The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Mark Weber Archive
Hitler Answers Roosevelt
The German Leader’s Reply to the American President’s Public Challenge
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Foreword

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.” The address is also important as a detailed, well-organized presentation of the German leader’s view of his country’s place in the world, and as a lucid review of his government’s foreign policy 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 not attack 31 countries, which he named.

Franklin Roosevelt
Franklin Roosevelt

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, praised Roosevelt’s initiative, declaring in an editorial that “the overwhelming majority” of “Americans 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 foreign issues that did not involve any vital American interest, and which Roosevelt did not adequately understand. As US historian Robert Dallek has observed, the message strengthened the concerns of those who believed that the President was seeking to deflect attention from persistent problems at home by meddling abroad.

Adolf Hitler
Adolf Hitler

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 world leaders.

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 to Berlin.

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 history.

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:

“The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible … 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.

The President’s 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.

At 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.

Their 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.

President Roosevelt’s Message

The following is the text of the message sent by President Roosevelt to Chancellor Adolf Hitler on April 14, 1939

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.

On 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 no war.

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.

Such 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 of relief.

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 the least.

I hope that your answer will make it possible for humanity to lose fear and regain security for many years to come.

A similar message is being addressed to the Chief of the Italian government.

Chancellor Hitler’s Speech

The following is the text of the address delivered by Chancellor Hitler on April 28, 1939, at a specially summoned session of the German Reichstag.

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 countries.

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.

Twenty-one 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.
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 suffered.

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.

That 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]The Versailles Treaty, signed in France on June 28, 1919 (“The Treaty of Peace Between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany”) 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 none.

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 responsibility.

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]Germany’s 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 of Nations.

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 Ghana.

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.

In Asia, 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).
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 “Weimar Republic,” 1918-1933. – 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 their oppressors.

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]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. 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]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) 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]Franco-Prussian War, 1870-1871. 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]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. 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 interests.

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]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. 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]Founded in Prague in 1348, Charles University is one of the oldest universities in Europe. Numerous cathedrals, city halls, and residences of nobles and citizens alike bear witness to the German cultural influence.

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.

The 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]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. 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]News 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.) 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.

It 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]May 21, 1938. 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]Kurt Schuschnigg (1897-1977), was Chancellor of Austria from July 30, 1934, to March 11, 1938. 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]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. 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]Known in Germany as the “Westwall,” this extensive defense fortification has often been called the “Siegfried Line” in Britain and the US. 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]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. 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]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.

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 question.

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]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. 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]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. 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]On March 14, 1939, the Slovak parliament in Bratislava approved the independence of Slovakia. 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]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. 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]October 14, 1938 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.

But 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.

Later developments 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 Czech lands of Bohemia and Moravia became a Protectorate of the Reich on March 15, 1939. 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 quantities.

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]See endnote 18. 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]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. 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]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.”
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.

No, 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]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. – 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.

During the 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 humankind.

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 People’s Reich.

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 their existence.

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]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.

Minutes 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.
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]After Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. 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]See endnote 27. 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 there.

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 [1935] 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.

In 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 martyrdom.

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]Agreement of March 22, 1939, between Germany and Lithuania on the Memel territory. 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 measures.

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]German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact, Jan. 26, 1934. 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]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

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]The “Corridor” gave the Polish state access to the Baltic Sea, but also cut off the province of East Prussia from the rest of Germany

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 life; and
  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.

The Polish government has rejected my offer and has declared itself prepared only

  1. 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 involved Britain.

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]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. 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 the world.

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]Another reference to the panic set off in the US by the Welles’ “War of The Worlds” broadcast. See endnote 35.

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.

Answer: 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.[37]Among the most prominent and influential of these American scholars were Sidney Bradshaw Fay, Harry Elmer Barnes, Charles Beard, and Charles C. Tansill.

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.

Answer: I myself have always been an exponent of this view[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 )
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 alike.

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]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.

    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 history.

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]This is a reference particularly to Austria and Czechoslovakia.

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]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.” 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 general charges.

    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]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.” 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]The 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. 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]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. 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.

We 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.

Contrary 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]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 the League.

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]An apparent reference to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. 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?

Mr. 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.

But 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.

They 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.

Answer: 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.

Answer: Mr. 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]Point 1 of President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points.” 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]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.” 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 considered tactless.

    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.

Answer: 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 rights.

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]See endnote 25.

With 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]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.

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 acceptable proposals.

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.

And 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]During 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,Lifemagazine (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.”

    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,

130,000 machine guns,
31,000 trench-mortars
6,000,000 rifles and carbines,
243,000 machine gun barrels,

28,000 gun carriages,

4,390 mortar carriages,

38,750,000 shells,

16,550,000 hand and rifle grenades,
60,400.000 rounds of live ammunition,
491,000.000 rounds of small caliber ammunition,
335,000 metric tons shell jackets,
23,515 metric tons of cartridge cases,
37.600 metric tons of gunpowder,
79,000 unfilled rounds of ammunition,
212,000 telephone sets,

1,072 flame throwers,

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.

The following air force equipment was destroyed:

15,714 fighter planes and bombers,
27,757 airplane engines.

With regard 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,
315 submarines.

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]Point 4 of President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points.”

In 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 made.

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]See endnote 39.

I proposed 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.

    20. 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]Point 3 of President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points.” 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]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.

It 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 be redeemed.

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]Point 5 of President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points.” 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.

For Further Reading

Michael C. C. Adams, The Best War Ever: America and World War II. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1994

Nicholson Baker, Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008

Harry 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

Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory. New Rochelle: 1979.

Norman Davies, 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. IHR, 1989.

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

Friedrich Stieve. 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. Chicago: 1952

A.J.P. Taylor, The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809-1918. Chicago: 1976

A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War. New York: 1983.

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 2008.
( 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

Endnotes

[1] The Versailles Treaty, signed in France on June 28, 1919 (“The Treaty of Peace Between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany”)

[2] Germany’s 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 of Nations.

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 Ghana.

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.

In Asia, 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 Republic,” 1918-1933.

[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.

[9] 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.

[11] News 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.

[18] 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.

[20] 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.

[24] 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.

Minutes 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.

[31] Agreement of March 22, 1939, between Germany and Lithuania on the Memel territory.

[32] German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact, Jan. 26, 1934.

[33] 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

[34] The “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.”

[44] The 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 the League.

[47] An apparent reference to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

[48] Point 1 of President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points.”

[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.

[52] During 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,Lifemagazine (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.”

[53] Point 4 of President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points.”

[54] See endnote 39.

[55] Point 3 of President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points.”

[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.

[57] Point 5 of President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points.”

(Republished from Institute for Historical Review by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 294 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. There are lots of issues to be re-thought about the lead-up to World War II, but one point where Hitler was quite weak in his argument, was his making excuses for the German occupation of Prague on 15 March 1939 … that is the day when the war actually started, the first time Germany began to rule over a society primarily of non-Germans, a brutal act of domination triggering the whole chain of ugly events

    Tho it is true that Czechoslovakia was a big mistake, with the ‘Czecho-Bolsheviks’ effectively oppressing others, not just the Germans, but the Slovaks who quickly bolted as well … and with Poland re-taking Polish territories from the Czechs even before Hitler invaded Prague … there was ultimately no excuse for either German or Russian imperialism in 1939. Hitler rolling into Prague was an immoral, inexcusable start of European catastrophe.

    On a lighter note … Hitler calling Joe Biden, 2min18, a good laugh

  2. sonofman says:

    Did Hitler have his fingers crossed behind his back when he made this speech, or is the historical narrative about his character and motivations fiction?

    • Replies: @El Dato
  3. El Dato says:
    @sonofman

    Hitler was a player.

    And so was Roosie.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  4. @brabantian

    Idiotic as all WW 2 inspired propaganda depictions of not only Hitler but German people in general have been ever since. It’s truly amazing that one could travel most of the world and stay in hundreds of places, yet, unlike is true of the U.S., never even here a word about WW2, Hitler, or Nahhhhhtzeeees. It seems these things are simply a part of “American culture” now. That says more about Americans, than it says about nahhhhtzeeees, Hitler or WW2….It really is a tragic thing to have happened to the “American mind”

    • Agree: Old and Grumpy
  5. Comparing FDR to Hitler is like comparing a lion to a donkey. And it is safe to say that Hitler was obviously not the Burro.

    • Agree: Jett Rucker
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    , @John53627
    , @Moi
  6. All became moot when Hitler invaded USSR. Some rationalize Hitler’s action, but it was spectacularly stupid.

    • Agree: Hillbob
  7. nebulafox says:
    @El Dato

    Hitler was not Mussolini, personality-wise, and Germans were not Italians: his popularity would have gone down if he flaunted his sexual success, not up, and he knew it.

    That said, he had a series of one-night-stands with followers during the heady early Munich days and later had a reliable series of mistresses. By all reliable account, his sex life with Eva Braun was perfectly normal.

    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
  8. @Priss Factor

    Hitler and the Germans saved Europe. By preempting the Soviet attack by only 18 days the Germans blunted the greatest offensive in history. Instead of rolling over the whole continent with equipment manufactured in factories built by U.S. corporations (see Anthony Sutton-Wall St. and the Bolshevik Revolution) the Russians were thrown on the defensive from which they never regained momentum. When asked later in the war about the decision to invade Russia, Hitler said that where they were now is where they would have been two years earlier had they not invaded. The Russians had advanced within 100 miles of Romania’s critical Ploesti oil fields and had commandeered hundreds of rail cars to quickly move artillery and troops because European rail gauge was different from Russia. The Germans had no choice.

  9. Wyatt says:

    The more I read about FDR, the more I ask the question, “was there anything that crippled bastard was good at that wasn’t duplicity and conniving?”

    And every time I read something new, that answer is a firmer no. It’s amazing how different the spoiled New Yorker we have now is from the spoiled New Yorker who got us deeper into the Depression and WW2. Is the difference between old money and new money really that stark?

    • Replies: @Ugetit
    , @anon
  10. @nebulafox

    Was Braun the woman who pioneered the “Hitler moustache?”

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  11. Thomasina says:
    @brabantian

    “…making excuses for the German occupation of Prague on 15 March 1939 … that is the day when the war actually started.”

    Wasn’t it actually started in Versailles?

    • Agree: Cauchemar du Singe
  12. Ugetit says:
    @brabantian

    Hitler rolling into Prague was an immoral, inexcusable start of European catastrophe.

    You have to be kidding. It was the start? You may want to read the article again and pay particular attention to the topic of Versailles, then consider what led up to that, and what led up to that. Then keep going, all the way back to Marx and beyond.

    Here’s a start,

    https://ia801909.us.archive.org/24/items/BornAtVersailles/Born%20At%20Versailles.pdf

  13. Ugetit says:

    By all reliable account, his sex life bla bla bla…

    Reliable? Here’s reliable for you. (Hint: Yapping about “sex” is a classic way of attempting to delegitimize one’s political rivals.)

    Poincaré had to find some way to torpedo his rival. He found one in Caillaux’s weakness for women. Despite his baldness, Caillaux had a winning way with the fair sex. Like many a French politician, he had cantered merrily from mistress to mistress. Indeed, as is the case with so many men in the public eye, the women ran after him. Hitler, who was quite prim in this matter, once showed me a drawer full of letters from beautiful women of all ages begging him to father a child for them. In love – Napoleon said it well – safety lies in flight. Many a time the emperor had to take to his heels.

    -Léon Degrelle, Hitler: Born At Versailles, pp51-52

    https://ia801909.us.archive.org/24/items/BornAtVersailles/Born%20At%20Versailles.pdf

    Those with prurient interests in the sex lives of prominent people as well as those interested in political machinations would be amused at the rest of the story about Caillaux and what his new wife did.

    In any case, bringing up Hitler’s supposed sex life in order to denigrate him is simple minded inanity.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
    , @Alfred
  14. @Ugetit

    Right. Hitler had several women who worked for him as secretary’s from the beginning of his Chancellorship. Some of them were there all the way to the end and Hitler had to make arrangements for them to be brought out to safety. Although overlooked by the court historians, David Irving interviewed them long after the war, when Hitler was being smeared and denigrated by everyone. Not one of them had anything bad to say about him. They said he was always polite and courteous. Irving also reports that these same women who were in close contact with Braun and Hitler indicated their relationship was not sexual.

    • Replies: @Ugetit
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  15. Big Daddy says:

    If you read Hitler’s speech and don’t comprehend the depth of his intellect vis-a-vis FDR you are out of it. Hitler read (10,000 books in his personal library!) and fought for 20 years as a political outsider.

    How is that for character!

  16. @Ugetit

    The Versailles treaty was engineered by the Zionist Jews to instigate another war in order to finish off Germany (no battles had been fought on German soil) who opposed the Zionist agenda and were not members of the Rothschilds banking cartel. Hitler was maneuvered into power by the Zionists using the Parliamentary system. The votes from the minority communist (Jew) party would normally have gone to the Social Democrats as the way to keep the National Socialists out of the Chancellery. However they were ordered by Stalin to throw their votes to Hitler. The Zionists wanted a reactionary leader who would put up a stiff fight so maximum damage could be inflicted on Germany and maximum profits made. Hitler’s many reasonable peace proposals were refused and in the last months of the war after Germany was beaten, the fire bombing of German civilians in areas such as the undefended city of Dresden continued.

    To go back to the beginning takes us all the back to the Boer War in 1899. Cecil Rhodes and co. who was financed by the Rothschilds and using the 250,000 man British army succeeded in defeating the 40-50 thousand Boers only after attacking the Boers farms and throwing their women and children in concentration camps where 35,000 died. Germany was next on the Anglo Zionist list. Coordinated by Alfred Milner and including the degenerate Edward VII, Lloyd George, Edward Grey, Arthur Balfour, Winston Churchill, Herbert Asquith, Nathaniel Rothschild and others.

    The Anglo Zionists were being out competed by the new country of Germany in several industrial metrics so instead of cooperation and competition they sought war. These conspirators also wanted to bring the U.S. back into the fold for a global anglo zionist empire. The Jews who controlled the finances in Britain and were married into many prominent aristocratic families used the Anglo Zionists as a vehicle for their own objectives.
    This is all explained in the heavily footnoted book by Gerry Docherty “Hidden History The Secret Origins of the First World War.”

    • Thanks: Ugetit, Ann Nonny Mouse
    • Replies: @Insouciant
  17. nebulafox says:
    @Father O'Hara

    No. To the best of my knowledge, that was a result of WWI. Hitler had the handlebar mustache in vogue in Wilhelmian Germany but that would not fit into the gas masks, so the men had to cut them. Hitler knifed his into the poststage stamp style.

  18. @Thomasina

    Yes, the Zionists knew that the obscene Treaty of Versailles where many thousand of sq. miles of land and large areas of ethnic Germans had lived for hundreds of years were separated from Germany while the continued blockade of Germany causing the death of 800,000 Germans after the war along with the outrageous reparations payments would lead to war.

    Czechoslovakia gerrymandered into place after the fall of the Hapsburgs used their new position to harass and disenfranchise the German minorities under their control. The same situation was being perpetrated by the thugs that controlled Poland. 50,000 Germans had been killed by the Poles and thousands driven out. Initially all Hitler requested was free access to the German city of Danzig, now under Polish control. Hitler also told the Poles that it was only a matter of time before the Soviets moved west and Poland was first on the list. Hitler proposed that the Poles join with Germany as a defensive move against the inevitable assault.

    The reckless leaders of Poland rejected all of Hitlers offers and instead grabed the British blank check of security that had no substance to it whatsoever. None of this was any business of Britain or the U.S. (FDR was doing everything possible to provoke war) and in any event the British could not even protect themselves (relying on Jewmerica) much less rescue Poland or the Czechs from their own stupidity.

    • Agree: Ugetit, GeeBee, Realist, Rurik
    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
    , @Lurker
  19. Ugetit says:
    @Wyatt

    The more I read about FDR, the more I ask the question, “was there anything that crippled bastard was good at that wasn’t duplicity and conniving?”

    No doubt about it; scum of the earth, just like his drunken buddy, Churchill, both of whom were itching for war for years.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  20. Ugetit says:
    @mark tapley

    Your comments are a blessed relief from the tiresome repetition of Zi0-Commie-One World mafia propaganda. Please keep them coming.

    • Thanks: mark tapley
  21. @Ugetit

    FDR (Van Rosenvelt) with his 52 Jew advisors was just another puppet actor like the one in office now along with his opponent the senile criminal Biden. The Jews said they would put puppets up as leaders of all the countries. Other examples of the pathetic Zionist lackies are Trudeau, Johnson, Macron and Merkel. FDR was just an operative for Bernard Baruch the big Jew head of the powerful War Industries Board in WW1 that handed out contracts to all their J.P. Morgan (Rothschild employee) buddies for war contracts. Baruch along with Eugene Meyer and live in handler Col. House ran the presidency for the syphilitic invalid Wilson who was catatonic for most of his second term. Trump might as well be because he is no more than a functionary and cheerleader for the Zionists.

    Roosevelt gained public sympathy for his alleged affliction with polio. Later the media said it was really Epson-Barr. Now upon further investigation researcher Forrest Maready has pinpointed the cause to arsenic- lead poisoning that was widely used in the 20’s to spray fruit. The gluttonous pig had gorged on a bunch of berries when he got off his yacht and hours later was struck with the paralysis.

    While feigning neutrality Jewmerica provided huge amounts war material and gave 50 battleships to Britain. The U.S. attacked German U bouts and tracked them for Britain as well as doing constant surveillance. Still unable to provoke the Germans to retaliate the 10 point plank to instigate war against the Japanese was put into play that utilized Pearl Harbor as was it’s original intended purpose. Admiral Richardson (former Commander) who had told FDR that it served no real purpose was fired. The U.S. possessed all 4 of the Japanese codes and had listening posts from the Dutch East Indies to the Aleutian Islands. They even had a secret station about 2 blocks from Admiral Kimmel’s office.

    Half Jew (mother Jenny Jerome-Jacobson) alcoholic war monger Churchill began his career in the Zionist syndicate during the Boer War and then became Lord of the Admiralty during the Anglo zionist contrived WW1. Fallen from grace after the Gallipoli campaign (designed to fail) Churchill was out of prominence having only his post in Parliament which didn’t pay much. He had a large estate and many servants. Churchill also had a large debt from stock speculation. He even resorted to selling fake art pieces. At this point the Jew run Focus Group needed someone to agitate for a new war against Germany. They paid off all his debts and brought him back as an operative. We see the same thing with the adolescent idiot Trump. After accumulating a 1.2 billion debt in his casino fiasco he was finished. At that point he was picked up by current Sec. of Commerce Jew Wilbur Ross, former managing director for Rothschild Inc. with a package using the Manhattan Jew bankers. Whoremonger and friend of Epstein and the Clintons he is portrayed as a conservative Republican.

    • Thanks: Rurik
    • Replies: @GeeBee
    , @Supply and Demand
  22. GeeBee says:
    @mark tapley

    Shock! Disbelief!! Surely you can’t be suggesting that the Jews have been playing us goyim cattle for fools all these years? (centuries? Millennia??)

    I am shocked I say. Shocked…

    • Agree: mark tapley, kikz
  23. gay troll says:

    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.

    Hitler says a lot of sensible things, but when he says something like this you have to contrast it with the actual outcome which was the firebombing of German cities, the defeat and occupation of Germany, and further partition. You must also take into consideration that Nazi science and political power passed through Operation Paperclip, and the Bush Family, into the CIA and the Oval Office. And they certainly have had no interest in peace or justice. Fascism is socialism, and we have had it in America for decades, and we are broken because of it. If Hitler was not really working for Rothschild, then why did he pull his punches? First at Dunkirk, then Moscow. Why did Hitler lose? The mainstream insinuates it was due to his hubris. But who benefited? What was done to Germany is now being done to America. If we cannot recognize the parallels we will meet the same fate.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
    , @Curmudgeon
  24. @gay troll

    It is easy to look back and see mistakes. Some times we are overly optimistic when headed to failure. Hitler believed there was an influential element in Britain that included Edward VIII and some MP’s and aristocrats that opposed the Warmonger Churchill. Hitler even sent his second in command, Hess to meet with this group. Hess was imprisoned for decades in solitary confinement before his (murder) death. Hitler was very favorable to the Anglos and tried everything possible to avoid war.

    Hitler let the British army at Dunkirk go to his generals dismay. The Germans had just overrun France and Hitler basking in glory felt this magnanimous gesture would result in peace. He failed to understand that the whole conflict was orchestrated by the Zionists and he was headed into an interminable situation. The Zionists in Britain and the U.S. were not interested in an armistice but only Germany’s destruction. At this point Hitler should have been removed from office.

    Now we come to Hitlers second and biggest mistake. The preempting of the incredibly huge Soviet invasion by the Germans was a brilliant move that saved Europe and bought Germany an extra 2 years because the Soviet who had set up their entire strategy and military design for the offensive now found themselves in a desperate defensive war. It is only because of massive U.S. aid brought in by constant convoys through the North Atlantic that they held on.

    Hitler’s failure at this point was most likely due to two issues. First the Russians had experienced a very difficult time defeating the small country of Finland. The Germans were watching this intently. they misinterpreted this stalemate as a weakness of the Russian army. What they failed to grasp is that the Finns had foreseen this event for years and had prepared the the most impenetrable defense possible. But just like Grant and the Union army, the Russian always had more expendable manpower and U.S. produced equipment. The second factor was that in the initial German attack even though they were poorly equipped with only small numbers of obsolete tanks and material the German army was very formidable. All of this led to Hitlers overly optimistic and disastrous decision to divide the German army into 3 groups. One under Manstein was wasted in the Caucuses and the largest army under Hitlers most inferior General Paulus was thrown away at St. Petersburg.

    Had these forces been combined with the force that bogged down only 12 miles from the control center of Moscow on December 18, 1941 the Germans would have defeated the Russians. Hitler scattered and wasted huge resources of men and equipment that could not be replaced. Just in the futile effort to supply Paulus, 200 transport aircraft and a thousand crewmen were lost. Had the Germans struck directly at Moscow and knocked out the Russians the 90% of manpower and material used there could have been deployed against the Allied attacks. If this had been the case it is doubtful that the British and Americans would have attempted to advance against such a powerful enemy.

    Two other factors are worth noting. Hitlers support of Mussolini and the Italians from the beginning wasted German resources. Hitlers Generals warned him at the start that the Italians were much more of a liability than an asset. They required constant support yet contributed nothing to the German war effort. Hitler was a lot like Confederate leader Jefferson Davis who thought that every crossroads and hamlet had to be defended. He insisted on having first line troops and critical equipment in the most far flung and out of the way places instead of where they could have done some good. This brings up the African campaign under Rommel. Hitlers Generals told him at the outset that they did not have the resources and could not hold this area. He would not listen and so lost this whole Army.

    Because of these massive mistakes that could not be overcome, Hitler doomed the German war effort and the German. nation. When the allied invasion commenced on D day Hitler had almost no first line troops at Normandy but only older men, recovering injured troops and mostly Russian defectors with some Romanian troops and other nationalities to put up a defense,.

  25. Jett Rucker says: • Website

    The aggressors in World War II won it.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  26. @mark tapley

    Irving also reports that these same women who were in close contact with Braun and Hitler indicated their relationship was not sexual.

    Irving can be such an unreliable bastard. Some day the shine is going to come off of him. What does “indicated” mean? Did they say so or did they not? Others who were closer than a secretary could get did indicate the totally normal sexual relationship between the two.

    This is why I push back against David Irving the way I do. I think he’s jealous of the women in Hitler’s life. He’s also depressed that he never got to meet Hitler in the flesh, only in his dreams.

  27. @Big Daddy

    Yes, and Hitler wrote his own speeches too. U.S. presidents certainly do not.

  28. @Big Daddy

    i have 10,000 books in my personal Kindle library .. does it say anything about my intellect ??

    • LOL: Realist
  29. cortesar says:
    @Thomasina

    Daily Express claims the ear was declared on March 24th 1933

    Judea declares the war on Germany

    ‘Jews of all the world in action

    Judea Declares War on Germany (PIC) from history

    I clearly remember when we studied this declaration in our history class thought by our teacher esteemed Mr. Shlomo Shekelberg

  30. utu says:

    I expect next article to be on Saddam Hussain speech of 2003 in response to Bush and about superior rhetoric of Hussain in comparison to Bush. And most importantly we want to know what Providence was telling Hussein. Apparently Providence spoke to Hitler directly.

  31. FatR says:

    Tl;dr.

    Roosevelt on the surface: “Don’t be stupid, and accept reality, while I’m still asking you to do so in the language of diplomacy.”

    Roosevelt, subtext: “I double dog dare ya, my useful idiot.”

    Hitler, missing the subtext: “No! Never! I reject your reality and substitute my own!”

    Author: “Wow, why, just why Roosevelt refused to sit down and accomodate Hitler’s delusions?”

    • Agree: Old and Grumpy
  32. @mark tapley

    Can we get a count on how many Jewish advisors Trump has?

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  33. Alfred says:

    Replace Hitler by Putin in the above and your understanding of our current situation becomes much clearer. The same Jews control the narrative as for the Boers Wars (1 & 2), the First World War, the Second World War, the Cold War and the many other wars up to the present time.

    Here is the first item that mentions Putin on Google. It is from CBS. Nothing has changed. We are heading for the big one unless these criminals are forced to hand over some of the media they covet.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/video/alexey-navalny-poisoning-putin-russia-60-minutes-2020-10-18/

    • Agree: Ilya G Poimandres
  34. @brabantian

    There are lots of issues to be re-thought about the lead-up to World War II, but one point where Hitler was quite weak in his argument, was his making excuses for the German occupation of Prague on 15 March 1939 … that is the day when the war actually started, the first time Germany began to rule over a society primarily of non-Germans, a brutal act of domination triggering the whole chain of ugly events

    Pointing out that reality will not make you popular here. They like to keep it to Germany vs Poland and the Versailles treaty. They don’t like to talk about how the Allies let Hitler break the treaty and they even gave him the Sudetenland. Then he takes Prague even though it wasn’t was part of Germany 1914.

    So he went on some big rant about how Germany was ripped off and then takes land that wasn’t German.

    Then he commits the laziest false flag operation in history and invades Poland.

    But I guess he is an anti-communist here because he made a deal with Stalin to split Poland and then later lost the war which allowed the communists to take Eastern Europe. What a swell guy.

    I would kind of think that being anti-Communist means not making deals with the Soviets to split a free country. To free Europe meant subjugating Eastern Europe I guess.

    • Thanks: gay troll
    • Replies: @Alexandros
  35. What a long winded article about how amerimutts are stupid subhumans.
    What is next, a kike is destined to hell?

    Muttmerica has always fought for evil.

  36. Alfred says:
    @Ugetit

    You may want to read the article again and pay particular attention to the topic of Versailles

    And why did WW1 start? Historians agree that WW2 was really a continuation of WW1.

    Why did the British switch sides in 1904 and sign a treaty with their traditional enemy – the French?

    And why did the British King become so friendly to his Russian cousin – while his governments were subverting and bribing the ministers of Imperial Russia? Meanwhile, France was bribing the Russian ambassador to Paris.

    Like with this Coronavirus nonsense, it pays to follow the money trail.

  37. Alfred says:
    @Ugetit

    In any case, bringing up Hitler’s supposed sex life in order to denigrate him is simple minded inanity.

    In England, it was much worse than in France. Lloyd George was a renowned womaniser. He had a wife and a mistress at the same time. He could have been ruined by being called into the divorce of his mistress but the case was mysteriously dropped. After that, he was at the mercy of the blackmailers who controlled the process.

    Winston Churchill – a renowned warmonger with debts to Jews – was brought into the Cabinet of Asquith. Although prime minister Asquith was elected to preserve the peace, he presided over the start of WW1. Churchill’s main ally in the cabinet was the Foreign Secretary – Sir Edward Grey. Lloyd George did as he was told and supported war.

    A very promiscuous Premier: Lloyd George and how his wife and mistress struggled to cope with his insatiable sex drive

    The Jewpedia article about Lloyd George is studious in avoiding any mention of Churchill during this period. They only mention Churchill from 1940.

    David Lloyd George

    • Thanks: Ugetit
  38. J says:

    The winner writes the history. Rewriting sounds bathetic. Wars lost long time ago cannot be fought again and won. The Nazis lost and that is forever.

    • Disagree: Insouciant
  39. 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.

    Exactly our situation in USA today.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  40. @mark tapley

    Jesus H Christ! How many mistakes can you make in one comment!

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  41. GMC says:

    An excellent article – Thanks. And the moral of the story is ? Don’t burn books , burn down the lying newspapers offices and TV networks that have turned the facts to ammo for the Zionist Cabal and their control of world events.

  42. @mark tapley

    Corbett: The World War One Conspiracy


    [MORE]

    • Thanks: Thomasina
  43. If you just replaced Roosevelt with Bush, Obama, even Trump, and Hitler with Putin, it would all sound so eerily similar!

    Oops, Alfred got there before me! 🙂

    • LOL: Alfred
  44. @Carolyn Yeager

    Irving is by far the best source we have. Of the thousands of pages he has written on the history of WW2, no one to my knowledge has found any errors. The example I gave about Hitler’s secretaries is the best one available because of their years of association with Hitler. They frequently observed Hitler and Braun away from public scrutiny. They are also the best source because these women never sought publicity or had an ax to grind for for personal or political gain.

    Since you did not know Hitler either nor I suppose ever interview anyone who did, particularly people that had worked and dealt with him on a routine basis for many years and even furnished their diaries and records for Irving’s examination, I think for you to make psychiatric evaluations is arrogant and stupid.

    • Agree: Alfred
    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  45. Anonymous[661] • Disclaimer says:
    @Truth Hurts the Liars

    You’re right about that. Like the song says, “everything old is new again.”

  46. Here comes a commenter who refuses to sing hymns in the “Hitler-Was-Innocent” Church:

    Yes, Roosevelt and the other Allies were duplicitous, but Hitler was by no means innocent himself.

    After having secured Sudetenland, he was not justified to invade the rest of Czechoslovakia, no matter how much “artificially created” and “ethnically instable” that country was, which was none of his business. He lied that Czechoslovakia was a “threat” to Germany. He wanted its territory, its auto- and its weapon industry.

    About Heydrich, “protector” of Bohemia and Moravia :

    “…Heydrich came to Prague to enforce policy, fight resistance to the Nazi regime, and keep up production quotas of Czech motors and arms that were “extremely important to the German war effort”.[84] He viewed the area as a bulwark of Germandom and condemned the Czech resistance’s “stabs in the back”. To realise his goals, Heydrich demanded racial classification of those who could and could not be Germanized. He explained, “Making this Czech garbage into Germans must give way to methods based on racist thought…”[86]

    Wikipedia, Reinhard Heydrich.

    That doesn’t sound much like German “self-defense” to me.

    As for Roosevelt’s “ridiculous list” of countries threatened by Hitler, truth be told, Hitler had a list of countries in mind to be colonised by Germans and those were:

    Poland, Estland, Letland, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia up to the Urals. That does’t look like “self-defense” or “fighting Bolshevism” either.

    Hitler’s “justification” for his German colonisation plan of Slavic lands was that Germany was simply too small to feed its population with a density of 140 by square km.
    That is nonsense. My country the Netherlands has a density of 521 by square km and not only is it able to feed itself, small and overpopulated that it is, it is after the US the second biggest exporter of food in the world!

    No matter how duplicitous the Allies were, to depict Hitler as a politician who “only wanted to defend his country” is a Big Lie.

    As I said before, there were no “good guys” in the Second World War, each party in this conflict tried to cheat and all were guilty of war crimes.

    • Agree: Vojkan
  47. neutral says:

    If you wonder why America is full of such rotten politicians (and people in general), it is because they make cockroaches such as Roosevelt or Lincoln to be great heroes.

    • Agree: GeneralRipper
  48. @Truth Hurts the Liars

    I presented my observations as to the reasons for the chain of events as I perceive them. I believe history confirms my analysis. I readily admit I could be wrong on some points.

  49. @Carolyn Yeager

    “…What does “indicated” mean? Did they say so or did they not? Others who were closer than a secretary could get did indicate the totally normal sexual relationship between the two…”

    Well, I guess none of them witnessed Hitler and Eva Braun in the privacy of their bedroom. So they only could “indicate” what they thought what happened. Since the “indications” of his close relations differ, the matter remains undecided.

    “…This is why I push back against David Irving the way I do. I think he’s jealous of the women in Hitler’s life. He’s also depressed that he never got to meet Hitler in the flesh, only in his dreams…”

    I think you are projecting here. I think in your dreams you fantasize being his Eva Braun yourself.

    • Agree: mark tapley, Ugetit
    • LOL: Zarathustra
    • Troll: GeneralRipper
  50. @mark tapley

    Adding a little detail about the German Polish conflict, Hitler was under intense pressure by the German population in general and his partisans in particular to settle the polish corridor issue by force which he adamantly refused as he opted to lobby the League of Nations to organise a free plebiscite to allow the population of the polish corridor to chose which of the two nations they want to join. Hitler’s request fell on deaf ears in the League of Nations despite the Right to Self Determination being one of its principal tenets. Noteworthy, is that Hitler made an appeal for limiting arms in Europe and redefining the rules of war right after he became chancellor which were squarely ignored by France and Britain. When the self determination option failed, Hitler proposed to the Polish leadership to allow a land and rail route that would give access to Eastern Prussia. Unfortunately for Hitler, Marshal Joseph Pilsudski, who had the greatest influence over Polish foreign policy and who had cordial relations with Hitler passed away in 1935. Hitler personally attended the funerals of Pilsudski.

    Pilsudski’s replacement, Marshal Edward Rydz-Smigly, was a megalomaniac who had dreams of marching into Berlin and who commissioned a Polish painter to make a drawing to that effect, was buttressed by the useless British guarantees that were made under Roosevelt’s pressure with the latter keen on becoming a wartime president and on causing a new conflagration that would destroy the major European powers to allow the USA to become an undisputed leader of the Western world. Thus Hitter’s hand was forced into declaring war on Poland after the massacres that killed more than 47,000 ethnic Germans living in Poland, by and large perpetrated by Communist partisans. ( see The Bad War by Mike King).

    Judging by hindsight, Hitler should have not taken the bait of Poland until he was fully ready for war against Britain, especially that Germany was leading in nuclear research which Hitler stopped in 1936 having justified his decision that nuclear explosions were immoral and deadly to nature ( one would have to further dig into that fatal decision by Hitler). According to the late Ernest Zundel, when Hitler received the war declaration by France and Britain, he was so stunned that he remained fifteen minutes at his desk unable to utter a word. The rest is sad history for Europe, Palestine and the Middle East, and the White race in general. The world as a whole lost a chance to copy the German system of National Socialism that subordinated finance to industry and made international trade possible through barter totally bypassing the banking system, one reason stated by Churchill for the justification of the war against Germany.

    • Agree: mark tapley, noname27
    • Replies: @noname27
    , @mark tapley
  51. @Dr.C. Fhandrich

    Yup, I challenge anyone to turn on the History Channel on any given day and not find one show re-living the relatively short years of the evil Nahhhhhtzeeees!
    https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FqQcs53Yz9wa0E%2Fgiphy.gif&f=1&nofb=1

  52. @Supply and Demand

    I have not tried. We know that Obama had over 300 employees of Jew derivation in the State Department. Many Jews as in the MSM use Gentile cover names as they do the Jew controlled actors in Hollywood. The great majority of Jews are not a problem but they are also not going to be in prominent or highly visible positions. Anyone who gets lots of media exposure, good or bad needs to be scrutinized carefully because air time is expensive and the MSM uses it exclusively to propagandize the plantation’s livestock.

    Quality is much more important than quantity. All the goyim are now focused on the presidential puppet actor fake election. This has been controlled for the most part since 1910. This is a good place to pick up Zionist Jew influence. I need to add here that there are many Gentiles who have joined the ranks of Zionist Jews all the way back to the time of their agent Cromwell in the 1600’s.

    The syphilitic puppet Woodrow Wilson was placed in the presidency by the Zionist conspirators in order to get Taft out of office because he would not go along with the Rothschild banking cartel as engineered by their associate Paul Warburg. To nod this they had operative Teddy Roosevelt run on a 3rd party ticket in order to pull votes away from Taft so that The puppet Wilson could be elected. His controllers were Jew Eugene Meyer future governor of the central bank scam and publisher of the Washington Post, followed for many years by his daughter Katherine Graham Meyer. Also was Zionist Jew Bernard Baruch head of the very powerful War Industries Board that directed tax money (from the newly passed income tax along with FED credit extension) to his J.P. Morgan (Rothschild employee) cronies to fund the manufactured war effort at huge profits. Rothschild employee Col. House was the live in handler needed because Wilson was comatose for most of his second term. Rabbi Stephen Wise was also prominent in steering Wilson and the hard core Zionist operative Lousi Brandis was rubber stamped into the Supreme Court.

    FDR (Van Rosenvelt) had 52 official Jew advisors many in top positions led by the same Bernard Baruch who was really the power behind the puppet FDR. The Pendergast gang criminal Truman was put in office by the Jews and recognized the terrorist state of Israel right after Zionist operative Stalin in 1948. The Jew run Office of Alien Property (Bazlon and Pritzker) that stole millions in property and businesses from the American Japanese and threw 120,000 of them in desert concentration camps took place under his ad. This property (billions in todays money) was “sold” to their Jew buddies for pennies on the dollar.

    [MORE]

    I could go through more of this particularly as the Jew mob expanded into California and picked up local sports announcer Reagan. The Rockefeller (originally Levison) flunkie Nixon and the bush family all the way back to Samuel Bush brought in by Percy Rockefeller and Rothschild associate Harriman. Hope and Change Obama (probable son of communist Frank Marshall Davis) was started by the Pritzkers and other Jews of Chicago. All of these recent presidents are connected to the Zionist mob in some way.

    Trump has always been controlled by the Zionist Jews starting with his father who got started building Naval housing for the gov. at 10 times cost. Trump’s (mother Jewish lineage) first project after his crooked father died was with the Pritzkers. He has borrowed money from radical Jew Soros (did not have to pay back). He can’t reveal his real taxes because it will show that he is just a fixture propped up by Jew money. Trump had a personal debt of 1.,2 billion in his casino disaster and was bailed out by the present Jew Sec. of Commerce Wilbur Ross with a package from the Manhattan Jew bankers. People who have worked for him state that his real educational level is ap. 4th-5th grade. See his court deposition in 2016. Trump is nothing but a puppet actor and cheerleader for the Zionists. Anyone should be able to see that the presidency is just a facade put up to make the goyim think they are having a say. In a real legitimate country and election Trump and Biden couldn’t get elected dog catcher.

    I have skipped a lot but will close by saying that the same Zionists have controlled Jewmerica’s finances since 1913. They have sovereign immunity as evidenced by their bailout for billionaires theft in 08 and again now under the cover of the fake virus and staged riots they have stolen trillions more. They are plundering the country similarly to the way Putin and the Jew oligarchs have plundered Russia. That was the original plan and now that they have financial control the last step is to gain total control and implement their long planned Neo-feudalist global totalitarian system.

  53. Anon[446] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m surprised Weber didn’t link to a vid of the speech, … here is the only clip I’ve been able to find …. but it’s the best part …




    ..

    • Thanks: RVBlake
  54. HT says:

    We have been indoctrinated to loath Hitler yet the people who taught us that are now the ones who control the US media, Hollywood, academia, and much of our government and courts. These are the people who identify with Marxism and they are destroying us. As General Patton said, we defeated the wrong enemy. Now the enemy we should have defeated is destroying the USA and also the white race.

  55. Hegar says:

    One of the many points to remember here is that the French Air Minister, Pierre Cot, said that the function of the newly created Czechoslovakia was to be an air base for bombers, which would be able to destroy the German industrial centers in a few hours.

    This is consistent with a second point here, that Britain and France refused to allow a referendum in Austria on whether to join Germany. This was part of the Versailles Treaty, and again the aim is simply to keep Germany weak. Insane when Europe was menaced by Stalin, who aimed to take over the entire continent.

    Another point is the vast arsenal stored in Czechia:

    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 quantities.

    In the newly formed Czechoslovakia the Czechs were in control, but they were a minority. And there were more Germans – four million – than Slovaks. The Czechs could only keep this artificial country together by stepping on the minorities they controlled, which was the point. This would create hostility with Germany.

    As Hitler writes, the Czechs had for periods lasting centuries had peaceful relations with Germans, and this had benefitted both parties. During the times of hostility, this had benefitted neither. The Czech economy was built through its contact with the massive German economy.

    For a time Czechia was part of Germany. German noblemen and businessmen built stately old homes in Prague, where Germany’s oldest university resided.

    In this speech and elsewhere, Hitler showed that he was perfectly fine with Czech nationalism, which would be allowed in the Reich. Which would later be destroyed during the communism supported by French and Britain.

    • Thanks: noname27
  56. Trinity says:
    @Dr.C. Fhandrich

    Not a globetrotter, only places I have been outside of U.S. is Glasgow, Scotland, Canada, and a great deal of the Caribbean, but I am sure the people in Europe are bombarded with the same fairy tales about the “holycost” and the “official narrative” of WWII that Americans receive 24/7/365 their entire life for generations now. Hell, Europeans are even more shackled about holycostanity than Americans, risking prison if they step out line and even question the event. This along with the constant bombarding White nations about this event that is now becoming ancient history alone tells you that what we have been told is pure propaganda.

    Those caricatures of Hitler and the German people are indeed pure Jewish bullshit. IF any group or race of people have proved to be outright sadistic and of questionable sanity, it is the tribe. Hitler is always portrayed as some ranting, raving lunatic that is bat shit crazy. The Jews have a habit of always accusing their enemy of the thing that they themselves are guilty of, i.e., Germans and Hitler believed that the Aryan race was supreme to all other races of people and they, the Germans and Hitler, wanted to conquer the world. lmao at that one. Never mind that they said at one time the sun never set on the (((British Empire))) or that the (((Soviet Union))) wanted to spread (((communism))) aka ZIONISM throughout the world.

    Hitler’s physical condition did deteriorate significantly towards the end of the war and he was humped over, frail looking, hands visibly shaking etc., but then again, fighting half the world and watching your people and nation crumble from being so overwhelmed will do that to the strongest man out there. I noticed the actor portraying Hitler in that disgusting Jewy video was hunched over as well and in all fairness it was a good acting job portraying the Jew version of Hitler. Hitler was an animal lover and from my personal experience I have yet to meet any sadist who were animal lovers. It is a good measuring stick to use that anything we have been told about WWII is the complete opposite of the truth. The Germans were indeed the good guys and Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin and Company were the shit-heels. Wonder how Churchill would have held up physically if Great Britain found itself pitted against the Soviets, the Americans, the French, and others for 6 long years? Unlike Hitler who didn’t drink or eat meat, Churchill was an overweight lush.

  57. mike99588 says:
    @Thomasina

    Semantics and personal preferences on “start”.

    Most will acknowledge that Versailles is a root cause of WWII, the french reaping the whirlwind.

    March 15, 1939 could be a good date to “start” WWII for some. Certainly it marks a point in Germany’s assertiveness/aggression that clearly goes beyond Hitler merely protecting and re-uniting Germanic minorities, that Western distrust of Hitler becomes more palpable, perhaps alarm.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  58. Bottom Line for America: Europe’s affairs were none of Americas business, just as the affairs of the previous European conflagration was none of our business. WWI was all but over when America entered and prolonged that war. From Prolonging The Agony

    Prolonging the Agony lays before the reader a vast amount of evidence which reveals how enormously rich and powerful men in Britain and the U.S. deliberately prolonged WW1 while reaping even greater fortunes from it. It retraces the major lies and malevolent propaganda generated in Britain and America to justify war against Germany, and the reason it was prolonged beyond the spring of 1915 in order to crush her. The Secret Elite, the cabal which worked endlessly to bring war to Europe with a view to creating a new world order, was responsible. To cover their tracks, the elites and their agents ensured that a false history was created to justify all that happened. Prolonging the Agony deconstructs that false history page by page.
    https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/2018/02/27/prolonging-the-agony-1/

    But we Americans are a gullible bunch and it wasn’t but a mere 23 years later when we were allowed to be dragged into Europe’s latest squabble which cost us billions of dollars and a total of 1,076,245 US casualties.

    So who is the true evil one in the WWII agenda. Who was the man of the two analysed in this fine article by Mark Weber who really had no clear benefit to dragging his country into another bloody and costly world war. I think that answer is quite obvious.

    And who sacrificed more than 2,ooo American sailors to get the whole thing started. Let’s just say it wasn’t Hitler.
    “Roosevelt was a duplicitous, lying son of a bitch. He lied this country into a war that was totally avoidable. If he’s the model of the American Presidency in the world we live in now, God help us. The Mythology that surrounds this guy is enough to make you puke. And don’t ever forget it.“
    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/10/30/was-pearl-harbor-a-false-flag-operation/

    • Agree: noname27
  59. @Jett Rucker

    The Soviets were the real winners in the European theater. Half of Europe handed to them on a platter post WWII.

    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    , @mark tapley
  60. Chinaman says:

    It send shivers down my spine to see the parallels between now and 1939.

    Taiwan and Hong Kong is Danzig

    Coronavirus ( and it reparations, if any) is Treaty of Versailles.

    Power parity in some areas and the hegemon feeling insecure and trying to maintain superiority.

    Large income disparity in the world and a sense of injustice\discontent that can be conveniently directed from the 1%\Jews to the Chinese.

    Rising Nationalism in both country.

    Hitler is being absolutely reasonable in its demands while the Americans, as they are now, ruthless and unpersuaded by logic and reason. At least Hitler understands the horrors of war and did make every effort to delay, if not, avert it. The Deep State and unfortunately, Xi both wants a go at it…

    Many commenters here have express their desire to nuke China and murder hundreds of millions of People. That is the true nature of the white beast. However, they do not understand the doctrine of MAD and that China have the capability to retaliate after first strike. Our hypersonic missiles are even better.

    The only thing we learn from history is that we don’t. It is sad to watch us stumble into war.

  61. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Well, I guess none of them witnessed Hitler and Eva Braun in the privacy of their bedroom.

    Heinz Linge, Hitler’s personal and last valet for many years told in his book “With Hitler to the End” that he walked into Hitler’s private room one day and came upon A. and E. standing in the middle of the room embracing and kissing. No reason for Heinz to lie about it, but plenty of reason for Irving to lie because he was a chronic show-off. One of the secretaries, Schroeder I believe, wrote how Hitler’s face flushed with devotion and pleasure at some loving, loyal comments Eva made when they were saying goodbye to the group in the bunker, shortly before their suicide. It seems to me that Hitler was not unhappy that he was now going to be freed from the crushing responsibility and have Eva still with him.

    I think you are projecting here. I think in your dreams you fantasize being his Eva Braun yourself.

    That is nothing but a cheap shot from a nasty sob who stoops as low as he feels necessary to advance his Hitler hate. Why is it you always pop up to attack whenever I appear? Who is it with the obsession and turning everything to sexual fantasy? Not I.

    And why does mark tapley ‘agree’ with a Hitler hater?

    • Agree: Fox
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  62. Thim says:

    No one got to see Hitler except through Bormann. Bormann controlled him completely. So Bormann sent his puppet out to mouth some words.

    It was all calculated. Bormann wanted war. Not surprising, as he worked for the British.

  63. lavoisier says: • Website

    All I can really say about Hitler’s speech is “Wow.”

    Where else today but The Unz Review can one be treated to such information?

  64. @mark tapley

    Irving is by far the best source we have. Of the thousands of pages he has written on the history of WW2, no one to my knowledge has found any errors.

    I guess that’s not true, but only your opinion. Irving certainly has been disputed!
    Hitler did not like to show affection or weakness in public, and especially among men. He could also be rude and even unkind to those close to him, and that included Eva. I know that. But it seems it is you who is making an evaluation from one source – your dependence on David Irving – isn’t that stupid? And as to arrogant: Who are you? I’d be interested to have a little background.

  65. Trinity says:

    Wonder if all those soldiers who fought for “the good guys” in the “good war” left this earth thinking about how they helped in destroying much of America and Europe? I have recalled the story my uncle told me long ago, way back in the early Seventies, when it was just starting to really go downhill in America. My uncle told me how a German POW told him that one day Americans would realize that they fought on the wrong side of the war. Looks like my uncle was becoming “woke” to the JQ at the time, huh? I think some of those WWII vets had to think like my uncle, but on all the Jew propaganda we saw featuring aging WWII vets who were still alive, either those aging soldiers, airmen and sailors were dumb as a rock, or even more brainwashed than some white punk in Antifa, or they were being (((paid))) well to spew some ridiculous fairy tale. Too many of the (((actors))) or WWII vets that we would see as old white haired men in their December years were still spewing the same horseshit about “fascism,” Hitler bad-Roosevelt good, on all those ENDLESS WWII documentaries that featured old WWII vets and/or (((actors.))) Of course, these “brave men,” might have been muzzled more by political correctness than they ever were by German artillery. Thank you, “greatest generation ever.” While you might have been duped into believing this bullshit at the time, to continue to spew the same made up crapola decade after decade is unforgivable. You would have to be an idiot to think that turning over half of Europe to the (((communist))) was a victory for humanity and to think that destroying America with Jewish propaganda, flooding our nation with all kinds of flakes, nuts and fruits, was some sort of moral victory for “the good guys.”

  66. aandrews says:

    Official translation of the speech delivered by Adolf Hitler before the German Reichstag on April 28, 1939.
    https://ia801605.us.archive.org/3/items/1034858/1034858.pdf

  67. @Carolyn Yeager

    “…And why does Mark Tapley ‘agree’ with a Hitler hater..?”

    We are not Hitler “haters”, we are Hitler critics. Let us not make a cult about any of the major players in the WW II tragedy.

    Would Europe be better off if the Nazis had won the war? With respect to Third World immigration, certainly. With respect to the fate of the Slavic East, probably not.

    But we should live in the present. A cult about a person who died 75 years ago will bring us nowhere.

  68. Tom Welsh says:
    @coolhand850

    I would say more like comparing a cobra (FDR) to a wolf.

  69. Tom Welsh says:
    @Chinaman

    If the USA should attack China, it will instantly find itself at war with Russia too.

    Americans wouldn’t like it.

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  70. Tom Welsh says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Whatever you may truthfully say about the Soviet conquest of eastern Europe, you cannot say it was “handed to them on a platter”.

    Defeating Germany was the greatest military and industrial effort ever made by any nation throughout history.

    About 27 million Soviet citizens died to achieve victory. The fighting in Europe was exceptionally ferocious, and the Germans never gave up.

    When peace was declared, the Soviet leadership decided that they should keep the conquered territories for 50 years or so, just in case of another sneak attack from the West. They would have had an extra 1,000 km or so of buffer, equivalent to a week or two – critically important in modern warfare.

    Today Russia doesn’t have to worry so much about land buffers, as it has missiles. Doctrine says that if anyone attacks (let alone invades) Russia or any of its allies, retaliation will follow – with thermonuclear weapons at Moscow’s discretion.

    • Disagree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  71. @Carolyn Yeager

    Thank you for outing David Irving on this. Christa Schroeder was the only secretary who ventured to opine about Hitler’s sex life with Eva. For some crazy reason, David Irving clearly detests Eva Braun putting her in the silly flapper category, so when Schroeder, made her jealous smear saying Hitler’s relationship with Eva Braun was merely platonic, Irving didn’t disagree or probe. Of course this all flies in the face of the accounts of Hitler and Eva’s relationship as told post war by Eva’s sister Gretl Braun Fegelein (saying their sex life was normal and “still waters run deep”), Hermann Esser (magazine article “Hitler the Lover”) and others. All of Hitler’s secretaries were enamored with the Fuehrer, with Gerda Daranowski particularly wild for him, claiming to author Lawrence O’Donnel to have slept with him once. Secretary Christa Schroeder was in love with him too and obviously very jealous of Eva Braun, so denying her sex with Hitler to David Irving for publication was a final post mortem dig at Eva.

    • Thanks: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Druid55
  72. anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    The real losers of WWII are the White Christians everywhere. The holocaust just makes you think you won something when in fact you didn’t. Not only do the Jews have their land but yours too and your churches, or fakes that hate white people and christians and that lie about what is right and wrong. They hate the idea of a Christian country, they don’t want a White Jesus and that’s how you know Jesus was white, because they all hate him and want to enslave him. Latch him to their cart. Look at your countries, they are a bigger mess than ever. You lost, the Japanese lost and lost their culture too. You shouldn’t allow Muslims to fool too. I’ve said it a million times, they are all on the same side against whites, I guess thats why I don’t go to their filthy churches or even own one of their books. Those too, they censor Jesus or just outright remove his name. Silly Christians now look at you and what you teach your children and you circumcise your sons. Maybe it’s time you regrouped as something else, stop trusting those you know you can’t. Next time you find yourself in a conversation ask yourself what is it they want from you.

    • Replies: @gotmituns
    , @Wally
  73. GMC says:
    @Trinity

    A very logical summary- Thanks I will say this once since I live in the Eastern part. It is a wonder to me that the Russian people, having known/gone through the Foreign and Domestic Bolshevik genocide of their countrymen, can not understand how any country witnessing this , could not be 100% terrified of the newly made Soviet Union. Obviously , it only caught the eye of one man – named Adolph Hitler.

    • Thanks: Trinity
  74. neutral says:
    @Chinaman

    Many commenters here have express their desire to nuke China and murder hundreds of millions of People. That is the true nature of the white beast.

    Which commenters, are you talking about people here at Unz.com (I don’t see these comments) or others? As for the the “white beast”, you seem to be confusing white people and jews, are you aware of the difference?

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  75. Hegar says:
    @Priss Factor

    The Soviets had moved their military up to the border to invade Germany. They were far west of their usual fortified positions: the army placed in front of bridges instead of behind them, planes placed close to the border out in the open instead of on their protected bases, etc. They planned to invade.

    After beating back the British and French in a six-week campaign, Germany had reached its objective. Churchill had planned to invade once enough soldiers had been brought in from the colonies. But Germany now – once again – offered peace. They would withdraw from France.

    Germany went back to a peacetime economy. They did not produce more tanks, of which they had only a small number. They had no plans to invade the Soviet Union. But Stalin planned to invade Germany. Luckily the Germans noticed in time, and thereby saved Western Europe.

    Some communists like to claim “Stalin wasn’t a REAL communist”. This about the man who sought to eliminate the work week, making Russians work in staggered five-day shifts, even dividing couples this way, so that they wouldn’t be able to gather for Christian prayer on Sundays. Stalin had avidly poured over all the communist literature and was an expert on communist theory. He sought to impose communist slavery on all the peoples of Europe. While exterminating the Baltic peoples through mass executions and deportations, and swamping the land with Russian slaves, of course.

    When the U.S. invaded Italy, all the British and American generals and politicians wanted to go east, to take the Balkans before the Soviet invasion. But the communist Roosevelt alone refused. Instead he sent the American conscripts to die while invading southern France, which was heavily fortified and of no strategic value. There was no point as the other pro-Jewish forces had already invaded northern France. This was his way to weaken both the German and U.S. army as much as possible while ensuring that Stalin could take Eastern Europe. But … you will never say anything about that, will you?

  76. TGD says:

    A lot of Hitler’s speech is devoted to justifying the Nazi’s take over of Bohemia and Moravia (the Czech lands). Hitler’s plans for European conquest started with Czechoslovakia. Hitler thought that the Czech lands were like a stab in the side of the German Reich. He also wanted the Skoda Works and the huge cache of fine quality Czech weapons. The Czechs could have given the Nazis a “run for their money” but experienced a real Dolchstoß by Britain and France.

    Czech hatred for Germans is still palpable. In my 2000 trip to Prague, our tour guides made that clear including the claim that the per capita GDP of the Czech lands before WW2 was higher than that of Germany.

    If Hitler had stopped with the annexation of the Sudetenland, his Reich may very well have lasted 1000 years and taken over Europe economically.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  77. anarchyst says:
    @Trinity

    The “greatest generation” not only fought on the “wrong side” but wreaked havoc at home as well.
    ]It was those of “the greatest generation” who changed immigration laws in 1965 to favor third-world immigration ahead of white Europeans (Hart-Celler immigration Act).
    Not only that, it was Eisenhower who used federal troops to disenfranchise us whites (at the point of federal bayonets) in our own communities in 1957 Little Rock Arkansas.
    “Griggs v. Duke Power” disenfranchised qualified whites by abolishing the use of aptitude tests to determine qualifications and gave their jobs to unqualified blacks.
    It was those of the “greatest generation” who are responsible for our present state of affairs.

    • Agree: Trinity
    • Replies: @HT
    , @mark tapley
  78. HT says:

    World wide communism has brutally murdered over 100 million citizens in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, and Eastern Europe. I have zero doubt that the Leftists that will soon take over America will kill millions of US citizens who oppose them. In spite of all that, the group that controls our institutions such as the media and academia and even our government continues to tell us that white supremacists are the real danger in America. Some things never change.

    • Replies: @Robjil
  79. John53627 says:
    @coolhand850

    Hitler was a very good man. Germany losing the war in 1945 was a disaster for humanity and Western civilization.

    • Replies: @mike99588
  80. Anonymous[849] • Disclaimer says:

    Surprised by this article? Why? Ninety percent of the WW2 narrative taught in American schools and repeated on American media is an outright lie, nothing more than the now stale and left over propaganda of that time. Even the English, no friends or supporters of the Germans, have a more balanced view…When I attended high school, no one ever heard of the holocaust, that is to say, it wasn’t even mentioned. No one ever heard of dastardly German characters and villains, that seemed to have multiplied exponentially since then. One would think that Alex Jones was in charge of WW2 history classes in the U.S. LOL

  81. gotmituns says:
    @anonymous

    You’re sort of all over the place here but I think you have the jist of the idea. Hitler and the Nazis were right about Christianity. The Nordic people never needed Christianity. Thy had a solid, working moral code in place when the first Christian missionaries arrived in the north of Europe. So they didn’t need any fairy tale about three god’s in one and subordinate Gods/saints and miraculous miracles, etc. The peasants revolt of 1524-5 and Martin Luther were Germans telling Rome, enough BS is enough BS.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  82. @neutral

    There was an anon who proclaimed that 60 million dead Chinese is 100% acceptable to stop China’s growing power. That was from a covid article.

    And yes, that anon is 100% American. Jewish Zionists are not that direct when it comes to the Chinese.

    There is also a few anons who thinks nuking China is 100% acceptable. How dare China develop it’s country to the point of surpassing USA. Should just nuke it.

    It is a crazy world out there. Full of crazies.

  83. @Tom Welsh

    I disagree.

    If I was Putin in that scenario, I would provide as much support as I can to China to make sure the war lasts as long as possible, the devastation to both countries as severe as possible.

    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
  84. HT says:
    @anarchyst

    I have said almost the exact same thing and it is the truth. When Leftist tool Tom Brokaw called them the greatest generation, that should have been the first clue. That generation elected LBJ in the largest landslide ever and the damage he did with immigration plus the creation of the black welfare state plus civil rights destroyed us. All of that led us to where we are now, a country where the whites that built it are about to become second class citizens. What you see happening in our cities is just a preview of what is coming.

    • Thanks: Trinity
  85. mike99588 says:
    @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    I daresay if Americans, Brits and Germans could see the future, they might all have said f’it and had a big bbq and booze fest on the beach …

  86. mike99588 says:
    @John53627

    You might be confused on that.

    Hitler was not a “good man” even accepting many of the revisions. He was a ruthless, pivotal figure trying an unsustainable economic system by misprincipled means.

    WWII was generally a disaster for the Western cultures. America won materially but still destabilized its culture. Asia, So America and Africa had more winners longer term.

    • Disagree: GeeBee, Ugetit
    • Replies: @John53627
    , @Mefobills
  87. Robjil says:
    @HT

    This is a quote from the book “Russia’s agony” by Robert Wilton, which was published in 1918. pages 72-73, The attacks on police in pre-Revolutionary Russia by Jewish assassins sounds similar to what is happening in the US now.

    Three ministers – Bogolepov, Sipiagin, and Plehve = were murdered in rapid succession. Many of the assassins were young Jews, who also figured in hundreds of murders of policemen and
    “expropriations” of banks, effected ostensibly to finance Revolution….

    • Agree: HT
    • Replies: @Ugetit
  88. mike99588 says:
    @Hegar

    The US military disposed of a lot of Nazi true believers and future Soviet opponents from the Oder River into Berlin, against each other.

  89. Agent76 says:

    Nov 22, 2013 Thomas DiLorenzo – The Revolution Of 1913

    Thomas DiLorenzo discusses three events from 1913 that greatly escalated the transmogrification of America from the founder’s vision (limited government) to its current state (unlimited government).

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  90. I read the article, all of the Roosevelt letter but Hitler’s speech was just to long.
    The way I see it is that we will always be stuck in this kind of jingoism, (both Roosevelt & Hitler’s).
    Now the Irish cat is out of the bag, who will bell it?
    Leaders of USA, UK, France, Germany, Australia?? Who?
    The way to go about it is to fight for free speech.
    Truly it’s the sunshine that disinfects and disarms the virus, makes it harmless.
    Kill the banks, kill the funding to the politicians and a new day will dawn.
    Peace

  91. John53627 says:
    @mike99588

    I’m not confused at all about Hitler. War was forced on Germany in both World Wars. Evil won in 1945. The world today is a very dark place because of Germany’s defeat.

    • Agree: GeeBee, mark tapley, Ugetit
    • Replies: @mike99588
  92. @Big Daddy

    I thought it was 12,000 books in his personal library, only rivaled by Ben Gurion’s 16,000 book personal library.

    In any event, Adolph Hitler was a voracious reader and knowledgeable on many subjects, including one of his favorites, architecture.

    I believe I read somewhere that he was capable of reading a book a day.

    • Replies: @Ugetit
  93. @mark tapley

    Not according to Anatoly Karlin. Hitler bad, Stalin a victim.

  94. @mike99588

    According to the Museum of London, there are over 300 languages spoken in London nowadays. The capital of Britain ceased to have a majority British population quite some time ago, with the 2011 census showing “White British” (as if there is any other kind of British) only constituting 45% of the London population.

    From the Office of National Statistics

    The proportion of pupils from minority ethnic backgrounds has been rising steadily over recent years

    In primary schools, 33.9% of pupils are of minority ethnic backgrounds (up from 33.5% in January 2019).

    In secondary schools, 32.3% of pupils are of minority ethnic backgrounds (up from 31.3%).

    In special schools, 30.2% of pupils are of minority ethnic backgrounds (up from 29.5%).

    Pupils from Asian groups are the largest minority ethnic group in state-funded nursery (17.6%), primary (11.3%), secondary (11.6%) and special schools (10.3%).

    White non-British pupils are the second largest minority group in state-funded primary (8.1%) and secondary schools (6.4%).

    [MORE]

  95. @Franklin Ryckaert

    “But we should live in the present. A cult about a person who died 75 years ago will bring us nowhere.”

    I have been exposed for a hate cult toward this man relentlessly since the day I learned to read over 50 years ago. And it is still running full steam.
    To claim that introducing some drops of the opposite view in this ocean of hate should be wrong shows more than anything where your feelings will always lie, no matter what evidence you are presented.

  96. This speech is immense. It makes our present “leaders”, and their legions of cohorts, appear retarded.

  97. @gay troll

    I came across this book several years ago:
    https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/worminapple/wa00.html

    It outlines the problems facing NS Germany from within, including its intelligence services and military, which undermined the war effort.
    There are several other short books on this site as well, most of them written in the 1930s, that run contrary to the established media narrative.

    • Thanks: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  98. anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @gotmituns

    Jesus was European. I’m not saying that God does not exist or that God did not come here in the form of man, because that is very true. There is no moral code without God. I think maybe some people had some facts wrong and that the losers of that war were the Christians everywhere.

  99. Mulegino1 says:

    If Wikipedia and The History Channel are good enough for the proles, then by God they should be good enough for all of us, too.

    Why disturb the memories of the American apotheosis? We know that it was Americans (and their plucky British junior partners) who singlehandedly liberated most of the known world, laid the foundations for a new limitless international order of progress, freedom and prosperity and the limitless horizon of the American dream. And lest we forget, the crowning achievement of our boys was the rescue of Judea’s chosen from the jaws of genocide and oblivion.

    Hitler, like any other world historical figure, did indeed make mistakes. But the big lie of unique German guilt and aggression leading up to the war and the invasion of Poland is just that-a lie. A gross, monumental lie whose presuppositional underpinnings were established at Versailles.

    It was neither the annexation of Bohemia and Moravia was Hitler’s greatest blunder, nor his preemptive attack against the Soviet forces massed for an invasion. (The most powerful Army in the world, the 9th Rifle, was deployed within a hundred miles or so of the Romanian oil fields. The loss of access to this oil would have rendered the mechanized portion of the Wehrmacht inoperative within a few short weeks.) Besides, the USSR’s record of aggression in the period between late August of 1939 and June 22, 1941 was worse than that of Germany- the invasions of Poland, Finland, the annexation of the Baltic countries, and the occupation of Bessarabia, coupled with Soviet plans to annex Bukovina, reinvade Finland, and to make a move to seize part of the Dardanelles. And let’s not forget the Anglo-Soviet invasion of neutral Iran in 1941.

    The western Allies’ own history of aggression was little better, what with the American invasion of Iceland, the British attempt to occupy Norway (preempted by the Germans), the fact that it was the British and French who first declared war on Germany on September 3d, 1939, and France which first invaded German territory in the Saar Offensive in 1939.

    One of Hitler’s major mistakes was, in my estimation, allowing himself to be provoked by the warmonger Churchill’s deliberate area bombing of German cities ( according to British historian F.P. Veale, the introduction of the most barbarous method of warfare in Europe since the Mongol invasion) and respond in kind. Churchill did this precisely to provoke the Germans into retaliation, and Hitler fell for the provocation. Had he refrained and instead ordered the Luftwaffe to continue bombing the British airfields, the Battle of Britain might have turned out differently. The Luftwaffe had no fleet of heavy bombers to compare with those of the RAF.

    The major error that Hitler committed was to issue a formal declaration of war against the United States immediately subsequent to Pearl Harbor. He was certainly morally and legally justified in doing so, given the illegal naval war being waged by the (supposedly neutral) U.S. against German shipping in the Atlantic, but it was a strategic blunder nonetheless. There was considerable opposition among the American public to US involvement in the war in Europe. The American public was galvanized against Japan for what it perceived as an unprovoked attack and was itching for revenge. Hitler’s declaration only served to dissipate public opposition to intervention in Europe. It was precisely what FDR- arguably one of the most immoral and destructive leaders who ever existed-wanted.

  100. Mefobills says:
    @mike99588

    NSDAP economy was advanced and sustainable. Economics were the main reason Western democracies attacked Germany.

    • Replies: @mike99588
  101. Ron Unz says:

    I’m sure many of the commenters have already seen it, but here’s a pretty funny YouTube video on World War II that I posted a month or two ago:

    I’m amazed it hasn’t yet been purged, but there’s anyway a BitChute backup.

  102. GeeBee says:
    @Ron Unz

    Well done Ron! I first saw that amusing clip a couple of years ago and it is so true.

  103. @sunhunter61

    Read my comment nr. 47 for some “drops of the opposite view” in the revisionist fare that is eagerly devoured on this website. As I have said many times: the fact that the Allies were criminals does not make Hitler innocent. We should not make a cult out of him.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  104. @Franklin Ryckaert

    We are not Hitler “haters”, we are Hitler critics.

    Excuse me, but you (not we) are a Hitler hater. You can’t bear to see anything positive said about Hitler without bringing up his “crimes.”

    Would Europe be better off if the Nazis had won the war?

    YES! You even admit it, but hold out because of the “Slavic East.” In the balance concerning the entire White racial World, should it have been sacrificed because of resentments from the “Slavic East?” NO, especially since we know how the entire “Slavic East” suffered under Bolshevism for 60 years following Germany’s defeat. Would it have been better for some Slav nations to be under the dominant leadership of NS Germany for 60 years or to be under Soviet-Russian communism? Why not ask them what they would have preferred? Obviously they were not in the drivers seat at the time, and that is not new for them in history.

    But we should live in the present.

    How disingenuous. You don’t live in the present but always bring up the past. And to characterize interest in Hitlerian history as “a cult” gives away that you are a Hitler-hater.

    So do you put Slavic Europeans above and ahead of the good of All Europeans in the long run? Please don’t refer me to Wikipedia for your explanation.

    • Replies: @Vojkan
    , @John Johnson
  105. harryash says:

    A country supposedly the size of Texas (approximately) was forced to recover its dignity from the appalling and sick imposition of the Versaille Treaty orchestrated by the utter filth of humanity, thrown out of every country for the previous 700 years. As most of you are aware in this comment section, to knitpick and prevaricate about Hitlers sexual private life is an insult to this article. Those who consider and understand the real logic of history will realize that the world cannot have ugly unbalanced populations, neither can it have a serious deficit in IQ levels from country to country. Germany had and hopefully still has a very high IQ level, but the filth are determined to destroy it.Do we need to balkanize China and reduce the population so that it stablelizes and can exist inside its borders…my opinion is Yes…similarly India, Nigeria, Indonesia etc. Hitler established for his country a social and economic system for Germany outside the tentacles of the filth. Churchill established nothing except an exhibition of filth behaviour and murdered our finest in an unnecessary war. Today, sadly the house of lords is full of this filth and our politicians are blackmailed by this filth, as is the USA. Perhaps we should all look at the real problem…. Jews in any position of power, and destroy that disgusting crime cesspool called Israel.

  106. @Ron Unz

    Would a Nazi victory have prevented the degeneration of Europe as we are witnessing today? Probably, but for how long? In Spain Franco’s conservatism prevented degeneration as long as he lived, but after his death Spain became quickly as degenerated as the rest of western Europe. In a Nazi victory scenario, the US would not have attacked Germany, but that would not have prevented another “attack” on Germany: Hollywood and its pop culture. Germany’s youth would have succumbed anyway.

  107. Moi says:
    @coolhand850

    But hasn’t just about every US president been a SOB…

  108. neutral says:
    @mike99588

    More than that they would have turned their boats around, invaded London and arrested Churchill.

  109. @Mulegino1

    If Hitler was a “genius” he was a blundering genius. He made all kinds of major mistakes and that because he was not led by reason, but by “intuition”, gross ethnic prejudices and the belief that he was especially chosen by “Providence”. You can win some struggles with such a combination, but at the end of the day you collide with reality and you lose.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @anon
  110. @Mulegino1

    You are right however just as Zionist FDR had said he was determined to have war with Japan wether they attacked Jewmerica or not. His first priority was war with Germany. Since Germany and Japan were allies (although it did help either one of them much) the Pearl Harbor set up would be used for a war against Germany. As you stated Jewmerica had been giving massive aid to Zionist Britain for some time and were also attacking German submarines and performing search and reconnaissance missions for Britain. Had also given them 50 older battle ships. But we were neutral.

    As far as Hitlers biggest blunder (he made several big ones) splitting his forces into three groups when the Germans invaded Russia is no doubt the biggest. Had sent the combined forces straight into Moscow Russia would have been knocked out. The 90% of Germany’s resources deployed against the Soviets could have instead been moved into powerful defensive positions that Jewmerica would not have dared to attack.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  111. Anonymous[260] • Disclaimer says:

    what was/is the use for this long piece “academic” history??? there are more urgent matters to discuss…than this long useless article…America is on the verge of DISappearing …

    • Troll: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @Druid55
  112. noname27 says: • Website
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    47 million French people survived virtually unscathed after 5 years of German occupation with thousands of French girls fraternizing with the ‘dreadful’ Germans. I will suggest therefore that the Slavics would have fared just as well under the same German occupation.

    • Thanks: Carolyn Yeager
  113. noname27 says: • Website

    “World War II was a Zionist plot to make way for the foundation of the Jewish State in Palestine.”

    — Joseph Burg, an anti-Zionist Jew

    “The Jews are one of the principle forces attempting to lead the U.S. into the war. The Jews greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government. I am saying that the leaders of the Jewish race wish to involve us in the war for the reasons that are NOT American.”

    — Charles Lindbergh (September 11, 1941)

    “Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands. When bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe…President Roosevelt has been given the power to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.”

    — Count Jerzy Potocki, Polish Ambassador to the USA, 1934.

    • Thanks: Ugetit
  114. Vojkan says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Would it have been better for some Slav nations to be under the dominant leadership of NS Germany for 60 years or to be under Soviet-Russian communism?

    Do you prefer to suffer from the pest or cholera? I happen to like neither. To understand it, you’d have to cast your German arrogance aside just for a moment, I assure you that we Slavs find it just as abhorrent as the Jewish sense of entitlement, as we find your humanism just as phony as that of Jews, but that requires a sense of empathy and contrary to your Dutch or Norwegian or Swedish cousins, you are genetically incapable of empathy.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  115. TG says:

    Does it ever get tiresome being a symbol of evil?
    “That I should be vilified by my old enemies is just part of the game. “History is written by the victors” – a cliché, but still true. It does annoy me that I am considered to be an apotheosis of evil, when there were so many as bad or worse. I mean, it doesn’t bother me personally. I only object to people not thinking clearly, and lacking perspective. Two of my contemporaries, Stalin and Mao-Tse Tung, killed more even than I did.”
    True. According to the Whipple-Jerner scale of relative evil, they rank higher than you.
    “Yes I am familiar with this scale. Nevertheless, even though I am far from the top rank of evilness, I am still considered the iconic reference standard. That’s why the scale quantifies evil in units of ‘Hitlers’.”
    You don’t think of yourself as evil?
    “I did not say that. I deliberately killed – or caused to be killed – many millions of people. I also started a war that killed a few tens of millions. If someone wants to label that evil, why, I can scarcely object. But I was no different from all the other statesman of the day – Tojo, Stalin, Mao, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan, Andrew Jackson, and Mehmet Talaat, to name but a few – I fought for my people, for my tribe, and if that meant killing the members of other tribes to make room for my own, well, that was how the game was played back then.”
    Two wrongs don’t make a right.
    “Correct. But a hundred wrongs define reasonable and customary.”

    Excerpt from “MegaHitler,” in Full Frontal Cybertank, but Timothy J. Gawne. Mea Maxima Culpa, I could not resist adding the reference.

  116. mike99588 says:
    @Chinaman

    Hong Kong = Czechoslavakia
    “second swipe shows the problem”

    Danzig or Stalingrad = Taiwan?

  117. @anarchyst

    What you and HT are referring to is all the progress of the Zionist criminal syndicate. The great mass of animals on the farm (as Orwell termed them) never examine issues very closely and are very superficial in their thinking. They only focus on political maters when there is a fake presidential election and they tend to believe whatever the MSM Jews tell them. Even though everything the government has said and done is a lie and a fraud the goyim never figure this out. This is clear from the fact that they never thought about the reasoning behind the contrived wars in the first place. Russia was portrayed for years as a workers paradise and a valuable Allie while the whole thing was a facade only held together with massive U.S. aid. Then after WW2 it was switched around and they were the great and powerful enemy. This farce was continued until finally it became too expensive and difficult to keep them feed (were producing less grain in 1989 than when under then Tzar) and propped up. Time to move on to the “War on Terror” for the Zionist bridgehead of Greater Israel.

    Jefferson and Madison warned us that government had to be strictly limited. Big gov means big corruption. After all the lies from the official version of 911, WMD’s, fake shootings such as Los Vegas, fake Floyds and staged riots the goyim have still not figured out that the Zionists are herding them all down the road to perdition. It’s getting worse. Now they believe that a virus (the germ theory) is going to fall out of the sky and get them. The Zionists just finally sprang their long planned fake virus, fake test and fake numbers as a cover for the theft of trillions more by the banking cartel as they did with the bailout for billionaires program in 08. The Zionists know that over 90% will never Do anything as long as they get one meal per day.

    • Agree: Druid55
  118. When you recognize the USA and indeed the world are run by a Jewish-Anglo crime syndicate, it is painful. Is that how agglomeration of vast power and resources always plays out? Is there such a thing as a moral empire? Or are our elites criminals because they follow the Talmud? Those are questions I have been asking myself lately. If anyone has insight, I would love to hear it.

  119. mike99588 says:
    @John53627

    I would say the world started into a dark place because of Poland’s foolhardiness and Hitler’s miscalculations over the Polish Corriedor.

    • Agree: Druid55
  120. Petermx says:
    @brabantian

    Czechoslovakia was created in 1919 by stealing the land from Austria and Hungary (but mostly Austria), the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was the Austrian Empire for many centuries until the mid 1800’s when it became the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Czechoslovakia, concocted mostly from lands for centuries Austrian, it’s capital Prague owing as much to Germans (Austrians), if not more, than to Czechs who became a majority in the city much later. Czechs were a part of Austria, the Austrian Empire for centuries.

    Czechoslovakia had about 6 million Czechs and the second biggest ethnic group was Germans, about 4 million of them, the number decreasing as they left the miserable country. No one was asked if they wanted to be torn from Austro-Hungary, not the Czechs, Germans or the Slovaks who didn’t want to be ruled over by the Czech government either, just like the Germans. Czechoslovakia was not the “little democracy” propaganda peddled, the Czechs were given power over everyone else and the Slovaks were happy to be independent of the Czechs and then forcibly put under Czech rule again in 1945, finally gaining independence in 1993.

    At the end of WW II the Czechs brutally expelled over 3 million Germans, stealing everything from them after forcing out hundreds of thousands prior to the war, making it a total of 4 million Germans expelled from lands they had lived on for a thousand of years or much longer. Another 12 to 16 million Germans were expelled from what is now Lithuania (Memel), Russia (east Prussia, now called Kaliningrad) and Poland. With the lands stolen from the Germans and given to these countries so they could move millions of their own peoples into the millions of homes and cities stolen from Germans. This was the biggest ethnic cleansing in history. Nothing on this scale had ever been done and the Europeans living on those lands today are only less stupid about the history of those lands than the Americans. They have been brought up on a history of falsehoods and lies to make them feel good. Many of the people moving into those German homes and lands moved into an advanced civilization from their own backwards lands.

    • Agree: mark tapley
  121. anon[454] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wyatt

    Trump in his own way lacks the intelligence of FDR but he makes up for it in his retoric somewhat like Hitler which you can see in the Trumps followers, as they follow him regardless of his lies, deciet and lack of any moral code,its the difference between intelligence and cunning you might call it street wise that all hoods have.!!!

    • Replies: @anonymous
  122. Fox says:
    @sunhunter61

    How true. To imply that people who are putting a reality check on the dissemination of the cultic Hitler denunciations which have begun even before he became Chancellor is an inversion of reality. It will pay well to look into history and find other personages who have been relentlessly smeared over the centuries, and perhaps also find out why they might have become targets of timeless hatred.
    Right now, I can think only of the emperor Nero. He is supposed to have been so mad that I smell deceit and lies behind the loud cries to blacken his name. I don’t know much about him, but I do know that he had some troubles with the Jews of Alexandria.

  123. Hojer says:

    So many commenters are ready to consider Hitler´s speech as sincere truth, only pure truht, almost Holy Scripture.
    Despite being sceptical to the level of website discussion, I consider comments here on Unz review one of the best, so reaf through the comments, and I am impressed very badly by this point. At least I would expect everyone to read it critically and understand AH as on purpose lying if needed as politicians always do and did, not saint one.

    Depicting Germans as mostly opressed people in Europe has been his narrative to excuse expansions, of course.

    From Czech and historical point of view it all starts with claiming Prague University as the oldest german university. It is called Charles University, as the founder (1348, the oldest U. north to Alpes) was Charles IV – Czech king, becoming then also emperor of Holy Roman Empire (of German nation), which perhaps in German rhetorics justifies to claim it German. Btw. within its foundations was layed division of its teachers and students into 4 nations – Czech, Bavarian, Saxon and Polish. Btw. also note the use of “nation” in these times, while progressivist would call nationalism to be “modern construct” of 19th century.

    I will spare me and eventual readers from further remarques proving on purpose lies persisting in some western minds till today, on the contrary must admit that reading this speech critically is useful, few relations to current development (let me call it plutocracy issue and also contempt for Slavic nations issue regrettably) are important.

    One more point is to be stressed from the speech:

    The future will show whether the solution that Germany has found is right or wrong.

    The future did show it. It was bad.

  124. @Mulegino1

    Another big mistake of Hitler’s was his failure to recognize that his Enigma code had been broken. The consequences have not been delineated but it could easily have cost him the war right there.

    Hitler’s mistakes are fairly obvious. Mistakes by the allies fighting him seem to have been covered up fairly well. One of them seems to have been how the U.S. let the Maoists take over China. Mao’s forces were isolated and impotent in the interior of China until the Pacific war was over and the Americans were persuaded to let UN “humanitarian” aid boxes surreptitiously filled with American weapons pass freely through their lines to give Mao new life. As the Venona decrypts showed, this was probably due to the massive Soviet infiltration of the FDR regime.

    In a similar scenario it was likely fellow travelers who persuaded Truman to reject Japan’s offer of surrender for several months while the Soviet army was rushing west to seize great gobs of territory. This was foiled eventually by patriots like James Forrester, who persuaded Truman to accept the Japanese offer. Forrester of course got his comeuppance four years later when he was suicided by falling out a 16th floor window of Bethesda Naval Hospital with a noose around his neck.

    • Agree: mark tapley
  125. anonymous[849] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Just as the democrat leadership followers, follow them despite their connection to the ANTIFA, BLM and many other violent groups who burn, loot and murder Americans. In fact, Trumps followers are like kindergarten kids when it comes to any violence compared to die hard democrats. Please give us a break and don’t expect us to deny what we see with our own eyes. Pelosi, Schumer, Warren, Cuomo, Witmer, etc.etc. etc. are traitors to this countries peaceful, hardworking people.

  126. Not many of those men made it to seventy years of age. So they really never saw much of it. Nor were the GI Bill beneficiaries bothered by their brats’ cultural revolution, since the kiddies were going to the almighty colleges as well. Those who sent their kids to military slavery in Vietnam, had some inkling things were going south. However I doubt they associated it with WWII.

  127. Hojer says:
    @Petermx

    Growing tired of complaints on Germans being oppressed, moved back to Germany, etc. Germans started with the hostilities and brutality. Germans always wanted to germanise the land they were invited in, prevented Czech-Austrian equalization which Vienna was prepared to accept decades ago (succeded in case of Hungary), started with expulsions of Czechs after Munich treaty, treated all Slavic nations includilng killing children brutally and you expect that no vengeance would follow? IMO this helped a lot to collapse of Austria Empire (having majority of Slavic population) and also to defeat of Germans in WW2 (ukrainians welcoming German liberators from bolshevism first, then turning to fighting back partisans).
    Seems like history might repeat (first as drama, then as farce… now perhaps ecofarce).

    • Replies: @Petermx
  128. Sparkon says:
    @mark tapley

    While feigning neutrality Jewmerica provided huge amounts war material and gave 50 battleships to Britain.[#21]

    Had also given them 50 older battle ships

    Those ships were 50 WWI-era, four-funnel destroyers, most in poor states of disrepair, and certainly not battleships, and they were not given, but rather were part of a shonky trade that gave the U.S. 99-year leases on various possessions of the UK in return for the old destroyers:

    The destroyers-for-bases deal was an agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom on September 2, 1940, according to which 50 Caldwell, Wickes, and Clemson class US Navy destroyers were transferred to the Royal Navy from the United States Navy in exchange for land rights on British possessions.

    Generally referred to as the “twelve hundred-ton type” (also known as “flush-deck”, or “four-pipers” after their four funnels), the destroyers became the British Town class and were named after towns common to both the US and Britain.[1] Roosevelt used an executive agreement that did not require Congressional approval, but he came under heavy attack from antiwar political elements. The agreement violated the Neutrality Acts.
    […]
    The destroyers were in reserve from the massive US WWI shipbuilding program, and many of the vessels required extensive overhaul because many were not preserved properly when inactivated. One British admiral called them the “worst destroyers I had ever seen”

    [my bold]

  129. Fox says:
    @Vojkan

    Vojkan, I meant to ask you about a remark you made recently in another commentary thread about Germans hating Serbs. Please clarify. Since there was never a border between Germans and Serbs (Austrians are Germans), the only direct contact would have arisen from the Germans (mostly Swabians) coming down the Danube and settling in the wilderness of the lower Danube in the early 18th century. These people were driven away from the lands in which they had settled, apparently on good terms with their Servian neighbors for a good 200 years. Only after Tito was installed in the seat of power (by the all-time clueless villain Churchill) the unhappy Jugoslavia was resorting to wanton cruelty and was overcome by covetousness towards the accomplishments of their German neighbors, resulting in their version of ethnic violence against Germans.
    Serbs wronged Germans, and this perhaps the reason why you have to construe this inverted belief.
    Poles and Czechs also hate Germans, the Poles because they occupy at this time one third of the Germany of 1938, the Czechs because they occupy the Sudeten areas, both gained possession by driving away millions of Germans, causing the death of 2-3 millions of them. There is reason for a bad conscience and motivation for demonizing the victim.

    “I hate him so much because I wronged him”.

    • Replies: @Ugetit
    , @Vojkan
  130. @Tom Welsh

    My comment was trying to point out how Eastern Europe was purposely gifted to the Soviet Union post WWII. It was AFTER the fighting was done Russia was allowed to keep all the territory it had wrested from Germany, much of it because Patton was held up so Soviet Russia would be allowed to conquer as much land as possible.

    From Wear’s War
    The Western Allies were still in a position to easily capture Berlin. However, Eisenhower ordered a halt of American troops on the Elbe River, thereby in effect presenting a gift to the Soviet Union of central Germany and much of Europe. One American Staff officer bitterly commented: “No German force could have stopped us. The only thing that stood between [the] Ninth Army and Berlin was Eisenhower.”
    http://www.renegadetribune.com/gen-patton-exposes-allied-conspiracy-extend-ww2-give-eastern-europeans-stalin-suddenly-patton-dies-burying-real-holocaust/

  131. @noname27

    Hitler didn’t plan to colonize western Europe and didn’t consider western Europeans “racially inferior”, in contrast to Slavs. Consequently POWs from western Europe were treated well, but 3 million Russian POWs were starved to death.

  132. Ugetit says:
    @Steve Naidamast

    I am also under the same impressions although I can’t say much about Ben Gurion except that I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the total includes a large number of porn magazines, romance “novels,” 10 cent mystery “novels,” and comic books.

  133. HT says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ouch. That was painful. Unfortunately it is all true and it sickens me that so many good men have sacrificed so much so our leaders could destroy this country. Since the end of the Civil War, giving citizenship to the freed slaves, it has been one bad decision after another and now whites are becoming strangers in their own country. Sad to watch.

  134. Ugetit says:
    @Robjil

    …The attacks on police in pre-Revolutionary Russia by Jewish assassins sounds similar to what is happening in the US now.

    Many of the assassins were young Jews,

    The same type and their dupes assassinated many other European officials as well.

    Soon after united Germany is established, Bismarck’s government becomes the first European nation to grant citizenship privileges to its Jewish population. (2) Even Rothschild’s England has yet to do this. The UK’s Jewish Prime Minister (Disraeli) holds office because he had “converted” to Christianity.

    Just days before the important international conference is due to take place in Berlin, two assassination attempts are made against Kaiser Wilhelm I. On May 11, 1878, a Red named Emil Max Hodel fires shots at the Emperor and his daughter as they travel in their carriage. Hodel is captured and then executed in August. Three weeks later, another Red named Karl Nobiling fires a gun at the Emperor. The 82 year old Kaiser is wounded, but he survives. Nobiling then shoots himself, and dies 3 months later. The New World Order’s secret war against The Three Emperors League, and all of Europe’s Christian Monarchs, is really starting to heat up.

    -M.S.King, The Bad War

    Also, while many have heard of “Kristallnacht,” few have a clue that it was the assassination, by a Polish Jew, of a German diplomat to France, Ernst vom Rath that triggered it. According to King in the book noted above, Hitler was not happy about it and put an end to it schnell.

    • Thanks: Robjil
  135. Ugetit says:
    @Fox

    Excellent comment. Thanks.

  136. MarkNiet says:
    @noname27

    That’s true. Some people French are hypocrites about this period in their history. The other part are the ignorants. They’re all very ungrateful: Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS saved them from Bolshevism.

    • Agree: noname27
  137. @Joe Levantine

    A very well written article. Hitler had been brought to power by the Zionists as a reactionary force in order to achieve maximum profits and maximum destruction of Germany that had not been accomplished in the first war. No battles had even been fought in Germany. Wall St. invested heavily in German industry (read Wall St. and the noise of Hitler-Sutton). Hitler was being set up. Russia was under Zionist Jew control and massive industrial, agricultural and financial aid was flowing from American Corporations (read Wall St. and then bolshevik Revolution-Sutton) The bridgehead in Palestine had been founded with the Balfour treaty to Lord Rothschild. The problem was that the Kazars didn’t won’t to go down there. Some years more left than came in. The Jews world wide called on all the goyim to boycott Germany which depended on exports in order to pay the fraudulent reparations. The Jews then offered a plan. If Germany would transport the Kazar Jews to Palestine the boycott would be lifted. Hitler was only following the Zionist Jews demands. This was the Havara Agreement. This had all been planned way back from the original Zionist convention in 1897. The so called antisemitism was the Zionist Jews best tactic and now with their Eastern empire (Russia) they were ready to move forward.

    It would have been better if Hitler could have waited in his response to the thugs in the cobbled together remnant of the Hapsburg empire, Czechoslovakia or the Newly formed Poland but he had already waited far too long and given then way to much latitude as they continued to commit ethnic genocide on the Germans that had lived in those areas for hundreds of years. At the same time The Zionists were arming all around him. Hitler had a pronounced tendency to hesitate. He let the alcoholic warmongering Zionist Churchill bomb German Cities 8 times over 3 months before he finally retaliated. Hitler only preempted the massive Soviet assault by 18 days. I don’t think he would have had the leisure to wait much longer.

    On the nuclear issue I am very suspicious. I think we may be getting taken for a ride. We know that many of the nuclear tests were faked when examining the anomalies in the photos. We know that the gov. has developed conventional explosives that appear to be nuclear. There are interviews of persons who were at Hiroshima or Nagasaki at the time of the attack who reported no radiation effects. Almost all of Japans major cities had been badly damaged or destroyed with conventional weapons. I believe the Zionists are using another psyop here to instill fear of the nuclear Spector that is not as destructive as they claim.

    The German system of funding productive investments by small banks was a great benefit that lives on in Germany today but is succumbing to Deutsche “to big to fail” racket as in Jewmerica. In any case wherever you have a fiat central bank system wether under private control (Just about all of them are in the Rothschild system) or by a government (a different private control) the effect will be the same. Under the fiat system all individual banks will create credit money through loans. That is fiat. All governments in a fiat system will run a deficit to be made up by the creation of more debt infused from the top into the economy. When this happens instead of the currency reflecting a more productive, efficient economy will instead be syphoning the wealth from the producers just as has happened in Jewmerica. The only way to stop this scam is to have a free market gold based economy. You must have a metric to gauge the economy that is not part of the economy. Had we stayed in this system as the constitution dictated, the peoples currency value over the long productive span of the Amer. economy would have only gotten more valuable instead of worth maybe a penny of what it was in 1913.

    All fiat, Keynesian, credit based systems are by their very nature a fraud perpetrated on the people by the politically connected cartels. At some point look for the con men in Jewmerica to switch currencies as was done in 1991 in Russia. Another big threat that is imminent is the move to do away with the physical currency altogether (since it is all fiat anyway) so the Zionist can keep track of everything you do.

    • Thanks: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  138. Petermx says:
    @Hojer

    You have been brought up on a history of falsehoods and lies. What every European should be long ago tired of already is the never ending complaints of Jews being oppressed. The Germans are hardly ever mentioned except to accuse them. There aren’t even any memorials to Germans even in Germany and everything is lied about. That is how 14 to 20 million people can be brutally driven off their lands with millions of them killed and no one living on those lands now even knowing about it. What world do you live in I wonder? Every European from every country is called a murderer every day by the murderous Jews that cover up their own real role in history and you complain about too much sympathy for Germans. You must be nuts, The Germans are talked about in the most derogatory way by everyone, by idiots that know nothing but they’re smart enough not to complain about Jews because they know they will get in trouble for that. So it doesn’t even enter their mind.

    Czechs and Germans got along for centuries. More and more evidence is coming out highlighting the Jews role in ratcheting up hatred prior to the war that made it the most brutal war in history. If you have a big enough role in the media you can completely falsify history and the Jews have done that.

    Anyone that has followed the news in the USA the last 4 years have witnessed what a small group of powerful liars with a powerful role in the media can accomplish.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Hojer
  139. Vojkan says:
    @Fox

    Before any Germans were expelled from Vojvodina,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

    We detest Germans because they genuinely believe that they are a superior breed entitled to rule. They detest us because we are unruly and don’t recognise anyone’s superiority.

    • Replies: @Fox
  140. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Germany had such a huge influx of surrendering Russians, many were basically eastern barbarians, it is no wonder that they would prioritize food to other areas. Very few of Hitler’s soldiers captured in his biggest army that he threw away in the battle of Leningrad came home. Because of Hitlers many mistakes he had to resort to using mostly Russians, Romanians and some other nationalities to defend at Normandy.

    Hitler didn’t even demand all of the German territories back, taken at Versailles. Or any of the overseas territories. His offer to the Polish thugs was the best deal ever. He should have just stomped their Polack asses in the dirt then moved on to take care of the Russians next.

  141. Mulegino1 says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    He made all kinds of major mistakes and that because he was not led by reason, but by “intuition”, gross ethnic prejudices and the belief that he was especially chosen by “Providence”. You can win some struggles with such a combination, but at the end of the day you collide with reality and you lose.

    Every leader or statesman makes some serious blunders. Being led by intuition, prejudice, or an illusion that he was an instrument of Providence- all that is nothing compared to the fact that it was precisely his successes in economics and statesmanship prior to the war that led the vast majority of the industrial and financial powers of the world, with their vast, inexhaustable resources, to hate and oppose him and Germany with the aim of the latter’s complete subjugation and castration, i.e., its effective end as a sovereign nation state.

    The destruction of Germany as a great industrial and military power was a Britsh strategic aim well beore 1914, and this same policy was later adopted by FDR.

    There was no way that the City of London and Wall St. were going to allow a rival system of international trade, commerce and finance based upon physical production and the barter system to flourish. Imagine what the eventual creation of a “barter bloc” of nations which included Germany, Scandinavia, Southeastern Europe, Eastern Europe, the USSR, and Latin America would do to the hegemony of the money power. That quote about the destruction of Germany, whether it was led by Hitler or a Jesuit priest- being the goal of the Anglo-American alliance, whether aporcryphal or not, was dead on. All of the belligerents in the Second World War had their own interests to pursue. Hitler (as a cartoonish portrayal of evil) was merely easier to demonize and propagandize against.

    • Agree: Fox
  142. anon[197] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chinaman

    Large income disparity in the world and a sense of injustice\discontent that can be conveniently directed from the 1%\Jews to the Chinese.

    China is an ancient civilization. Is there an aphorism in Chinese equivalent to “If you sleep with the devil, your children will one day moan about it on unz review”?

    • Agree: mark tapley
    • Replies: @Chinaman
  143. Fox says:
    @Vojkan

    I don’t know any Germans who detest Serbs. Are you psyching yourself into this?

    • Replies: @Vojkan
  144. @Trinity

    Some of them figured out they were being duped but most believed Hitler was trying to “take over the world.” Its no different today. Despite a long history of Zionist lies, most of the goyim believe in the official Zionist narrative about the contrived conflicts, 911, WMD’s, “War on Terror” , fake shootings, fake Floyds, staged riots and now the fake virus. How many times have you heard the patsies praise the Israeli Foreign Legion members (U.S. military) for defending our country?

  145. Agent76 says:

    November 21st, 2015 Fascists Running America Endorse Nazism

    America didn’t eliminate the scourge of fascism in WW II. It shifted its headquarters from Berlin and Tokyo to Washington.

    http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2015/11/21/fascists-running-america-endorse-nazism#more40892

    Oct 11, 2017 Fascism’s Ties to Capitalism: Dr. Michael Parenti interviewed by Dave Emory (1993)

  146. anon[197] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Congratulations! This was a crowded field, with many excellent comments, and of course that epic specch by Hitler does raise the bar. Having read the chancellor’s speech and 111 comments, we have determined we have had and seen enough. There is, we should note, a deeper truth implied by your comment that we recommend for consideration, and that is a people’s responsibility to weigh claims of mission by providence with actions. The consequences of following false prophets, as the Germans have found, are rather catastrophic, for Providence indeed has bestowed total victory to others in the past.

    So without further ado, take a bow, you win the most penetrating comment of this thread!

  147. @Ugetit

    The Treaty of Versailles was the catalyst for WW 2.

    • Replies: @Ugetit
  148. @Vojkan

    Do you prefer to suffer from the pest or cholera? I happen to like neither.

    Whether you like either or not, that was the choice Slavs had. And also whether you want to hear it or not, that was the place Slavs had brought themselves to.

    Yes, you want to cast Slavs as pure victims of fate who deserve all the empathy the world can muster. Oh, the dear, dear Slavs! So precious, so injured. But at the same time, you don’t consider that Germans deserve any empathy. However, it’s a fact that Germans don’t seek it the way Slavs do. Germans know that what they did once, they can do again.

    So go fly a kite.

    • Replies: @Vojkan
  149. @Johnny Walker Read

    The Soviets could be classified as winners I suppose. But really Communism and the Soviet Union were merely tools for the expansion of the Zionist Agenda. Linen said that the USSR was a transition, not permanent and Stalin knew that when his great offensive failed to overrun Europe, the USSR’s days were numbered. Western industrial, financial and agricultural aid was the only thing that kept it from falling apart. In the 1950’s Russia had less automobiles than the country of Spain (noted for its backwardness) and in 1989 produced less grain than under the Tzar in the early 1900’s. Today the defeated Germany has a much bigger more diverse economy than the moribund Russia of Putin and his Jew oligarchs.

  150. RVBlake says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Western POWs may not have been treated as brutally as Slavic POWs, but they were not treated “well.”

  151. Fox says:
    @Petermx

    This has to be repeated again and again until the conspiracy of silence about this crime will be broken and facts about geography, historic developments, timelines of events and policy plans which are secreted away even now will be made public.
    It has been agreed upon by the people causing this epochal catastrophe to not mention it if at all possible, to rename all the German places with Czech, Polish, Russian, Lithuanian, Serbian (if I may add the similar fate of the Germans in Jugoslavia) names. Central Germany is now called “East Germany”, but it is the center of Germany, Eastern Germany being occupied by Poland, Russia and Lithuania at present.
    In addition, the westwards shift of Poland, including the elimination of Germans in these conquered territories, was a plan favorably discussed in Poland before the war. Likewise, the elimination of Germans from the artificial entity “Czecho-Slovakia” has been favorably discussed by the chauvinists in Prague before the war. In both countries, severe discrimination against Germans was official policy, and in Poland the Catholic Church was in addition stoking the anti-German fires. The Poles are in addition keeping the kettle with reparations of Germany to Poland boiling. They are thinking of around 1 trillion dollars as German reparations for the Polish occupation and ethnic elimination of Eastern Germany. But since the Poles have signed several final settlements with Germany already, it would be unlikely that this would end the Polish
    In a book about the Treaty of Versailles an American judge (Frederick Bausman was his name, if I remember correctly, the publishing year about 1923), spoke of Germany as being surrounded by malevolent neighbors. I think this was an apt statement to characterize the situation Germany finds and has found herself in.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
  152. Vojkan says:
    @Fox

    The only people with whom I’ve ever had any problem based on ethnicity at work were Germans. Work is not the only place where I’ve encountered German arrogance. I travelled with Germans and I had them for neighbours during holidays in Greece. So no, I’m not psyching it, I speak out of personal experience. I have met people of many nationalities, none inspire me such rejection, not even Khazarian Israelites.
    Regardless of my personal experience, there is History. Serbia never attacked Germany or Austria, yet Germans and Austrians invaded Serbia twice before any German was expelled and since you consider Austrians to be Germans, Austria-Hungary did border Serbia and Austria-Hungary did annex a predominantly Serb at the time Bosnia-Herzegovina. We don’t forget German efforts at breaking up Yugoslavia, we don’t forget the “horseshoe plan” forgery nor the expulsion of half a million Serbs from Croatia, another 300,000 from parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina under Muslim and Croatian rule and another 250,000 from Kosovo, all with German blessing and active support.
    So no, Serbs with at least half a brain are not psyching German enmity. As far as I’m concerned, I don’t care for their reasons, Germans can all go to hell, or more correctly, they can have hell brought to them by “refugees”, I don’t empathise.
    That said, I have no doubt that there must be Germans who are nice people, after all they begot Beethoven and Brahms. I just haven’t been blessed with making their acquaintance.

  153. @Franklin Ryckaert

    We should not make a cult out of him.

    You are disingenuous and don’t fool anybody who knows you … and you’ve been around this scene for a long time – longer than I have. You have always been suspected by many to be at least part Jewish. The reason for that is what you write.

    The incredible, lasting interest in Adolf Hitler, throughout the world, does not come from a ‘cult.’ What you can’t stand is the attraction and fascination for this man – in plain terms: popularity. You want to crush it – which is exactly what all Jews feel and want. If you don’t want people to think you’re a Jew, Franklin, you should end your crusade against Hitler.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  154. @Carolyn Yeager

    So do you put Slavic Europeans above and ahead of the good of All Europeans in the long run?

    So Hitler had to starve Slavic women and children in Leningrad to save Europe? Some savior.

    This is all so stupid.

    Hitler actually managed to make life worse for the Slavs than under the Communists. It actually played into Stalin’s hands as it made it easier to recruit them. If Hitler killed off your wife or family why not join the Red Army and seek revenge?

    Hitler did not defeat Communism so I do not understand why you guys are so enamored with him. In fact his loss led to the expansion of the Soviet Union. Because he killed Jews? Well WWII also led to the creation of Israel.

    All Hitler had to do was stay in his borders OR attack the Soviets to begin with. But his insane hatred of the Poles clouded his judgement. He didn’t think the British or French would declare over Poland and he would be able to turn the place into Lebensraum. That was his plan as outlined in Mein Kampf where he talked about taking territory from the East.

    He was not some victim of international politics. He planned on turning Poland into farmland as part of Generalplan Ost. He was never forced into war. It is completely deluded to believe otherwise. The Allies under Chamberlain tried to buy him off with the Sudetenland and of course it wasn’t enough because he planned on killing Slavs from the beginning.

    • Replies: @Fox
  155. Vojkan says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    I can’t seek empathy while stating that I feel none, it would be illogical. So no, I don’t seek empathy, I present facts. You are the one seeking empathy for alleged German suffering at the hands of Slavs and you certainly can get support from like-minded people. However, your German arrogance is too obvious and arrogant people just don’t inspire empathy.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  156. @TGD

    Didn’t Hitler have an enemy out to get him at all costs?

  157. @mark tapley

    Linen said that the USSR was a transition, not permanent and Stalin knew that when his great offensive failed to overrun Europe, the USSR’s days were numbered

    The USSR was doomed from the beginning because Marx’s plan made zero sense from the day he wrote it. In fact the Soviets had already scaled back a lot of his plans in the 1930s as they found that economics was a far more complicated subject than as depicted by Marx.

    Interestingly both the USSR and Nazi Germany were highly dependent upon each other economically. It was Stalin that was selling Hitler oil for war in exchange for grain and industrial products. This contributed to the foolishness of Barbarossa since they lost their primary economic partner immediately while still in a war with the West. Hitler made a massive gamble to take out the Soviets quickly but this still meant that much of the country would be in ruins. The Soviets would have most likely set their oil fields on fire even if Hitler had gone for them in the beginning instead of going at Moscow and then changing his mind. Hitler was too emotional for war strategy but his initial wins against France and Poland made him think he had god like powers.

    • Agree: Miro23
  158. @Petermx

    I would like to agree with you this time. But I do have to add some notes.
    You must be out of your mind if you think that 6 million Czechs were capable to expel 4 million warlike Germans.
    The another thing here is that if there were 4 million Germans in Czechia than they must have lived in tents because you can hardly find a German stile house in Czechia. German stile house has solid wood framed walls and bricks are added only az a insulating filler.
    Naturally you can claim that Czechs demolished German style houses and they did built Czech stile houses, but that would not fly. Czechs are quite lazy people, although they are enterprising, and very creative people. So Czechs being lazy people, they would definitely not demolish well built German houses.
    Concerning Hungary.
    All Hungarian territory without exception was once totally inhabited by Slovaks.
    But here was one exception Hungarian did not massacre Slovaks. Some Slovaks did move up north but majority did remain. They did learn Hungarian language and become Hungarians.
    ……………………………………………………
    Every site can use court jester, comedian, and so you are the one here.

    • Replies: @Petermx
  159. Thanks for another excellent and enlightening article. The Unz Review is amazing.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  160. Kouroi says:

    Loved the little snide in the article, mentioning Poland as being attacked by the Soviets rather than, as FDR predicted, or warned, by Germany. USSR did invade Poland, but several weeks after Germany did so. Why? To push the future fight outside Soviet territory.

    But while that was understood by all at the time, now the narrative is being change into Nazi Germany and USSR started WWII by invading Poland. Really?! Some people have really no shame.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    , @Petermx
  161. Ron Unz says:
    @Chinaman

    It send shivers down my spine to see the parallels between now and 1939.

    Taiwan and Hong Kong is Danzig

    Coronavirus ( and it reparations, if any) is Treaty of Versailles…

    Hitler is being absolutely reasonable in its demands while the Americans, as they are now, ruthless and unpersuaded by logic and reason. At least Hitler understands the horrors of war and did make every effort to delay, if not, avert it.

    I also see the strong parallels, and although I wasn’t aware of the details of that particular Hitler speech, it entirely dovetails with my own analysis of the history.

    However, one enormous difference between the WWII situation and the current one is the relative power of the two parties. America’s industrial potential was far greater than that of Germany, and our access to raw materials was enormously larger. Therefore, FDR’s main difficulty was a political one, namely attempting to instigate a war with Germany although 80% of the American people were dead-set against it. Once he achieved that, America’s victory became overwhelmingly likely, and in fact it was remarkable that the Germans early on did as well as they did, with their superior morale and organization overcoming their great material weakness. Indeed, all of America’s past wars have been fought against opponents far weaker in industrial capacity.

    The very strong difference now is that China’s economic and industrial strength is actually greater than America’s, even very considerably greater in some respects, given the decay of American industry over the last few decades and the massive inefficiency and corruption in our military-industrial companies. Past American leaders have never faced this situation, and it’s not entirely clear to me that the current ones fully recognize this new reality.

    To the extent that they—or at least elements associated with them—did that certainly supports the logic of a American biowarfare attack against China, which if it had been successful, might have severely crippled China’s industry and economy. Indeed, as I’ve argued, a biowarfare attack would be the only sort of attack that might be practical against a country so industrially formidable.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-coronavirus-catastrophe-as-biowarfare-blowback/

    Just over a year ago, I published a very long article presenting my historical analysis of the origins of World War II, attempting to pierce three generations of dishonest propaganda to outline what seemed to be the true sequence of events. You really might want to take a look at it if you haven’t already done so:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/

    The tremendous danger for the world is that America’s incompetent leaders might very foolishly start a war with China that they would then very possibly lose, and faced with such a terrible humiliation, strongly consider going nuclear in response, with unforeseeable future consequences.

  162. Richard B says:
    @brabantian

    There are lots of issues to be re-thought about the lead-up to World War II, but one point where Hitler was quite weak in his argument, was…..

    Talk about a weak argument.

    In any event, in the following quote not only was he not weak, he was downright prescient, describing perfectly what is now happening to three of the countries who helped defeat him. The USA, Great Britain, and France.

    It is impossible to enumerate the stages of our own people’s sufferings. Robbed of the whole of its colonial possessions, 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.

    Who needs a Conspiracy Theory when you have the facts of cultural history, the patterns of human behavior, and the reality of current events all aligned like a Perfect Storm and staring us right in the face?

    You don’t. Obviously. Which is why those same people, filled with more satanic malice than ever, are at it again. No wonder they’re working 24/7 to abolish our basic freedoms.

  163. mike99588 says:
    @Mefobills

    Hitler’s great German economy was built on a mountain of debt building a war machine.

    Obviously the bankers had problems repo-ing the tanks…
    In the end, Hitler took it in the head, and taxpayers took it in the shorts.
    Banksters did … better.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Mulegino1
  164. @Carolyn Yeager

    I have said before that Hitler did indeed achieve great things in restoring Germany and that in a very short time and that the British and Jews in the US wanted to crush him because of that. But Hitler’s “great plans” for eastern Europe were politically and morally indefensible, reason not to make a “cult” out of the man, and I think you are doing just that. I remember you and Brian Ruhe saying in one of his shows that we have no leader in our present time other than Hitler. I see that as a typical unrealistic and “cultic” attitude.

  165. Druid55 says:
    @Winnetou1889

    You and Yaeger are a soap opera. Who cares!

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  166. Fox says:
    @John Johnson

    The inhabitants of Leningrad were free to leave, but prevented from it by orders from the leadership of the SU.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @John Johnson
  167. and yet all the Nazis who according to the brainlets here, were just wholesome dindu nuffins, went on to make up a large portion of our CIA. The same CIA that spreads capitalism and degeneracy around the entire world. They also went on to lead the West German govt, intelligence, as well as roles in the EU and NATO, and yet here we are..

    Who avoided the degeneracy that so many of the grugs here scream in horror about? The commies of course. No gay pride parades or replacing their natives with 3rd world labor. The commies that according to the geniuses here, were 100% controlled by “Da Jews” were the ones supporting the Arabs against the Israelis in all of the Zionist wars. The same commies that helped the indigenous peoples in Vietnam and Latin America defend themselves against the CIA and their Nazi BFF’s spreading their disease and degeneracy into their homelands. If you want to blame someone for the world around you, the commies ain’t it.

    I don’t have all the answers, neither do you or any of these writers. But the Hitler dindu nuffin crowd always seems to avoid realities like these that turn the whole narrative on its head. I kinda think the Nazis were either very stupid, or were willing puppets of the same folks who controlled the Brits and had lots of control over America as well. Hitler ended up playing right into their hands after all. Too bad for the German people. I’ve always thought it was suspicious that the allies never got real serious about ending the war until it was obvious the Soviets were winning and about to overrun the Nazis into Europe and Asia.

    http://www.whale.to/b/allen_dulles.html

    https://ourhiddenhistory.org/entry/sullivan-cromwell-capitalism-intelligence-fascism-hugo-turner-our-hidden-history-interview

    I think its pretty much the exact direction the world is headed today as it was right before WW2. The same economic conditions are presenting themselves. The great depression of then helped bring the Nazis to power. A lot of the same rhetoric and scapegoating is being used to assign blame to anything other than capitalism and the elite today. The same CIA that were pushing the degeneracy and so called “cultural marxism” poison then, now with an even more advanced mass media and academia to spread it like a virus. A lot are buying into it, and its pissing a lot of people off, exactly how its supposed to work. So I’m guessing we’re heading for the exact same situation today, with the added bonus of a virus/pandemic/bioweapon, an even worse economic depression, an actual hot World War, possibly civil or race war if they (CIA/Media) get their way. Not looking good for us ordinary folk.

    I also think theres plenty of evidence that the elite Zionist Jews in Europe and America were in close collaboration with Hitler and Churchill. I think they allowed and probably encouraged Hitler to throw the lower class and commie Jews in those camps to help pave the way for occupying Palestine. A conspiracy you might call it.

    Personally I think we should have stayed out of WW2. I don’t think FDR was an angel, like so many here think of Hitler. I think he (FDR) did some good as far as domestic policy, he didn’t go far enough, but hey thats capitalism. My great grandmother always thought the world of him, credited him for saving her families life, as did many Americans obviously. So I reckon I owe my being here to him as well. I think you’ll have a hard time writing things like that out of history. I still have the Hitler youth knife my great grandfather brought back with him as well.

    I don’t think Hitler is the big bad boogeyman he is presented as, I just don’t think its something we should look to emulate in the future. The Nazis and Japs obviously did lots of terrible things, as did the US, Brits and Soviets. That is war. The Nazis and allies like Ustase did some fucked up things though, countries like Belarus would probably have a lot to say about the “Hitler a good boy” narrative. I think out of everyone involved the Soviets probably come out the cleanest as far as blame goes. Ending WW1 was how the commies won in Russia, so I doubt many there were looking to start a new one.

    Just muh opinion!

    • Replies: @Vojkan
  168. Fox says:
    @mike99588

    Is that true? I believe that German military expenses increased only significantly once the war had started and were up to then not much different from those of England, France and certainly significantly less than those of the SU. Also, today’s economy is built on a mountain of debt, not the least of which is caused by the insatiable war machine(s) created and maintained by, among others, the United States. Somehow, when Hitler is doing something it is always leading to disaster and wrong, when the democracies and bolsheviks are doing it, then it’s backed up by the latest economic theories, trends and necessities.

    • Agree: GeeBee
    • Replies: @GeeBee
  169. mike99588 says:
    @Ron Unz

    Imported food, credits (sales) and energy seem to be China’s big vulnerabilities that can be cutoff, like their raping world fisheries, and transport of anything that floats. Likewise it seems an unstable empire with Tibet, Mongolia and Turkestan, on top of China’s normal divisions and CCP’s mafia structure.

    The US is easier to balance on food and energy, albeit it is in its own subverted, late empire phase.

    Your “proof” of US biological attack falls far short and actually hurts your other projects’ credibility. It’s a possibility, your position is so egged on by the CCP sinophiles, white monkeys, 50 centers etc here.

    My bias is to view C19 as enabled by foreign tech transfers, the likes of French/Fauci sponsorships, and Gates. CCP seems to me like a darker sorcerer’s apprentice, that likely fell for a trap or sting, propelled by their own greed and ambition, with all the underlings foibles too.

    My background is more chemical and biological. Decades ago set up small shoestring bio/chem labs for my own projects, early sponsor of an extant biotech. I initiated and signed for an early million$ (80s) to a land grant U program that then attracted tens of millions in NSF grants. I’ve spiked dishonest former profs, an ivy Phd molecular biologist, and one a JHU Phd by public demonstration, I claim no authority on C19.

  170. Wally says:
    @Priss Factor

    Germany had no choice but to launch it’s pre-emptive strike against the USSR.

    Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents by Mark Weber: https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/
    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999
    and:
    https://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/
    related:
    Collusion: Franklin Roosevelt, British Intelligence, and the Secret Campaign to Push the US Into War, by Mark Weber: https://www.unz.com/article/collusion-franklin-roosevelt-british-intelligence-and-the-secret-campaign-to-push-the-us-into-war/
    Roosevelt [with USSR] Conspired to Start World War II in Europe: https://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/
    Germany Did Not Start World War II, by Paul Craig Roberts:
    https://www.unz.com/proberts/germany-did-not-start-world-war-ii/

  171. Wally says:
    @anonymous

    said:
    “The real losers of WWII are the White Christians everywhere. The holocaust just makes you think you won something when in fact you didn’t.”

    – That would be the so called “holocaust” for which there is no proof.

    – And lacking that proof we now see the banning of free speech, inquiry, & rational thought about it.

    Only lies require censorship.

  172. Petermx says:
    @Zarathustra

    The Germans were expelled after the allied armies arrived. Czechs did not do this alone and I suspect they are less guilty than the British, Americans and Soviets under Jewish influence. Czechs and Germans had good relations until the allies arrived, the same as in France. It was agreed upon by Churchill, FDR and Stalin at Yalta that the Germans would be expelled. You can go to any history book and they all say 3 or 3 and 1/2 million Germans lived in Bohemia and Moravia (Czechoslovakia) prior to expulsion. Even anti-German Wikipedia says that, And prior to the start of the war several hundred thousand left. Prague is a very German city with German architecture. It was the capitol of the Austrian Empire at one time.

  173. @2stateshmustate

    The Unz Review had nothing to do with this, except to publish it. For some reason, that was not made very clear. It was solely the work of The Institute for Historical Review and Mark Weber. http://ihr.org/other/HitlerAnswersRoosevelt. That is the original great truth-telling site for Holocaust Revisionism.

  174. Petermx says:
    @Ron Unz

    To the degree that was true I think it was aided by the fact Germany was held back in many ways until Hitler took power and even after taking power. The Americans had more factories but the Germans had far more Nobel Prizes than Americans and every other country. They were much more advanced.

  175. @Fox

    The inhabitants of Leningrad were free to leave, but prevented from it by orders from the leadership of the SU.

    No they were not which is why the Soviets tried rescuing them via ice roads. The Nazis would shoot at vehicles traveling across the ice. Interestingly a lot of those vehicles were driven by women.

    You are thinking of Stalingrad.

    • Replies: @Fox
  176. @Druid55

    Obviously, mark tapley who originally brought up the subject cares (comment 14), complain to him! I believe it’s important to correct misinformation.

  177. @Kouroi

    Loved the little snide in the article, mentioning Poland as being attacked by the Soviets rather than, as FDR predicted, or warned, by Germany. USSR did invade Poland, but several weeks after Germany did so. Why? To push the future fight outside Soviet territory.

    The fact that it was several weeks after was inconsequential.

    They made the deal to split the country before Germany invaded.

    It was a trap for the Poles.

    The Poles had planned to move east in a German attack and wait for Allied reinforcement.

    But yes the Soviets wanted a buffer area in which to conduct warfare with Germany. The safe money was on Germany eventually attacking. Stalin however was hoping that Germany would be satisfied by splitting Poland and the Baltic states.

  178. Hojer says:
    @Petermx

    In fact I would even agree with you in some points and wish the Germans to wake up from self-hating inflicted on now living generations in order that they survive as a nation. I feel even sorry German victims of WW2 as well as for the current status of Germans but I am not ready to discuss it on the bases of no sorry from other side for victims of German policy and lies inflicted by them in the past. In other words what draws me back is the arrogance and contempt to especially Slavic nations felt from a lot of “woke” Germans and vindicated in the speech we comment.
    Speaking of Jews and Austrian Empire fall history, in fact most Jews were germanised, speaking German and sided rather with local Germans and opposing new states as far as I know (Czech kingdom legally existed within Austrian Empire, btw., so here it was rather secession). It did not improve their relations with Germans in longer terms however. You speak about falsification of history and audacity to name Jews who had done it only in terms of defending AH falsification of history in his speech bein unable to sustain critical reading of it. In the moment ot this speech Czechs were expulsed from their homes in Sudetenland by the way, local Germans being treated in previous 20 years better then Slavic nations were in former Austrian Empire. Later Germans imposed terror on Slavic nations and Jews too in occupied teritories.
    You ask what world do I live in, however the question rather is if your world has to be based on lies. The criminalisation od death toll of death camp and 6xxx number of J. victims is hardly scientific but do you want to oppose it by falsifying history and claiming Germans are the only victims being provoced by their neighbours and still behaving civilised, death camps not existing at all? Do you think that after brutaly terrorising others no vengeance was expectable?
    Nowadays of course it is hard to imagine survival of European nations without Germans, however the disdain in West towards Slavs seems to be stronger then to non European nations coming in great numbers. Similarly in Britain (France, …) the issue openly discussed is “polish plumbers” supposedly taking jobs from locals, not entire cities and quarters taken by other nationalities. It is the PC correct issue The similar irationality that led to fall of Austrian Empire leads to dire prospects now.
    To conclude: insisting on AH lies cannot help in struggle against the “small group of powerful liars with a powerful role in the media can accomplish”, you mentioned. On the contrary. And yes, I am afraid the rise of AH was the reason of similar conditions West faces now whch does not mean he was honest truthful politician and kind person with speeches and policy to be vindicated and read uncritically.

  179. @Franklin Ryckaert

    I remember you and Brian Ruhe saying in one of his shows that we have no leader in our present time other than Hitler. I see that as a typical unrealistic and “cultic” attitude.

    Like most people, your memory is quite inexact.
    It was me, not Brian, who said there was no effective WN leader so we should turn to Adolf Hitler and his political philosophy as elaborated in detail in the NSDAP Program for leadership and unifying inspiration. Brian agreed. There is nothing ‘cultic’ about that but you might think it unrealistic, since you would object.

    The fact remains, Whites have no leadership. To really lead takes guts.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  180. Petermx says:
    @Kouroi

    The shame is that a war between Germany and Poland over stolen German territory expanded into a world war. The allies made it a world war. They had no business poking their noses into the German-Polish war. They had as much business in that as Germany would have had in attacking Great Britain to free India or attacking France to free a colony. In fact the allies had less of a right. That was not a colony Germany was freeing.

    The USSR was not a good country. Its leaders killed millions of its own citizens so that many Soviets, including Russians and Ukrainians welcomed the invading Germans. But before the war started there was very little violence in Germany, even against Jews, contrary to the liars propaganda.

    Russians can be proud of having brave soldiers and winning great battles and the war with others help. But the USSR was created by Jews for Jews and that is why “anti-Semitism” was outlawed, as was Christianity and that is why millions of Soviet citizens were killed.

    Jews Dominated the Soviet Union’s Government – Vladimir Putin

  181. Lurker says:
    @mark tapley

    and in any event the British could not even protect themselves (relying on Jewmerica)

    That will have to be a ‘no’ from me.

    You’re actually talking about two different things.

    #1 Britain survives, is not invaded.

    #2 Germany is defeated.

    For 75 years we’ve been reminded constantly to think of the two being the same thing. They are not. TPTB desired war with, and defeat of, Germany. It was never an existential struggle for Britain.

    It was the realisation that Britain was never in serious danger of defeat/invasion in 1940 that clued me into there being something ‘off’ about the official narrative of the war. Germany never acquired the capability to invade Britain.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
  182. Chinaman says:
    @anon

    I actually know the history behind this photo. Mao was telling Kissinger that they will join forces to destroy the Soviet Union. That actually worked out in China’s favour so I can’t complain. The devil himself have remained loyal to his friend till this day and it is his successors and progeny that seeks to destroy that unholy alliance.

    There is a indeed a Chinese proverb that summarise the current geopolitical situation quite succinctly.

    鷸蚌相爭, 漁翁得利 which roughly translates into “Two dogs fights for a bone, and a third runs away with it”

    Germany and the Brits both lost WW2, America won. It will be the Russians or Indians that wins WW3.

    • Replies: @Ugetit
  183. Miro23 says:
    @Ron Unz

    The tremendous danger for the world is that America’s incompetent leaders might very foolishly start a war with China that they would then very possibly lose, and faced with such a terrible humiliation, strongly consider going nuclear in response, with unforeseeable future consequences.

    Alternatively, they could be looking for just enough of a conflict with China to introduce an Emergency Administration (dictatorship) in the US – involving the activation of COG (Continuity Of Government) legislation already in place. That way, they would get legal cover for setting up their US Gulag Archipelago and ending democracy.

    There would be a good deal of complexity and risk involved (probably including a China False Flag) – but that was also true with regard to 9/11 and the GWOT – which still got the green light.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  184. Sean says:

    The Quarantine Speech of Roosevelt on October 5, 1937 was key in Hitler’s thinking about what he referred to as the ‘American Union’. After an encounter with American POWs when he was given the job of escorting them, Private First Class Hitler became obsessed with the idea that the best Germans had emigrated to America. Before he became leader of Germany, Hitler written in Mein Kampf and hi so called Secret Book of how a peaceful Germany earning its living through a purely commercial policy, (‘internal colonisation’) had to be rejected because it would inevitably result in a precipitous fall in the birthrate. On this matter Hitler was indeed prescient and looking far into the future.

    Roosevelt had compared Nazi Germany to an infectious disease There was an instant effect on the attitude of Hitler– who on coming to power in 1933 warned against anti-Jewish agitation because of the danger of mobilising the powerful enemy that had attacked Germany in WW1–and he requested and drew on an anti Semitic diplomat’s detailed analysis of Roosevelt’s America as an irredeemably Jewish run state.

    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.

    Roosevelt’s Quarantine speech, after four years of economic pressure orchestrated from the moment Hitler took power was a decisive watershed in Hitler’s thinking, and made him realise that his romantic conception of America as where the best Germanic blood reigned supreme in policymaking was just a fantasy, their lifestyle, technical and monumental architectural achievements and segregation notwithstanding. The USA was the world’s most powerful economy on a continent bursting with natural resources, German emigrants had given it top notch human quality, and blacks were not allowed to mix, but Jews steered the whole direction of the country, making it was not a matter of if America would eschew neutrality and wage unprovoked war on the Third Reich, but when.

    Accordingly, this same first week in October 1937 was when Hitler ordered the begining of a massive propaganda campaign against Czechoslovakia that continued until it was completely annexed. The Quarantine Speech settled in Hitler’s mind that there was no point in trying to placate America. I was going to be attacking Germany in at the first opportunity and so the incorporation of Austria and Czechoslovakia should not be avoided out of a desire to try and maintain some kind of American neutrality.

    Incidentally, it is rather unlikely that Hitler’s answer to Roosevelt in 1938 was even in his top 10 greatest speeches. Ernst Hanfstaengl said no one who heard Hitler speak in the 1930s could have any idea of the oratorical gifts he had began his rise with. Hitler’s other great strong point was his decisiveness.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/why-john-j-mearsheimer-is-right-about-some-things/308839/

    The edgiest parts of Tragedy are when Mearsheimer presents full-bore rationales for the aggression of Wilhelmine Germany, Nazi Germany, and imperial Japan. […]

    As for Hitler, he “did indeed learn from World War I.” Hitler learned that Germany could not fight on two fronts at the same time, and he would have to win quick, successive victories, which, in fact, he achieved early in World War II.

    From the point of view of someone with Hitler’s mindset (conquer Russia ; stop the hemorrhage of Germany’s most valuable blood; give Germans an American lifestyle and space to multiply in) his decision to go to war sooner rather than later was the right one, inasmuch it was a calculated risk offering a reasonable prospect of success. Furthermore, for Hitler if the war of conquest in the East failed, Germany would be no worse off in a few generations than it would be if nothing was done. Were Hitler to come back to Germany now and see what has become of it, he would likely say ‘Hell I was right, but at least Germany’s eastern borders were altered to make it considerably more Nordic!’

    • Agree: Johnny Rico
  185. Chinaman says:
    @Ron Unz

    Therefore, FDR’s main difficulty was a political one, namely attempting to instigate a war with Germany although 80% of the American people were dead-set against it.

    Yes. What really concerns me is that the Warmongers got their Pearl Harbor now via COVID. Majority of Americans believe that China is responsible for their suffering and wants payback. It is of paramount importance we get to the bottom of the virus’s origin. Whether it is a US bioattack blowback or a more mundane scientific explanation doesn’t matter anymore but it is important to get as many narrative out there as possible to turn the tide. It is insane that people have simply ignored or written off the wastewater studies which is about as objective as it will ever get. This might be the last chance to turn public opinion and prevent the warmongers from using COVID as a causi belli. I really fear for the worst.

    The very strong difference now is that China’s economic and industrial strength is actually greater than America’s, even very considerably greater in some respects, given the decay of American industry over the last few decades and the massive inefficiency and corruption in our military-industrial companies.

    The prevailing sentiment among the Chinese think tanks is that it is impossible for America to win a war against China in the Pacific. It will be a logistical nightmare to fight China in the SCS\Taiwan, not to mention a land war. The Chinese have basically preempt any attack from aircraft carriers\ first island chain through hypersonic missiles. Only the Australians are stupid enough to actually volunteer to be America ‘s cannon fodder in Asia. However, this is exactly the kind of analysis which leads to overconfidence, adventurism and then war. Hitler was quite certain the allies wouldn’t declare war. Taiwan really might become Poland.

    Just over a year ago, I published a very long article presenting my historical analysis of the origins of World War II, attempting to pierce three generations of dishonest propaganda to outline what seemed to be the true sequence of events. You really might want to take a look at it if you haven’t already done so:

    A brilliant analysis. Much appreciated. I have been trying to find time to finally read David Irving’s tomb.

    The tremendous danger for the world is that America’s incompetent leaders might very foolishly start a war with China that they would then very possibly lose, and faced with such a terrible humiliation, strongly consider going nuclear in response, with unforeseeable future consequences.

    Is there anything you think the Chinese leaders can do to avert war at this stage? Or at least buy time till the balance of power inevitably shift in China’s favour? There is really only one thing that is not negotiable on the table which is Taiwan.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  186. @Trinity

    They are boiling in human shit in hell with the rest of their deceased kike masters, so I’m cool with that.

  187. Vojkan says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Since the “indications” of his close relations differ, the matter remains undecided.

    I’d add, who cares? I really am not interested in Hitler’s private practices with his favourites or his diet. I mean, unless the Hitler apologists here secretly believe in Freud’s psychoanalysis and deem it important.

  188. People always want to cast the world in absolutes; black and white.

    Lotsa grey, actually. If the demonization of Hitler is absurd, it’s equally inaccurate to try to make him into the good guy.

    I won’t go further, because any list of specifics would just open various interminable cans of worms. For now, I’ll just observe that it all didn’t work out terribly well. There were some conceptual flaws with it all.

  189. Vojkan says:
    @redmudhooch

    Most of those communists were just regular patriots – like my maternal grandfather – who resisted foreign invaders. Because that’s what the Germans were, invaders who believed they were entitled to permanently subjugate the inhabitants of the lands they occupied and no amount of revisionist bullshit can obfuscate that simple fact.

  190. @Petermx

    And today the czechs remain inferior to the Germans and keep themselves happy with drugs and laziness, funded by their daughters doing porn.
    Something never changes

    • Replies: @Hojer
  191. Chinaman says:
    @Ron Unz

    I took the opportunity to reread your article.

    since interrogating prisoners was important for intelligence purposes, late in the war U.S. commanders began offering rewards such as ice cream to their troops for bringing some surrendering Japanese in alive rather than killing them in the field.

    There are millions of Chinese Americans. Do you see the possibility of Chinese internment camps in this day and age, if and when war begins?

    Meanwhile, the terrible nature of the Pacific War fought in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor is suggested by a 1944 issue of Life magazine that *carried the photo of a young American woman with the skull of a Japanese soldier her boyfriend had sent her as a war souvenir.*

    American GIs also regularly committed remarkably savage atrocities. Dead or wounded Japanese frequently had their gold teeth knocked out and taken as war-booty, and their ears were often cut-off and kept as souvenirs, as was also sometimes the case with their skulls. Meanwhile, Dower notes the absence of any evidence suggesting similar behavior on the other side. The American media generally portrayed the Japanese as vermin fit for eradication, and numerous public statements by high-ranking American military leaders explicitly claimed that the bulk of the entire Japanese population would probably need to be exterminated in order to bring the war to a successful conclusion.

    Thanks for this WW2 “trivia”. Captain America- standard bearer of human rights and protector of Uighur Muslims – have no compunction with the genocide of a subhuman species of course. One of the commenters on this thread ask me whether I can differentiate between a Jew and the White Beast. I guess the best way to tell is whether he propose to his high school sweetheart with a Jap Skull and some gold teeth!

    Someone needs to translate your articles for all Chinaman to read! I think you will find a very receptive audience if you start a Chinese site! Those young rioters in HK need to know this shit!

    • Replies: @horace
    , @Poco
    , @Ron Unz
  192. @Carolyn Yeager

    So how can the ghost of a dead men “lead” us? To expect that is that not “cultic”?

  193. @Franklin Ryckaert

    You are right. In my post #24 I detail Hitler’s disastrous mistakes. These catastrophic errors despite the objections of his general staff, no doubt one of the finest in history are of such magnitude that it far outweighs the benefits of his political and organizational competency.

    Hitler was set up by the Zionists as a reactionary force in order to lead Germany into destruction. This is exactly what he did. Hitler by possessing the world’s best army man per man, the best General staff and a high I.Q. industrious population got off to a good start. He squandered all of it and the Zionist syndicate reaped the benefit while the rest of us continue to suffer the consequences.

  194. @mark tapley

    Hitler believed there was an influential element in Britain that included Edward VIII and some MP’s and aristocrats that opposed the Warmonger Churchill. Hitler even sent his second in command, Hess to meet with this group.

    The story is told in much detail in Louis C. Kilzer, Churchill’s Deception: The Dark Secret That Destroyed Nazi Germany, Simon & Schuster, 1994 : a great book in my opinion, documenting how Churchill intercepted Hitler’s attempt at communicating with GB’s “peace party” and tricked him with it.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  195. Hojer says:
    @HeebHunter

    And today the czechs remain inferior…Something never changes

    Arrogance of antislavic bullies never changes. Enjoy wilkommenskultur with your daughters serving new better neighbours.

    • Replies: @HeebHunter
  196. Tom Welsh says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    “If I was Putin in that scenario, I would provide as much support as I can to China to make sure the war lasts as long as possible, the devastation to both countries as severe as possible”.

    If you were, I believe that you would.

    However, Mr Putin would not.

  197. Tom Welsh says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    I fear that you do not understand the scale and ferocity of the final battle for Berlin. About 750,000 German soldiers were defending against over 2 million Soviets from no fewer than three Fronts. Nearly 8,000 armoured vehicles and 10,000 aircraft were in action. At least 180,000 soldiers were killed, and 500,000 wounded.

    By way of contrast, the USA lost 407,300 dead and 671,801 wounded in the whole of WW2 – on all fronts.

    General Patton had great strengths, but was never tested in a battle against equal opposition. As well as having vast advantages in equipment and weapons, he always had complete air superiority which negated the German Blitzkrieg methods.

    It would have been interesting to see how he would have done against any of the better German Waffen-SS or Heer divisions. Against the Red Army, the numerical odds and weight of weaponry against Patton would have prevented any fair assessment. His forces would simply have been obliterated.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  198. @Ron Unz

    Please lets not get light headed here. In any case of military confrontation of US with China or Russia it would take less than hour before the war would go nuclear.

  199. @Ron Unz

    There is no incompetence here. The backward Chinese were built up purposely by the Zionists (as were Russia and also Germany to a lessor extent detailed by Hoover Inst. researcher Sutton) while pulling the rug out from under the Western Allie Chang Kai Shek. This is covered by Anthony Kubek in his book “How the Far East Was Lost.” James Perloff gives a good analysis too.

    [MORE]

    The same program is underway now to build up Russia and China militarily for a new global conflict. U,S. corporations since the 80’s have transferred lots of technology to China. Presently the Chinese are way behind Jewmerica in Naval capability and are completely covered on their most important area, the south and east coast.. As you look north and west it is arid and populated by ethnic groups with no loyalty to the ruling thugs in Beijing. Much of China’s resources are used just to monitor and control their own people. No wonder so many of the upper class choose to get out.

    Your Biowarfare nonsense goes along with the fake virus, fake test and fake numbers and coming fake vaccine game long planned by the Zionists as has been exposed on your site, sprang at the most opportune time (with Chinese cooperation) as a cover along with fake Floyd and the staged riots for another multi-trillion dollar theft by the banking cartel for their cronies on Wall St.

    With China and Russia we are witnessing the Zionists set up for their favorite tactic using the Hegelian dialectic thesis-antithesis as was done with Russia in WW2 and continued as they were flipped around to opposition status in order to wring more out of the facade during the phony Cold War.

    What incompetent leaders are you referring too Ron? The adolescent cheerleader for the thugs in Israel, Trump. Or maybe the 50 year syndicate apparatchik, senile Biden or the aIPAC sinecures in our shabbos goy congress. These are all just political puppet actors putting on a show for the goyim. The same situation occurred in the British Parliament before WW1 as they were oblivious to the Anglo Zionist Alfred Milner and his surreptitious and extensive conspiracy who worked for years in order to bring about WW1.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @Ugetit
    , @Petermx
  200. @mark tapley

    I agree the Soviet Union was only the temporary vehicle used to bring about the communization of Europe. But it did it’s job well. It not only allowed for the next great rape of national treasuries and lives of good young men by the war profiteers with the cold war, the ideological roots of its founders are found everywhere in the formation of the European Union which most of Europe suffers under today.

    To first see the true initiative that shaped the idea of a United Europe, we have to look at the portfolio of the man behind it all, Altiero Spinelli.
    Spinelli, a communist even during Mussolini’s government, was one of the most influential people who formed the EU. He was a member of the European Commission for 6 years, from 1970-1976 (he left voluntarily), as well as a member of the European Parliament for seven years after. A staunch supporter of Trotsky, his views were so radical that the Italian Communist Party threw him out.
    Trotskyism is a subset-ideology of Marxism-Leninism that proposes a permanent communist revolution in all countries, not only ones that the Trotskyists take control of. This shows how dangerous Spinelli’s ideas were, even towards non-Europeans.

    https://71republic.com/[email protected]=21247.html

    It is acknowledged by many that Stalin was taken out only after he himself became a bit to “nationalistic”.

    And of course we know where this all started as you point out in your superb analysis of the FDR/Hitler question. Again thanks for your great article.

    [MORE]

    The Talmud has led to revolution. You don’t have to be religious to be talmudic. Karl Marx was an atheist, but according to Bernard Lazare, he was also “a clear and lucid Talmudist,” and, therefore, “full of that old Hebrew materialism which ever dreams of a paradise on earth and always rejects the far-distant and problematical hope of a garden of Eden after death.” (p. 99). Marx was the quintessential Talmudist and the quintessential Jewish revolutionary, and as such he proposed one of the most influential false Messiahs in Jewish history: world communism. Baruch Levy, one of Marx’s correspondents, proposed another equally potent false Messiah, namely, the Jewish Race. According to Levy, the Jewish people taken collectively shall be its own Messiahs… In this new organization of humanity, the sons of Israel now scattered over the whole surface of the globe… shall everywhere become the ruling element without opposition…. The governments of the nations forming the Universal or World -Republic shall all thus pass, without any effort, into Jewish hands thanks to the victory of the proletariat…. Thus shall the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, that, when the Messianic epoch shall have arrived, the Jews will control the wealth of all the nations of the earth.
    https://radicalcapitalist.org/2018/05/15/the-jewish-origins-of-communism/
    Cheers

    • Agree: mark tapley
  201. horace says:
    @Chinaman

    How did you manage to make this about China? The only thought in your head is China, China, China. You should join the PLA instead of venting your racism here.

    • Replies: @Chinaman
  202. @Miro23

    This has been the plan all along. The Zionists must have war, conflict and hatred in order to make progress. A new staged global conflict would set the stage for implementation of the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Initiative Agenda 2030-21. The Zionists have financial control over all countries of any consequence. It is just a matter of bringing in a “crisis” in order to justify martial law on a global scale similar to the fake virus. This will allow all the barnyard animals to be herded into the long planned global tyranny of Neo feudalism.

  203. Poco says:
    @Chinaman

    Ah fake chinaman weeping for the abused japanese who raped Nanking. I told you before that you shouldn’t mind being ruled by the japanese. Looks like you agree now. Americans should have left you shitheads to be raped.
    American soldiers who did those things were in the middle of a war with a nation who had committed what they presumed was a sneak attack.
    You’re a chinaman who wouldn’t exist without American soldiers. Ungrateful scumbag.

    • Replies: @Chinaman
  204. Ugetit says:
    @andre citroen

    The Treaty of Versailles was the catalyst for WW 2.

    It certainly was a catalyst, but it was not “the” only one. Versailles was also a demonstration of the depravity of the monsters then ruling the world. The war had many roots and many causes, it began before “WW1,” and it still continues. It is clearly a war for the hegemony of the One World international mafia which should be plain to see today as the dupes who supported it, and who continue to support it, are being thrown under the bus as we write.

    BTW, one of Hitler’s biggest mistakes was to let the Brits go free at Dunkirk under the impression that the Brits were honest and reasonable and that he could thereby mollify their psychopathic warmongers’ thirst for destruction and dominance.

    • Agree: Fox, mark tapley, HeebHunter
  205. RodW says:

    Wherein Herr Hitler, Chancellor of Germany, tells Mr Roosevelt, President of the USA, to piss up a rope.

    Ah, if only modern statesmen had half of the spine.

  206. Ugetit says:
    @Chinaman

    Germany and the Brits both lost WW2, America won.

    The only winners were/are the organized international mobsters. The main thing “Americans” won was first prize as very useful, and now disposable and crumbling, idiots.

    See comment # 152,

    But really Communism and the Soviet Union were merely tools for the expansion of the Zionist Agenda.

    And clearly the Zionist agenda was a front for the International Mafia.

    • Replies: @noname27
  207. Chinaman says:
    @horace

    Because Hilter and Nazis are dead and we are just trying to draw lessons and parallels to prevent the WW3 between US and China and prevent my children’s skulls from being your war souvenir…or the other way round.

    If you haven’t been living under a rock…it is all about China. I rather it is not about it…

  208. Ugetit says:
    @mark tapley

    There is no incompetence here.

    You nailed it and you deserve not merely one of UR’s yellow stars, but several diamond studded gold ones with sequins all over, although I’m quite sure that you have too much class to accept such if offered.

    • Thanks: mark tapley
  209. @Tom Welsh

    There would have been no Red Army of any significance without the industrial might of the United States and the Communist in the Roosevelt administration which made sure they got everything they asked for. Not my words, Major George Racey Jordan’s.

    I do agree the German military was the finest and most disciplined fighting force in the world at the time, and in an all even battle(troop strength and weaponry)the US would have fared very poorly.

    That being said, I believe Patton was absolutely correct about the Soviet army. It was a rag tag force of brutes with little discipline and Patton could have defeated them quite easily after Germany had surrendered as he was so inclined to do. It really makes you wonder how much different the world would be today if Patton had gotten his way.

    Stalin himself was a great admirer of Patton: Averill Harriman, then American ambassador to Russia, claimed that Stalin told him: “No general in the Russian Army can do what Patton did.” Stalin placed Patton on a pedestal, but the feeling was anything but mutual. Patton despised Stalin and the Red Army.

    At the conclusion of the war, Patton attempted to keep certain Nazi divisions intact in anticipation of what he felt was an inevitable war with Moscow. Instead, Patton’s warnings about Russian intentions were ignored. Even with a plausible chance to save Prague from Stalin’s armies, the point of Patton’s spear was blunted.
    https://dailycaller.com/2018/04/29/general-patton-first-victim-of-cold-war/

    • Agree: noname27
    • Replies: @Ugetit
    , @Zarathustra
    , @Sparkon
  210. Chinaman says:
    @Poco

    You’re a chinaman who wouldn’t exist without American soldiers. Ungrateful scumbag.

    YES. EXACTLY…we were on the same side in WW2, why are we fighting each other now??? I am eternally grateful and please continue to bring peace and prosperity in this world. Yeah, do whatever you want with the jap or plenty of Native indians and Black skulls to make war souvenirs from…Release the Beast on others.

    Please leave China alone. We make terrible wedding presents and l our gold teeth are fake! We will give you 5G and build your magnev trains. We really don’t want a nuclear war, do we?

    • Replies: @Poco
  211. Ugetit says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Yup to all, and it’s an annoying shame that UR sees fit to so severely limit the attempts at approbation of so many high quality comments on this, and other, threads. Such clear and insightful statements of the truth deserve amplification as well as repetition.

  212. @John Johnson

    It’s not reality. It’s regurgitated propaganda. And no matter how many times it is pointed out to shills like you, you keep repeating the lies. You can lead a donkey to water but you can not force it to drink.

    France and Britain did not let Germany break the Versailles treaty. First they broke it numerous times themselves, occupying the Ruhr, refusing to disarm. When Germany started doing the same, they prepared for war and declared so on the first good opportunity.

    Germany didn’t “take Prague”. There is complex history and strategic importance to that area which you don’t know, or don’t care to know about. It’s as stupid a statement as saying the USA “took Afghanistan” without knowing anything about the what happened leading up to that. And Germany had much more reason to neutralize Prague than the USA had to invade Afghanistan. The latter was no real threat to the USA. Long story short the Czech President came to Germany and asked to become a protectorate. Why he felt the need to do so is something one needs to educate oneself with.

    To suggest Hitler was not really anti communist because he made a deal with Stalin is a gigantic falsehood, and a disingenuous interpretation of the facts. In short he made the deal because he needed temporary security and nobody else was willing to indulge him. And to blame the only guy fighting the Communists for Europe becoming communist is just ridiculous. The allies of the USSR in that enterprise, the UK, France and the USA, gets off scot free in your mind, which reveals that you are hopelessly biased at best.

    • Thanks: Carolyn Yeager
  213. @mark tapley

    On the nuclear issue I am very suspicious. I think we may be getting taken for a ride. We know that many of the nuclear tests were faked when examining the anomalies in the photos. We know that the gov. has developed conventional explosives that appear to be nuclear. There are interviews of persons who were at Hiroshima or Nagasaki at the time of the attack who reported no radiation effects.

    There is a new book on this issue: Michael Palmer, Hiroshima Revisited:
    https://archive.org/details/Hiroshima_revisited/mode/2up
    It convinced me!

    • Replies: @John53627
  214. @Laurent Guyénot

    I’m ashamed of you, calling anything by Louis Kilzer’s “great.” He’s only looking to write a best seller. You are way off in so many ways in your thinking about Hitler. The book to read about this is The Hitler-Hess Deception by Martin Allen. Hitler did not approve of the Hess flight to Scotland; Hess went AWOL, but with good intentions. However, good intentions don’t cut it.
    Mark Tapley is a conspiracy theorist, not an expert.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  215. @Johnny Walker Read

    I wish that Patton would take on Russian Army he would have been demolished in less than a a week.
    All western armies were worthless except English and US air forces. The Hitlerjugend did prove it.
    To the close end of war Russians had their cathushas and artillery with more than four times firepower than Germans. That was the factor that decided the outcome of the war.
    All other talk is only bullshit.

    • Replies: @Trinity
  216. Poco says:
    @Chinaman

    Yes, we will be moving the blacks and native americans to china and appointing a japanese viceroy where all will be safe and sound. Ensconced in the loving bosom of anti-racist poc chinese middle kingdom. You can keep them protected forevermore.

    • Thanks: GeneralRipper
  217. Trinity says:
    @Zarathustra

    I am speaking as an American born and raised and the truth is the truth, the American, French, and British soldiers were often mocked by the Germans. And no, I am not of German ancestry, but I just hate bullshit. I have told of the story of a captured German officer who was asked by an American what he thought of the American troops. The German POW told his captor that the Germans viewed the Americans the same way the Americans viewed the Italians. Lets not kid ourselves, Germany was pitting its B-team against the Brits and Americans on the Western Front and the war was won by the bitter battles in the East. America takes far too much credit in winning WWII. Hell, Germany would have kicked the Soviet Union’s commie ass in a one on one war, so lets not kid ourselves about that one either. For the HUGE nations of the Soviet Union, America and THE HUGE EMPIRE that was the British Empire at that time, to think that defeating a nation the size of Montana and with a population of maybe 70-75 million at that time as some kind of amazing feat is pathetic in the first place. Germany was just OVERWHELMED by sheer numbers, and despite the average German soldier being vastly superior to the Brit, American and the Soviet soldier, the Germans could only hold out so long. To do as well as they did against such overwhelming odds says a lot about how superior the average German soldier was to his opponent. Same thing with the American Civil War, the South killed more Union troops and did well considering they were hopelessly outgunned and outmanned by the far more industrious North. Soldier for soldier and General for General, the South was superior to its Northern counterpart, they were just outnumbered and outgunned.

  218. noname27 says: • Website
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Planning has nothing to do with it. Hitler invaded France because they, and Britain, had declared war on Germany, had they not done that there would have been no invasion of France, nor any Blitz, or Dunkirk or Battle of Britain.

    As for 3 million Russians starving (if that’s true) that would have been because the Wehrmacht had no option, they had food only for themselves, and Stalin, using the scorched earth policy, was more responsible for those deaths that the Wehrmacht.

    “One death is a tragedy, a million deaths a mere statistic.” – Josef Stalin

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  219. noname27 says: • Website
    @Ugetit

    And what is this INTERNATIONAL MAFIA if it’s not The Jews?

    • Replies: @Ugetit
  220. Sparkon says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    There would have been no Red Army of any significance without the industrial might of the United States and the Communist in the Roosevelt administration which made sure they got everything they asked for.

    Yes but no.

    The entirely corrupt, essentially Red-run Lend Lease program made sure the Soviets got almost everything they asked for during WWII, other than heavy bombers, but in my view, the USSR and the Red Army would have defeated Germany and the Wehrmacht even without Lend Lease, or U.S. participation in the war.

    Like WWI had been, WWII was a set-up to crush Germany. With a better man in charge than Adolf Hitler, the Germans might well have had a much better outcome by 1945 than to find their country in ruins, and themselves demonized by fantastic propaganda.

    By the time of Barbarossa, the Red Army was a far more formidable force than is generally appreciated in the West, even though it possessed the world’s largest army and air force, albeit much of its equipment nearly obsolete by the outbreak of war, but with newer, much improved weapons already rolling off the assembly lines, like the famous T-34 tank. However, in order to score the Lend Lease bonanza, it was in Stalin’s interest to sandbag (conceal) the latent strength of both the Red Army and the Soviet Union itself, and maybe let the Germans win for awhile.

    Nothing buys patriotism — and world sympathy — like blood spilled by an invader. Stalin’s Fellow Traveler FDR would play the same card at Pearl Harbor, which was to let the enemy strike the first blow.

    But in fact the Soviet Union had over a 10-year lead on Germany in preparing for what became WWII. In order to implement the GOELRO plan promulgated by Lenin and associates in 1920, the Soviets had cashed in some of the wealth and riches seized from banks, the slain Tsar, the Church, and the general populace to finance several large-scale electrification and industrialization projects, including a copy of Ford’s River Rouge plant at Gorky (Gor’kiy), now Nizhny (Nizhniy Novgorod), about 250 miles east of Moscow.

    Of course, FDR was entirely aware of the Soviet Union’s industrial strength as much of it had been constructed by Americans like Henry Ford during the 1920s.

    By appearing to be on the verge of defeat against the formidable Wehrmacht, Stalin could easily plead his case to both FDR and the court of world opinion that the Soviets desperately needed anything the West could send them.

    However, in addition to its new industrial muscle, the Soviet Union had vast natural resources of its own in the Urals, and also a very large pool of manpower. When the Germans attacked in June 1941, the Red Army had well over 10 million trained reservists from which it mobilized 182 new divisions in the second half of the year, amounting in all to 41 armies.

    Who but a deluded fanatic could think these fit-looking chaps were Untermenschen?

    Physical Culture Parade in Red Square (1930's)

    “Physical Culture Parade in Red Square (1930s)”
    Photo by Georgy Zelma, from the Flickr collection of the late Paul Malon

    In April 1941, for purposes that remain obscure, the Soviets had invited a select group of Germans to visit their new armaments factories around Moscow and in the Urals. To their astonishment, the visiting Germans learned that a single Soviet aircraft engine factory near Moscow was six times larger than the six largest German aircraft plants combined.

    Fools rush in.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  221. @Carolyn Yeager

    Hitler had a strange fixation with the British. When he let the British (with many French) army go at Dunkirk he should have been shot on the spot for treason. Hitler made unreasonably favorable treaty offers to the Zionist controlled British lackeys after the horrendous treatment including the extended blockade after the first war in which 800,000 German civilians starved.

    The alcoholic warmonger Churchill bombed German cities 8 times in over 3 months while Hitler did nothing. Hitler hoped that his pact with Stalin would deter Britain from further action. He did not seem to understand that he was in the Zionist sights no matter what. Germany’s only chance was to maintain a strong enough defense to make it too costly for the Zionists to proceed. He wasted this option as I outlined in post #24. It is very peculiar that Hitler understood the soviets and even foresaw their motives tactics but was totally gullible as to the British Zionists.

  222. @Trinity

    Zarathustra typifies the worst of the Slavic mentality. Empty boasting and reinventing reality whenever or wherever it’s thought necessary. That’s not Slav-hate or Slav-bashing from me, but just ordinary observation. Most pro-White or pro-Western loyalists don’t like to be confronted with the lack of unanimity or of equality among Whites, so they choose to overlook/ignore such distinctions. That doesn’t make them disappear. Having to mollify these sensitivities is our albatross.

    Note: I think you mean not “industrious North” but “industrial North.” I agree with you there too.

    • Thanks: Trinity
  223. @Trinity

    Even in US civil war it was repeating rifle that won the war for North.
    Most of you here attribute too much credit to quality of soldier.
    I was in military you were not. Our motto was that bigger and more bang wins the the war.
    And trust me on this one, that is still motto of Russian military.

  224. @noname27

    Germany was willing to feed the Russian POW’s if Stalin agreed to consent to the same for captured German soldiers. Stalin refused. Any deaths are attributable to him alone.

    • Agree: Mulegino1
    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @noname27
  225. @mark tapley

    Hitler had a strange fixation with the British.

    There was nothing “strange” about it nor was it a “fixation.” Hitler rightly saw a defensively united Europe (White man’s lands) under German and British cooperation as the ideal way to defeat or hold off Bolshevism and Jewish enemies. He looked to powerful sympathetic elements within Britain, which did exist at this time, to work together with his regime on this. He was also open to working with the same in the USA; there was much he admired in the U.S. You can say he was naive, but this was only totally clear later. Churchill didn’t take power until May 1940 And when it was clear (after Dunkirk), Hitler dropped that idea and decided his best or only option was to get a swift victory over the USSR. He no longer saw the British as potential allies, but Germany was surrounded by enemies on all sides. What do you suggest he should have done? You have no suggestions.

    You say in comment 24 that at this point Hitler should have been removed from office. Oh … by whom, the generals? Those generals did not dare to do such a thing because Hitler had become way too popular – it would have brought chaos to the whole country and a popular revolt. So you are talking through your hat, irresponsibly.

    Then you say, his plan to attack the Soviet Union was brilliant … but unfortunately carried out wrongly, although he had the approval beforehand of all the generals. Everyone was on board with the North-Center-South armies plan. In September, Hitler fell ill – so ill that he couldn’t function and remained in bed – and when he felt strong enough to meet with the generals again, they had decided, amongst a few of the leaders, that they wanted to focus solely on Moscow. Concerned about oil and other resources, Hitler fought for his own ideas and won, but by then the unnaturally early winter was coming up. All this cannot be blamed on Hitler’s “bad decisions.” The advances by the Center and South armies went well; it was only the North, i.e Leningrad where officer treason was taking place in the form of passing military plans to the enemy (SU). (See The Artist Within the Warlord, Chapt. 7, pgs. 118-122)

    You also forget, as you enumerate Hitler’s mistakes, that the Allies made mistakes too. Everyone makes mistakes. Hitler also had brilliant successes. The real problem was that Germany had to fend off the entire world power structure. So should he have surrendered? From the very beginning, both in 1939 and in 1940, he was relaying peace proposals to the Western powers. (That’s why Rudolf Hess thought he could secretly fly to Scotland and work with the people he thought he was in communication with.) If the Allies didn’t accept it then, they were not going to accept anything later. The destruction of Germany had already been decided upon, so all this talk about how stupid Hitler was, and how wrong, is just more anti-Hitler hate speech. This is not what we should be looking at.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  226. GeeBee says:
    @Fox

    Somehow, when Hitler is doing something it is always leading to disaster and wrong, when the democracies and bolsheviks are doing it, then it’s backed up by the latest economic theories, trends and necessities.

    You have described today’s dumbed-down political kindergarten in a nutshell.

    • Thanks: Fox
  227. @Alexandros

    That’s true, and many German POW’s were executed immediately with the order coming directly from Stalin. https://carolynyeager.net/wehrmacht-war-crimes-bureau-1939-1945-part-9 When the order came from lower officers, the reason most often given was ‘we don’t have any food to spare for them’ and ‘why should we give these invaders our food.’

  228. Mulegino1 says:
    @mike99588

    Debt to whom, precisely? A sovereign nation state which is relatively economically and financially self-sufficient cannot be forced into debt slavery to an international cabal of usurious parasites. This lack of foreign indebtedness was one of the primary reasons for the war against Germany. The NSDAP program included the aim of abolishing interest slavery and even interest itself, which has been considered an enormous and destructive wrong throughout recorded history. Had Germany been allowed to proceed with its barter/self-sufficiency policy and established a barter trade bloc of nations as a parallel option to the City of London and Wall St. hegemony, it would have been a disaster for haute finance but an economic blessing for the rest of the world.

    As a great European power, Germany certainly had the right to rearm to rough conventional parity with its potential adversaries. When Hitler ascended to the Chancellorship, German military strength was vastly inferior to that of France, Great Britain, Poland, Czechoslovakia and the USSR. Under the Versailles regime, the German military to what amounted to a 100,000 man constabularly with no heavy weapons, no air force and a few small coastal defense vessels- to any German patriot an absolutely untenable and unacceptable status quo.

    Although it is not a well known fact, Hitler made numerous offers of disarmament to his potential adversaries- most of which were summarily rejected. On the other hand, there was the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, which allowed the Royal Navy a three to one advantage in warship tonnage over the Kriegsmarine. Hitler’s policies vis a vis Poland and the Danzig uestion were initially more conciliatory than those of his Weimar predecessors, and Poland, under Marshal Pilsudski, entered into a non-aggression pact with Germany in 1934. Both accords were abrogated when Great Britain and France made their foolish and cynical offer of alliance to Poland in 1939, which Poland, now under the “regime of the colonels” readily accepted. Lest it be forgotten, Poland actively participated in the dissolution of Czechoslovakia by annexing the Teschen region.

  229. @Trinity

    Both the southern Confederacy and Germany were in unfavorable conditions. As I have pointed out in post #24 Hitlers insurmountable blunders doomed Germany that otherwise due to it’s superior army and much superior military staff could have made an assault by the Zionist forces untenable. Hitler eliminated this avenue.

    The Confederacy was in an even worse position militarily. The north had been running it’s unconstitutional tariff racket against the south for 36 years and the south was paying 86% of the federal gov. revenue and getting nothing in return. Lincoln, a disciple of Whig leader Henry Clay was controlled by the northern industrialists and manufactures. Many of them as did most wealthy New England families started either in the Atlantic slave trade (as did founders of Harvard and Brown Univ.) or in opium as FDR’s grandfather. The opium trade was controlled by British Jews and most of the slave trade was ran by Jews out of Rhode Island, Mass, and Conn.

    The north was very well financially and economically before the war. The south was a poor agricultural region. The north had 90% of industry (critical to process a war) 90% of railroads (15 out of 16 locomotives were in the north) and a large navy and merchant marine. The south had none of either. The north had almost 3 times the white population as the south. The south had a severe manpower shortage. That is why the north refused to exchange prisoners. However lots of negroes both slave and free fought for the south such as the great cavalry general Nathan Forrest 47 elite guard. All slaves from his plantation. All but one stayed till the end of the war. All troops black and white were integrated in the south whereas in the north the negroes were kept separate and mostly used for cannon fodder.

    The south had very serious disadvantages but one big advantage. Robert E. Lee. Called in only after the critical wounding of Gen. Joseph Johnston when the north was on the brink of capturing Richmond, Lee not only turned the situation around but drove the much larger Union forces back in a series of stunning defeats.

    Lee said that every day the war went on the north would get stronger and the south weaker. He also realized that the only way the north would leave the southerners alone was to inflict enough damage on them. Lee was very aggressive and mobile because the north had lots more artillery and better artillery and could pound the south if ever caught in a static defense.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Thanks: Trinity
  230. @Sparkon

    Yes, and Anthony Sutton gives us proof neither Hitler nor Stalin would have developed into viable fighting forces with out the backing of Wall Street and American corporations such as Standard Oil. General Electric, and ITT.

    • Agree: mark tapley
  231. tango37 says:
    @mark tapley

    “One under Manstein was wasted in the Caucuses and the largest army under Hitlers most inferior General Paulus was thrown away at St. Petersburg.”

    Paulus was never at Leningrad and Manstein in 1941 was the commander of the 11’th army which besieged the Crimea albeit as part of Army Group South. The drive towards the Caucuses was integral to Fall Blau the following year but Manstein was not involved with that. As for who was the worst German commander, that is debatable. Schoerner was despised by those under him and at the end deserted his men. Ernst Busch was in charge of Army Group Centre when it was annihilated in 1944. A catastrophe far worse than Stalingrad.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  232. @Hojer

    t.random porn whore from the old vassal state

  233. @Carolyn Yeager

    As I pointed out in post 24, Hitler was an unmitigated disaster. Not even the best army in the world could hope to salvage any tangible benefit with leadership this counter productive. Hitler was the Zionist syndicates greatest asset. Some such as Jon Bjerknes even claim with good evidence that he was an agent for the Zionists. I don’t agree with that (won’t give details here) but its is no wonder that the Zionists maneuvered him into power by throwing the communist (Jew) votes in parliament over to the Nat. Socialists. They could see a disaster in the making. As far as Hitlers popularity he never in 3 elections won a majority of popular vote even with huge contributions from Zionist sources.

    Hitler was a patsy for the British Zionists way before Churchill was put in by the Jew Focus group. All of the Zionists from Edward VIII and Chamberlain on down were bamboozling him (or were they). I said that the preempting of the Soviet assault was a brilliant move but probably not attributable to Hitler as he tended to be hesitant on most issues such as the reluctance to retaliate against Churchills 8 bombings of German cities over a three month period and his reluctance to defend Germanys critical iron deposits in Norway.

    It’s easy to see why Hitler was not questioned. He fired any Field Martial or General that did including his best one, Manstein. That is why his worst one Paulus, was leading Hitlers biggest army to destruction. He was Hitlers “yes man.” Hitler did have oil concerns but the oil in the Caucuses might as well have been on the moon as far as any good it could do Hitler even if they had won this area. As I stated it was another massive waste of resources. As I previously stated Hitlers Generals warned him that the Africa campaign was another huge waste in which the entire army went into captivity. Lets see now I don’t believe Churchill let them go did he.

    The allies were like Lincolns army. They could afford lots of mistakes. The Germans like the South could not. And we are not talking about mediocre run of the mill goof ups here but rather catastrophic disasters of such magnitude that it is no wonder that many such as Bjerkness claim Hitler was a Zionist agent. The German people didn’t really have to worry so much about what their enemies could do but more so about what Hitler would deliver to the Zionists gift wrapped.

    After Germany’s experience in WW1 and the outrageous Versailles Treaty, it should have been clear to anyone with a mind more than a goose that the Zionists were out to finish Germany off. Hitler proved to be the Judas goat that led the sheep to slaughter. Most people that study this issue with anything more than a cursory manner realize that Hitler was a systemic blight on Germany’s performance. There are a few sycophants such as you and Ruhe but as time goes on they will be less and less. By the way are ya’ll still looking for those aliens.

  234. Petermx says:
    @mark tapley

    I would like to hear more details on how Zionists (or even Jews) built up Germany when Germany or Germans have been leaders in science, culture and philosophy for the last 500 years, long before Zionism was established and with Jews having a minor or no role in those fields until about the middle 1800’s. According to some, Germans have contributed more to these fields than any other country in the last 500 years.

    Germany was a country with about 500,000 to 600,000 Jews until Hitler came to power and many Jews then emigrated prior to the beginning of the war. Poland had 3 million Jews. Germany had more Nobel Prizes than any other country in the world until a few years after WW II when they were surpassed by the Americans. Poland had one Nobel Prize recipient, the Christian Marie Curie. The Soviet Union and the USA also had far more Jews than Germany and both those countries were also far behind Germany in science until the US got a boost during the war when many scientists and others moved to the USA. If your claim is true one would naturally think these countries with high Jewish populations would perform much better than countries with small Jewish populations. Great Britain also had a small Jewish population and they were also a top competitor with Germany in those fields, less so in music and art.

    There is no doubt Jews are very intelligent and very ambitious but they also work together much more so than many other ethnic groups to advance themselves and this includes often promoting certain Jews as “geniuses” when that label might not be appropriate.

    I think Jews began having a significant influence in Germany only in the mid to late 1800’s. I think it was similar in many European countries. The Jews became significant contributors after they were emancipated in the 1800’s. Prior to that they lived in Jewish ghettos or shtetls and had little involvement in anything except as financial advisors. China is a great culture 6 thousand years old. I would not doubt it if you told me Jews helped bring communism to China, but few people associate communism with “building up” or success. It is more often associated with a disaster. That said, I have read that many credit communism with making the USSR an industrial power.

    • Agree: Zarathustra
    • Replies: @mark tapley
  235. @tango37

    I meant Stalingrad not not Leningrad. Paulus was in charge of the biggest most powerful army. The disaster you refer to with the center group was the end result of not using the necessary force to attack the main center Moscow but instead sending two sections of the German forces on missions that doomed the whole German war effort. Letting the British go at Dunkirk, messing with the Italians and the loss of the Army in Africa just dug the hole deeper. 90% of Germany’s resources were deployed against the Zionist created Soviets. The Germans could have eliminated this threat,

    • Replies: @Siegfriedson
    , @tango37
  236. @Trinity

    You know, while I agree with much of what you wrote, you should probably go a little easy on those men. I agree the “greatest generation” moniker is pretty much Jew inspired bullshit, but those men were responding to ostensible “attacks” on the US by “Axis powers”.

    My late uncle was a Combat Engineer who fought in WW2. He told us about Aachen, where German civilians were killed resisting because it was the seat of the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemange.

    The Left seeks to demonize the very men who fought on their side.

    What does that tell you?

  237. @Zarathustra

    The Spencer rifle was mostly used by the cavalry and western units. It did not have a significant impact on the war. It had very limited use at Gettysburg but the north in their defensive position lost more men than the attacking south. Had Lee’s orders been followed the south would have rolled the north back as Lee planned. Had Lee been given the 20,000 troops that Davis held in reserve as Lee requested victory would have been assured.

    Cavalries were mainly reconnaissance tools so the technical advantages of this carbine were largely mitigated. It is generally agreed that the Confederate Cavalry was quite superior to the Union. But then the south had Mosby and the greatest cavalry commander of all Forrest.

    The south had many big disadvantages. Most of the top military experts of the day predicted they would last only a couple of months. They held out over four years. quite an achievement and what a great loss for individual freedoms and limited government.

    • Replies: @Dube
  238. sally says:
    @mark tapley

    agree. Hitler and the German people saved Europe; Hitler confirmed to the Jews the mind control value of Jewish propaganda.., Propaganda is more powerful that tanks, air, and armies. and all of it is in private hands.

    Russians had advanced within 100 miles of Romania’s critical Ploesti oil fields The Germans had no choice.
    but if you read the Romanian side of the oil fields you begin to understand that the entire reason for WWI and WWII was oil and the products the factories made that used oil.

    Still there is the untold story of how the Russians came to be in possession of so much equipment manufactured in factories US Corporations built. It was not the USA that financed war support factories distributed throughout Europe but instead private interest.. The distribution demonstrates the pre war planning done by those privately owned privately financed Western IGOs and central banks all designed to force Germany into war.. does anyone have a map of the location of these factories. together with a profile on the factories themselves <=who financed them, what did the factories make, and who were the major buyers of the products of the factories.. which countries hosted them, and why?

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  239. @mark tapley

    Mark Tapley, even if Hitler and his generals had devised a near flawless set of strategy and tactics there is no way that the Reich could have won against Great Britain, the USA and the USSR. Stalin had armed the USSR to a far greater extent than the Germans assumed in June 1941.

  240. @Zarathustra

    The “repeating rifle” did not come into play until the very end of the war.

    It was not a decisive factor.

    The Union had a GDP five times as large as the South, and a pool of military age men nearly 20 times that of the Confederacy.

    Our boys did pretty well.

    We got their faggot ass, suicidal, seance attending President too…lol

  241. tango37 says:
    @mark tapley

    You’re referring to Army Group centre in 1941 not in 1944. In 1941 Army Group Centre was the most powerful of the three. Hitler was obsessed with seizing resources and especially food and oil. He was right in thinking that capturing the enemy’s capital city wouldn’t necessarily win the war. Starving the enemy of crucial resources whilst acquiring them for oneself is more likely to produce victory. Conquering the Ukraine and the Caucasus oilfields was crucial once Germany decided to take the path of autarky. Also, there were huge Soviet armies on the flanks of Army Group Centre which had to be dealt with. More definitive was that he ignored such inexorable military truths as the vast distances of Russia, the early and cruel winters, the lack of paved roads for his mechanized troops and the inexhaustable supply of Soviet manpower. Once the whole rotten structure didn’t crash down after a few months, it would be a war of attrition which Germany couldn’t win.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
    , @Zarathustra
  242. @mark tapley

    Hitler was the Zionist syndicates greatest asset. Some such as Jon Bjerknes even claim with good evidence that he was an agent for the Zionists. I don’t agree with that (won’t give details here) but its is no wonder that the Zionists maneuvered him into power by throwing the communist (Jew) votes in parliament over to the Nat. Socialists.

    Well, you’re really coming out charging now. Christopher Jon Bjerknes and the Zionist Syndicates running Hitler, plus he was a patsy for the British long before Churchil! Why do you “not agree with” Bjerknes since you think the claim is based on “good evidence?” You don’t want to say.

    I sometimes amaze myself at my “intuitive discernment”; yes, you are a full-fledged conspiracy theorist and maybe a member of the tribe. The reason you came heavily into this thread right from the start is because it painted such a sympathetic picture of Adolf Hitler.

    Can’t have that!

    The better a case someone makes for Hitler, the harder you push back. You’re now arguing that since Germany was defeated by “Zion” in WWI, it should never have tried to free itself again.

    it should have been clear to anyone with a mind more than a goose that the Zionists were out to finish Germany off. Hitler proved to be the Judas goat that led the sheep to slaughter.

    In other words, Hitler wasn’t trying to save his people from slaughter, he was the enemy (either knowingly or as a dupe) leading them to it. The ‘evidence,’ as usual, is that Germany lost again.

    You of course offer no suggestion as to what would have been a better path for Germany after WWI. Neither do the Bjerknes’ or the Hoffmans’ for that matter. We have a secure and prosperous Germany today, full of non-Germans, run by communists/globalists. That, I guess, is what you’re after.

  243. @mark tapley

    “…its is no wonder that the Zionists maneuvered him into power by throwing the communist (Jew) votes in parliament over to the Nat. Socialists. They could see a disaster in the making…”

    How on earth could they know beforehand that Hitler would be such a bad military strategist?

  244. Ugetit says:
    @noname27

    And what is this INTERNATIONAL MAFIA if it’s not The Jews?

    Read some of my other comments especially those where I use the term, “Talmudists.” Yapping about “da Jews” tells most people nothing and besides, it seems as though most Americans are trained to tune out at the term. Calling the criminals international mafiosi and the like is much more descriptive and attention calling of the evil we’re up against, I think. It sure seems that you took notice, so see what I mean?

    Now quit yer kvething and go do something about the satanic goons instead of attacking someone who’s likely on yer side.

    • Replies: @noname27
  245. @Petermx

    You are miss-interpreting my comments. I intended to get across that the forces of Zionism using resources primarily from the U.S. (I many times refer to in a derogative manner as Jewmerica) to implement the Zionist agenda as officially launched (but active many years prior to) in 1897. Most Jews have never been affiliated with the nationalistic or separatist goals of Zionism and some of them especially many orthodox members are vehemently opposed to it. There are many Gentiles that are supporters of Zionism such as Trump, Biden (professed), Pence, Pelosi and practically the entire senate and the big majority in the house. Not all of them are admitted supporters, they just practically always vote for the Zionist agenda as put before them by aIPAC.

    One of the first goals of this group was the establishment of the Zionist bridgehead in Palestine to gain control of what geographer Mackinder called the world island. They also had to make sure that as you stated the high I.Q. industrious Germans did not achieve any kind of pact or relationship with Russia. If this happened the combination of German ingenuity and the massive area controlled by Russia could not be defeated by the sea powers, Jewmerica, Britain and France.

    Russia with massive agricultural, industrial and financial help from Wall St. was plundered and converted into an eastern empire for the Zionists. This was primarily a Jew enterprise. Germany was targeted by primarily by the anglo Zionists led by Alfred Milner. The bridgehead was established as noted in Balfour’s letter to Lord Rothschild and enforced by the Zionist controlled British Army.

    All of this was a springboard to where we are today. The best way to view the Zionist criminal syndicate is as a type of mafia. There have always been conspirators and elites that don’t want to compete but rather want society to work for them. The difference is that we now have had for well over a hundred years a group of elites who have maintained and increased their power from one generation to the next so that now they are preeminent financially through the fiat banking cartel system, the E.U. and the Bank of Int. Settlements and our own private cartel that just stole trillions more for their Wall St. cronies.

    The number of Jews in any particular area is not a big issue. The great majority are not a problem. There are some very wealthy Zionist Jews however that fund both the fake left and the fake right and have been the biggest impact on our political system since Wilson was placed in office in 1910.

    Jews were a big influence in Germany because the Jews were almost totally synonymous with communism that is really just a tool of the Zionists pushed by their front man Marx (Moses Mordecai Levy). After the defeat of Germany in WW1 when the Zionists were making things as difficult for Germany as possible (800’000 starved) the communists (Jews) took over Bavaria and threatened the whole country. They dominated the weimar Rep. and all of this turmoil and the latter hyperinflation paved the way for the reactionary gov. of Hitler in 1933. The Nat. Socialists had massive investment from Wall St. pour into the country. I am not trying to denigrate the national character or superior abilities of the German people. These attributes only made the inputs more effective. The Zionists wanted to get the profits and the agenda moving as in the first war.

    Here we need to understand the purpose of the shtetls or ghettos. The Jews under the Old Testament (now done away with the coming of Christ) were commanded to live separate from any other people. After the destruction of the temple, the sacrifice and the priesthood in 70 AD as foretold by Christ, the Rabbis tried to continue this system with the ghettos in order to stop assimilation. This policy was particularly important to the Zionist Jews so they would have leverage to use for their agenda even though the Kazar Jews have no genetic (or semitic) connection to the scion Abraham.

    None of this is a process of building up but rather one of destruction, consolidation and control.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @Petermx
  246. @tango37

    The Germans combined forces would have overrun the Soviet forces that were in disarray after the German strike. They would have taken Moscow and knocked out central control long before winter set in. Moscow was the key to victory. The huge soviet armies would disperse in confusion. Millions surrendered up front at the beginning.

    By dividing it’s forces Germany was on the path of self destruction. Hitler was burning through his resources on north and south trajectories to a dead end. You have to secure military objectives before worring about securing oil fields that could not be used anyway. Jewmerica was keeping the Russians supplied with massive amounts of food and hardware. The only way for Germany to win was to knock out the command center. By splitting up the armies Germany instead of achieving the necessary quick decisive victory set itself up for a long war of attrition on both fronts.

  247. Fox says:
    @John Johnson

    You are mistaken. Leningrad plays an important part in the legends about holding out and resisting the all-time important “nazis’, i.e., the mythology to shroud the disaster that was caused by the war that was thought to be a cakewalk from London, Paris, Moscow and Washington to Berlin, and therefore so diligently brought about.

    The Wehrmacht did not take Leningrad, both for the fear of the German Command that in Leningrad a repetition of what the Soviets did in Kiev would occur, and an announcement of just this in the Soviet radio.
    In Kiev, the inner city was mined with radio-signal triggered explosives (with the radio mine Model F-10) and demolished via radio signal. Thousands died, many more civilians than German soldiers.
    Hence, the German objective was only the neutralisation of the industrial area of Leningrad, and not the occupation of the city. The military did not enter the city because there was no reason to do so after its industry production had stopped. On personal order of Adolf Hitler a small passageway for the civilians to leave for Inner Russia was left open. Stalin forbade the civilians to leave under penalty of death. He caused the misery of the people of Leningrad. On the other hand a supply route over Lake Ladoga was used to supply the Red Army in the city.
    Here we have yet one more megalie used to demonize the German armies and whitewash an Allied crime.

    I find it most remarkable that the Allied victory -or is it a “victory”?- is in need of constant sickbed treatment because its rendition and narrative is and has been continuously subject to questioning with hard facts left out or suppressed by censurship laws.

    • Agree: Mulegino1
  248. @tango37

    Only addition.
    There were two other factors that were instrumental to loss of Germany.
    First cold.
    German personal armaments were too precise for Russian winter. Armaments were precise with very small tolerances. Machine guns and even some rifles did jam at temperatures below minus 18 degrees celsia.
    Second cold.
    The German army clothing was not adequate for Russian winter. There were far more German soldiers leaving the front with frozen limbs and faces, than soldiers leaving the front because of injuries.
    ………………………………………
    There are some US units in Finland to learn to fight in Russian winter.
    Germans should have done it also before attacking Russia.

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  249. @Zarathustra

    Silly me!
    Not tolerances. Clearances between stationary and moving parts of the gun.

  250. Seraphim says:
    @Vojkan

    Prepare for more entertainment. The ‘fat lady’ Valkyrie Brunhilde, the Slav-eater, hasn’t had her last song!

    • Replies: @Vojkan
  251. Petermx says:
    @mark tapley

    Yes, you are right. I misunderstood what you wrote.

  252. Ron Unz says:
    @Chinaman

    It is insane that people have simply ignored or written off the wastewater studies which is about as objective as it will ever get. This might be the last chance to turn public opinion and prevent the warmongers from using COVID as a causi belli. I really fear for the worst.

    First off, I’m pretty skeptical of the wastewater data. From what I vaguely remember, all the various wastewaster studies only show first traces of Covid-19 starting in something like December 2019, which would be reasonably consistent with the current timeline of the Wuhan outbreak given international travel. Isn’t the sole exception that one early 2019 result in Barcelona? If Covid had been spreading in the US during summer 2019, it seems very strange there wouldn’t have been many dozens of international wastewater hits soon afterward, not to mention the ones in the US itself. And I find it very difficult to believe no one’s been testing US wastewater. We probably haven’t heard about it because all the tests came out negative just as everyone expected.

    I haven’t been following the wastewater issue, so maybe my facts are mistaken, but if that’s the pattern, the Barcelona datapoint seems an obvious lab-error of some sort. Given the contagious nature of Covid-19, you’d expect zero hits or many dozens.

    Anyway, given my experience with the MSM, even if the wastewater evidence were there, I think it would have zero impact on public opinion. It’s just an obscure, technical issue that can’t counter a hot “China-Did-It” narrative, and could easily be explained away to smarter people using exactly the arguments I’ve been making. Unless something very strange was going on with the virus, there wasn’t any 2019 Covid epidemic in the US, or we would have noticed many tens of thousands of people getting hospitalized. To me, that’s much stronger evidence than all the claims about “A” or “B” viral version.

    My own view is that all the people talking about a Ft. Detrick leak are just a bunch of innumerate conspiracy-crackpots, and I’d think that 99% of the MSM would take the same view. The fact that the Chinese government tried to play up that angle a few months ago is just a sign of the mediocre quality of their propaganda.

    By contrast, I think there’s *very* strong evidence—which I’ve been endlessly repeating for the six months—that the outbreak was an American biowarfare attack against China, and it only takes about 5 minutes to explain it to any smart person. The *only* argument anyone ever makes on the other side is that even rogue elements in American Intelligence couldn’t possibly have been stupid enough to release a virus without having a cure ready. But given all the crazy, stupid, and incompetent things American elites have done over the last 20 years, that’s not a great argument.

    Moreover, it really cuts through the MSM clutter like a scalpel. Nobody pays attention to wastewater anomalies or “A”/”B’ virus patterns. But *everyone* can understand the implications of American Intelligence being aware of the outbreak more than a month before anyone in China. I’m sure I could easily sell the analysis to anyone in the MSM or academic worlds, though for fear of being purged they might never admit it.

    • Replies: @JackOH
    , @Chinaman
  253. Ron Unz says:
    @Chinaman

    There are millions of Chinese Americans. Do you see the possibility of Chinese internment camps in this day and age, if and when war begins?

    Personally, I think that’s very unlikely. The Japanese-Americans were a small, weak, and isolated group, located almost entirely in California (except for Hawaii), where they were often resented by their less-successful white neighbors. And much of their large real estate holdings ended up in the hands of Jewish organized crime, and with some possibility that those elements had actually orchestrated the internment for exactly that reason:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-power-of-organized-crime/

    By contrast, Chinese-Americans are today very much integrated into the American middle/upper-middle class and frequently intermarried into our top elites. For example, Mark Zuckerberg’s wife is Chinese and so is Mitch McConnell’s. Also, Chinese are most heavily concentrated in CA and NY, where they get along perfectly well with everyone else. So I’m very skeptical of any sort of mass-internment scenario.

    On the other hand, the prospect of a insane nuclear war with China and/or Russia does make me quite nervous. When your country is run by crazy and very incompetent people, that sort of thing might sometimes happen.

    Someone needs to translate your articles for all Chinaman to read! I think you will find a very receptive audience if you start a Chinese site! Those young rioters in HK need to know this shit!

    Yes, something like that would really be very helpful. Various volunteers have translated many of my American Pravda articles into French, Spanish, and German, and Chinese would be an excellent addition.

    https://www.unz.com/page/american-pravda-series/

    From a broader perspective, different individuals have different strengths and weaknesses. One of my main strengths has always been my effectiveness in shaping MSM coverage by interacting with journalists and other elites, and persuading them that my analysis is correct. That’s how I won the “English Wars” in the late 1990s and got that very nice cover-story in The New Republic entitled “This Man Controls California.” That’s also how I launched the entire Minimum Wage movement in America six or seven years ago.

    The problem is that I can only shape MSM if I can get MSM, and in the last couple of years various opponents like the ADL seem to have issued an edict blacklisting me from the MSM:

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/ideological-purges-and-the-lord-voldemort-effect/

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-adl-in-american-society/

    For example, back in 2012 my big Meritocracy article quickly sparked an NYT symposium on Asian Quotas in the Ivies and lots of other nice coverage, soon inspiring a lawsuit against Harvard. So naturally when the issue came to trial in 2019, the NYT journalist covering it called me and we spent an hour or two on the phone. She dropped me a note the next day, apologizing that she’d only been able to use a couple of my quotes in her story…but when the piece actually ran, my quotes had vanished, which really surprised her. To me it simply confirmed that I was on some sort of NYT blacklist, never to be mentioned. And overcoming that sort of MSM blacklist is tricky unless you have sufficient muscle, which I lack, especially now that Google and Facebook have both banned this website.

    I’d like to think that my American Pravda series constitutes a potentially deadly weapon aimed straight at the ideological heart of our ruling elites and the historical narrative that they have used to justify their regime for the last three generations. And based upon my past track-record, I think I have a great deal of elite credibility to help overcome the total shock with which many of my analyses would initially be received. That why the ADL and other opponents are pretending that I don’t exist rather than trying to attack me.

    I really do think if enough *serious* people became aware of my articles, they might begin to have a severe destabilizing effect upon the current American regime, perhaps with important positive consequences. And that’s obviously the reason for all the banning and blacklisting.

    One potential way to overcome this major barrier would be to try to bounce the signal from overseas. For example, if lots of people in Hong Kong or China were reading and discussing some of my American Pravda articles, let alone if they received some sort of official PRC notice, it might become *very* difficult for the American MSM to continue to pretend they don’t exist. And once a leak in the dam develops, perhaps it might become uncontrollable. But I don’t have a clue about how to make that happen.

    • Agree: Not Raul
    • Thanks: HeebHunter, Antiwar7
    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Chinaman
    , @mark tapley
  254. Dube says:
    @mark tapley

    Thanks for your notes. If, if, and if….

    Lee ordering Pickett’s charge is commonly judged as a gallant blunder. What’s less known is that J. E. B. Stuart’s magnificent cavalry was riding around the Union position to attack in coordination from the rear. The Michigan Wolverine Cavalry Brigade under George Armstrong Custer defeated Stuart’s attempt. Had Stuart’s strike succeeded, the outcome at Gettysburg likely would have fallen in favor of Lee. The Michigan Brigade held the field from 9 am to 7 pm.

    Here’s the inscription on the monument to the Michigan Volunteer Cavalry Brigade.

    This monument marks the field where the Michigan Cavalry Brigade under its gallant leader General George A. Custer rendered signal and distinguished service in assisting to defeat the further advance of a numerically superior force under the Confederate General J. E. B. Stuart which in conjunction with Pickett’s Charge upon the centre, attempted to turn the right flank of the Union Army at that critical hour of conflict upon the afternoon of July 3rd, 1863.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  255. JackOH says:
    @Ron Unz

    “. . . [G]iven all the crazy, stupid, and incompetent things American elites have done over the last 20 years, that’s not a great argument.”

    Amen. Not sure if anyone’s keeping up with some of the recurring themes at UR, at least as I see them, but “crazy, stupid, and incompetent” governance seems to me surely one of them. At least one other theme, again as I see it, is the extent to which unrecognized criminal and civil misconduct drive politics and policies.

  256. Vojkan says:
    @Seraphim

    One only need ask how many times Slavic people invaded Germanic lands before the two world wars. Short answer: 0. Then how many times Germanic people invaded Slavic lands before the two world wars? Short answer: a lot greater than 0. But they have the gall to pretend that what they did in WWII was preemptive self-defence. Like the Americans in Iraq in 2003? Chutzpah Germanic style. No wonder they’re friends with Turks and Albanians.
    It reminds me of a documentary on Palestine that I saw a long ago. It showed how Jews were taught from childhood that if they had a dream in which some Palestinian wants to harm them then they should do whatever it takes to harm him first after they wake up. What’s the difference then between Germans and Jews?
    They’re both convinced of their own superiority, yet the contribution to mankind from one single Serb, Nikola Tesla, beats the contribution from all Germans and Jews put together. The British and the French have done much, much better. So our infernal couple can mutually stick their famed superiority up where the sun never shines.
    I say we should launch them both to Mars and let them sort out there among themselves whether there has or hasn’t been a Holocaust and who of them was actually guilty for WWII. What a relief it would be for mankind.

  257. THIS POST IS FOR FRANKLIN RYCKAERT

    You have brought up the key question. We do not have the answer. There are lots of things we will never know for sure. We know that Hitler was a member of the communist party and for about two months was under orders of a commissar sent from Moscow. Soldiers in Munich who did not accept communism escaped and joined the outside forces to drive them out. There is no record of anyone seeing Hitler. We know that Hitler served the communists in the official capacity as elected representative of the Soldiers Councils, part of the communist Gov. of Bavaria. He marched in uniform at Jew Kurt Eisner’s (com rev. leader in Bavaria) funeral parade. All of this is reported by court historian Ian Kershaw.

    Hitler’s motivations and ascent to power become shrouded in conflicting opinions involving many other people and groups at this point. We do know that his avowed enemies the communists (Jews) minority party threw their votes into his camp in the Parliamentary election instead of to Social Democrats as would normally be the case. This would have to be the result of orders from the very top.

    Some writers, the most prominent being Christopher Bjerknes accuse Hitler of being an operative for the Zionists. Bjerknes also repeates the holohaux lie several times which as you know has been completely demolished along with the little Ann Frank garbage. Another one whom I have not read his Hitlers comments is Micheal Hoffman. I have only read some of his material on usury and it’s relation to Catholic doctrine. I doubt Hoffmans viewpoints on Hitler would enlighten us very much.

    From the information we gather from Hitlers associates and David Irving (I believe to be a reliable source) and even from Hitlers obvious mental and physical deterioration as well as what appear to be accurate information surrounding his death ,I believe it would be very improbable that he was a Zionist shill.

    When the German army overrun France and trapped the enemy at Dunkirk it seems that Hitler’s judgement in the midst of hubris and the euphoria of victory caused him to again extend the olive branch to the crocodiles. He should have known from experience that this was futile. Hitler continued to indulge Mussolini and the Italians against that were no more than another millstone around his neck.

    Germany produced about 60% of it’s oil needs from it’s own coal while the Romanians supplied most of the rest. They were increasingly short on fuel and oil as Hitler divided his armies and overextended them in every possible way ostensibly to gain more oil from sources that he would not have been able to transport and utilize in any case such as Rommel’s debacle in Africa (the Generals warned Hitler again) and the even more costly expedition in the Caucuses. I will attribute these asinine blunders again to his conviction of intellectual superiority. Napoleon was affected by this also.

    Those that accuse Hitler of being a Zionist never mention the German (with Hitlers approval) army’s preemptive strike against the Soviets that saved Europe. This plan required a huge amount of planning and execution to achieve it’s amazing results. We need to also note that Hitler tried to get the Japanese to reject the Russians non-aggression pact. Hitler even told the Japanese ambassador personally that the Russians would attack them at the first opportunity. That is exactly what happened in Manchuria.

    Even though the Germans face difficult odds I believe that had Hitler’s mistakes mentioned here and in post #24 been avoided, the Russians would have been neutralized in an overwhelming direct attack on Moscow. This action would have freed up 90% of the Germans resources early in the war and allowed them to put up a bulwark of defensive forces that the Zionists would not have attempted to challenge militarily.

    • Replies: @The Shadow
  258. @Carolyn Yeager

    Hitler was played by the Jews just like everyone else. Whether he was a willing participant in their sinister plan or simply duped will continue to be debated long after we are all gone.

    I must say I have to agree with Mark on Hitlers poor military decisions at times. I could never imagine “old blood and guts” pulling up and letting a huge enemy force run out the back door in a battle that would have eviscerated them . That is unless he was held up by a traitorous high command, which he was, and as we know this resulted in prolonging the war and the Battle of the Bulge.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  259. @sally

    The best source for the information you request is the book “Wall St. and the Bolshevik Revolution” by Hoover Inst. researcher Anthony Sutton. Russia was a Zionist target as I outlined in #253. The Jew run attack was first attempted in 1905. The Bolsheviks (Jews) were successful in 1917 but required lots of help and another ap. 8 years to finally get all of the country under control. I won’t list them here but several of the Int. Jew banks contributed large sums to this campaign to begin the plunder of Russia and establish an eastern empire. Jacob Schiff invested 20 million (in 1917 dollars). He is great grandfather of Al Gore’s daughters husband. The Wilson ad. under firm Zionist control worked with the British Zionists to undermine the White Army while shipping aid to the Reds under the fake Hoover relief program and also the Red Cross. All of these Zionist forces had to move on Russia quickly because Russia was making much progress on improving conditions and modernizing. The Russians produced a food surplus most years and more oil than Jewmerica.

    The Zionists control government and it is just a vehicle to extort the peoples wealth for their agenda. Gerry Docherty reports in his book that 21,000 people in Jewmerica became millionaires or billionaires in the manufactured conflict of WW1 alone. Many corporations raked in huge profits organized by Big Jew Bernard Baruch’s War Industries Board and Rothschild employee J.P. Morgan. This scam continues today by the banking cartel as evidenced by the bailout for billionaires in 08 and now again under cover of the fake virus and staged riots.

    Many families got their start in with the war such as the criminal Bush family. The reportedly second richest family in Jewmerica the Koch’s also started with Russian contracts (as a side note actress J. Lawerence is Charles Koch’s great granddaughter, giving her a double connection, first from being from one of the “families” and also being half Jew).

    Sutton details the ongoing 5 year programs and massive agricultural, financial and industrial aid to keep this facade of militaristic menace from falling apart which they finally could not keep going any longer. In 1989 the USSR produced less grain than it had under the Tzar in the early 1900’s. In 1950 there were less automobiles in the entire vast country of Russia than in Spain which was noted for it’s backwardness.

    Best regards

    Mark

    • Replies: @Not Raul
  260. @Carolyn Yeager

    Please give the term “conspiracy theorist” a rest. It’s as old, worn out, and simply irrelevant as the term “racist”.

    • Agree: mark tapley
  261. @Dube

    As with the Spencer rifle you continue to bring in issues of marginal importance. Stuart disobeyed Lee’s orders to only track the northern army which if he had done as ordered, Lee would have known Meade’s location. As it was Stuart got there late and neither cavalry had much affect on the outcome of the battle. Pickett did perform poorly but Longstreet’s failure to follow orders along with Ewell’s failure to pursue the retreating north on the first day were the main determents to success.

    • Replies: @Dube
  262. @Johnny Walker Read

    Eastern Europe was purposely gifted to the Soviet Union post WWII

    The American high command, including George Marshall, often seemed to be working more for the Soviet Union than the U.S. Quite possibly because communists had infiltrated the FDR administration and the Democrat Party enough to enact quid pro quos from ambitious people seeking promotion. Marshall himself and arguably Eisenhower, were promoted very quickly and beyond their previously demonstrated levels of competence and ability. (They really didn’t need to be communists themselves or even know the affiliation of their backers to be under the thumb of nefarious influencers.) Meanwhile Patton’s life came to an abrupt end under mysterious circumstances.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  263. Trinity says:

    Given that (((Great Britian))) and Winston Cuckhill ( what a loser that guy was in real life, him being lionized as some sort of hero is typical of FAKE HISTORY) were totally under the Jewish Zionist boot heel and so was the (((Soviet Union))) and so was the lying POS known as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that clown was surrounded by Jews. The war of Nationalism vs. Jewish Globalism continues to this day, maybe that is why WWII holds some sort of fascination with non-Jews as well, of course we all suffer from fatigue of hearing or reading about the Jewy version of WWII, especially the truth seekers. Hell, it has been going on a lot longer than when Hitler assumed power. Franco-Prussian War, Russo-Japanese War, WWI, Spanish Civil War, WWII, and of course the manufactured Cold War all have a common denominator, guess what it is?

    Sheesh, no wonder the Old Testament in the Bible is nothing but war and genocide, killing, incest, adultery, paranoia, sexual lust, etc.

    Off topic, but anyone know where Jeffrey Toobin is? Looking for my jar of Vaseline to change the water filter and damn I can’t find that sumbitch anywhere this morning. Anthony Weiner, Jeffrey Toobin and his cousin Jeffrey Epstein, Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Woody Allen, Eric Schneiderman, Eliot Spitzer, etc., etc., can’t these guys keep their dick in their pants? I spot another common denominator, can you guess what it is?

    And a lot of people think the Bible is a fairy tale? Man, that OT seems to be pretty legit. I guess people and that includes everyone, particularly a certain tribe haven’t progressed that much over the centuries. Advancement in civilizations? Maybe in living conditions, technology, and other fields but not as human beings.

  264. @mark tapley

    Hitler … was totally gullible as to the British Zionists.

    Irving’s Churchill’s war shows that Hitler was not unreasonnable in his belief that the Chamberlain-Halifax party could get back the upper hand and force Churchill out. Chamberlain and Halifax would have accepted Hitler’s peace terms anytime.

  265. Well?
    Sometime present events help us to better understand the past!

  266. @Peripatetic Itch

    America’s Second Crusade is a great book on the US infatuation with Communism in WW2. It was a combination of media domination and infiltration from the usual suspect.

    However the most startling aspect is the immense stupidity of US leadership. Roosevelt comes off as naive to the point of retardation. Stalin played him like a little child. The various ambassadors and officials are similar. Thinking there would be a utopian world peace if they just gave Stalin as much land, money and weapons as he wanted.

    No doubt some of the rhetoric was the result of agents working on the inside, but I got the impression most of these people believed their fantasies. If you watch the interrogation of Otto Skorzeny by American forces it seems this ignorance extended to the lower ranks as well.

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  267. @Johnny Walker Read

    Hitler was played by the Jews just like everyone else.

    Your opinion only – you offer no details.

    Whether he was a willing participant in their sinister plan or simply duped will continue to be debated long after we are all gone.

    It sure will be, if the Jews and Globalists have their way. Are you being duped by them?

    You agree that Hitler “made poor military decisions at times” proven by he fact that he let the British forces at Dunkirk “run out the back door” when he could have eviscerated them, which Churchill would never have done. So because he didn’t behave like Churchill (a pawn of the Jews in your eyes), Hitler was likely a pawn of the Jews. Hmm, is there a logic problem there?

    You suggest that he could have been “held up by a traitorous high command”, adding “we know he was”. Just what do you mean by that? Who were the traitors? It sounds like conspiracy talk to me, which is to suggest that one thing is caused by another without presenting any actual proof for it, except to say a person wouldn’t have acted as he did unless he was under the control of a super-powerful and organized enemy group. In other words, Adolf Hitler couldn’t have acted for his own reasons because you don’t understand those reasons.

    Please give the term “conspiracy theorist” a rest. It’s as old, worn out, and simply irrelevant as the term “racist”.

    If you could give me a newer, fresher term to use for what we’re talking about, I’d be happy to use it. Maybe ‘anti-German propagandist’? Or “tired old” conspiracy theorist?

    Or maybe you just don’t want the word conspiracy used for your particular brand of theorizing. As for the video you posted, it is pure Jewish propaganda. I recommend you take the trouble to read this article by Hadding Scott about the Jew Edwin Black: https://jan27.org/edwin-black-is-a-buffoon/

  268. @Franklin Ryckaert

    “Well, I guess none of them witnessed Hitler and Eva Braun in the privacy of their bedroom. So they only could “indicate” what they thought what happened. Since the “indications” of his close relations differ, the matter remains undecided.”

    Here’s what Hitler’s valet, Heinz Linge, said in an interview with Nerin E. Gun about the 3 times he witnessed Hitler and Eva Braun in Hitler’s study at the Berghof and in his bedroom in Berlin:

    “Their intimate life was off limits to everyone, but it was inevitable that I soon saw they were lovers. Once I walked into Hitler’s study when he forgot to lock the door and found them embracing. In Berlin, I walked into his bedroom to deliver a uniform and found him undressing Eva while she sat in a chair. The most embarrassing moment was entering Hitler’s Berlin bedroom and discovering the couple in the midst of heated passion, while on his bed. I shut the door as quietly and as quickly as I could. On that occasion, I don’t think either took notice of the intrusion, having other things on their mind.”

    Further, Linge commented in his memoir that “My observations led me to believe that the sexual relationship between Hitler and Eva Braun had been especially active on occasion.”

    We can put the questions about Hitler and Eva literally to bed now.

    • Thanks: Carolyn Yeager
  269. @Alexandros

    You got it upside down. Nobody was infatuated with communism.
    England and US were more worrying about German power. They even were more worrying about German prosperity that could give some ideas to their own working population, which would have been pretty inconvenient for their own ruling class. So they did not really join Russia. The far more influential reason was to destroy threat which was Germany. That were the reasons for supporting Russian side.

    • Replies: @sunhunter61
  270. Dube says:
    @mark tapley

    Mark, you write like a C student filling out a midterm from the top of his head, whether or not what you think you know is to the point.

    Gettysburg is OT, so I’ll simply emphasize that Pickett’s charge was executed perfectly, but it was insufficient without the coordinated cavalry assault by Stuart against the Union right flank, which was denied by Union cavalry under Custer.

    Your energy is admirable.

  271. @mark tapley

    After a long debate with myself about whether it would be worthwhile to comment, I finally decided I can’t let this old nonsense pass without inject some facts into the mixture.

    As I write this, I am looking at the operational map in the recently published The Blitzkrieg Legend depicting the disposition of forces as of May 24 when Hitler supposedly issued his “halt order” that was this supposed olive branch. Of course all the German generals with Guderian in particular denounce it as the absurd decision that kept them from complete victory.

    Now what does this map show.

    First, as of that day, one of Guderian’s three divisions, the 10th Pz. was still busy seizing Calais that was at least 30 km from Dunkirk that obviously made it impossble for them also to be launching attacks toward Dunkirk. Ditto the 2nd Pz. div. which was in part investing Boulogna (at least 60 km from Dunkirk. Thus only parts of his remaining 1st Pz. Div was apparently at the front 15 kn from Dunkirk. The next closest unit was SS Leibstandarte at Watten about 30 km away. The closest of the rest of the German armored forces were 40 km from Dunkirk and lined up from north west to south east as followed: 6th Pz SE of St. Omer; 8th Pz. at Aire; an SS unit and then the 3d Pz.; SS Totenkopf; 4th Pz.; 7th Pz; 5th Pz. and finally 20th Motorized Div. at Corvin, about 70 miles from Dunkirk. And rather than heading directly towards Dunkirk, their attack directions were to the northwest and seeking to encircle a smaller pocket being formed to surround the 1st French Army.

    These forces were positioned to implement the operational plans concocted by the German generals, not Hitler.

    Indeed, it could hardly have been the halt order that kept Guderian from charging toward Dunkirk when 2/3ds of his Corps was on that date busily engaged miles away subduing two ports that were of absolutely no consequence to halting the evacuation at Dunkirk.

    • Agree: Not Raul
    • Replies: @mark tapley
  272. @Dube

    I appreciate your first paragraph, but not the 3rd. Energy without being adequately informed is not admirable. Thanks, though.

  273. @Zarathustra

    Your interpretation. Here is another one:
    The communists of the east and the capitalists of the west both had one interest in common: To maintain a large and rather ignorant working class. The capitalists for cheap labour, the communists to maintain a government stronghold over the masses. Hitler challenged that.
    There are other aspects also.
    To consider a common enemy as the sole reason is at best inadequate.

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  274. Anon[223] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    If the elites were so scared of your website, why don’t they just take down your articles?
    They are obviously smart enough to gain total control of the world’s richest country, but they only soft-ban the main person who’s articles could result in the regime’s destruction?
    I don’t doubt your position on America causing the coronavirus via deep state entities, though you could certainly be wrong, but if I was an elite, I would just take down your website right?

  275. Chinaman says:
    @Ron Unz

    Various volunteers have translated many of my American Pravda articles into French, Spanish, and German, and Chinese would be an excellent addition.

    With your permission, let me explore how to get this done professionally, in both traditional and simplified Chinese. We should definitely start with the bioattack blowback article. The least I could do is to cover the cost of the translation. I think your series on systemic discrimination against Asians in the Ivy leagues will be a huge hit in China given every Chinese high school students wants to get into Harvard. We can definitely start with these 2 articles:

    One of your syndicated columnist, Larry Romanoff ( who wrote a piece devoted to exposing me as a Jew!) started a diplomatic storm because his Fort Detrick article cited by Zhou Lijian on twitter which was directly rebuked by Pompeo. As you mentioned, the Fort Detrick theory is a bit outlandish and your blowback theory is definitely more persuasive. I guess the key is just getting it in front of the right eyes. Could advertise on Wechat or Baidu to get views or get some Chinese influencers to post it( not cheap at all…) We need to come up with a strategy . Let me get organized and we should probably take this conversation private from here…

    Happy to do this just to prove that I am not a fake Chinaman.

  276. @The Shadow

    Manstein in his memoirs said they could have easily destroyed the British. Goering had asked Hitler for permission to just use the air Force.

  277. @mark tapley

    Great comment, Mark! Thanks! You say you’ve skipped a lot. I hope Ron will invite you to publish your full article here.

    But I get a little skeptical when someone throws Cromwell into the mix on this subject, as happens so, so often. Long ago I read Cromwell Our Chief Of Men by Antonia Fraser. Must get another copy. But what I picked up was that he stood for religious freedom, and emancipation of the Romanists of England was delayed for centuries by his death. And much of it is Irish propaganda, even though Bloody Mary had driven English colonization of Ireland. Cromwell’s ending the exclusion of the Jews from England does not, therefore, mean Cromwell was owned by the Jews. Not necessarily.

  278. @sunhunter61

    You do not realize that England was in depression while US was in real desperate depression.
    All attempts of Roosevelt to get out of depression were not successful. Russia although did not really prosper did not have a serious problems with their working class. There was only one problem.
    Stalin was totally furious with Trotsky for giving away Baltic republics to Germany in Brest-Litowsk
    peace accords. But still Stalin would not go to war against Germany for that. But after France and Anglia declared war on Germany, Stalin did order its troops to be ready to take over Baltic republic on short order. Prosperous Germany was thorn in the eyes of all three powers.

  279. Not Raul says:
    @Priss Factor

    It didn’t seem stupid in 1941. At the time, the US military expected Germany to beat the USSR.

  280. Not Raul says:
    @mark tapley

    The Koch brothers’ father invested quite a bit in the USSR, too, as did German militarists in the 1920s.

  281. Chinaman says:
    @Ron Unz

    I find it very difficult to believe no one’s been testing US wastewater. We probably haven’t heard about it because all the tests came out negative just as everyone expected.

    Whether it is March 2019 or March 2020, there should be a date the virus first appear in their sample. A lot of countries have done the study come up with a date and some are indeed in Jan or Feb 2020. There is usually be a published study and a date of the earliest sample. I know of no such study from America even though it have become standard protocol in many countries.

    The wastewater evidence and the case of the patient who died in France in Dec have been one of the main narrative with regards the origin of the virus in China.

    Professor Zhang weiwei, who used to be translator for Deng and now runs one of the Chinese think tanks in China at Fudan University have reference these studies many times in public. Here’s him on munk debate.

    We are have our confirmation biases and cherry pick evidence that fits our preconceived notions. I trade financial derivatives for a living so I know a lot about cognitives biases. The truth is always between the bid-ask spread. That’s fine and this is why I said it doesn’t matter whether the wastewater studies are convincing or not. Some will think they are hugely significant and some will be skeptical. All good. It is clear now we will never get close to the truth anyway. The fact is we both know there is absolutely NO evidence for the Wuhan wet market origin, bat eating Chinaman, or a lab leak. Absence of evidence is not evident of absence of course and MSM\Trump have somehow manage to shift the burden of proof to the Chinese to- prove a negative- This insane narrative have become predominant one in America and around the world, drawing on deep-seated biases and raw racism.

    I am not sure how to fight this disinformation and you have a better idea than I do what is the effective method to counter the MSM narrative. I am happy to follow your lead on this.

  282. @Dube

    As I said, Picketts charge was not adequately supported so did not go well and Stuarts exhausted cavalry was too late to be of benefit. Neither cavalry made any decisive difference. Nor did your Spencer carbine that “won the war.”

  283. Ry says:

    Bravo Mr. Weber, you are quickly becoming one of my favorite columnists on this site. Continue the excellent work.

    And thank you to Ron Unz for putting together a great team of writers.

  284. @Ron Unz

    The Zionist jews in shabbos goy Trumans Office of Alien property (Bazalon & Pritzker) not only set a totalitarian prerequisite by throwing 120,000 Japanese Americans in desert concentration camps but confiscated millions in real estate and businesses for their Jew mob buddies. Now these assets are worth billions. The Zionists won’t pull that scam again but have gone on to many more including the fake virus, fake test and fake numbers as a cover along with fake Floyd and the staged riots for the banking cartels theft of more trillions as in 08.

    The Zionists now have a much more egalitarian and multiethnic program planned for the goyim all over the world. It is euphemistically called the Sustainable Development Initiative (agenda 2030-21). Developed by the wonderful folks at the U.N. and available for all to read. It will enable everyone to feel secure and protected by our wonderful governments and will eliminate all the unnecessary energy squandering by helping everyone achieve a new austere energy quota based lifestyle. Chinaman I am sure is exuberant about the new Social Credit Score total surveillance total control system being put in all the cities (probably not those empty ones yet). He had better be or he will have points deducted that will encourage him to be a better team player.

    China is very careful about what the livestock read. Your articles are not likely to ever see daylight over there. It’s not much different here. Politically incorrect viewpoints like the ones exposing the fake virus have been just about eliminated by the MSM for our own good. I understand that those selfless public servants at the ADL (created for the defense of the great B’nai B’rith leader Leo Frank)
    are protecting all of us from the scourge of anti-semitism, hate speech and white culture, even being aided by our presidential puppet actor and Greater Israel cheerleader Trump with his ex. order banning free speech on college campuses.

    Ron, the tribe is not happy with you. Perhaps you should consider a hefty donation to the ADL as well as adopting a more enlightened viewpoint, similar to the progressive Senator Feinstein.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Mark Weber Comments via RSS