Europe by force. It followed that if Germany took another
step in the direction of dominating Europe, she would be accepting the challenge.”
In an address of March 31, 1939, the Prime Minister further pledged that if any
military action “threatened Polish independence,” and which Poland “felt obliged to resist” militarily,
Britain would “at once lend the Polish government all support in their power.” This meant that Britain’s
ability to influence Poland to act prudently had all but vanished, and that however unreasonably Poland might act toward
Germany over the Danzig issue, or in any other dispute, and which led to armed conflict, Britain was obliged to go to war
on Poland’s side. This pledge was hardened on August 25, 1939, with a formal agreement of mutual assistance.
29. After Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933.
30. See endnote 27.
of March 22, 1939, between Germany and Lithuania on the Memel territory.
32. German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact, Jan. 26, 1934.
The Danzig “Free City” territory had an area of 731 square miles. Its population in 1939 of about 415,000 was
95 percent German. Danzig was separated from Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. Details of its status were later defined
by the Treaty of Paris, Nov. 9, 1920. The territory was placed under the supervision of the League of Nations, which was
represented in Danzig by a High Commissioner. The foreign affairs of the “Free City” were handled by Poland,
subject to certain restrictions, and the veto of the High Commissioner. Poland had the use of the port, which – along
with the waterways – were managed by a board made up equally of Poles and citizens of Danzig. Poland controlled the
railways. After 1933, the Danzig government was controlled by the National Socialist Party. As a result of the 1933 election
there, 38 of the 72 seats in the Danzig parliament, the Volkstag, were held by National Socialists. By June 1938,
the National Socialists held 70 of the 72 seats, with the remaining two seats held by Poles. (Incidentally, the High Commissioner
referred to here by Hitler as a diplomat of “extraordinary tact” was Carl J. Burckhardt, who wrote a revealing
memoir about his role, Meine Danziger Mission.)
With the advance of Soviet forces in late 1944 and early 1945, many fled from the city and the region. At the end of World
War II, the remaining Germans were forcibly expelled. Danzig and the surrounding area was incorporated into the new Polish
state, and the city has since been known as Gdansk
“Corridor” gave the Polish state access to the Baltic Sea, but also cut off the province of East Prussia from
the rest of Germany
35. This is a reference to reports of
widespread panic among the American public generated by a radio broadcast on Oct. 30, 1938, of an adaptation of the novel
“The War of the Worlds.” The hour-long presentation was directed and narrated by Orson Welles. Many alarmed
listeners reportedly believed that hostile space ships from Mars were actually landing and ravaging the United States.
36. Another reference to the panic set off in the US by the Welles’ “War of
The Worlds” broadcast. See endnote 35.
37. Among the
most prominent and influential of these American scholars were Sidney Bradshaw Fay, Harry Elmer Barnes, Charles Beard, and
Charles C. Tansill.
38. This is a reference to a telegram
by President Roosevelt to Chancellor Hitler of Sept. 26, 1938. The German leader responded immediately with a lengthy message,
to which Roosevelt replied with another telegram, dated Sept. 27, 1938.
39. A useful review of Hitler’s numerous proposals for peace, reductions of armaments, and so forth, is: Friedrich
Stieve. What the World Rejected: Hitler's Peace Offers 1933-1939
( http://ihr.org/other/what-the-world-rejected.html )
40. This is a reference to President’s Roosevelt’s
recall of the US ambassador from Berlin on Nov. 14, 1938, supposedly “with a view to gaining a first-hand picture
of the situation in Germany.” Thereafter, the US had no ambassador-level diplomatic relations in Germany.
41. This is a reference particularly to Austria and Czechoslovakia.
42. This is a reference to Ethiopia. In a military campaign from October 1935 to February
1937, Italian forces took control of the country and incorporated it into “Italian East Africa.” During World
War II, Allied forces ousted the Italians and restored the Ethiopian “empire.”
43. President Wilson called on the US Congress to declare war against Germany on April
2, 1917. In his address to the Congress, he did not claim that the US was going to war to defend the country against German
aggression, or to protect vital American interests. Instead, he said that the US would be joining the global conflict to
“fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included:
for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience.
The world must be made safe for democracy.”
Nye Committee, officially the “Special Committee on Investigation of the Munitions Industry,” was a U.S. Senate
committee (1934-1936), chaired by Senator Gerald Nye. The committee, which President Franklin Roosevelt publicly supported,
carried out extensive investigation of the role of American financial, banking, and business interests in the country’s
involvement in World War I. It documented enormous profits made by American armaments manufacturers during the war. It found
that the arms industry wielded major influence on US foreign policy leading up to and during World War I. It found that New
York bankers had pressured President Wilson to intervene in the war to protect their loans abroad.
45. President Wilson called for a “general association of nations” as Point
14 of his “Fourteen Points,” laid out in an address to a joint session of the US Congress on Jan. 8, 1918. The
“Fourteen Points” program was accepted by the British and French governments, and it was on the basis of its
solemn assurances that Germany agreed in November 1918 to an armistice. Accordingly, the League of Nations was established
as part of the Versailles Treaty.
46. When the League of
Nations was established in 1919-20, Germany was not permitted to join. That ban was later dropped, and Germany joined the
League in 1926. After Hitler took power, Germany remained a member for some months. He and his government hoped that the
other member countries would deal with Germany on a basis of equity and reciprocity. Specifically, Hitler’s government
called on the League, and especially Britain and France as member states, either to agree to reduce their nation’s
armaments and military forces, thereby fulfilling earlier pledges, or to permit disarmed Germany to build its own military
for national defense. It was only after this request was rejected, and the British and French governments made clear their
refusal to treat Germany on an equal basis, that the German government announced, on Oct. 14, 1933, its withdrawal from
47. An apparent reference to George Washington
and Abraham Lincoln.
48. Point 1 of President Wilson’s
49. According to the “Monroe
Doctrine,” which has long been an important feature of US foreign policy, the United States opposes any interference
by any European power in the affairs of any country in the Western hemisphere. During the late 1900s and the first decades
of the 20th century, the United States cited the Monroe Doctrine to also justify US hegemony and outright military intervention
in the Caribbean, Central America, and northern South America, all of which was regarded as American “sphere of influence.”
50. See endnote 25.
51. Before World War I, the land known as Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. In 1916 British
and French officials worked out the “Sykes Picot” agreement whereby those two imperial powers would divide up
the Arab lands of the Ottoman Empire. In accord with that secret treaty, Britain took control of Palestine at the end of
the war, and remained in control until 1948.
this period, much of the American media, including major newspapers, magazines, radio commentators, and newsreel companies,
carried out a well-organized campaign portraying Hitler’s Germany as an evil, oppressive state that posed a grave
threat to America and the world, and its leader as a madman driven by lust for war and destruction. For example, several
months before Hitler’s speech, the country’s most influential illustrated weekly, Life magazine (Oct.
31, 1938), published a major article headlined “America Gets Ready to Fight Germany, Italy, Japan.” Readers were
told that Germany and Italy “covet … the rich resources of South America,” and warned that “fascist
fleets and legions may swarm across the Atlantic.”
Point 4 of President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points.”
54. See endnote 39.
55. Point 3 of President Wilson’s
56. After Hitler and the National
Socialist Party took power, major Jewish organizations in the US and other countries acted quickly to organize an international
boycott of German goods, with the goal of crippling the German economy and thereby pressuring the German government to repeal
or modify its discriminatory measures against Jews, and perhaps encouraging “regime change” in Germany. In New
York City, a series of Jewish-organized rallies drew large crowds and support from prominent non-Jews. Newspapers in the
US, Britain and other countries made clear the scale and earnestness of this ambitious effort. In London, the large-circulation
Daily Express, for example, reported on the international campaign in a large front-page article headlined “Judea
Declares War on Germany.” In Germany, the National Socialists responded with a one-day boycott against Jewish businesses.
In the following years, the anti-German boycott campaign gained increasing support, not only from Jews, but also from many
non-Jews who disliked or opposed National Socialist Germany. In the US, Jewish groups pressed this campaign until December
1941, when he US and Germany officially went to war.
Point 5 of President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points.”
For Further Reading
Michael C. C. Adams, The Best War Ever: America and World War II. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,
Nicholson Baker, Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II,
the End of Civilization. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008
Elmer Barnes, ed., Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace. Institute for Historical Review, 1993
Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War 1941. Yale University, 1948.
Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and 'The Unnecessary War':
How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. New York: Crown, 2008
William H. Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade. Chicago: 1950.
John Charmley, Chamberlain and the Lost Peace. Chicago: 1990
Colby, 'Twas a Famous Victory. New Rochelle: 1979.
No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, 1939-1945. New York: Viking, 2007
Hamilton Fish, Tragic Deception: FDR and America’s Involvement in World War II. Devin-Adair,
1983. Esp. page 80.
Thomas Fleming, The New Dealers' War: Franklin
Roosevelt and the War Within World War II. New York: Basic Books, 2001.
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.
Robert Higgs, “Truncating
the Antecedents: How Americans Have Been Misled About World War II.” March 18, 2008
( http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs77.html )
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.
David L. Hoggan, “President Roosevelt and The Origins
of the 1939 War.” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983.
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p205_Hoggan.html )
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.
Joseph P. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill, 1939-1941. New York: W. W. Norton, 1976.
Bruce M. Russett, No Clear and Present Danger: A Skeptical View of the U.S. Entry into
World War II. New York: Harper & Row, 1972
What the World Rejected: Hitler's Peace Offers 1933-1939
( http://ihr.org/other/what-the-world-rejected.html )
Michel Sturdza, The Suicide of Europe. Boston: 1968
Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941.
A.J.P. Taylor, The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809-1918. Chicago:
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War. New York:
Studs Terkel, "The Good War": An Oral History of World
War Two. New York: Pantheon, 1984
John Toland, Adolf
Hitler. Doubleday & Co., 1976.
F.J.P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism.
Institute for Historical Review, 1993
Mark Weber, “Collusion: Franklin
Roosevelt, British Intelligence, and the Secret Campaign to Push the US into War.” February 2020
( http://ihr.org/other/RooseveltBritishCollusion )
Mark Weber, “The 'Good War' Myth of World War Two.” May
( http://www.ihr.org/news/weber_ww2_may08.html )
Mark Weber, “How Hitler Tackled Unemployment and Revived Germany’s
Economy.” Nov. 2011, Feb. 2012
( http://www.ihr.org/other/economyhitler2011.html )
Mark Weber, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War
in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html )
Alfred M. de Zayas, The German Expellees: Victims in War and Peace.
New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993
Alfred M. de Zayas, Nemesis
at Potsdam: The Expulsion of the Germans from the East .University of Nebraska, 1989
Hitler's Reichstag Speech July 19,
Hitlers Speech in the Lustgarten, May 1939
By July of 1940, Germany is in complete control of the war which had been imposed upon it.
The Polish aggressor has been defeated, peace with France has been established, and Hitler has graciously
allowed the British to evacuate the continent (at Dunkirk), leaving their equipment behind.
Furthermore, the Soviet Union and the United States are not even in the war. So then, with Germany 'holding
all the cards', and Churchill now bombing German civilians, what does Hitler do? He continues to plea
for an end to the sensless war - with no strings attached.
Most students of real history already know this. But did you know that
Hitler went so far as to airdrop mass quantities of 'peace leaflets' over London? It's true.
The 4-page leaflets were English-language copies of his recent speech before the German nation, a speech
which the Germans arranged to have broadcast on hundreds of radio stations across Europe. The July 19th
speech was entitled: "A Last Appeal to Reason".
Dropped over London the day after, the leaflet summarizes the
injustices inflicted upon Germany after the Great War of 1914-1918, warns of the machinations of the Jewish warmongers and
their henchmen, and finally closes with Hitler’s plea to call off the war...
The Speech of the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler,
in the Reichstag, Berlin, 19. July 1940
Declaration of Victory over France and the British Forces in the Western Campaign
EDITOR'S NOTE: The session opened with a very moving speech by the
Deputy Fuehrer, Reichsmarschall
Hermann Goering, paying tribute to fallen of both the German and then the Italians. He
also spoke again
following the speech by Adolf Hitler, the text of his speech are not available, but both speeches are
the original German audio archive.
I have provided some
definitions and annotations within the body of the text of Hitler's speech for clarity..
Deputies, Men of the German
In the midst of the mighty struggle for the freedom and future
of the German nation, I have
called on you to gather for this session today. The grounds for it are: to give our Volk
into the historic uniqueness of the events we have lived through; to express our thanks to the
soldiers; and to direct, once again and for the last time, an appeal to general
(Das Volk = the united German people, as a single entity, with a distinct culture, language, heritage,
beliefs and traditions, etc and not synonymous with simple translation as Folk or “the people” in
Whoever contrasts the factors which triggered this historic conflict with the extent,
greatness, and consequence of the military occurrences, must realize that the events and
sacrifices of this
struggle stand in no relation to the alleged causes, unless these causes
themselves were but pretexts for intentions
The program of the National Socialist Revolution, insofar
as it concerned the future
development of the Reich’s relations with the surrounding world, was an attempt to
obtain a revision of the Treaty of Versailles under all circumstances-and as far as this
was possible-by peaceful means.
This revision was by nature a necessity. The untenability of the provisions of Versailles
only in the humiliating discrimination, the disarmament of the German Volk secured with the
they lost their rights, but above all in the resultant material destruction of the
present and the intended destruction
of the future of one of the greatest civilized peoples in
the world, in the completely senseless accumulation of vast
terrains under the mastery of a
few states, in the depriving of the losers of irreplaceable foundations for life and
The fact that insightful men on the side
of the adversary, even while this Diktat was being
composed, warned against the conclusive realization of the terms of
this work of lunacy, is
proof of the persuasion prevalent even in these ranks that it would be impossible to maintain
this Diktat in the future. Their misgivings and their protests were silenced by the
assurance that the statutes of
the newly created League of Nations secured the
possibility of a revision of these provisions, indeed that it was authorized
for such a
At no time was hope
for a revision regarded as something improper, butalways as something quite natural.
Regrettably, contrary to the will
of the men responsible for the Versailles Diktat, the
institution in Geneva never regarded itself as an agency for procuring
revisions, but rather, from the beginning, as the custodian of the ruthless
implementation and maintenance
of the provisions of Versailles. All endeavors of
democratic Germany failed to obtain, by means of revision, an equality
of rights for the
1. a harsh, punitive settlement or decree imposed unilaterally on a defeated nation, political party,
2. any decree or authoritative statement: The Board of Education issued a diktat that all employees must
an hour earlier.
Origin: 1930–35; < German: literally, something
dictated < Latin dictātus, past participle of dictāre to
It lies in the interest of the victor to portray as universally sanctified those conditions
that benefit him, while
the essence of the instinct of self-preservation compels the
vanquished to strive for a restoration of his general human
rights. For him this Diktat
penned by an arrogant enemy has even less force of law insofar as the victory of this
enemy was a dishonest one. It was a rare misfortune that the German Reich was led
exceedingly badly in the years 1914
to 18 ! To this, and to the not otherwise instructed
trust and faith of the German Volk in the word of democratic statesmen,
must our fall
It was thus that the joint British-French
endeavor to portray the Versailles Treaty as
some type of international or higher justice must have appeared to every
German as nothing other than an insolent usurpation. The supposition that British or
French statesmen of
all people were custodians of justice itself, or even of human
culture, was a stupid effrontery. It was an affront which
is sufficiently elucidated by
their own inferior performances in these fields. For rarely has this world been
with a greater deficit of cleverness, morality, and culture than in that part of it
which is presently at the mercy of
the fury of certain democratic statesmen.
The National Socialist Movement
has, besides its delivery from the Jewish-capitalist
shackles imposed by a plutocratic-democratic, dwindling class of
exploiters at home,
pronounced its resolve to free the Reich from the shackles of the Diktat of Versailles
The German demands for a revision were an absolute necessity, a matter of
course for the existence and the honor of any
great people. Posterity will some day
come to regard them as exceedingly modest.
All these demands had to be carried through, in practice against the will of the British-
Now more than ever we all see it as a success of the leadership of
the Third Reich that the realization of these revisions
was possible for years without
resort to war. This was not the case-as the British and French demagogues would have
it - because we were not then in a position to wage war. When it finally appeared as
though, thanks to a gradually
awakening common sense, a peaceful resolution of the
remaining problems could be reached through international cooperation,
agreement concluded in this spirit on September 29, 1938, at Munich by the four great
involved, was not welcomed by public opinion in
London and Paris, but was
condemned as a despicable sign of weakness.
The Jewish-capitalist warmongers,
their hands covered with blood, saw in the possible
success of such a peaceful revision the vanishing of plausible grounds
realization of their insane plans. Once again that conspiracy of pitiful, corrupt political
greedy financial magnates made its appearance, for whom war is a
welcome means to bolster business. The International
Jewish poison of the peoples
began to agitate against and to corrode healthy minds. Men of letters [authors, writers
of letters to editors] set out to portray decent men who desired peace as weaklings and
traitors, to denounce opposition
parties as a “fifth column,” in order to eliminate
internal resistance to their criminal policy of war. Jews
and Freemasons, armament
industrialists and war profiteers, international traders and stock-jobbers [market
, found political blackguards: desperados and glory seekers who
represented war as something to be yearned for and hence
It is to be ascribed to these criminal elements that the
Polish State was incited to
assume a posture which stood in no relation to the German demands and even less to
consequences that resulted. The German Reich, in particular with regard to Poland,
has shown restraint ever since the
National Socialist rise to power. One of the basest
and stupidest provisions of the Versailles Diktat, namely the tearing
away of an old
German province from the Reich, already cried for a revision in and of itself.
But what was it that
I demanded at the time?
I must in this context refer to my own person.
No other statesman could have afforded to
propose a solution to the German nation in the way I did. It comprised merely
the return of
Danzig - that is to say of an ancient, purely German city - to the Reich as well as the
a connection of the Reich to its severed province. And this only pursuant to
plebiscites conducted, in turn, under the
auspices of an international forum.
If Mr. Churchill or any other warmongers had but a fraction of the sense of
I felt toward Europe, they could not have played so perfidious a game.
For it need be ascribed solely to these vested interests in war, both within Europe and
beyond, that Poland rejected
the proposals which neither compromised its existence
nor its honor, and instead resorted to terror and arms. And it
was truly superhuman
restraint, without precedent, which for months led us, in spite of persistent
attempts on ethnic Germans-yes, indeed, in spite of the slaughter of
tens of thousands of German Volksgenossen [our people],
to continue to search for a
path toward peaceful understanding.
what was the situation like?
One of the creations of the Diktat of Versailles,
the most divorced from reality, a bogy
[Poland], inflated militarily and politically, insulted a state [Germany] for
threatening to beat it, to fight battles before [at] Berlin, to smash the German Army to
transfer the border to the Oder or the Elbe [rivers] ; it went on and on. And
this other state, Germany, watched the
goingson patiently for months, although one
good swipe would have sufficed for us to burst this bubble, that was inflated
stupidity and arrogance!
2, this struggle could yet have been avoided. Mussolini made a proposal to put
an immediate end to the hostilities and
to negotiate peacefully. Though Germany saw its
armies advancing victoriously, I accepted this nonetheless. But the Anglo-French
warmongers needed war, not peace.
And they needed a long war, as Mr.
Chamberlain put the matter at the time. It was to
last for at least three years, since they had in the meantime invested
their capital in the
armament industry, bought the necessary machinery, and now needed the
precondition of time
for the thriving of their business and for the amortization of their
investments. And besides: what are Poles, Czechs,
or other such nationalities to these
citizens of the world?
A German soldier found a curious document while rummaging through train wagons at
the La Charite station on June 19,
1940. He immediately handed over the document-which
bore a particular remark-to his superiors at departmental headquarters.
From there the paper
passed to agencies. It became clear that what had been discovered constituted evidence in a
important investigation. The train station was once more thoroughly searched. And it
was thus that the High Command of
the Wehrmacht came into possession of a collection of
documents of unique historical significance.
What was found were the secret files of the Allied High War Council, including the
protocols of all sessions
of this illustrious association. And this time it shall not be
possible for Mr. Churchill to simply deny or to lie about
the authenticity of these
documents, as he had attempted to do at the time in the case of documents found in
For these documents feature handwritten notes in the margins penned by
Gamelin, Daladier, Weygand, and so on. Hence these
gentlemen are free either to admit
to these or to disown them at any time. And these documents enlighten us as to the
dealings of these gentlemen who have an interest in the war and in its expansion.
They will above all demonstrate how these cold-blooded politicians and military men
have used all these
small peoples as a means to an end; how they tried to subject
Finland to their interests; how they determined to make
Norway and Sweden the
theater of war; how they planned to set fire to the Balkans to procure the assistance of
divisions from there; how they prepared to bomb Batum and Baku under the cover
of a shrewd as well as unscrupulous reading
of the Turkish neutrality in favor of their
own interests; how they spun their web around the Netherlands and Belgium,
its strings constantly tighter, and finally engaging them in general staff agreements; as
well as many other
The documents afford us, moreover, a good picture of the entire
which these policy-making warmongers employed in an attempt to contain the fire they
These speak of their military pseudo-democracy which is jointly
responsible for the gruesome fate which they have inflicted
on hundreds of thousands
and millions of soldiers of their own countries; of their barbaric lack of conscience
led them to drive their own peoples from their homes in cold blood and
deliberately, in a mass evacuation whose military
consequences were not necessarilyfavorable to them,
while the general human
results were shockingly gruesome.
criminals are at the same time responsible for whipping up the Poles and inciting
them to war. Eighteen days later this
campaign ended-for all practical purposes.
For a second time in the war, I spoke to the German Volk from this stand on
October 6, 1939.
I was then able to report to it the glorious military defeat of the Polish State. I then also
an appeal to reason to the men responsible in the enemy states and to their
peoples. I warned against further pursuit
of the war, the consequences of which could
only be devastating. I warned the French especially not to start a war which,
necessity, would eat its way inward from the frontier and which, irrespective of its
outcome, would have dire
At this time, I directed an appeal to the rest of the world
as well. However, as I said
then, I did so with the apprehension that not only might I not be heard, but that thereby
I might only elicit the wrath of the warmongers interested. And this is precisely what
came to pass.
The responsible elements in England and France smelt a rat, seeing my appeal as a
assault on their lucrative profiteering in the war.
Thus they hurriedly
and eagerly declared that any thought of an understanding was a
waste of time - yes, that this would even have to be
regarded as a crime. The war had to be
pursued in the name of culture, humanity, good fortune, progress, civilization,
and - Good
God!- even in the name of sacred religion, and in subservience to this end, even Negroes and
(Buschmenschen) had to be mobilized. And then, of course, victory would come
about of its own accord, so to speak. It
would then be within grasp; one need only reach out
for it, so they said. I was very well aware of all this myself, and
indeed had known it for a
long time, and it was only because of this, that I had laid before the world my appeal
peace. For, if I were in a position to believe in victory, I would not have approached
England and France with an understanding
without any conditions attached. In a few
days these agitators succeeded in portraying me as a coward before the eyes
I was scolded for my peace proposal, even personally
insulted. Mr. Chamberlain
virtually spat in my face before the world public and declined to even talk of peace,
to the directives of the warmongers and agitators backing him: Churchill,
Duff Cooper, Eden, Hore-Belisha, and so on.
Not to mention negotiating a peace.
And it was thus that the big capitalist clique of war profiteers cried for a continuation
of the war. And this continuation has now begun.
I have already asserted,
and all of you, my Volksgenossen, know this: that if I do not speak
for some time, or nothing much happens, then this
does not mean that I am doing nothing.
With us it is not necessary to multiply by a factor of five or twelve every airplane
then to proclaim it loudly to the world. Besides, hens would be ill-advised to cry out to the
egg just laid. It would be all the more ill-considered of statesmen to announce
projects barely beyond the planning stage,
in nervous chatter, to the surrounding world, so as
to inform it in a timely manner.To the excited garrulousness of two
of these great democratic state leaders we owe
ever-current information on the plans for an expansion of the war by our
and especially on the concentration of the war effort in Norway and Sweden.
Volksgenossen = fellow people of the German community
1. Given to excessive
and often trivial or rambling talk; tiresomely talkative.
2. Wordy and rambling: a garrulous speech.
While the Anglo-French clique
of warmongers was on the lookout for new
opportunities to expand the war, and trying to trap new victims, I have labored
to a conclusion the organizational buildup of the Wehrmacht, to set up new units, to
start up production
for the war, to get material to flow, as well as to order training of
the entire Wehrmacht for its new missions. Beyond
this, however, the bad weather of the
late autumn and winter forced a postponement of military operations.
In the course of the month of March, we gained knowledge of British- French ambitions
intervene in the Russo-Finnish conflict; which was less to help the Finns and more to
damage Russia, the latter
being seen as a power cooperating with Germany. This
ambition grew into the determination to intervene actively in Finland
itself and, if
possible, to gain a base for carrying the war to the Baltic Sea. And, at this time also,
of the Allied High War Council appeared with ever greater insistence
either to set afire the Balkans or Asia Minor in
an effort to bar the Reich from its
Russian and Romanian oil imports, or to gain possession of Swedish iron ore.
in Norway were to serve this end with the goal of occupying all ore railroads
leading from Narvik across Sweden to the
port of Lulea.
The Russo-Finnish peace accords prevented, at the last
minute, the carrying out of the
already envisioned action in the Nordic States. Yet, merely a few days later, similar
ambitions surfaced anew and precipitated a clear decision.
and France had agreed to move, in one sudden strike, to occupy numerous
important locations in Norway under the pretext
of preventing further support for the
German war effort with Swedish ore.
To secure access completely to the Swedish ore, they intended to march into Sweden
themselves and to push aside the
few forces Sweden could muster, either, if possible,
in a friendly manner or, if necessary, by force.
Of the imminence of this danger we were informed personally by the untameable
of the First Lord of the British Admiralty. Moreover, we received
confirmation through a hint made by the French Premier
Reynaud in a talk with a
foreign diplomat. That the date had been postponed twice before the eighth of April,
that the occupation was scheduled for the eighth, that the eighth, therefore, was
the third and final day - of this we
gained knowledge only recently. It was conclusively
established only with the discovery of the protocols of the High
Allied War Council. I
then ordered the Wehrmacht, as soon as the danger of dragging the North into the war
apparent, to take the appropriate measures.
case of the Altmark already demonstrated that the Norwegian Government was not
willing to uphold its neutrality. Beyond
this, reports of secret agents also revealed that,
at least insofar as the leading heads of the Norwegian Government
and the Allies were
concerned, there was already full agreement. Finally, Norway’s reaction to the violation
of its territory by British minelayers dispelled all remaining doubts.
Altmark = a German tanker ship. The “Altmark Incident” was a naval skirmish of World War II between the
United Kingdom and Nazi Germany, which happened on 16 February 1940. It took place in what were, at that
The German operation, prepared down to the last detail, was launched. In fact the situation
was a bit
different from what we perceived it to be on April 9. While we then believed, we had
anticipated the British occupation
by a few hours, we know today that the landing of
the English troops had been scheduled for the eighth. The deployment
of the British
contingents had already begun on the fifth and sixth. However, the moment the first news
the British Admiralty of the German steps, i.e. that a German fleet had put to sea,
this development so impressed Mr.
Churchill that he decided to have the contingents already
embarked disembark once again, so that the British fleet would
first be able to search for and
attack German ships. This attempt ended in failure.
Only a single English destroyer came into contact with the German naval forces and was shot
out of the
water. This vessel could not relay any sort of message to the British Admiralty or to
the fleet of the English naval
combat contingents. And thus, on the ninth, the landing of
German forward units was carried out along a coastal front
stretching from Oslo north
to Narvik. When news of this reached London, the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Churchill,
had already been on the lookout for many hours-eagerly awaiting first reports of the
successes of his fleet.
And this strike, my Deputies, was the most daring undertaking in the history of German
Its successful implementation was possible only thanks to
the leadership and the behavior of
all German soldiers involved. What our three arms, the Army, the Navy, and the Luftwaffe,
have accomplished in the struggle for Norway assures them mention in the records of the
Luftwaffe = German Airforce
The Navy conducted its operations, and later handled the troop transports,
faced by an
enemy who, all in all, possessed an almost tenfold superiority. All units of our young Reich
have covered themselves with eternal glory in this venture. Only after the war will it
be appropriate to discuss the
difficulties faced especially in this campaign: the numerous
unexpected setbacks, losses, and accidents suffered. To
have overcome all this in the end
goes to the credit of the behavior, the leadership, and the troops.
The Luftwaffe, which often was the only means of transport and communications in so
gigantically vast a terrain, outdid itself in all respects. Death-defying attacks on the enemy, on
his ships and landing
troops, are hardly more impressive than the tenacious heroics of the
plane pilots, who in spite of unimaginably adverse weather started time and time
again on their way to the land of the
midnight sun, only to unload soldiers or freight in the
midst of a snow storm. Norway’s fjords have become the
graveyard of many a British warship.
Because of the uninterrupted wild
attacks of German bombers and Stukas, the British fleet
was forced to retreat from and to evacuate the very arena of
which a few weeks earlier an
English newspaper had so tastefully stated “that it would be a pleasure for England
the German invitation to do battle there.” The Army. The crossing already constituted a great
for the soldiers of the Army. In a few cases, airborne troops had opened up the
area where they first set foot. Then
division after division flooded the land which, due to its
natural characteristics, already possessed considerable defenses,
and which - as far as the
Norwegian units were concerned - was very valiantly defended.
Of the Englishmen who had landed in Norway, one can say that the only remarkable
thing was the unscrupulousness
with which such badly trained, insufficiently
equipped, and miserably led soldiers had been put ashore as an expeditionary
From the beginning, they were certain to lose. By contrast, what our German infantry,
the pioneers, what
our artillery, our communications and construction units, have
achieved in Norway can only be termed the proud heroism
of struggle and labor.
The word Narvik will enter our history as glorious evidence of the spirit of the
of the National Socialist Greater German Reich.
The gentlemen Churchill,
Chamberlain, Daladier, and so on, have, until recently, been
exceedingly ill-informed as to the essence of the Greater
German unification process.
At the time, I announced that the future would probably teach them better. And I may
assume that in particular the deployment of mountain troops from the Ostmark at
this front furthest north in our battle
for freedom has enlightened them sufficiently as
far as the Greater German Reich and its sons are concerned.
It is lamentable that the grenadiers of Mr. Chamberlain did not pay sufficient and,
above all, persistent attention to this conflict, and instead preferred to be satisfied with
the first test of the
inner disposition of the tribes of our Volk which have newly come to
General von Falkenhorst led operations in Norway. Lieutenant General Dietl was the hero
Operations at sea were conducted under the leadership of Admiral General Saalwachter
and the Admirals Carls and Boehm, and Vice Admiral Lutjens.
of the Luftwaffe were under the leadership of Colonel General Milch and
Lieutenant General Geissler.
The High Command of the Wehrmacht, Colonel General Keitel, as the Chief of the High
Command, and General Jodl, as the Chief of the Wehrmacht leadership staff, were
responsible for implementing my directives
for the entire undertaking.
Even before the conclusion of the campaign
in Norway, news in the West took on anever more
threatening character. While,
in fact, preparations had been made before the
war to break through the Maginot Line in the event of a necessary conflict
or England, an undertaking for which the German troops had been trained and had
been equipped with the
weaponry required, the course of events in the first months of
the war compelled us to contemplate the possibility of
moving against Holland and
Belgium. While Germany had positioned hardly any units against Belgium or the
other than those necessary for security reasons, as well as beginning to
expand upon its fortification system, a visible
mass of French units began to array
itself along the French-Belgian border. In particular, the concentration of tanks
motorized divisions in this sector revealed that it was intended - at any rate it was
possible-for these to
be hurled at lighting speed through Belgium at the German
Decisive in this context was the following observation:
While, in the
case of a loyal reading of the Belgian-Dutch neutrality, these two
countries would have been forced, by the concentration
of strong Anglo-French forces
at their border, to focus their attention on the West, both began to reduce their troop
strengths along this border to the same degree they began to build up the units
stationed along the border with Germany.
News of ongoing talks at the general staff
-level, also shed a peculiar light on [this interpretation of] Belgian-Dutch
need not emphasize that these talks, had they been conducted in the spirit of true
have had to be held with both sides. Besides this, such an
intensification of signs indicating that a move of the Anglo-French
Holland and Belgium against the German industrial area was taking place required that
we should regard
this threat as a serious danger.
Hence I took the German Wehrmacht into
my confidence, informing it of the possibility
of such a development and entrusting it with the appropriate, detailed
numerous conferences at the High Command of the Wehrmacht with the Commanders
in Chief of the three
branches of the Wehrmacht, the leaders of the Army groups and of
the armies, down to the leaders of important, individual
undertakings, the tasks facing
us were enumerated and thoroughly discussed. Among the troops these were taken up
great understanding, as the basis for a special type of training.
the entire German deployment underwent the necessary
The thorough observations which had been conducted everywhere gradually led to the
compelling recognition that, from
the beginning of May on, an Anglo-French advance
had to be expected at any moment.
In the days of May 6 and 7, telephone conversations between London and Paris took
place, of which we gained
intelligence and which reinforced suspicions that an
invasion of the Netherlands and Belgium by the so-called Allies
had to be expected at
any moment. Thus on the following day, May 8, I ordered an immediate attack for May
5:35 in the morning.
The basic thought behind this operation was to deploy,
without worrying aboutperipheral successes,
the entire Wehrmacht - especially
the Army and the Luftwaffe -
in so decisive a manner, that the envisioned operations had to attain the complete
of the Anglo-French forces.
In contrast to the Schlieffen Plan of the
year 1914, I ordered the main thrust of the
operation along the left flank of the breakthrough front, while, however,
appearances of a reversed version. This deception was successful. Conduct of the
entire operation was
made easy for me by measures our adversaries themselves took.
For the concentration of the entire Anglo-French motorized
combat forces against
Belgium revealed as certain that the High Command of the Allied armies had arrived at
decision to advance most speedily into this area.
We relied on the steadfastness
of all German infantry divisions deployed in the thrust
against the right flank of the Anglo-French motorized Army Group.
Such a drive had to
lead to its complete shattering and dissolution - yes, perhaps even to its encirclement.
a second operation, I had planned the taking of the Seine up to Le Havre, as well as
securing bases at the Somme and
Aisne for a third assault. This was intended to break
through, with strong forces across the plateau at Langres, to the
Reaching the coast south of Bordeaux was to conclude operations.
framework and in this sequence, operations were in fact carried out.
The success of this mightiest sequence
of battles in world history we owe first and
foremost to the German soldier himself. He held his own at all places he
to the highest degree. The German tribes all share equally in this glory.
The soldiers of the young, new Reichsgaus, added only since 1938, also fought in an
and took a heavy toll of lives. The heroic risk of life by all Germans in this
war will make the emerging National Socialist
Greater German Reich eternally sacred and
dear not only to the present generation, but to all that follow.
When I undertake to honor all those forces to whose activities we owe this most glorious
victories, then first mention is due to a leadership which, in particular in this campaign, has
met the highest
It has performed the tasks imposed upon it, under the leadership of Colonel General von
Brauchitsch and his Chief of
Staff Halder, in a truly glorious fashion.
If the leadership of the German
Army of long ago was regarded as the best in the world, then
it is deserving today of at least equal admiration. Yes,
since success is decisive for passing
judgment, the leadership of the new German Army must be considered even better!
Subdivided into three Army Groups, the Army in the West was placed under the orders of
Colonel Generals Ritter von Leeb, von Rundstedt, and von Bock.
Army Group of General Ritter von Leeb had the initial mission to maintain the left flank
of the German front in the West,
stretching from the Swiss border up to the Moselle,
in a stateof highest defensive
readiness. It was anticipated that, in the later course of the operation,
this front would also actively intervene in
the battle of destruction with two armies under the
leadership of Colonel General von Witzleben and General Dollmann.
At 5:35 in the morning of May 10, the two Army Groups under Colonel Generals von
and von Bock launched the attack. It was their mission, along the entire front
from the river Moselle to the North Sea,
to break through the enemy lines along the frontier; to
occupy the Netherlands; to move against Antwerp and the troops
stationed at Dyle; to take
Liege; and, above all, to reach the left flank along the river Meuse with massive forces for
attack, to force a crossing between Namur and Carignan with a main thrust of the tank and
at Sedan and, in the further course of operations, to assemble all
available tank and motorized divisions to push onward,
along the system of canals and rivers
between the Aisne and the Somme, to the sea.
To Rundstedt’s southern Army Group fell also the important task of preventing a repetition of
Miracle of the Marne of 1914. He was to accomplish this task by securing, according to
plan, the cover of the left flank
in the course of the breakthrough.
This massive operation, which already
decided the further course of the war, led, as
planned, to the annihilation of the main mass of the French Army as well
as of the
entire British Expeditionary Force, and already added luster to the German leadership.
Besides the two
leaders of the Army Groups and their Chiefs of Staff, Lieutenant General
von Sodenstern and Lieutenant General von Salmuth,
the following leaders of the Army
are deserving of the highest of distinctions:
Colonel General von Kluge as leader of the Fourth Army;
Colonel General List as leader of the Twelfth
Colonel General von Reichenau as leader of the Sixth Army;
General von Kuchler as leader of the Eighteenth
General Busch as leader of the Sixteenth Army; and the
Generals von Kleist, Guderian, Hoth, and Hoeppner
as leaders of the tank and motorized troops.
Large additional numbers
of generals and officers who distinguished themselves in these
operations are known to you already, my Deputies, because
of the high distinctions granted
The further conduct of the
operation in the general direction of the Aisne and the Seine was
not intended to conquer Paris primarily, but rather
to create, or better secure, a basis for a
breakthrough to the Swiss border. This massive offensive action, thanks to
leadership of all grades, also went according to plan.
A change of personnel in the High Command of the French Army, which had meanwhile
taken place, was to revive its resistance
and to bring about a change, much desired by the
Allies, in the fortunes of the battle so unhappily begun.
Indeed it was possible to get the German armies and their offensive actions going, at
locations, only after overcoming the strongest of resistance.
Here, not only the courage, but also the training of the German soldier had the opportunity
hold its own to a high degree. Inspired by the zeal of countless officers and non-
commissioned officers, as
well as of individual men of valor, the infantry itself, time and time
again, was compelled onward even in the most difficult
Paris fell! The breaking of the enemy’s resistance
at the Aisne opened the way to a
breakthrough to the Swiss border. In one gigantic envelopment the armies stormed to
back of the Maginot Line. Now abandoning its reserve, the Army Group Leeb went on the
offensive in two locations
west of Saarbrucken and Neubreisach. Under orders from Generals
von Witzleben and Dollmann, they achieved the breakthrough.
And thus it was possible not
only to surround the gigantic front of the French resistance, but to dissolve it into little
and to force it to the well-known capitulation.
operations were crowned by the now generally beginning advance of the German
armies. At their head moved the incomparable
Panzer and motor divisions of the Army with
the goal of driving a left flank down the Rhone in the direction of Marseilles,
and a right flank
across the Loire in the direction of Bordeaux and the Spanish border. This was to destroy the
remains of the French Army, or rather to occupy French territory. I will report in
detail at a later point on the intervention
of our allies in this war.
When Marshal Petain offered France’s
laying down of arms, he was not laying down a
weapon he still held. Rather he merely put an end to a situation completely
in the eyes of every soldier. Only the bloody dilettantism of a Mr. Churchill either fails
as much or lies about it in spite of better knowledge.
In the second,
third, and last phase of this war, the following Army leaders distinguished
themselves as did the earlier mentioned generals:
Colonel General von Witzleben; the
Generals von Weichs, Dollmann, Strauss. The valiant divisions and standards of the
Waffen SS also fought within the framework of these armies.
express my gratitude and that of the German Volk to the aforementioned generals, in
their capacity as leaders of the
Army and Army Groups, this applies at the same time to all
other officers, all of whom it is not possible to mention
by name, and especially to all the
nameless workers of the General Staff.
In this battle, my Deputies, the rank and file of Germany has proved itself to be what it has
always been: the best
infantry in the world! And with it all other branches of the Army
compete: artillery and pioneers, and, above all, the
young units of our tanks and motorized
troops. The German Panzer weapon, through this war, has made its entry into world
The men of the Waffen SS share in the glory. Yet the communications
units, the construction
units of the pioneers, the railroad construction men, etc., are also worthy, in accordance with
their performance, of the highest praise we have to offer.
In the wake
of the armies followed the commandos of the Todt Organization, of the Reich
Labor Service, and of the NSKK, and these
also helped to repair roads, bridges, as well as to
restore order to traffic.
Within the framework of the Army, this time there also fought parts of the Flak artillery of our
Luftwaffe. At the
foremost front, they helped to break the enemy’s power of resistance andattack.
A detailed account of their effectiveness can be rendered only at a later date.
The Luftwaffe itself:
At dawn on the morning of May 10,
thousands of fighter planes and dive bombers, under the
cover of fighters and destroyers, descended on enemy airfields.
Within a few days
uncontested air superiority was assured. And not for one minute in the further course of the
was it allowed to slip.
Only where temporarily no German airplanes were
sighted, could enemy fighters and
bombers make short appearances. Besides this, their activities were restricted to night
The Field Marshal [Goering] had the Luftwaffe under his orders during this mission in the
Its tasks were:
1. to destroy the
enemy air forces, i.e. to remove these from the skies;
2. to support
directly or indirectly the fighting troops by uninterrupted attacks;
to destroy the enemy’s means of command and movement;
4. to wear
down and break the enemy’s morale and will to resist;
5. to land
parachute troops as advance units.
The manner of their deployment in
the operation in general, as well as their adjustment to the
tactical demands of the moment, was exceptional. Without
the valor of the Army, the
successes attained should never have been possible.
Equally true is it that, without the heroic mission of the Luftwaffe, the valor of the Army should
been for naught. Both Army and Luftwaffe are deserving of the greatest glory! The
deployment of the Luftwaffe in the
West took place under the personal command of Field
Marshal Goering. His Chief of Staff: Major General Jeschonnek.
Both aerial fleets stood under orders of General der Flieger Sperrle and General der
Flieger Kesselring. The Aviation Corps subordinate to them stood under orders of Generals
der Flieger Grauert and Keller,
Lieutenant General Loerzer, and Lieutenant General
Ritter von Greim, as well as of Major General Freiherr von Richthofen.
Both Flak Corps
stood under orders of Flak Artillery General Weise and Major General Dessloch. The Ninth
Division under Major General Coeler deserves special mention. The Commander of
the Parachute Troops, General der Flieger
Student, was severely wounded. The further
conduct of the battle in the air in Norway was orchestrated by General der
While millions of German soldiers of the Army, Luftwaffe,
and Waffen SS took part in these
battles, others could not be spared at home as they were needed for the buildup of the
reserve formations. Many of the most capable officers - as bitter as this was for them - were
forced to conduct
and oversee the training of those soldiers who, as reserve units, or perhaps
in new formations, were to go to the front
only later. Despite my sympathy for the inner
sentiments of those who felt at a disadvantage, the greater common interest,
as a matter
of principle, was decisive. Party and State, Army, Navy, Luftwaffe, and SS sent every
man to the front
whom they were able to spare somehow. Yet, without securing a
Replacement Army, a reserve air force, reserve SS formations,
as well as Party and
State in general, the war at the front could not have
As the organizers of the Replacement Army at home and of
the armament and supplies for
the Luftwaffe, the following have attained special merit: Artillery General Fromm and
General der Flieger Udet.
I cannot conclude the enumeration of all
these meritorious generals and admirals without
paying tribute to those who are my closest co-workers in the Staff of
the High Command of
Colonel General Keitel as Chief
of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, and Major
General Jodl as his Chief of Staff. They have made the greatest of contributions
realization of my plans and ideas throughout long months of many cares and much work.
An appreciation of the accomplishments of our Navy and its leaders will only be possible, to a
at the end of the war.
When I now conclude these purely military reflections
on events, truth compels me to
state the historic fact that none of this would have been possible without the
of the home front-or without, at its fore, the foundation, the work, and the
activities of the National Socialist Party.
Already in 1919, in the age of great decline, it proclaimed its program for the
of a German People’s Army and has stood up for it throughout the
decades with a zealous determination. Without
its activities, the conditions necessary
for both the re-emergence of the German Reich and the creation of a German
Wehrmacht would not have existed. Above all, it lent the struggle its ideological
(weltanschaulich) world view foundation.
To the senseless sacrifice of life of our
democratic opponents in the interests of their plutocracies, it opposes the
defense of a
Volksgemeinschaft. Its activities have resulted in a solidarity between front and
homeland, which regrettably
did not exist in the World War.
Volksgemeinschaft = the community of the German Volk
From its ranks, therefore, I should like to name the men, who along with
attained great merit in securing the opportunity to celebrate victory in a new Germany: Party
Reich Minister Hess, himself an old soldier of the World War, has been one of the
most loyal fighters for the erection
of the present state and its Wehrmacht ever since the early
days of the foundation of the Movement.
Party comrade Chief of Staff of the SA Lutze has organized the mass of millions of SA
in the sense of supporting the state to the utmost, and has secured its pre- and post-military
Party comrade Himmler has organized the entire security of our Reich as well as the units
the Waffen SS.
Party comrade Hierl has been the founder and leader
of the Reich Labor Service.
Party comrade Ley is the guarantor of the behavior
of the German worker.
Party comrade and Reich Minister Major General Todt is the organizer of the production of
and ammunition and has gained eternal merit as a master builder in the
construction of our massive, strategic [!] road
network as well as of the fortified front in the
Minister Goebbels is the leader of a propaganda apparatus whose
refinement is best ascertained [only] in comparison with
that of the World War.
Among the numerous organizations of the home front, there remain to be mentioned the
of the Kriegswinterhilfswerk, and of the NS Volkswohlfahrt under the
leadership of Party comrade Hilgenfeldt, as well
as the German Red Cross, and moreover
the Reich Air Defense Association under the leadership of Flak Artillery General
Kriegswinterhilfswerk = Krieg means war. The Winterhilfswerk (WHW, English: Winter Relief—literally
help work") was an annual drive by the Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt (the National
Welfare Organization) to help finance charitable work. Its slogan was "None shall
starve nor freeze". It ran
from 1933-1945 during the months of October through March, and was
designed to provide food, clothing, coal, and other
items to less fortunate Germans during the inclement
months. It's goals and efforts were expanded and intensified during
the war as a true demonstration of
solidarity of the German people on the home front/
NS Volkswohlfahrt = The Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt (NSV), meaning "National Socialist
Welfare" was a social welfare organization during the Third Reich. The NSV was established in
1933, shortly after
the NSDAP took power in Germany. Its seat was in Berlin. The structure of the NSV
was based on the NSDAP Party model,
with local, county (Kreis) and group administrations. During
World War II, the NSV took over more and more governmental
responsibilities, especially in the fields of
child and youth care / support.
I cannot conclude this tribute without thanking the one man who, for
years, has engaged
himself in loyal, untiring, self-devouring work to realize my foreign policy directives. The name
of Party comrade von Ribbentrop as Reich Foreign Minister shall remain tied for all
eternity to the political rise
of the German nation.
I have determined, as Fuehrer and Supreme Commander of the German Wehrmacht, to
honor the most meritorious
generals before the one forum which in truth represents
the entire German Volk. I must place at their forefront a man
to whom I have difficulty in
expressing sufficient gratitude for the services which tie his name to the Movement, to
State, and, above all, to the German Luftwaffe.
Since the days
of the foundation of the SA, Party Comrade Goering has been bound up
in the development and rise of the Movement. Since
we came to power, his capacity for
work and willingness to take responsibility have accomplished deeds in numerous
fields for the German Volk and the German Reich which cannot be excluded from the
history of our Volk and Reich.
Since the rebuilding of the German Wehrmacht, he has become the creator of the
German Luftwaffe. It is granted to only a few mortals to create in the course of their
a military instrument practically from nothing and to transform it into the
mightiest weapon of its kind in the world.
Above all, he has lent it his spirit.
Field Marshal Goering as creator
of the German Luftwaffe, and as an individual man,
has made the greatest contribution to the rebuilding of the German
Wehrmacht. As the
leader of the German Luftwaffe he has, in the course of the war up to date, created the
for victory. His merits are unequalled! I name him Reichsmarschall of the
Greater German Reich and award him the Grand
Cross of the Iron Cross.
[SNIP: This section has been omitted in the audio version,
with no disrespect intended to
these German heroes, but for the sake of flow, moving on to more essential information
greater interest to the average reader]
For services rendered to the victory of German
weaponry in the struggle for the
freedom and future of our Greater German Reich,
I hereby promote:
The Commander in Chief of the Army, Colonel General von Brauchitsch, to the rank of Field
Colonel General von Rundstedt, Commander in Chief of Army
Group A, to the rank of Field
Colonel General Ritter von
Leeb, Commander in Chief of Army Group C, to the rank of Field
Colonel General von Bock, Commander in Chief of Army Group B, to the rank of Field
Colonel General List, Commander in Chief of the Twelfth Army, to the rank of Field Marshal;
von Kluge, Commander in Chief of the Fourth Army, to the rank of Field
Colonel General von Witzleben, Commander in Chief of the First Army, to the rank of Field
Colonel General von Reichenau, Commander in Chief of the Sixth Army, to the rank of Field
General Halder, Chief of the General Staff of the Army, to the rank of Colonel General;
General Dollmann, Commander in Chief of the Seventh Army, to the rank of Colonel General;
General Freiherr von Weichs, Commander in Chief of the Second Army, to the rank of
General von Kuchler, Commander in Chief of the Eighteenth
Army, to the rank of Colonel
General Busch, Commander in
Chief of the Sixteenth Army, to the rank of Colonel General;
Strauss, Commander in Chief of the Ninth Army, to the rank of Colonel General;
General von Falkenhorst, Military Commander in Norway, to the rank of Colonel General;
General von Kleist, Commanding General of the Twenty-Second Army Corps, to the rank of
General Ritter von Schobert, Commanding General of the Seventh Army Corps, to the rank
General Guderian, Commanding General of the
Nineteenth Army Corps, to the rank of
Commanding General of the Fifteenth Army Corps, to the rank of Colonel
General Haase, Commanding General of the Third Army Corps, to the rank of Colonel
General Hoeppner, Commanding General of the Sixteenth Army Corps, to the rank of Colonel
General Fromm, Chief of Military Armament and Commander in
Chief of the Replacement
Army, to the rank of Colonel General.
consideration of unequaled services rendered
General Dietl, Commanding General of the Mountain Corps in Norway, to the rank
of Infantry General.
As the first officer with the German Wehrmacht, I award him the Oak
Leaves of the Knight’s
Cross of the Iron Cross.
Pending a later recognition of all the leaders
and officers of the Reich Navy,
Admiral Carls, the Commanding
Admiral of the Naval Station Baltic Sea and Commander in
Chief of the Naval Troops East, to the rank of Admiral General.
In appreciation of the unequaled accomplishments of the German
Colonel General Milch to the rank of Field
General der Flieger Sperrle to the rank of Field Marshal;
General der Flieger Kesselring to the rank of Field Marshal.
General der Flieger Stumpff to the rank of
General der Flieger Grauert to the rank of Colonel General;
General der Flieger Keller to the rank of Colonel General;
General of the Flak Artillery Weise to the rank of Colonel General;
General der Flieger Udet to the rank of Colonel General.
I promote to the rank of General der Flieger:
Lieutenant General Geissler;
Major General Jeschonnek;
Lieutenant General Loerzer;
Lieutenant General Ritter
and Major General Freiherr von Richthofen.
In my High
Command of the Wehrmacht I promote:
Colonel General Keitel to the rank
of Field Marshal;
Major General Jodl to the rank of Artillery General.
In announcing these promotions on the occasion of the most successful campaign in
history, before this forum and so before the entire nation, I thereby honor the entire
Wehrmacht of the National Socialist
Greater German Reich.
[END SNIP: Audio narration
I cannot conclude my reflections on this battle without
thinking of our ally here.
Ever since there has been a National Socialist
regime, its foreign policy has embraced
1. bringing about
a true understanding and friendship with Italy and,
2. bringing about the same relationship with England.
My Party Comrades, you know that I was as driven by these conceptions twenty years ago
I was later. I have dealt with and defended these ideas as a journalist and in my speeches
countless times, as
long as I myself was a mere opposition leader in the democratic republic.
I immediately undertook, as soon as the German Volk entrusted me with its leadership,
to realize these oldest goals
of National Socialist foreign policy in practical terms. It
still saddens me today that, in spite of all my endeavors,
I have not succeeded in
obtaining this friendship with England which, I believe, should have been a blessing
both peoples; and especially because I was not able to do so despite my persistent,
sincere efforts. However, I am all
the more happy that at least the first point in this program
of my foreign policy was in fact realized.
This I owe, above all, to the genius who today stands at the head of the Italian people.
For it was possible only owing to his epoch-making activities for the two intellectually
related revolutions to find
each other, to finally seal in jointly-shed blood the alliance
which is destined to procure a new life for Europe. That
I myself have the honor to be a
friend of this man gladdens me all the more, in view of the unique story of his life,
evidence of as many similarities to my own as our two revolutions do to each other, and,
as does the history of the unification and rise of our two nations.
since the resurrection of the German Volk, we have heard many voices of
understanding from Italy. On the foundation of
this mutual understanding grew a living
community of interests. And finally this was set down in treaties. And when,
contrary to my expressed will and desire, this war was forced on the German Reich, a
the further conduct of our two states involved Mussolini and myself.
The benefit derived for the Reich from the behavior
of Italy was extraordinary. Not only
economically did we profit from the situation and the stance of Italy, but also
From the beginning, Italy tied down strong forces of our
enemies and curtailed above
all their freedom of strategic disposition. And when the Duce determined that the time
had come to take a stand with the weapon in his fist against the unbearable and
persistent violation of Italy, damage
done in particular by French and British
transgression, and the King issued the declaration of war, then this was done
complete freedom of decision. All the greater must our gratitude be.
The intercession of Italy has sped up and assisted in opening France’s eyes to the
utter hopelessness of continued
And ever since, our ally has fought on the peaks and ridges
of the Alps and now on the vast
plains encompassed in his sphere of interest.
Especially his present air attacks and battles at
sea are being led with the spirit peculiar to the Fascist Revolution.
Here they elicit the spirit
which binds National Socialism to Fascist Italy. Italy’s pain is Germany’s pain,
as we have
experienced in recent days in view of the death of Balbo. Its joy is our joy.
And our cooperation in the political and military fields is a complete one. It will erase
done the German and Italian peoples throughout the centuries. For, at the
end of everything, stands the shared victory!
And when I now turn to speak of the future, my Deputies, I do so not to boast or brag.
can well leave up to others who are in greater need of it, as for example Mr. Churchill.
What I want to do is to paint a picture of the present situation, bare of exaggeration, as it is
I see it.
1. The course of events in the ten months of war now lying
behind us has proved my
assessments correct and those of our adversaries incorrect:
When the British so-called statesmen assure us that their country emerges strengthened from
and failure, then it surely is no arrogance when I inform them that we emerge at
least equally strengthened from our
On September 1 of the year now past, I already explained to
you that, come what may,
neither the force of weapons nor time shall force Germany to the ground. The Reich
stands stronger militarily than ever before.
We have seen the losses,
individually surely heavy, though as a total relatively low, which the
German Wehrmacht has suffered in battle within
the past three months. When you consider
that, within this time, we erected a front which reaches from the North Cape
Spanish border, then our losses are extraordinarily low, especially when compared with
those of the World
The cause lies - besides with the, on an average, excellent leadership-with
outstanding tactical training of the individual soldier and of the units, as well as with
the cooperation among
the branches of the service.
Another cause is to be found with the quality
and efficiency of the new weaponry.
A third cause lies with the conscious refusal to pursue what is called prestige.
have, on principle, labored to avoid any attack or operation which was not necessary in
the context of
the actual annihilation of the adversary, but was instead to be carried
out for the sake of what was regarded as prestige.
In spite of all of this, naturally, we had anticipated far higher losses in many instances.
manpower saved will benefit us in the further pursuit of the struggle for freedom forced
upon us. At present,
many of our divisions in France are being withdrawn and reassigned to
their bases at home. Many men are able to take
leaves of absence. Weaponry and equipment
are being either repaired or replaced by new material. All in all, the Wehrmacht
stronger than ever before.
Weaponry: The loss of weaponry in Norway, especially in the campaigns against
Holland, Belgium, and France, is void of
any significance. It stands in no relation to
production. Army and Luftwaffe possess at this moment-as I am speaking
equipment more complete and stronger than before we intervened in the West.
3. Ammunition: Provisions for ammunition were so well executed, the stocks are so
vast, that in many areas
production must now be curtailed or rerouted since the
existing depots and warehouses, even given the greatest of efforts,
in part are no
longer capable of absorbing further deliveries. As in Poland, the consumption of
ammunition was unexpectedly
low. It stands in no relation to the stockpiles. The total
reserves of the Army and the Luftwaffe are higher at present,
for all categories of
weapons, than before the attack in the West.
4. Raw materials essential to the war effort: Thanks to the Four-Year Plan, Germany
was prepared for the greatest of
strains in an exemplary fashion. No armed forces in
the world, other than Germany’s Wehrmacht, have so benefited
from a shift away from
imported raw materials essential to the war effort to such as can be found within the
Thanks to the work of the Reichsmarschall, this transformation of the German
into a war economy characterized by self-sufficiency was already achieved in
peacetime. [!] We possess reserves of the
two most important raw materials, coal and
iron, in what I may well term an unlimited quantity. Fuel supplies are more
for consumption. The capacities of our production are increasing and, within a short
time, they will
suffice - even should imports cease-to satisfy demand completely.
advance metal collections have so increased our metal reserves that we can face a
war of no matter what duration. We
shall reign supreme no matter what happens.
Added to this are the enormous
possibilities that come from a yet immeasurable loot
and including the development of the territories we have occupied.
Germany and Italy
possess, within the confines of the area they regulate and control, an economic
potential of about
200 million people, of whom only 130 million are soldiers, with
seventy million free to be employed exclusively in different
[Editor's note – I found the above statement astonishing and perplexing, but it is in fact what he said.
reflection, however, Germany and Italy at this point did, for all intents and purposes, control
almost all of western
Europe. The 130 Million soldiers must therefore have referred to, not only regular
forces, but reservists, and all those
who had some military training, and would have to also have
included females. His vision, or presumption, it seems, would
be that these would also fight with
Germany and Italy to defend all of continental Europe.]
I informed you on September 1, my Deputies, that for the
further conduct of the war I had
ordered the initial implementation of a new Five-Year Plan. I can now assure you that
measures to this end have been taken. Come what may, I now no longer regard time as a
threatening factor, not
even in a general sense. This time, the measures taken in a timely
fashion have also secured foodstuffs for a war of
no matter how long a duration.
5. The attitude of the German Volk: Thanks
to National Socialist education, the German
Volk has not approached this war with the superficiality of a “hurrah”
with the zealous determination of a race which knows the fate awaiting it should it
suffer defeat. The endeavors to subvert this unity, launched by the propaganda of our
are as stupid as they are ineffective. Ten months of war have rendered this
zealousness all the more profound. And, in
general, it is a great misfortune that the
world’s opinion is not formed by men who see things as they are, but
by men who see
them as they want them to be!
[NOTE approx. 60 seconds of inaudible, damaged content removed but the text is in
which follows, and is included in the English audio narration]
In the last days, I have seen
through and studied countless documents from the Allied
Headquarters. Among other things, these contain reports on the
Germany, or memoranda on the disposition and inner attitude of the German Volk. The
authors of these
reports were, in part, also diplomats. Reading through these reports,
one cannot help wondering whether their authors
were blind, stupid, or simply vile
scoundrels. I will admit without further ado that, naturally, here in Germany also
have been, and perhaps still are today, certain individuals who have watched the Third
with a feeling akin to regret. Incorrigible reactionaries or blind
nihilists may well be saddened in their hearts that
things came out not as they had
willed them. But their numbers are ridiculously small and their significance is smaller
Regrettably, this scum of the nation appears to have been chosen
by the outside world
as a measuring stick by which to assess the German Volk. And from this, the sick minds
statesmen derive the last points of orientation to cling to for new hope. As needed,
the British warlords designate a
“General Hunger” or an “imminent revolution” as their new
allies. There is no nonsense that these
people would not dish up for their own nation in
order to cling to their positions for yet a few more weeks.
The German Volk has proved, above all, its inner attitude through its sons who are
fighting on the battlefield. Within weeks they have beaten Germany’s strongest military
adversary and have destroyed
him. Their spirit was and remains the spirit of the
6. The surrounding world: In the eyes of English politicians, their last hopes, besides those
resting with the loyal
and allied nations, lie with a series of propped-up heads of state without
thrones; statesmen without subjects; and generals
without armies; as well as on renewed
complications they believe they can conjure up thanks to their well-proven deftness
matters. A true Ahasuerus amongst these hopes is the belief in a possible new
estrangement to separate Germany
Ahasuerus = a reference to the King of Persia in the Talmudic Book of Esther and reflects the
ever-changing positions. Initially, he is a benevolent leader entertaining the populace with banquets and
Quickly he is persuaded by Haman to support a genocidal massacre. And then, just as
quickly,, Esther turns him into an
ally of the Jews, determined to execute vengeance on Haman and his
relations have been established for good.
The reason for this was that England and France, with the support of certain
states, incessantly attributed to Germany ambitions to conquer terrain which lay
completely outside the sphere of German interests. Suddenly it was said, that Germany
was eyeing the occupation
of the Ukraine; then again it sought to invade Finland; at
another time it was claimed that Romania was threatened; then
finally even Turkey was
Given these circumstances, I
held it to be proper to undertake, above all, with Russia, a
sober delineation of interests, to once and for all clarify
what Germany believes it must
regard as its sphere of interest in securing its future, and what in turn Russia holds
be vital to its existence.
Based on this clear delineation of
mutual spheres of interest, the Russo- German
relationship was revised. It is childish to hope that in the course of
tensions might arise anew between Germany and Russia.
Germany has not stepped outside its sphere of interest, and neither has Russia. England
is deceived in its hope of
bringing about a new European crisis to reprieve its own
situation, insofar as the relationship of Germany to Russia
is concerned. Though the
British statesmen are chronically slow in their comprehension of almost everything, they will
surely come to understand this in the course of time.
I fancy I (have)
correctly forecast the future development of this war in my speech of October
6. I assure you, my Deputies, that not
for a moment could I doubt victory. And, unless one
feels the need to see signs and guarantees for the final victory
exclusively in defeats, then I
believe that the course of events up to this point has proved me right. As I was certain
this course of events, I offered my hand to France and England at the time for an
understanding. You still recall
the answer that I received. My arguments against the
nonsense of pursuing this war, on the certainty of gaining nothing,
even under the
most favorable of circumstances, and of losing much, were mocked and scoffed at, or
I promptly assured you then that I feared, because of my peace proposal, to be decried
as a cockerel who no longer wants to fight because he is no longer able to fight. And
this is exactly what happened.
I now believe that France - less the guilty statesmen
than the people-thinks differently about this October 6 today.
What nameless misery
has befallen this great country and people since then. I shall not even mention the toll
suffering the war has placed on the soldier. For above this stands the suffering
caused by the recklessness of those
who drove millions of people from their homes
without proper cause, who were compelled by the thought that this might
hamper the German war effort. This premise defied comprehension: this evacuation
was mostly to the detriment
of the Allied war effort and, moreover, it was the most
cruel experience for the unfortunate afflicted. The injury the
gentlemen Churchill and
Reynaud have done millions of people, through their advice and commands-this they
justify in this world nor in the next.
All of this - as I said - need
not have happened. For peace was all I asked of France and
England in October. But the gentlemen war profiteers wanted
a continuation of this war
at all cost. They have it now.
am too much a soldier not to comprehend the tragedy of such a development.
all I hear from London are cries - not the cries of the masses, but of the politicians
- that this war must now, all
the more, be pursued. I do not know if these politicians
have an inkling of just how this war is in fact to be pursued.
They declare that they will
continue this war, and should England fall, then they will do so from Canada. I do not
believe this means that the English people will all emigrate to Canada, but rather that
the gentlemen war profiteers
will all retreat to Canada by themselves. I fear the people
will have to remain behind in England. And, assuredly, they
will see the war with
different eyes in London than their so-called leaders in Canada.
Believe me, my Deputies, I feel an inner disgust at this type of unscrupulous
of peoples and states. It is almost painful to me to have
been chosen by Providence to give a shove to what these men
have brought to the
point of falling.
It was not my ambition to
wage wars, but to build up a new social state of the highest
culture. And every year of war takes me away from my work.
And the cause of this
robbery is those ludicrous zeroes whom one could at best call nature’s political run of
the mill, insofar as their corrupted vileness does not brand them as something out of
Mr. Churchill has repeated the declaration that he wants war. About six weeks ago
he launched this war in an arena in which he apparently believes he is quite
strong: namely, in the air war against the
civilian population, albeit beneath the
deceptive slogan of a so-called war against military objectives. Ever since Freiburg,
these objectives have turned out to be open cities, markets, villages, residential
housing, hospitals, schools, kindergartens,
and whatever else happens to be hit.
Up to now I have given little by
way of response. This is not intended to signal,
however, that this is the only response possible or that it shall remain
I am fully aware that with our response, which one day will
come, will also come the
nameless suffering and misfortune of many men. Naturally, this does not apply to Mr.
himself since by then he will surely be secure in Canada, where the money
and the children of the most distinguished
of war profiteers have already been
brought. But there will be great tragedy for millions of other men!
And Mr. Churchill should make an exception and place trust in me when as a prophet I
now proclaim: A great world empire will be destroyed. A world empire which I never
had the ambition to destroy or as
much as harm. Alas, I am fully aware that the
continuation of this war will end only in the complete shattering of one
of the two
warring parties. Mr. Churchill may believe this to be Germany. I know it to be England!
In this hour I feel compelled, standing before my conscience, to direct yet another
appeal to reason in
England. I believe I can do this as I am not asking for something as
the vanquished, but rather, as the victor! I am
speaking in the name of reason! I see no
compelling reason which could force the continuation of this war!
I regret the sacrifices it will demand. I would like to spare my Volk. I know the hearts
millions of men and boys aglow at the thought of finally being allowed to wage battle
against an enemy who has, without reasonable cause, declared war on us a second
But I also know of the women and mothers at home whose hearts, despite their
willingness to sacrifice
to the last, hang onto this last with all their might.
may well belittle my declaration again, crying that it was nothing other
than a symptom of my fear, or my doubts of the
Still I will have an easy conscience in view of things
Deputies, Men of the German Reichstag!
In reflecting on the ten months lying behind us, all of us will surely feel overcome by
the grace of Providence
which allowed us to accomplish so great a task. It has blessed
our resolves and stood by us on many a difficult path.
I myself am touched in
recognition of the calling it imparted to me to restore freedom and honor to my Volk!
The disgrace we suffered for twenty-two years and which had its beginnings in the
of Compiegne was erased forever at the very same site!
Today I have named
the men who, before history, enabled me to accomplish this great
task. They have done their best, dedicating their talents
and their industry to the
I now wish to conclude in
mentioning all those nameless men who have no less done their
duty. Millions of them have risked life and liberty and,
as brave German officers and soldiers,
have been ready at every hour to make the last sacrifice a man can make.
Today many of them rest in the same graves in which their fathers have rested since the
Great War. They bear evidence to silent heroism. They stand as a symbol for all those
hundreds of thousands of musketeers,
anti-tank gunners and tank gunners, pioneers and
artillerymen, soldiers of the Navy and the Luftwaffe, men of the Waffen
SS, and all those
other fighters who stood for the German Wehrmacht in the struggle for the freedom
and future of
our Volk and for the eternal greatness of the National Socialist Greater
And what was
JEW controlled Britain's response to Hitler's sincere "leaflet bombing?" Laughter, ridicule,
insults, threats, and more bombs, that's what! Churchill could have ended this little regional skirmish long before
it escalated into the intercontinental bloodbath now known as World War II, the "Good War" as
court-historians like to say.
UK warmonger Sefton Delmer, the future head and mastermind of British
black propaganda, was just about to make his debut broadcast to Germany on the BBC when he
heard the Führer's "last appeal to reason." Delmer rejected any notion of a compromise peace.
Bigmouth Delmer announced:
Hitler," you have in the past consulted me as to the mood of the British public.
So permit me to render your Excellency this little service once again tonight. Let me tell you
what we here in Britain think of this appeal of yours to what you are pleased to call our
reason and common sense. Herr Führer, we hurl it right back at you, right in your evil smelling
Delmer's inflamatory statement upset a few peace-minded Members of Parliament, but undoubtedly
pleased Churchill, his Jewish handlers, and other assorted "pariots" very much.
Black propagandist Delmer keeps the war-fires
burning. Ignorant British soldier shown laughing as he reads Hitler's leaflet.
During his July, 1940 speech, which Hitler later leafleted London with, he pleaded for peace. Meanwhile,
the British government shamelessly frightened its own people with idiotic tales
of imminent German gas attacks.
Hitler on National Socialism and World Relations in 1937
Hitler speaks to the Reichstag on January 30, 1937, noting that Germany was once again an equal among European
nations, and had regained its strength by following his National Socialist programme .
By Carolyn Yeager
WATCH OUR NATIONS SUCCUMB to multiculturalism, globalism, rioting and unbridgeable racial divisions that threaten
our peace and stymie our search for solutions, Adolf Hitler would tell us that we have broken the first law of
Nature which is to preserve the race, and are thus reaping Nature's promised punishment.
No matter what subject Hitler was speaking on, or what the occasion, he seldom
failed to include reminders of the necesssity to respect the separation of the races and nations. He delivered
an important speech in the German Reichstag on January 30, 1937 as Führer and Chancellor. It was published
under the title “On National Socialism and World Relations.” In reading it for the first time at Archive.org, I copied passages that struck me as particularly meaningful, and which powerfully express the unwavering essence of Hitler's
idea. They are the following:
“The main plank in the National Socialist programme is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual
and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute therefore the folk community, rooted in the soil and
bound together by the bond of its common blood. A very simple statement; but it involves a principle that has tremendous
consequences.” (P 10)
This very clear statement rules out that Adolf Hitler was any kind of a universalist when it
comes to so-called white people and that he would not approve of the European Union as it has been set up. At the
time he said this (1937) he had not visualized a war that would turn Germany into the occupier of large portions
of Europe. He was only visualizing German people being brought home into an expanded German Reich.
“[…] of all the tasks which we
have to face, the noblest and most sacred for mankind is that each racial species must preserve the purity
of the blood which God has given it.” (P 10)
This shows that Hitler saw his revolution as an internal, German event, not including all of Europe at all.
His position was that others would show interest in it for themselves if it were successful in Germany.
“...one error that cannot be remedied once men have made it
… failure to recognize the importance of conserving the blood and the race free from intermixture …
It is not for men to discuss the question
of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize the fact that it punishes those who disregard
its work of creation.” (P 10)
Hitler sees it as a law of Nature rather than as an idea of men of which the pros and cons can
be discussed. It is not up for discussion because it is an iron law, the breaking of which contains the punishment
“It will prevent
the Jewish people from intruding themselves among all the other nations as elements of internal disruption, under
the mask of honest world citizens, and thus gaining power over these nations.” (P 11)
Jews are the greatest source of disruption
of the unity of a people, as proven by the rejuvenation of the German nation during the past four years since
“The people—the race—is
the primary thing. Party, State, Army, the national economic structure, Justice, etc, all these are only secondary
and accidental. They are only the means to the end and the end is the preservation of this nation.”
“It is absolutely necessary that this principle should be practically
recognized; for that is the only way in which men can be saved from becoming the victims of a devitalized set
of dogmas in a matter where dogmas are entirely out of place.” (P 16)
Think about this. A nation is not an Idea, but a living, breathing
body of folk bound by land, language and ancestry.
the folk-community does not exist on the fictitious value of money but on the results of productive labor, which
is what gives money its value.
and not a bank or gold reserve, is the first cover for a currency. And if I increase production, I increase the
real income of my fellow-citizens. And if I reduce production, I reduce that income, no matter what wages are
paid out.” (P 23)
higher the ratio of citizens who are incapable of productive labor, the poorer a nation will be.
The whole body of our German education, including
the press, the theatre, the cinema and literature, is being controlled and shaped today by men and women of
our own race. Some time ago one often heard it said that if Jewry were expelled from these institutions they
would collapse or become deserted. And now what has happened? In all those branches cultural and artistic activities
are flourishing. Our films are better than ever before and our theatrical productions today in our leading theatres
stand supreme and alone in comparison with the rest of the world. Our press has become a powerful instrument to
help our people in bringing their innate faculties to self-expression and assertion, and by so doing it strengthens the
nation. German science is active and is producing results which will one day bear testimony to the creative and
constructive will of this epoch. (P 26)
The Third Reich did indeed prove that Jews are not better than Gentiles at certain
tasks, and that they are certainly not essential for competing internationally.
“Mr. Eden declares that under no circumstances does the British Government
wish to see Europe torn into two halves.” […]
is to be regretted that the British Government did not adopt its present attitude at an earlier date, … for
then the Treaty of Versailles would not have been entered into. This Treaty brought in the first division
of Europe, namely a division of the nations into victors on the one side and vanquished on the other, the
latter nations being outlawed. Through this division of Europe nobody suffered more than the German people.
That this division was wiped out, so far as concerns Germany, is essentially due to the National Socialist Revolution
and this brings some credit to myself.” (P 34)
Hitler's first task was to undo the terrible and unfair damage of the Versailles Treaty which
was forced upon the German people in 1919. He rightly takes credit for that accomplishment in the first years of
his chancellorship, while also pointing out Britain's hypocrisy since it conducted a starvation naval blockade against Germany after the signing of the Armistice, and even continuing after the signing of the Versailles Treaty.
Hundreds of thousands of German women, children and infants suffered needlessly and died.
"The teaching of Bolshevism is that there must be a world revolution,
which would mean world-destruction. […] As far as Germany is concerned, let there be no doubts on the following
We look on Bolshevism
as a world peril for which there must be no toleration.
We use every means in our power to keep this peril away
from our people.
And we are trying to make the German people immune to this peril as far as possible."
because of its central location in Europe and its wealth and competence, was a particularly desirable target of
"I should like
to state that, complete German sovereignty and equality having now been restored, Germany will never sign a treaty
which is in any way incompatible with her honour; with the honour of the nation and of the Government which represents
it; or which otherwise is incompatible with Germany's vital interest and therefore in the long run cannot be kept.
I believe that this statement will be understood by all."
Indeed, Hitler was
not willing to sign a treaty of unconditional surrender in 1944-45 and no such treaty was ever signed by a German
Government until the Two Plus Four Agreement was signed in 1990 by the West and East occupation governments.
The foundations for the life of a people are not to be found in doctrines
and theories, but in its Lebensraum, in what the earth affords it for sustenance.
(American National Socialist)
Hence, Lebensraum cannot be regarded separately from the
Lebenshohe (peak of life) of a Volk. And this Lebensraum is not enough by itself — and this also is a truly revolutionary
realization — it must be complemented by a Volk’s diligence, its energy, and its ability to manage to get the
most out of its Lebensraum. And a still greater insight: this necessitates a Volksgemeinschaft, even if blood alone is insufficient
for this. My Volksgenossen! No leader can command greater strength than that accorded to him by his followers. What am I
without you?! If you refuse me your unanimous solidarity, what am I to do?! I am only one man. I can possess the greatest
good-will possible — my will is of no greater worth to you than your will is worth to me!
How petty are all other vain differences in our lives in view of this! How easily is
the individual deceived by vanity and notions of his own supreme importance, my Volksgenossen! One man thinks a great deal
of himself for one reason, another for another reason. One prides himself on being ten centimeters taller than the other,
yet another is happy simply because he considers himself better looking than the first. Yet another man thinks he looks
even better because his ancestors already looked better — nothing is proven, of course. Yet another man holds himself
to have an advantage because momentarily his purse is fuller than that of another. I say “momentarily” for experience
has shown this phenomenon to mostly be short-lived.
man yet says: “I have graduated from more classes than you have.
Do you have degrees like those I have?”
“Therefore I am worth more than you. My degrees prove this conclusively.”
So the story goes. So many men have extremely important degrees furnishing the basis for
their own personal brand of arrogance.
How ludicrous is all
this in view of the common fate we all share and which hangs so compellingly above all our heads! It is void of any significance
before the one truth that all of us either unite in our struggle to survive or perish together. This applies just as much
to the man with the so-called fatter purse as it does to the man with an older family name and his ancestors, and the man
with the allegedly more thorough education. For better or for worse, we all depend on one another.
And to any man who fails to grasp this — I have no idea where he might be hiding
out — the attitude of the outside world toward us should serve as ample proof. How do these people behave towards us?
What can we expect of them? Are these not once again the very same advocates of a strategy of encirclement, the very same
people who knew nothing but hatred in the year 1914? Yes, indeed, it is once more the same clique of warmongers which haunted
us back then already. What can we expect of them, my Volksgenossen? I believe it is essential that all Germans throw overboard
these ridiculous prejudices insofar as remnants of them exist yet today. It is imperative that we move closer together in
the conviction that together and united we can face off any danger. United we stand, divided we fall.
Hence we wish to educate our Volk in this spirit. And if one of those stubborn old heads
is driving me to despair, then all I need to do is look at his son to regain hope. Even if all hope is lost with some of
these old troublemakers (alte Stankerer), the youth has already outgrown them — praise the Lord! This youth represents
a new breed of man, the type we hope to introduce to the future.
are doing everything that can be done in this educational undertaking.
True, at times, we do overlook the so-called freedom of the individual in the process. I can easily imagine one
man or another saying: “It is beyond me why my son should have to serve with the labor service just now. He was born
for something greater than that. Why should he now be running around with a spade in his hand? Would it not be better if
he exercised the powers of his intellect instead?” For goodness sake, what is it precisely you understand as “intellect,”
my dear friend?! If your boy spends six months in the West wielding his spade for the sake of Germany, it may well be that
he is doing Germany a greater service than your “intellect” could in a lifetime. And, above all: he has contributed
to the overcoming of the worst form of “intellectual” confusion possible, namely, the inner fractures within
a Volk. Of course, we cannot simply say: “Oh, if he does not want to, he need not work.” Do you truly believe
that work at a chemical factory in one of the democracies is something so infinitely more delightful? Do not come up to
tell me: “Oh, truly, this is the magic of work which smells so enticingly.” Assuredly not! It stinks, my dear
gentlemen! But a few hundred thousands of workers simply have to take this on themselves and take it on themselves they
do. Therefore, another can assuredly take on himself to pick up the spade. And he will pick up this spade.
And this brings up the problematic topic of liberty. Liberty? Insofar as the interests
of the Volksgemeinschaft permit the exercise of liberty by the individual, he shall be granted this liberty. The liberty
of the individual ends where it starts to harm the interests of the collective. In this case the liberty of the Volk takes
precedence over the liberty of the individual.
By the way,
in no other state is intellectual work as highly esteemed as in ours. I believe this is evident already in its leadership.
In Germany, we pride ourselves in having men head our state who can well withstand any type of “intellectual”
comparison to the representatives of any other state. Above the liberty of the individual, however, there stands the liberty
of our Volk. The liberty of the Reich takes precedence over both.
The commandment of the hour is the securing of German Lebensraum.
There is no need for me to stress that we love peace above all. I know that a certain international clique of journalists
is spreading lies about us on a daily basis, placing us under suspicion and committing libel against us. This does not surprise
me in the least. I know these creatures from back in the old days. They, too, are export articles for which the German nation
has no use. In the American Union, a veritable campaign for boycotts against our German exports has been organized. It would
have been more intelligent, so I believe, had they imported German goods instead of the most inferior German subjects.
Well, at least, we can rejoice in having rid ourselves of these. How the people there
will handle them, that is truly their problem. We shall see to it that these subjects do not pose an actual threat to us.
I have taken the necessary precautions. I still recall vividly my political “friends” from the days before our
rise to power. These fellows always insisted they knew no Fatherland. And, indeed, this is true as they are Jews and have
nothing to do with us. These fellows now are reaffirming their attitudes and their pledges of old: they have launched a
campaign of hatred against Germany which they pursue with all their might.
And I? I arm with all my might! I love peace; my work perhaps best attests to this. And in this I differ from these
warmongers. What is it I have wrought and what is it these elements are undertaking? There is a great Volk here for which
I bear responsibility. I am attempting to make this Volk both great and happy. Enormous projects are being undertaken here:
new industries are being born; enormous buildings are undergoing construction. They are to serve the uplifting of the Volk
and to bear witness to our culture — not only here in Berlin, but also in a multitude of other German cities. The
things we have created in the course of these years! The countless projects we have begun in these years! And so many of
them will take ten to twenty years to be completed! Therefore, I have cause aplenty to desire peace. Yet, these warmongers
need no peace. They neither advance peace nor do they labor for it.
There is no need for me to name names in this context. They are unknown international scribblers. They are ever
so clever! They are truly omniscient.
There is only one thing
that they failed to foresee, namely, my rise to power.
in January 1933, they could simply not believe it. They also failed to foresee that I was going to remain in power. Even
in February 1934, they could simply not believe it. They failed to foresee that I was going to liberate Germany. Even in
1935 and 1936, they could simply not believe it. They failed to foresee that I was going to liberate our German Volksgenossen
and to return them home. Even in 1937 and 1938, they could simply not believe it. They failed to foresee that I was determined
to liberate and return home the rest of them, too. Even in February of this year, they could simply not believe it. They
failed to foresee that I was going to eliminate the unemployment afflicting seven million. Even two, three years ago, they
could simply not believe it. They failed to foresee that I was going to implement the Four-Year Plan in Germany with success.
This they simply could not believe either. They foresaw nothing! And they know nothing even today! These people have always
been parasites. Lately I do not know, but I have the feeling sometimes that they are a kind of cerebral parasite. They know
only too well what is happening in my brain, for instance. Whatever I say today, as I stand before you, they knew of it
yesterday already. And even if I myself did not know of it yesterday — they did, these most excellent receptacles
of wisdom! Actually, these creatures know everything. And, even if facts prove their pronouncements blatant lies, they have
the nerve to come up with new pronouncements immediately. This is an old Jewish trick. It keeps the people from having time
for reflection. Should people truly reflect on all these various prophecies, compare them to reality, then these scribblers
would not get a penny for their false reports. Therefore their tactic and trick is, once one prophecy has been disproved,
to come up with three new ones in its stead. And so they keep on lying, according to a type of snowball-tactics, from today
until tomorrow, from tomorrow until the next day.
version of this is the claim that 20,000 Germans have failed to land in Morocco, although their imminent arrival had been
Instead of landing in Morocco, they have
landed in Liberia. Considering the initial report’s assertion that these landings were supposed to be carried out
by the Luftwaffe, it seems as though these planes have been floating about in midair ever since and have now unwittingly
gone down over Liberia. Should no German be found in all of Liberia eight days hence, they will no doubt maintain: “It
was not Liberia, after all, but Madagascar where they were heading.” And if this turns out to be wrong also —
well, then it must have been another place — I already have enumerated all the locations allegedly threatened by us
before the Reichstag.
The warmongers who do not do anything
and, in any event, cannot step before the world to say: “I have created this or that!” — they are the
men who are attempting to plunge the rest of the world into disaster once again. And you will understand, that I cannot possibly
rely on assertions or declarations by people who themselves are paid servants of these warmongers. No, indeed, I rely exclusively
on my German Volk — on you! Better safe than sorry. A declaration by the League of Nations is all very well, but I
prefer our freedom to be guaranteed by the far more reliable fortifications protecting Germany in the West. And this, too,
is the product of the diligent work wrought by Germans just as the inner attitude of our Volk is the product of the diligence
and work of millions of its most active members. There is the German peasant who, loyally and bravely, assures bread for
us by plowing his acres diligently and honestly. There is the German worker who, loyally and bravely, goes to work at the
factory to assure other consumer goods for us earnestly and honestly. This is the basis of our existence.
As we reflect on the immense work done within these past six years, then I do believe
we have a right to appoint a day once a year on which we shall join together to celebrate what we call the German Volksgemeinschaft.
For this conveys the meaning of the First of May: a day to celebrate the work of Germans in the cities and in the countryside;
a day to celebrate the creative man; a day to celebrate our Volksgemeinschaft. My Movement vouches for the proper education
of our Volk! The German Wehrmacht vouches for its brave defense! And, all of you whom I greet at this moment, you millions
of Germans in the cities and in the countryside, you who constitute the German Volksgemeinschaft, you are the guarantors
that it shall never again fall apart internally! To our Greater German Reich and to our Volk, in East and West, and in North
Election Campaign 'Stump' Speech
This recorded address by Adolf
Hitler was distributed on 50,000 phonograph discs during Germany's fiercely contested national parliament election campaign
of July 1932, in which his National Socialist movement emerged as the country's largest party. This "Appeal to the
Nation" is similar in content and tone to many other speeches he gave in 1932, which for Germans was a year of mass
unemployment, economic paralysis, and a broken, unresponsive political system. Translation of the complete text, with a
foreword by Mark Weber, who examines how and why Hitler and his party won such broad popular support.
Hitler's Final Address to The Nation
Adolf Hitler made his final
address to the nation in a radio broadcast on Jan. 30, 1945,
the twelfth anniversary of the National Socialist seizure of power. Here are the concluding
sentences of that historic address, with English-language subtitles.
In this talk, delivered
three months before
his death, he concludes with determined confidence that, in spite
of setbacks, Germany and Europe will ultimately prevail against the grave threat from
the East. This brief video clip, just 41 seconds in length, is
from a 1997 BBC documentary
Nazis: A Warning From History."
Excerpts from ‘Hitler’s Table Talk’
Introduced by Lasha
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)
We publish this important 5000-word article purely for reference purposes, not because we believe in Hitler’s
religious ideas or wish to promote them.
It must be
understood clearly that we are sympathetic to Christianity and the traditional moral values of our ancestors. This
we are not ashamed to admit, though it is trendy nowadays to find Christianity out of date, if not repugnant, and to look
for salvation in other directions. It follows from this that Hitler’s fascinating anti-Christian
rants as set out below, though of immense interest to us psychologically, do not in any way reflect our own views or elicit
our uncritical admiration.
Hitler’s religious views
are uniquely his own and he is welcome to them.
Hitler’s religious ideas are revealed in his private conversations, not in
his speeches which are meant for public consumption. Here he is speaking strictly for the public, as any politician would—to win popularity and shore up support—not because he actually believes in what
he says. Anyone who believes that Hitler was a pious Christian, based on his public pronouncements,
is barking up the wrong tree. What Hitler said in public and what he believed in private are two entirely different things.
Among his closest friends and associates, especially in his recorded after-dinner conversations, Hitler reveals his true
attitude to religion and especially to Christianity: one of scathing contempt.
The quotations below are all taken from Hitler’s Table Talk, a series of private conversations between Hitler and his close associates, as recorded by Martin Bormann. These informal
conversations took place mostly during the early stages of World War II, especially 1941-1942, when Germany was still
doing quite well militarily against the Allies. They took place at the dinner table in the late evening
hours and often went on until the crack of dawn. Mostly long monologues by Hitler, with his interlocutors doing their
best to stifle their yawns and stay awake, the conversations were taken down in shorthand by
his secretaries and typed out later. The typescript was then edited meticulously by Bormann, one of Hitler’s
closest friends and confidants, who had no reason whatever to distort or misrepresent the views of his admired Führer.
After retiring to bed as the cock was crowing and the servants were rising
to face the new day, Hitler would be up again in a few hours, propped up on pillows and enjoying an austere vegetarian
breakfast in bed. A dynamo of uncanny energy, the Führer needed no more than 3-4 hours of sleep a night.
Renowned British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper
as well as his controversial opponent David Irving both had no doubts that in Table Talk the authentic
voice of Adolf Hitler could be heard ringing out loud and clear. Indeed, no reputable historian has ever questioned the book’s
Full quotation . . . here
EXCERPTS FROM ‘HITLER’S
I think the man who contemplates the universe
with his eyes wide open is the man with the greatest amount of natural piety: not in the religious sense, but in the sense
of an intimate harmony with things.
At the end of the last century the
progress of science and technics led liberalism astray into proclaiming man’s mastery of nature, and announcing that
he would soon have dominion over space. But a simple storm is enough — and everything collapses like a pack of cards!
In any case, we shall learn to become familiar with the laws by which life is governed,
and acquaintance with the laws of nature will guide us on the path of progress. As for the ‘why’ of these laws,
we shall never know anything about it. A thing is so, and our understanding cannot conceive of other schemes.
Man has discovered in nature the wonderful notion of that almighty being whose law he worships.
Fundamentally in everyone there is the feeling for this almighty, which we call ‘God’
(that is to say, the dominion of natural laws throughout the whole universe). The priests, who have always succeeded in
exploiting this feeling, threaten punishments for the man who refuses to accept the creed they impose.
When one provokes in a child a fear of the dark, one awakens in him a feeling of atavistic dread.
Thus this child will be ruled all his life by this dread, whereas another child, who has been intelligently brought up,
will be free of it.
It is said that every man needs a refuge where he can
find consolation and help in unhappiness. I do not believe it! If humanity follows that path, it is solely a matter of tradition
and habit. That is a lesson, by the way, that can be drawn from the Bolshevik front. The Russians have no God, and that
does not prevent them from being able to face death.
We do not want to
educate anyone in atheism.
* * *
The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity.
Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter
of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.
Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks
only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It
was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance.
was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its keynote is intolerance.
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical
extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure.
* * *
The Earth continues
to go around, whether it’s the man who kills the tiger or the tiger who eats the man. The stronger asserts his will,
it’s the law of nature. The world doesn’t change; its laws are eternal.
There are some who say the world is evil, and that they wish to depart from this life. For my part, I like the world!
Unless the desire to die is due to a lover’s quarrel, I advise the desperate man to have patience for a year. The
consolations will come. But if a human being has any other reason to wish to die than this, then let him die, I’m not
stopping him. I merely call attention to the fact that one cannot escape this world entirely. The elements of which our body
is made belong to the cycle of nature; and as for our soul, it’s possible that it might return to limbo, until it
gets an opportunity to reincarnate itself. But it would vex me if everybody wanted to have done with life.
To make death easier for people, the Church holds out to them the bait of a better world.
We, for our part, confine ourselves to asking man to fashion his life worthily. For this, it is sufficient for him to conform
to the laws of nature. Let’s seek inspiration in these principles, and in the long run we’ll triumph over religion.
But there will never be any possibility of National Socialism’s setting out to ape
religion by establishing a form of worship. Its one ambition must be scientifically to construct a doctrine that is nothing
more than a homage to reason.
Our duty is to teach men to see whatever
is lovely and truly wonderful in life, and not to become prematurely ill tempered and spiteful. We wish fully to enjoy what
is beautiful, to cling to it — and to avoid, as far as possible, anything that might do harm to people like ourselves.
If today you do harm to the Russians, it is so as to avoid giving them the opportunity
of doing harm to us.
God does not act differently.
He suddenly hurls the masses of humanity on to the Earth, and he leaves it to each one to work out his own salvation. Men
dispossess one another, and one perceives that, at the end of it all, it is always the stronger who triumphs. Is that not
the most reasonable order of things?
If it were otherwise, nothing good would
ever have existed. If we did not respect the laws of nature, imposing our will by the right of the stronger, a day would
come when the wild animals would once again devour us — then the insects would eat the wild animals, and finally nothing
would exist on Earth but the microbes.
* * *
Trying to take a long view of things, is it conceivable
that one could found anything durable on falsehood? When I think of our Folk’s future, I must look further than immediate
advantages, even if these advantages were to last three hundred, five hundred years or more. I’m convinced that any
pact with the Church can offer only a provisional benefit, for sooner or later the scientific spirit will disclose the harmful
character of such a compromise. Thus the State will have based its existence on a foundation that one day will collapse.
An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable.
An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)
as soon as he perceives that the State, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in the matter of religion, whilst
in other fields it bases everything on pure science.
I’ve always kept the Party aloof from religious questions. I’ve thus prevented my Catholic and Protestant supporters
from forming groups against one another, and inadvertently knocking each other out with the bible and the sprinkler. So
we never became involved with these churches’ forms of worship. And if that has momentarily made my task a little
more difficult, at least I’ve never run the risk of carrying grist to my opponents’ mill. The help we would have
provisionally obtained from a concordat [with the churches] would have quickly become a burden on us. In any case, the main
thing is to be clever in this matter and not to look for a struggle where it can be avoided.
Being weighed down by a superstitious past, men are afraid of things that can’t, or can’t yet, be explained
— that is to say, of the unknown. If anyone has needs of a metaphysical nature, I can’t satisfy them with the
Party’s Program. Time will go by until the moment when science can answer all the questions.
So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches.
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of
Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually
the myths crumble.
All that’s left is to prove that in nature there
is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the
majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian
doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.
religion was merely a prop for human communities. It was a means, not an end in itself. It’s only gradually that it
became transformed in this direction, with the object of maintaining the rule of the priests, who can live only to the detriment
of society collectively.
The instructions of a hygienic nature that most
religions gave, contributed to the foundation of organized communities. The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain
drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret — all
these were obligations invented by intelligent people. The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory. Observe,
by the way, that, as a corollary, the Moslem was promised a paradise peopled with sensual girls, where wine flowed in streams
— a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they
are allowed to sing hallelujahs! All these elements contributed to form human communities. It is to these private customs
that Folks owe their present characters.
of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that’s why one day its structure will collapse.
Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.
But one must continue to pay attention to another aspect of the problem. It’s possible
to satisfy the needs of the inner life by an intimate communion with nature, or by knowledge of the past. Only a minority,
however, at the present stage of the mind’s development, can feel the respect inspired by the unknown, and thus satisfy
the metaphysical needs of the soul. The average human being has the same needs, but can satisfy them only by elementary
means. That’s particularly true of women, as also of peasants who impotently watch the destruction of their crops.
The person whose life tends to simplification is thirsty for belief, and he dimly clings to it with all his strength.
Nobody has the right to deprive simple people of their childish certainties until they’ve
acquired others that are more reasonable. Indeed, it’s most important that the higher belief should be well established
in them before the lower belief has been removed. We must finally achieve this. But it would serve no purpose to replace
an old belief by a new one that would merely fill the place left vacant by its predecessor.
It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to reestablish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology
had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund. At that period the ancient
world was divided between the systems of philosophy and the worship of idols. It’s not desirable that the whole of
humanity should be stultified — and the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.
A Movement like ours mustn’t let itself be drawn into metaphysical digressions.
It must stick to the spirit of exact science. It’s not the Party’s function to be a counterfeit for religion.
If, in the course of a thousand or two thousand years, science arrives at the necessity
of renewing its points of view, that will not mean that science is a liar.
Science cannot lie, for it’s always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce
what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s
in perpetual conflict with itself.
One may ask whether the disappearance of
Christianity would entail the disappearance of belief in God. That’s not to be desired. The notion of divinity gives
most men the opportunity to concretize the feeling they have of supernatural realities. Why should we destroy this wonderful
power they have of incarnating the feeling for the divine that is within them?
The man who lives in communion with nature necessarily finds himself in opposition to the Churches.
And that’s why they’re heading for ruin — for science is bound to win.
I especially wouldn’t want our Movement to acquire a religious character and institute a form of worship.
It would be appalling for me, and I would wish I’d never lived, if I were to end up in the skin of a Buddha!
If at this moment we were to eliminate the religions by force, the people would unanimously
beseech us for a new form of worship. You can imagine our District Leaders giving up their pranks to play at being saints!
As for our Minister For Religion, according to his own co-religionists, God himself would turn away from his family!
I envisage the future, therefore, as follows: First of all, to each man his private creed.
Superstition shall not lose its rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing with the religions. These latter
must simply be forbidden from interfering in future with temporal matters. From the tenderest age, education will be imparted
in such a way that each child will know all that is important to the maintenance of the State. As for the men close to me,
who, like me, have escaped from the clutches of dogma, I’ve no reason to fear that the Church will get its hooks on
We’ll see to it that the churches cannot spread abroad teachings
in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young
will no longer be taught anything but the truth.
On the whole Earth there’s no being, no substance, and probably
no human institution that doesn’t end by growing old. But it’s in the logic of things that every human institution
should be convinced of its everlastingness — unless it already carries the seed of its downfall. The hardest steel
grows weary. Just as it is certain that one day the Earth will disappear, so it is certain that the works of men will be
All these manifestations are cyclical. Religion is in perpetual
conflict with the spirit of free research. The Church’s opposition to science was sometimes so violent that it struck
off sparks. The Church, with a clear awareness of her interests, has made a strategic retreat, with the result that science
has lost some of its aggressiveness.
The present system
of teaching in schools permits the following absurdity: at 10 a.m. the pupils attend a lesson on the catechism, at which
the creation of the world is presented to them in accordance with the teachings of the Bible; and at 11 a.m. they attend
a lesson in natural science, at which they are taught the theory of evolution. Yet the two doctrines are in complete contradiction!
As a child, I suffered from this contradiction, and ran my head against a wall. Often I complained to one or another of
my teachers against what I had been taught an hour before — and I remember that I drove them to despair.
The Christian religion tries to get out of it by explaining that one must attach a symbolic
value to the images of Holy Writ. Any man who made the same claim four hundred years ago would have ended his career at
the stake, with an accompaniment of Hosannas. By joining in the game of tolerance, religion has won back ground by comparison
with bygone centuries.
Religion draws all the profit that can be drawn
from the fact that science postulates the search for, and not the certain knowledge of, the truth. Let’s compare science
to a ladder. On every rung, one beholds a wider landscape. But science does not claim to know the essence of things. When
science finds that it has to revise one or another notion that it had believed to be definitive, at once religion gloats
and declares: We told you so! To say that is to forget that it’s in the nature of science to behave itself thus. For
if it decided to assume a dogmatic air, it would itself become a church.
one says that God provokes the lightning, that’s true in a sense; but what is certain is that God does not direct the
thunderbolt, as the Church claims. The Church’s explanation of natural phenomena is an abuse, for the Church has ulterior
interests. True piety is the characteristic of the being who is aware of his weakness and ignorance. Whoever sees God only
in an oak or in a tabernacle, instead of seeing Him everywhere, is not truly pious. He remains attached to appearances —
and when the sky thunders and the lightning strikes, he trembles simply from fear of being struck as a punishment for the
sin he’s just committed.
* * *
I know nothing of the Other World, and I have the honesty to admit
it. Other people know more about it than I do, and I’m incapable of proving that they’re mistaken. I don’t
dream of imposing my philosophy on a village girl. Although religion does not aim at seeking for the truth, it is a kind
of philosophy which can satisfy simple minds, and that does no harm to anyone. Everything is finally a matter of the feeling
man has of his own impotence. In itself, this philosophy has nothing pernicious about it. The essential thing, really, is
that man should know that salvation consists in the effort that each person makes to understand Providence and accept the
laws of nature.
Since all violent upheavals are a
calamity, I would prefer the adaptation to be made without shocks. What could be longest left undisturbed are women’s
convents. The sense of the inner life brings people great enrichment. What we must do, then, is to extract from religions
the poison they contain. In this respect, great progress has been made during recent centuries.
* * *
When I was younger,
I thought it was necessary to set about matters with dynamite. I’ve since realized that there’s room for a little
subtlety. The rotten branch falls of itself. The final state must be: in St. Peter’s Chair, a senile officiant; facing
him, a few sinister old women, as gaga and as poor in spirit as anyone could wish. The young and healthy are on our side.
Against a Church that identifies itself with the State, as in England,
I have nothing to say. But, even so, it’s impossible eternally to hold humanity in bondage with lies. After all, it
was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed on our Folks by princes who had an alliance
of interests with the shavelings [priesthood]. Our Folks had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion.
I have six Divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them
from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.
* * *
What is this God who takes
pleasure only in seeing men grovel before him? Try to picture to yourselves the meaning of the following, quite simple story:
God creates the conditions for sin. Later on he succeeds, with the help of the Devil, in causing man to sin. Then he employs
a virgin to bring into the world a son who, by his death, will redeem humanity!
I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mohammed, but as for the insipid paradise
of the Christians! In your lifetime, you used to hear the music of Richard Wagner. After your death, it will be nothing
but hallelujahs, the waving of palms, children of an age for the feeding bottle, and hoary old men.
The man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature. But Christianity is
an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of
the Godhead into a mockery. A nigger with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in
I begin to lose all respect for
humanity when I think that some people on our side, ministers or generals, are capable of believing that we cannot triumph
without the blessing of the Church. Such a notion is excusable in little children who have learned nothing else.
For thirty years [i.e. 1618-1648] the Germans tore each other to pieces simply in order
to know whether or not they should take communion in both kinds. There’s nothing lower than religious notions like
that. From that point of view, one can envy the Japanese. They have a religion which is very simple and brings them into
contact with nature. They’ve succeeded even in taking Christianity and turning it into a religion that’s less
shocking to the intellect.
By what would you have me
replace the Christians’ picture of the Beyond? What comes naturally to mankind is the sense of eternity, and that
sense is at the bottom of every man. The soul and the mind migrate, just as the body returns to nature. Thus life is eternally
reborn from life. As for the ‘why’ of all that, I feel no need to rack my brains on the subject. The soul is
If there is a God, at the same time as he gives man life he gives
him intelligence. By regulating my life according to the understanding that is granted me, I may be mistaken, but I act in
Man judges everything in relation to
himself. What is bigger than himself is big, what is smaller is small. Only one thing is certain, that one is part of the
spectacle. Everyone finds his own role. Joy exists for everybody. I dream of a state of affairs in which every man would
know that he lives and dies for the preservation of the species. It’s our duty to encourage that idea: let the man
who distinguishes himself in the service of the species be thought worthy of the highest honors.
* * *
What a happy
inspiration, to have kept the clergy out of the Party! On the 21st March, 1933, at Potsdam, the question was raised: with
the Church, or without the Church? I conquered the State despite the malediction pronounced on us by both creeds. On that
day, we went directly to the tomb of the kings whilst the others were visiting religious services. Supposing that at that
period I’d made a pact with the Churches, I’d today be sharing the lot of The Duce [Mussolini].
By nature The Duce is a freethinker, but he decided to choose the
path of concessions. For my part, in his place I’d have taken the path of revolution. I’d have entered the Vatican
and thrown everybody out — reserving the right to apologize later: ‘Excuse me, it was a mistake!’
But the result would have been, they’d have been outside!
all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity.
Let’s be the only Folk who are immunized against the disease.
* * *
Kerrl, with the noblest
of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s
possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.
I think I could
have come to an understanding with the popes of the Renaissance. Obviously, their Christianity was a danger on the practical
level — and, on the propaganda level, it continued to be a lie.
a pope, even a criminal one, who protects great artists and spreads beauty around him, is nevertheless more sympathetic to
me than the protestant minister who drinks from the poisoned spring.
Pure Christianity — the Christianity of the catacombs — is concerned with translating the Christian
doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole hearted Bolshevism, under
a tinsel of metaphysics.
Man has been given his brain to think with. But if he has the misfortune
to make use of it, he finds a swarm of black bugs [i.e. priests] on his heels. The mind is doomed to the auto-da-fé.
The observatory I’ll have built at Linz, on the Pöstlingberg, I can see it
in my mind … In future, thousands of excursionists will make a pilgrimage there every Sunday. They’ll thus have
access to the greatness of our universe. The pediment will bear this motto: ‘The heavens proclaim the glory of the
everlasting.’ It will be our way of giving men a religious spirit, of teaching them humility — but without the
Man seizes hold, here and there, of a few scraps of truth, but
he couldn’t rule nature. He must know that, on the contrary, he is dependent on Creation. And this attitude leads
further than the superstitions maintained by the Church.
is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone, and it’s the Jew who, thanks to this diabolic
invention, has thrown him back 15 centuries.
The only thing that would be still
worse would be victory for the Jew through Bolshevism. If Bolshevism triumphed, mankind would lose the gift of laughter
and joy. It would become merely a shapeless mass, doomed to grayness and despair.
The priests of antiquity were closer to nature, and they sought modestly for the meaning of things.
Instead of that, Christianity promulgates its inconsistent dogmas and imposes them by force. Such a religion carries within
it intolerance and persecution. It’s the bloodiest conceivable …
Ptolemy, the Earth was the center of the world. That changed with Copernicus. Today we know that our solar system is merely
a solar system amongst many others. What could we do better than allow the greatest possible number of people like us to
become aware of these marvels?
In any case, we can be grateful to Providence,
which causes us to live today rather than 300 years ago. At every street corner, in those days, there was a blazing stake.
What a debt we owe to the men who had the courage — the first to do so — to rebel against lies and intolerance.
The admirable thing is that amongst them were Jesuit Fathers.
fight against the Church, the Russians are purely negative. We, on the other hand, should practise the cult of the heroes
who enabled humanity to pull itself out of the rut of error. Kepler lived at Linz, and that’s why I chose Linz as
the place for our observatory. His mother was accused of witchcraft and was tortured several times by the Inquisition.
To open the eyes of simple people, there’s no better method of instruction than
the picture. Put a small telescope in a village, and you destroy a world of superstitions. One must destroy the priest’s
argument that science is changeable because faith does not change, since, when presented in this form, the statement is
* * *
The book that contains the reflections of the Emperor Julian should be circulated in millions. What wonderful
intelligence! What discernment, all the wisdom of antiquity! It’s extraordinary!
* * *
is a great pity that this tendency towards religious thought can find no better outlet than the Jewish pettifoggery of the
Old Testament, for a religious Folk who, in the solitude of winter, continually seek ultimate light on their religious problems
with the assistance of the Bible, must eventually become spiritually deformed. The wretched Folk strive to extract truths
from these Jewish chicaneries, where in fact no truths exist. As a result they become embedded in some rut of thought or
other and, unless they possess an exceptionally commonsense mind, degenerate into religious maniacs.
It is deplorable that the Bible should have been translated into German, and that the whole of
the German Folk should have thus become exposed to the whole of this Jewish mumbo jumbo. So long as the wisdom, particularly
of the Old Testament, remained exclusively in the Latin of the Church, there was little danger that sensible people would
become the victims of illusions as the result of studying the Bible. But since the Bible became common property, a whole
heap of people have found opened to them lines of religious thought which — particularly in conjunction with the German
characteristic of persistent and somewhat melancholy meditation — as often as not turned them into religious maniacs.
When one recollects further that the Catholic Church has elevated to the status of Saints a whole number of madmen, one realizes
why movements such as that of the Flagellants came inevitably into existence in the Middle Ages in Germany.
* * *
Ten Commandments are a code of living to which there’s no refutation. These precepts correspond to irrefragable needs
of the human soul; they’re inspired by the best religious spirit; and the Churches here support themselves on a solid
* * *
Is there a single religion that can exist without a dogma? No, for in that case
it would belong to the order of science. Science cannot explain why natural objects are what they are. And that’s
where religion comes in, with its comforting certainties. When incarnated in the Churches, religion always finds itself in
opposition to life. So the Churches would be heading for disaster, and they know it, if they didn’t cling to a rigid
What is contrary to the visible truth must
change or disappear — that’s the law of life.
* * *
Research must remain free and unfettered by any State restriction.
The facts which it establishes represent Truth, and Truth is never evil.
* * *
I shall never believe that what is founded
on lies can endure for ever. I believe in Truth. I’m sure that, in the long run, Truth must be victorious.
Hitler’s Duplicity Revealed: A Devout
Christian in Public,
but the Total Opposite Behind Closed Doors
An addendum to a previous article on ‘Hitler’s
in which Hitler’s Religious Views were
Presented by Lasha Darkmoon
May 31, 2021
LD: The authenticity of Hitler’s Table Talk is proved beyond
dispute here, revealing in the process Hitler’s implacable hatred of Christianity.
This is a follow-up article to Hitler’s Religious Views: Excerpts from Hitler’s Table Talk.
The present article consists of two very condensed
mini-articles by and about
David Irving in connection with Hitler’s
Table Talk. The first is a brief response by
a correspondent on his website. It validates the Table Talk book and
about its contents. The second mini-article, entitled ‘The Faking of Hitler’s
Last Testament’, relates to Irving’s dealings with the Swiss forger Francois
This is followed by a fascinating 4-minute video which expands on
with the confidence trickster Genoud. It succeeds in
drawing a sharp line between
the fraudulent material, now identified,
and the authentic material, now fully available to
of these notes is to set the reader’s mind at rest on two important issues:
(1) There is no longer any reason to doubt the authenticity of Hitler’s Table Talk.
(2) These informal dinner conversations between Hitler and his closest
which took place between 1941 and 1944, clearly reveal
Hitler’s contempt for
Christianity — “an evil invention
of the Jews”.
People who continue
to believe that Hitler was a devout Christian are in for a crushing
disappointment. Hitler was not an atheist, but neither was he the exemplary Christian
pretended to be in his speeches and official pronouncements. All that was an act for
public consumption. The image of devout religiosity Hitler needed to
project to the German people was a calculated exercise in duplicity. (LD)
Eric Yankovich asks on Thursday, January 1, 2004
if it’s worth
spending time reading Hitler’s Table Talk
How good is Hitler’s Table Talk?
I PURCHASED a book Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941 to 1944. It is about 1.5 inches thick.
It has an introduction by H.R. Trevor-Roper and
translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens.
Can you please
tell me if you have read it and what your thoughts are. Assuming Hitler
did have these
so called “Table Talks”, do you believe that it was faithfully translated?
The reason I ask you is that I do not trust much of anything, especially being burnt by
reading Albert Speer’s book. I briefly discussed this with you about four or five years
ago during a luncheon you had in Washington D.C.
a bit of the Table Talk and I am already turned off because H.R. Trevor Roper
engages in an anti-Hitler diatribe in the beginning of the book, so it is difficult for
me to trust the translation. H.R. Trevor Roper should have written a book “Why I hate Hitler,
even though I never met him!”
I respect your opinion; I
read five of your books already. The last one
was Dresden, a real crime and tragedy
if there ever was one.
David Irving responds:
Hitler’s Table Talk is the product of his lunch- and supper-time
conversations in his private circle from 1941 to 1944. The transcripts are genuine.
(Ignore the 1945 “transcripts” published by Trevor-Roper in the 1950s as Hitler’s
Last Testament — they are fake).
The table talk notes were originally taken by Heinrich Heim, the adjutant of Martin Bormann,
who attended these meals at an adjacent table and took notes. (Later Henry Picker took
over the job). Afterwards Heim immediately typed up these records, which Bormann signed as accurate.
François Genoud purchased the files of transcripts from Bormann’s widow
the war, along with the handwritten letters which she and the Reichsleiter
For forty thousand pounds—paid half to
Genoud and half to Hitler’s sister Paula—George
Weidenfeld, an Austrian
Jewish publisher who had emigrated to London,
bought the rights and issued an English translation
in about 1949.
For forty years or more
no German original was published, as Genoud told me
that he feared losing the
copyright control that he exercised on them.
I have seen the original
pages, and they are signed by Bormann.
They were expertly,
and literately, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H.
with a few (a very few) odd interpolations of short sentences
don’t exist in the original — the translator evidently felt justified in
insertions, to make the context plain.
Translation is a difficult chore: I have translated four books, including Nikki Lauda’s
memoirs — one can either produce a clinical, wooden, illiterate version, like Richard
“Skunky” Evans’ courtroom translations of Third Reich documents, or one can produce
a readable, publishable text which properly conveys the sense and language of the original.
Try translating for publication the Joseph Goebbels diaries — written often in a
vernacular — without running into trouble with the courts! Louis Lochner succeeded
my view magnificently.
translator also took liberties with translating words like Schrecken, which
he translated as “rumour” in the sense of “scare-story”. In my own view such translations
are acceptable, but they caused a lot of difficulty at the Lipstadt Trial where I found
accused of manipulating texts and distorting translations (because although
I relied on
the Weidenfeld translation, I had had access to the original document,
and should have
known that the actual word was Schrecken).
The Table Talks’ content is more important in my view than Hitler’s Mein
and possibly even more than his Zweites Buch
(1928). It is unadulterated Hitler.
He expatiates on virtually every
subject under the sun, while his generals and
private staff sit patiently
and listen, or pretend to listen, to the monologues.
with Sir Nevile Henderson’s gripping 1940 book Failure of a Mission, this
was one of the first books that I read, as a twelve year old: Table Talk makes
excellent bedtime reading, as each “meal” occupies
only two or three pages of
print. My original copy, purloined from
my twin brother Nicholas,
was seized along with the rest of my research
library in May 2002.
I have since managed
to find a replacement, and I am glad to say that — notwithstanding
the perverse judgment
of Mr. Justice Gray — Hitler’s Table Talk has
recently come back
into print, unchanged: Schrecken and all.
First published on David Irving’s site (January 1, 2004)
Reading Recommended by Irving
 Hitler’s War, by David Irving
 Hitler’s Table Talk (1941-1944): His Private Conversations (746 pages)
Hitler’s Table Talk July 24, 1942 (Hitler says he will ship all the Jews to Madagascar after the war)
 Radical’s Diary, re the contract that Lord Weidenfeld signed with Genoud for Hitler’s Table Talk: what he paid Hitler’s sister
 Michael Law asks Mr Irving about Genoud and Hitler’s Table Talk, and gets a full reply
 Items on Henry Picker and Table Talk
 Francois Genoud’s role in the composition
of the fake 1945 Bunkergespräche
(Table Talk,”testament”): The Faking of Hitler’s ‘Last Testament’.
THE FAKING OF HITLER’S LAST TESTAMENT
Seeking to disprove David Irving’s assertion
(1977) that there is no archival evidence
that Hitler even knew of
the Final Solution of the Jewish Problem, let alone ordered
of millions of Jews, some critics pointed to a passage in the book
by Hugh Trevor Roper, Hitler’s Last Testament, allegedly based on a typescript
record of Hitler’s informal mealtime remarks in 1945, analogous to the famous Hitler’s
There’s only one problem.
The document, first published in French in 1959 and in
in 1961 as Hitler’s Last Testament, is a FAKE.
Its owner, Swiss lawyer-activist François Genoud, now dead, first showed it to David Irving
at a meeting at the Hotel d’Angleterre in Geneva in 1971. At that time it was about fifty
pages of typescript, typed on a small-face non-German typewriter on American-size
legal paper. What was very surprising was that Genoud was willing to let German editor
Baumgarten work only from a French text, which he insisted must be
David Irving continued to press Genoud, expressing
to him strong doubts, after discussions
with Hitler’s private staff, especially
one who stated categorically that he had
never seen Hitler’s secretary Martin Bormann
taking down such notes in 1945.
There was a further
difficulty. Mr Irving had a transcript of the 1945 diary, now in
of Bormann (pictured); he also had a facsimile of the register of all the
guests at Hitler’s
February 1945 meals, kept by Hitler’s manservant Heinz Linge.
unquestionably genuine documents showed that Bormann was NOT
at several of the meals during which the “testament” showed he had
apparently taken notes; SOMETIMES HE WAS NOT EVEN IN BERLIN. (Emphasis added)
In 1979, Genoud phoned Mr Irving at his Paris hotel, and said: “I have a gift for
handed him a package. It contained a copy of the complete typescript
of the Testament.
The package gift from Genoud raised a new problem. Every page was
and expanded in somebody else’s hand-writing.
Mr Irving, astonished, asked Genoud whose was the writing.
Genoud then finally admitted it was his own.
Later still, he admitted in conversation with Mr Irving, that the entire typescript
was his own confection, saying: “But it is just what Hitler would have said.”
(The unabridged article can be read here)
Official German NSDAP Govt Booklet (1933) “The New Germany desires Work and Peace”
Posted on 10/21/2012 by justice4germans
This is booklet was an authorized
English language translation and publication by the newly democratically elected NSDAP government, whereby Hitler had been
duly and legally appointed as the Chancellor, by President von Hindenburg. It was also translated and published in French,
Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese and other European languages. The booklet contains various speeches by the new Leader, and was
made available for the international media and to the governments of Europe and the western nations, that they might understand
the agenda and policies of the new National Government of Germany and the basis for these policies, and be reassured of
Germany’s peaceful intentions.
It should be noted that, at the time Hitler and the
NSDAP came to power, roughly one third of the German work force was unemployed and people were starving. Post-WWI Weimar
Germany, in addition to the world wide economic impact of the Great Depression, had suffered through years of hyper-inflation,
was burdened with massive debt due to war reparation payments imposed on her by the allies, and was deeply divided socially
and politically, and had been in a state of chronic chaos and despair. Hitler promised not only “change” and
“hope”, but a real lasting recovery, with peace and prosperity, and to restore national pride and dignity to
the long suffering German people, IF they would unite behind him. He then delivered it. The recovery was nothing short of
a miracle, which made Germany the envy of her neighbours, and the enemy of the International Bankers and High-Finance elite,
because Germany was no longer their debt slave.
“As regards to their foreign policy, the National Government considers their highest
mission to be the securing of the right to live and the restoration of freedom to our nation. Their determination to bring
to an end the chaotic state of affairs in Germany will assist in restoring to the community of nations a State of equal value
and, above all, a State which must have equal rights. They are impressed with the importance of their duty to use this nation
of equal rights as an instrument for the securing and maintenance of that peace which the world requires today more than
May the good will of all others assist in the fulfilment of this our earnest wish for the welfare
of Europe and of the whole world.” ~ Chancellor Adolf Hitler
(by Dr. Joseph Goebbels)
New Germany Desires Work and Peace”
The above is the
title given to this collection of the speeches which the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, has delivered since his entry
into office on the 30* January 1933. That this Germany wishes for work needs no further demonstration. Nearly five
million men and women are struggling to regain the positions they have lost in factories and offices. Unemployment, that
terrible disease of our times, keeps them idle. The governments of the past, who, along with their system, have been superseded
by National Socialism, were embarrassed and inactive when faced by this pressing problem. The Hitler Government have made
their plans and declared war on unemployment. It is not with outside aid that they intend to overcome the evil; they are
not going to the other nations of the world, as their predecessors did, to beg humbly for protection and assistance. They
know that crises and despair are prevalent in every country, and for this reason they have determined to master the evil
in their own way and on their own initiative.
The return of two million men and
women to work bears witness to the fact that Hitler’s attempt to solve the problem of unemployment has not been without
But just as this New Germany desires work, it also desires peace. It has announced to the whole world,
through the mouth of the Chancellor himself, speaking in the Reichstag, that it has no aggressive intentions whatever, that
it does not wish to provoke anyone nor to stir up unrest. It wishes to pursue its work in peace and in a spirit of deep
moral conviction, in order to make sure of its daily bread. It stands unarmed before the world, and has no other
means of proving the genuineness of its intentions but its industry and assiduity. It is firmly convinced that the world
cannot regard its claims with indifference.
When this Germany announces that it will not sign any treaties that cannot
be observed, it only does so because it intends to observe faithfully all treaties that have once been signed. It is an orderly
and disciplined Germany in which authority rules that has been awakened by Adolf Hitler and his movement, and is endeavouring
to gain the confidence and understanding of the world.
The world is still suspicious;
with the exception of a few men who have had the courage to look the facts in the face, the world has no understanding whatever,
or at best a very poor one, for the meaning of the events that have taken place in Germany. Then only will it ready
appreciate the overwhelming importance of the internal revolution in Germany when Europe’s need has become so great
that people everywhere begin to realize that, without mutual understanding and respect between nations, peace cannot
flourish and that the scourge of unemployment will continue to afflict the nations of the world.
The speeches delivered by Adolf Hitler since the 30th January 1933 are eloquent proofs of Germany’s
desire for work and peace. May the world learn at least one thing from them, namely, that the German nation once more deserves
to be respected by the other nations in the same way as it can now once more respect itself.
Dr. Joseph Goebbels
1. Proclamation by the
Government of the Reich to the German People on 1 February 1933 ….page 5
2. Speech by President von Hindenburg
on the occasion of the Opening of the Reichstag on 21 March 1933 ….. page 10
Speeches delivered by Chancellor
1. on the occasion of the Opening of the Reichstag on 21 March 1933 . . . . . page 11
2. in the
Reichstag on 23 March 1933 15
3. to the representatives of German Agriculture on 5 April 1933 …… page
4. on the Day of National Labour, 1 May 1933 …. .. page 31
5. at the Congress of the German Labour Front
on 10 May 1933 …… page 38
6. in the Reichstag on 17 May 1933…….. page 53
7. to the
Reich Commissioners on 6 July 1933 …… page 65
My German People,
When the German people, trusting
to the assurances given in President Wilson’s Fourteen Points, laid down their arms in November 1918, that marks the
end of a fateful warfare for which perhaps individual statesmen, but certainly not the peoples themselves can be held responsible.
The German nation fought so heroically because it was fighting in the sacred conviction that it had been wrongfully attacked,
and that therefore right was on its side. Of the magnitude of the sacrifices which the German people – having to rely
almost entirely on its own resources – made during those years, other nations can scarcely have any conception. If,
in the days following the armistice, the world had stretched out a hand to its vanquished opponent in the spirit of fairness,
mankind would have been spared endless sorrow and countless disappointments.
It was the German people who
suffered the deepest disappointment. Never has a conquered nation so earnestly striven to help heal the wounds of its former
enemies, as did the German nation in the long years in which it fulfilled the conditions which had been imposed upon it.
If all these sacrifices have not led to real, lasting peace between the nations, the cause of this is to be found
in the very nature of a treaty which, by its attempt to perpetuate the discrimination between victors and vanquished, could
not but perpetuate hatred and enmity. The nations could rightly have expected that out of this greatest war of all times,
the lesson might have been learned that, especially for European nations, no possible gain could compare with the immensity
of the sacrifice. As, therefore, in this treaty the German nation was charged to destroy its armaments in order
to make world-disarmament possible, countless millions believed that this demand was the sign of growing enlightenment.
The German people destroyed their arms.
their former enemies would fulfil their part of the treaty obligations, the German people honoured their side of the bargain
with almost fanatical sincerity. Land, naval and air material was destroyed in countless numbers. In place of an army which
had once numbered a million, a small professional army, with utterly inadequate arms, was established in accordance with
the demands of the victor powers. The political destinies of the nation were at this time in the hands of men whose
outlook had its roots in the world of the victor states. The German nation had every right to expect that, if for this reason
alone, the rest of the world would keep its word in the same way that the German people, by the sweat of their brows, in
deep distress, and under terrible deprivations, were fulfilling their part of the agreement.
No war can freeze
the stream of time, no peace can be the perpetuation of war. A time must come when victor and vanquished must find the way
once more to common understanding and mutual trust.
One and a half decades the German nation has waited in the
hope that the end of the war would at length lead to the end of hatred and enmity. The object of the Treaty of Versailles
did not seem, however, to give mankind a lasting peace, but rather to perpetuate hatred forever. ~ Chancellor Adolf
SOURCE URL: http://archive.org/details/TheNewGermanyDesiresWorkAndPeace
View / Download:
(54.2 M) PDF
(8.2 M) PDF with text
Full Text (162.7 K)
DjVu (4.3 M)