This very lengthy reconstruction of our central role in the outbreak of World War II was published almost forty years ago but I only just read it recently. I think that the parallels with our own current confrontation with Russia are really quite remarkable, as I’ve previously emphasized in some of my own articles: American Pravda: World War III and World War II? — Ron Unz.
Major ceremonies were held in 1982 to mark the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. With the exceptions of Washington and Lincoln, he was glorified and eulogized as no other president in American history. Even conservative President Ronald Reagan joined the chorus of applause. In early 1983, newspapers and television networks remembered the fiftieth anniversary of Roosevelt’s inauguration with numerous laudatory tributes.
And yet, with each passing year more and more new evidence comes to light which contradicts the glowing image of Roosevelt portrayed by the mass media and politicians.
Much has already been written about Roosevelt’s campaign of deception and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Roosevelt’s aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a vast “dirty tricks” campaign against U.S. citizens by British intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack against Pearl Harbor — all this is extensively documented and reasonably well known.[1]See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948); William Henry Chamberlin, America’s Second Crusade (Chicago: Regnery, 1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid (New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt’s enormous responsibility for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on Roosevelt’s secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against Germany in 1938 and 1939.
Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.
This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured in September 1939. These documents clearly establish Roosevelt’s crucial role in bringing on the Second World War. They also reveal the forces behind the President which pushed for war.
While a few historians have quoted sentences and even paragraphs from these documents, their importance has not been fully appreciated. There are three reasons for this, I believe. First, for many years their authenticity was not indisputably established. Second, a complete collection of the documents has not been available in English. And third, the translation of those documents which has been available in English until now is deficient and unacceptably bad.
When the Germans took Warsaw in late September 1939, they seized a mass of documents from the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In a letter of 8 April 1983, Dr. Karl Otto Braun of Munich informed me that the documents were captured by an SS brigade led by Freiherr von Kuensberg, whom Braun knew personally. In a surprise attack, the brigade captured the center of Warsaw ahead of the regular German army. Von Kuensberg told Braun that his men took control of the Polish Foreign Ministry just as Ministry officials were in the process of burning incriminating documents. Dr. Braun was an official of the German Foreign Office between 1938 and 1945.
The German Foreign Office chose Hans Adolf von Moltke, formerly the Reich’s Ambassador in Warsaw, to head a special Archive Commission to examine the collection and sort out those documents which might be suitable for publication. At the end of March 1940, 16 of these were published in book form under the title Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des Krieges [“Polish Documents on the Pre-History of the War”]. The Foreign Office edition was subtitled “German White Book No. 3.” The book was immediately published in various foreign language editions in Berlin and some other European capitals. An American edition was published in New York by Howell, Soskin and Company as The German White Paper. Historian C. Hartley Grattan contributed a remarkably cautious and reserved foreword.[2]Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress, House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
The translation of the documents for the U.S. White Paper edition was inexcusably bad. Whole sentences and parts of sentences were missing and portions were grossly mistranslated. H. Keith Thompson explained to me why this was so during a conversation on 22 March 1983 and in a letter of 13 May 1983. A poor first draft English-language translation had been prepared in Berlin and sent to America. It was given to George Sylvester Viereck, a prominent pro-German American publicist and literary advisor to the German Library of Information in New York City. Thompson knew Viereck intimately and served as his chief aide and re-writer. Viereck had hurriedly redrafted the translation from Berlin into more readable prose but without any opportunity of comparing it to the original Polish text (which he could not read in any case) or even the official German-language version. In making stylistic changes for the sake of readability, the meaning of the original documents was thereby inadvertently distorted.
The matter was also discussed at a small dinner for Lawrence Dennis hosted by Thompson at Viereck’s apartment in the Hotel Belleclaire in New York City in 1956. Viereck explained that he had been a highly paid literary consultant to the German government, responsible for the propaganda effect of publications, and could not be concerned with the translation groundwork normally done by clerks. Even the most careful translation of complicated documents is apt to distort the original meaning, and literary editing is certain to do so, Viereck said. Thompson agreed with that view.
In preparing the English-language text for this essay, I have carefully examined the official German translation and various other translations, and compared them with facsimiles of the original Polish documents.
Media Sensation
The German government considered the captured Polish documents to be of tremendous importance. On Friday, 29 March, the Reich Ministry of Propaganda confidentially informed the daily press of the reason for releasing the documents:
These extraordinary documents, which may be published beginning with the first edition on Saturday, will create a first-class political sensation, since they in fact prove the degree of America’s responsibility for the outbreak of the present war. America’s responsibility must not, of course, be stressed in commentaries; the documents must be left to speak for themselves, and they speak clearly enough.
The Ministry of Propaganda specifically asks that sufficient space be reserved for the publication of these documents, which is of supreme importance to the Reich and the German people.
We inform you in confidence that the purpose of publishing these documents is to strengthen the American isolationists and to place Roosevelt in an untenable position, especially in view of the fact that he is standing for re-election. It is however not at all necessary for us to point Roosevelt’s responsibility; his enemies in America will take care of that.[3]Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
The German Foreign Office made the documents public on Friday, 29 March 1940. In Berlin, journalists from around the world, including the United States, were given facsimile copies of the original Polish documents and translations in German. journalists were permitted to examine the original documents themselves, along with an enormous pile of other documents from the Polish Foreign Ministry.
The release of the documents was an international media sensation. American newspapers gave the story large front page headline coverage and published lengthy excerpts from the documents. But the impact was much less than the German government had hoped for.
Leading U.S. government officials wasted no time in vehemently denouncing the documents as not authentic. Secretary of State Cordell Hull stated: “I may say most emphatically that neither I nor any of my associates in the Department of State have ever heard of any such conversations as those alleged, nor do we give them the slightest credence. The statements alleged have not represented in any way at any time the thought or the policy of the American government.” William Bullitt, the U.S. Ambassador to Paris who was particulary incriminated by the documents, announced: “I have never made to anyone the statements attributed to me.” And Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington whose confidential reports to Warsaw were the most revealing, declared: “I deny the allegations attributed to my reports. I never had any conversations with Ambassador Bullitt on America’s participation in war.”[4]New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
These categorical public denials by the highest officials had the effect of almost completely undercutting the anticipated impact of the documents. It must be remembered that this was several decades before the experiences of the Vietnam war and Watergate had taught another generation of Americans to be highly skeptical of such official denials. In 1940, the vast majority of the American people trusted their political leaders to tell them the truth.
After all, if the documents made public to the world by the German government were in fact authentic and genuine, it would mean that the great leader of the American democracy was a man who lied to his own people and broke his own country’s laws, while the German government told the truth. To accept that would be quite a lot to expect of any nation, but especially of the trusting American public.
Comment from Capitol Hill generally echoed the official government view. Senator Key Pittman, the Democratic Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, called the documents “unmitigated falsehood designed to create dissension in the United States.” Senator Claude Peper, Democrat of Florida, declared: “It’s German propaganda and shouldn’t affect our policies in the least.” Only a few were not impressed with the official denials. Representative Hamilton Fish of New York, the ranking Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called for a Congressional investigation and declared in a radio address: “If these charges were true, it would constitute a treasonable act. If President Roosevelt has entered into secret understandings or commitments with foreign governments to involve us in war, he should be impeached.”[5]Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
(New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.)
American newspapers stressed the high-level denials in reporting the release of the documents. The New York Timesheadline read: U.S. BRANDS AS FALSE NAZI DOCUMENTS CHARGING WE FOSTERED WAR IN EUROPE AND PROMISED TO JOIN ALLIES IF NEEDED. The Baltimore Sun headlined: NAZI DOCUMENTS LAYING WAR BLAME ON U.S. ARE ASSAILED IN WASHINGTON.[6]New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
Although the book of Polish documents was labeled “first series,” no further volumes ever appeared. From time to time the German government would make public additional documents from the Polish archives. These were published in book form in 1943 along with numerous other documents captured by the Germans from the French Foreign Ministry and other European archives, under the title Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der Vereinigten Staaten [“Roosevelt’s Way Into War: Secret Documents on the War Policy of the President of the United States”].[7]A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.
An important unanswered question is: Where are the original Polish documents today? Unless they were destroyed in the conflagration of the war, they presumably fell into either American or Soviet hands in 1945. In view of recent U.S. government policy on secret archival material, it is very unlikely that they would still be secret today if they had been acquired by the United States. My guess is that if they were not destroyed, they are now either in Moscow or at the East German Central State Archives in Potsdam.
It is particularly important to keep in mind that these secret reports were written by top level Polish ambassadors, that is, by men who though not at all friendly to Germany nonetheless understood the realities of European Politics far better than those who made policy in the United States.
For example, the Polish ambassadors realized that behind all their rhetoric about democracy and human rights, and expressions of love for the United States, the Jews who agitated for war against Germany were actually doing nothing other than ruthlessly furthering their own purely sectarian interests. Many centuries of experience in living closely with the Jews had made the Poles far more aware than most nationalities of the special character of this people.
The Poles viewed the Munich Settlement of 1938 very differently than did Roosevelt and his circle. The President bitterly attacked the Munich agreement, which gave self-determination to the three and a half million Germans of Czechoslovakia and settled a major European crisis, as a shameful and humiliating capitulation to German blackmail. Although wary of German might, the Polish government supported the Munich agreement, in part because a small Polish territory which had been a part of Czechoslovakia against the wishes of its inhabitants was united with Poland as a result of the Settlement.
The Polish envoys held the makers of American foreign policy in something approaching contempt. President Roosevelt was considered a master political artist who knew how to mold American public opinion, but very little about the true state of affairs in Europe. As Poland’s Ambassador to Washington emphasized in his reports to Warsaw, Roosevelt pushed America into war in order to distract attention from his failures as President in domestic policy.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to go into the complexities of German-Polish relations between 1933 and 1939 and the reasons for the German attack against Poland at dawn on the first day of September 1939. However, it should be noted that Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror and dispossession against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule. In my view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German campaign against Poland in 1939.
Poland’s headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain — a pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless Poles. Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government did not fear war with Germany. Poland’s leaders foolishly believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced that their troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It is also important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between Germany and Poland was only transformed into a Europe-wide conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against Germany.
After the war the Allied-appointed judges at the International Military Tribunal staged at Nuremberg refused to admit the Polish documents as evidence for the German defense. Had these pieces of evidence been admitted, the Nuremberg undertaking might have been less a victors’ show trial and more a genuinely impartial court of international justice.
Authenticity Beyond Doubt
There is now absolutely no question that the documents from the Polish Foreign Ministry in Warsaw made public by the German government are genuine and authentic.
Charles C. Tansill, professor of American diplomatic history at Georgetown University, considered them genuine. “… I had a long conversation with M. Lipsky, the Polish ambassador in Berlin in the prewar years, and he assured me that the documents in the German White Paper are authentic,” he wrote.[8]Tansill, “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented], 1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51. Historian and sociologist Harry Elmer Barnes confirmed this assessment: “Both Professor Tansill and myself have independently established the thorough authenticity of these documents.”[9]Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism (N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This booklet is reprinted in Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979). In America’s Second Crusade, William H. Chamberlin reported: “I have been privately informed by an extremely reliable source that Potocki, now residing in South America, confirmed the accuracy of the documents, so far as he was concerned.”[10]Chamberlin, p. 60.
More importantly, Edward Raczynski, the Polish Ambassador in London from 1934 to 1945, confirmed the authenticity of the documents in his diary, which was published in 1963 under the title In Allied London. In his entry for 20 June 1940, he wrote:
The Germans published in April a White Book containing documents from the archives of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, consisting of reports from Potocki in Washington, Lukasiewicz in Paris and myself. I do not know where they found them, since we were told that the archives had been destroyed. The documents are certainly genuine, and the facsimiles show that for the most part the Germans got hold of originals and not merely copies.
In this ‘First Series’ of documents I found three reports from this Embassy, two by myself and the third signed by me but written by Balinski. I read them with some apprehension, but they contained nothing liable to compromise myself or the Embassy or to impair relations with our British hosts.[11]Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
In 1970 their authenticity was reconfirmed with the publication of Diplomat in Paris 1936-1939. This important work consists of the official papers and memoirs of Juliusz Lukasiewicz, the former Polish Ambassador to Paris who authored several of the secret diplomatic reports made public by the German government. The collection was edited by Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, a former Polish diplomat and cabinet member, and later Professor Emeritus of Wellesley and Ripon colleges. Professor Jedrzejewicz considered the documents made public by the Germans absolutely genuine. He quoted extensively from several of them.
Mr. Tyler G. Kent has also vouched for the authenticity of the documents. He states that while working at the U.S. embassy in London in 1939 and 1940, he saw copies of U.S. diplomatic messages in the files which corresponded to the Polish documents and which confirmed their accuracy.
Two Key Diplomats
Two American diplomats who played especially crucial roles in the European crisis of 1938-1939 are mentioned often in the Polish documents. The first of these was William C. Bullitt. Although his official position was U.S. Ambassador to France, he was in reality much more than that. He was Roosevelt’s “super envoy” and personal deputy in Europe.
Like Roosevelt, Bullitt “rose from the rich.” He was born into an important Philadelphia banking family, one of the city’s wealthiest. His mother’s grandfather, Jonathan Horwitz, was a German Jew who had come to the United States from Berlin.[12]Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24. In 1919 Bullitt was an assistant to President Wilson at the Versailles peace conference. That same year, Wilson and British Prime Minister Lloyd George sent him to Russia to meet with Lenin and determine if the new Bolshevik government deserved recognition by the Allies. Bullitt met with Lenin and other top Soviet leaders and upon his return urged recognition of the new regime. But he had a falling-out with Wilson and left diplomatic service. In 1923 he married Louise Bryant Reed, the widow of American Communist leader John Reed. In Europe Bullitt collaborated with Sigmund Freud on a psychoanalytical biography of Wilson. When Roosevelt became President in 1933, he brought Bullitt back into diplomatic life.[13]Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W. Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
In November 1933, Roosevelt sent Bullitt to Moscow as the first U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union. His initial enthusiasm for the Soviet system gave way to a deep distrust of Stalin and Communism. In 1936 the President transferred him to Paris. He served there as Roosevelt’s key European diplomat until 1940 when Churchill’s assumption of leadership in Britain and the defeat of France made his special role superfluous.
In the Spring of 1938, all U.S. envoys in Europe were subordinated to Bullitt by an internal directive of the State Department.[14]Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942), p. 224. As the European situation worsened in 1939, Roosevelt often spoke with his man in Paris by telephone, sometimes daily, frequently giving him precisely detailed and ultra-confidential instructions on how to conduct America’s foreign policy. Not even Secretary of State Cordell Hull was privy to many of the letters and communications between Bullitt and Roosevelt.
In France, the New York Times noted, Bullitt “was acclaimed there as ‘the Champagne Ambassador’ on account of the lavishness of his parties, but he was far more than the envoy to Paris: He was President Roosevelt’s intimate adviser on European affairs, with telephone access to the President at any hour.”[15]Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
Bullitt and Roosevelt were fond of each other and saw eye to eye on foreign policy issues. Both were aristocrats and thorough internationalists who shared definite views on how to remake the world and a conviction that they were destined to bring about that grand reorganization.
“Between these teammates,” the Saturday Evening Post reported in March 1939,
there is a close, hearty friendship and a strong temperamental affinity. The President is known to rely upon Bullitt’s judgment so heavily that the ambassador’s mailed and cabled reports from abroad are supplemented several times a week by a chat by transatlantic telephone. In addition, Bullitt returns to the United States several times each year to take part in White House councils, to the displeasure of the State Department, which considers him a prima donna.
In the whole roster of the State Department the President could not have found an adviser who would have been so responsive to his own champagne personality as Bullitt. Both men, born patricians, have the same basic enthusiasm for remolding society …[16]Jack Alexander, “He Rose From the Rich,” Saturday Evening Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see continuation in issue of 18 March 1939.) Bullitt’s public views on the European scene and what should be America’s attitude toward it can be found in his Report to the American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President’s blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France. For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist hysterics, this anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar propensities of many other interventionists in government and the press in those days.
In Europe, Bullitt spoke with the voice and the authority of President Roosevelt himself.
The second most important American diplomat in Europe was Joseph P. Kennedy, Roosevelt’s Ambassador at the Court of St. James. Like Bullitt he was a wealthy banker. But this Boston Catholic of Irish ancestry was otherwise a very different sort of man. Roosevelt sent Kennedy, an important Democratic party figure and father of a future President, to Britain for purely political reasons. Roosevelt disliked and distrusted Kennedy, and this sentiment grew as Kennedy opposed the President’s war policies more and more vehemently. Moreover, Kennedy despised his counterpart in Paris. In a letter to his wife, he wrote: “I talk to Bullitt occasionally. He is more rattlebrained than ever. His judgment is pathetic and I am afraid of his influence on F.D.R. because they think alike on many things.”[17]Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton, 1980), pp. 203-04.
The Documents
Here now are extensive excerpts from the Polish documents themselves. They are given in chronological order. They are remarkably lucid for diplomatic reports and speak eloquently for themselves.
• • •
On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role in making American foreign policy:
The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more powerful …
… The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.
in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred against Nazism.
This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean of blood.
In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be subdued by the ‘democratic world.’
On 21 November 1938, Ambassador Potocki sent a report to Warsaw which discussed in some detail a conversation between himself and Bullitt, who happened to be back in Washington:
The day before yesterday I had a long conversation with Ambassador Bullitt, who is here on vacation. He began by remarking that friendly relations existed between himself and [Polish] Ambassador Lukasiewicz in Paris, whose company he greatly enjoyed.
Since Bullitt regularly informs President Roosevelt about the international situation in Europe, and particularly about Russia, great attention is given to his reports by President Roosevelt and the State Department. Bullitt speaks energetically and interestingly. Nonetheless, his reaction to events in Europe resembles the view of a journalist more than that of a politician …
About Germany and Chancellor Hitler he spoke with great vehemence and strong hatred. He said that only force, and ultimately a war would put an end to the insane future German expansionism.
To my question asking how he visualized this coming war, he replied that above all the United States, France and England must rearm tremendously in order to be in a position to oppose German power.
Only then, when the moment is ripe, declared Bullitt further, will one be ready for the final decision. I asked him in what way a conflict could arise, since Germany would probably not attack England and France first. I simply could not see the connecting point in this whole combination.
Bullitt replied that the democratic countries absolutely needed another two years until they were fully armed. In the meantime, Germany would probably have advanced with its expansion in an easterly direction. It would be the wish of the democratic countries that armed conflict would break out there, in the East between the German Reich and Russia. As the Soviet Union’s potential strength is not yet known, it might happen that Germany would have moved too far away from its base, and would be condemned to wage a long and weakening war. Only then would the democratic countries attack Germany, Bullitt declared, and force her to capitulate.
In reply to my question whether the United States would take part in such a war, he said, ‘Undoubtedly yes, but only after Great Britain and France had let loose first!’ Feeling in the United States was no intense against Nazism and Hitlerism, that a psychosis already prevails today among Americans similar to that before America’s declaration of war against Germany in 1917.
Bullitt did not give the impression of being very well informed about the situation in Eastern Europe, and he conversed in a rather superficial way.
Ambassador Potocki’s report from Washington of 9 January 1939 dealt in large part with President Roosevelt’s annual address to Congress:
President Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial governments, above all Germany and Japan, only understand a policy of force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most recent measures of the United States.
The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison with last year.
Of all the documents in this collection, the most revealing is probably the secret report by Ambassador Potocki of 12 January 1939 which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This report is given here in full:
The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible — above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited — this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe.
Right now most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and Nazism as the greatest evil and greatest danger threatening the world. The situation here provides an excellent platform for public speakers of all kinds, for emigrants from Germany and Czechoslovakia who don’t spare any words to incite the public here with every kind of slander. They praise American liberty which they contrast with the totalitarian states.
It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on the side of Red Spain.
Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war, America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans of freedom and democracy in the world.
President Roosevelt was the first to express hatred against Fascism. In doing so he was serving a double purpose: First, he wanted to divert the attention of the American people from domestic political problems, especially the problem of the struggle between capital and labor. Second, by creating a war psychosis and by spreading rumors about danger threatening Europe, he wanted to get the American people to accept an enormous armament program which exceeds the defense requirements of the United States.
Regarding the first point, it must be said that the internal situation on the labor market is steadily growing worse. The unemployed today already number twelve million. Federal and state expenditures are increasing daily. Only the huge sums, running into billions, which the treasury expends for emergency labor projects, are keeping a certain amount of peace in the country. Thus far there have only been the usual strikes and local unrest. But how long this kind of government aid can be kept up cannot be predicted. The excitement and indignation of public opinion, and the serious conflict between private enterprises and enormous trusts on the one hand, and with labor on the other, have made many enemies for Roosevelt and are causing him many sleepless nights.
As to point two, I can only say that President Roosevelt, as a clever political player and an expert of the American mentality, speedily steered public attention away from the domestic situation to fasten it on foreign policy. The way to achieve this was simple. One needed, on the one hand, to conjure up a war menace hanging over the world because of Chancellor Hitler, and, on the other hand, to create a specter by babbling about an attack of the totalitarian states against the United States. The Munich pact came to President Roosevelt as a godsend. He portrayed it as a capitulation of France and England to bellicose German militarism. As people say here: Hitler compelled Chamberlain at pistol-point. Hence, France and England had no choice and had to conclude a shameful peace.
The prevalent hatred against everything which is in any way connected with German Nazism is further kindled by the brutal policy against the Jews in Germany and by the émigré problem. In this action, various Jewish intellectuals participated: for instance, Bernard Baruch; the Governor of New York State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter; Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau; and others who are personal friends of President Roosevelt. They want the President to become the champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, and the man who in the future will punish trouble-makers. These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the American government and want to pose as representatives of ‘true Americanism’ and ‘defenders of democracy’ are, in the last analysis, connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States as the ‘idealist’ champion on human rights was a very clever move. In this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy, and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously. With regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public attention from anti-Semitism, which is constantly growing in the United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.
On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with Roosevelt’s personal envoy, William Bullitt:
The day before yesterday, I had a longer discussion with Ambassador Bullitt in the Embassy where he called on me. Bullitt leaves on the 21st of this month for Paris, from where he has been absent for almost three months. He is sailing with a whole ‘trunk’ full of instructions, conversations, and directives from President Roosevelt, the State Department and Senators who belong to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
In talking with Bullitt I had the impression that he had received from President Roosevelt a very precise definition of the attitude taken by the United States towards the present European crisis. He will present this material at the Quai d’Orsay [the French Foreign Ministry] and will make use of it in discussions with European statesmen. The contents of these directives, as Bullitt explained them to me in the course of a conversation lasting half an hour, were:
1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian countries.
2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum of 1.25 billion dollars.
3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind of territorial changes.
4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.
The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a top secret report to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as explained to him by William Bullitt:
A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt returned to Paris after a three months’ leave in America. Meanwhile, I have had two conversations with him which enable me to inform you of his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of Washington’s policy.
The international situation is regarded by official circles as extremely serious and in constant danger of armed conflict. Those in authority are of the opinion that if war should break out between Britain and France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the other, and should Britain and France be defeated, the Germans would endanger the real interests of the United States on the American continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning the participation of the United States in the war on the side of France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war. As Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: ‘Should war break out we shall certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish it.’
On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and perceptive report on Roosevelt’s foreign policy to his government in Warsaw. This document was first made public when leading German newspapers published it in German translation, along with a facsimile reproduction of the first page of the Polish original, in their editions of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador’s report with this observation:
The document itself needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does not concern us, whether the internal American situation as reported by the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be decided by the American people alone. But in the interest of historical truth it is important for us to show that the warmongering activities of American diplomacy, especially in Europe, are once again revealed and proven by this document. It still remains a secret just who, and for what motives, have driven American diplomacy to this course. In any case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe and America. Europe was plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the hostility of great nations which normally have no differences with the American people and, indeed, have not been in conflict but have lived for generations as friends and want to remain so.
This report was not one of the Polish documents which was released in March 1940 and published as part of the “German White Book No. 3” (or the German White Paper). However, it was published in 1943 as part of the collection entitled “Roosevelt’s Way Into War.” As far as I can determine, this English translation is the first that has ever appeared. Ambassador Potocki’s secret report of 7 March 1939 is here given in full:
The foreign policy of the United States right now concerns not only the government, but the entire American public as well. The most important elements are the public statements of President Roosevelt. In almost every public speech he refers more or less explicitly to the necessity of activating foreign policy against the chaos of views and ideologies in Europe. These statements are picked up by the press and then cleverly filtered into the minds of average Americans in such a way as to strengthen their already formed opinions. The same theme is constantly repeated, namely, the danger of war in Europe and saving the democracies from inundation by enemy fascism. In all of these public statements there is normally only a single theme, that is, the danger from Nazism and Nazi Germany to world peace.
As a result of these speeches, the public is called upon to support rearmament and the spending of enormous sums for the navy and the air force. The unmistakable idea behind this is that in case of an armed conflict the United States cannot stay out but must take an active part in the maneuvers. As a result of the effective speeches of President Roosevelt, which are supported by the press, the American public is today being conscientiously manipulated to hate everything that smacks of totalitarianism and fascism. But it is interesting that the USSR is not included in all this. The American public considers Russia more in the camp of the democratic states. This was also the case during the Spanish civil war when the so-called Loyalists were regarded as defenders of the democratic idea.
The State Department operates without attracting a great deal of attention, although it is known that Secretary of State [Cordell] Hull and President Roosevelt swear allegiance to the same ideas. However, Hull shows more reserve than Roosevelt, and he loves to make a distinction between Nazism and Chancellor Hitler on the one hand, and the German people on the other. He considers this form of dictatorial government a temporary “necessary evil.” In contrast, the State Department is unbelievably interested in the USSR and its internal situation and openly worries itself over its weaknesses and decline. The main reason for United States interest in the Russians is the situation in the Far East. The current government would be glad to see the Red Army emerge as the victor in a conflict with Japan. That’s why the sympathies of the government are clearly on the side of China, which recently received considerable financial aid amounting to 25 million dollars.
Eager attention is given to all information from the diplomatic posts as well as to the special emissaries of the President who serve as Ambassadors of the United States. The President frequently calls his representatives from abroad to Washington for personal exchanges of views and to give them special information and instructions. The arrival of the envoys and ambassadors is always shrouded in secrecy and very little surfaces in the press about the results of their visits. The State Department also takes care to avoid giving out any kind of information about the course of these interviews. The practical way in which the President makes foreign policy is most effective. He gives personal instructions to his representatives abroad, most of whom are his personal friends. In this way the United States is led down a dangerous path in world politics with the explicit intention of abandoning the comfortable policy of isolation. The President regards the foreign policy of his country as a means of satisfying his own personal ambition. He listens carefully and happily to his echo in the other capitals of the world. In domestic as well as in foreign policy, the Congress of the United States is the only object that stands in the way of the President and his government in carrying out his decisions quickly and ambitiously. One hundred and fifty years ago, the Constitution of the United States gave the highest prerogatives to the American parliament which may criticize or reject the law of the White House.
The foreign policy of President Roosevelt has recently been the subject of intense discussion in the lower house and in the Senate, and this has caused excitement. The so-called Isolationists, of whom there are many in both houses, have come out strongly against the President. The representatives and senators were especially upset over the remarks by the President, which were published in the press, in which he said that the borders of the United States lie on the Rhine. But President Roosevelt is a superb political player and understands completely the power of the American parliament. He has his own people there, and he knows how to withdraw from an uncomfortable situation at the right moment.
Very intelligently and cleverly he ties together the question of foreign policy with the issues of American rearmament. He particularly stresses the necessity of spending enormous sums in order to maintain a defensive peace. He says specifically that the United States is not arming in order to intervene or to go to the aid of England or France in case of war, but rather because of the need to show strength and military preparedness in case of an armed conflict in Europe. In his view this conflict is becoming ever more acute and is completely unavoidable.
Since the issue is presented this way, the houses of Congress have no cause to object. To the contrary, the houses accepted an armament program of more than one billion dollars. (The normal budget is 550 million, the emergency 552 million dollars.) However, under the cloak of a rearmament policy, President Roosevelt continues to push forward his foreign policy, which unofficially shows the world that in case of war the United States will come out on the side of the democratic states with all military and financial power.
In conclusion it can be said that the technical and moral preparation of the American people for participation in a war-if one should break out in Europe-is preceding rapidly. It appears that the United States will come to the aid of France and Great Britain with all its resources right from the beginning. However, I know the American public and the representatives and senators who all have the final word, and I am of the opinion that the possibility that America will enter war as in 1917 is not great. That’s because the majority of states in the mid-West and West, where the rural element predominates, want to avoid involvement in European disputes at all costs. They remember the declaration of the Versailles Treaty and the well-known phrase that the war was to save the world for democracy. Neither the Versailles Treaty nor that slogan have reconciled the United States to that war. For millions there remains only a bitter aftertaste because of unpaid billions which the European states still owe America.
Juliusz Lukasiewicz, Poland’s Ambassador to France, reported to Warsaw on 29 March 1939 about further conversations with U.S. envoy Bullitt in Paris. Lukasiewicz discussed Roosevelt’s efforts to get both Poland and Britain to adopt a totally uncompromising policy towards Germany, even in the face of strong sentiment for peace. The report concludes with these words:
… I consider it my duty to inform you of all the aforesaid because I believe that collaboration with Ambassador Bullitt in such difficult and complicated times may prove useful to us. In any case it is absolutely certain that he agrees entirely with our point of view and is prepared for the most extensive friendly collaboration possible.
In order to strengthen the efforts of the American Ambassador in London [Joseph Kennedy], I called the attention of Ambassador Bullitt to the fact that it is not impossible that the British may treat the efforts of the United States with well-concealed contempt. He answered that I am probably right, but that nevertheless the United States has at its disposal the means to really bring pressure on England. He would be giving serious consideration to mobilizing these means.
The Polish Ambassador in London, Count Edward Raczynski, reported to Warsaw on 29 March 1939 on the continuing European crisis and on a conversation he had with Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, his American counterpart. Kennedy’s remarks to Raczynski confirmed Bullitt’s reputation in diplomatic circles as an indiscreet big mouth:
I asked Mr. Kennedy point blank about the conference which he is supposed to have had recently with [British Prime Minister] Mr. Chamberlain concerning Poland. Kennedy was surprised and declared categorically that a conversation of such special significance never took place. At the same time, and thereby contradicting his own assertion to a certain extent, Kennedy expressed displeasure and surprise that his colleagues in Paris and Warsaw [William Bullitt and Anthony Biddle] ‘who are not, as himself, in a position to get a clear picture of conditions in England’ should talk so openly about this conversation.
Mr. Kennedy-who made me understand that his views were based on a series of conversations with the most important authorities here-declared that he was convinced that should Poland decide in favor of armed resistance against Germany, especially with regard to Danzig, it would draw England in its wake.
This concludes the excerpts from the Polish reports.
• • •
The Path To War
While the Polish documents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt’s treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the dispatches to Warsaw.
The secret policy was confirmed after the war with the release of a confidential diplomatic report by the British Ambassador to Washington, Sir Ronald Lindsay. During his three years of service in Washington, the veteran diplomat had developed little regard for America’s leaders. He considered Roosevelt an amiable and impressionable lightweight, and warned the British Foreign Office that it should not tell William Bullitt anything beyond what it wouldn’t mind reading later in an American newspaper.[18]Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See also pp. 164-65.
On 19 September 1938 — that is, a year before the outbreak of war in Europe — Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the White House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to Lindsay’s confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt “emphasized the necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the State Department.” The two discussed some secondary matters before Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. “This is the very secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone that he has even breathed a suggestion.” The President told the Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S. Constitution and dupe the American people.
The President said that if Britain and France “would find themselves forced to war” against Germany, the United States would ultimately also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the “blockade must be based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees.” Roosevelt conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but “bombing from the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great loss of life.”
The important point was to “call it defensive measures or anything plausible but avoid actual declaration of war.” That way, Roosevelt believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a non-declared conflict. “This method of conducting war by blockade would in his [Roosevelt’s] opinion meet with approval of the United States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized,” Lindsay reported.[19]Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay, Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest L. Woodward), Third series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27; Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Origins of World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration was already committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late 1938. “On this and many other occasions,” Phillips wrote, “I would like to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister] frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my official position, I could not properly make such a statement without instructions from Washington, and these I never received.”[20]William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.: privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
Carl J. Burckhardt, the League of Nations High Commissioner to Danzig, reported in his postwar memoirs on a remarkable conversation held at the end of 1938 with Anthony Drexel Biddle, the American Ambassador to Poland. Biddle was a rich banker with close ties to the Morgan financial empire. A thoroughgoing internationalist, he was an ideological colleague of President Roosevelt and a good friend of William Bullitt. Burckhardt, a Swiss professor, served as High Commissioner between 1937 and 1939.
Nine months before the outbreak of armed conflict, on 2 December 1938, Biddle told Burckhardt
with remarkable satisfaction that the Poles were ready to wage war over Danzig. They would counter the motorized strength of the German army with agile maneuverability. ‘In April,’ he [Biddle] declared, ‘a new crisis would break out. Not since the torpedoing of the Lusitania [in 1915] had such a religious hatred against Germany reigned in America as today! Chamberlain and Daladier [the moderate British and French leaders] would be blown away by public opinion. This was a holy war!,[21]Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich: Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have been made without strong pressure from the White House.
On 14 March 1939, Slovakia declared itself an independent republic, thereby dissolving the state known as Czechoslovakia. That same day, Czechoslovak President Emil Hacha signed a formal agreement with Hitler establishing a German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia, the Czech portion of the federation. The British government initially accepted the new situation, but then Roosevelt intervened.
In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had “sent a virtual ultimatum to Chamberlain” demanding that henceforth the British government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen, who completely supported Roosevelt’s move, “the President warned that Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued.”[22]Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, “Washington Daily Merry-Go-Round,” Washington Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.), American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41. Chamberlain gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain’s policy of cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.
Bullitt’s response to the creation of the German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia was to telephone Roosevelt and, in an “almost hysterical” voice, urge him to make a dramatic denunciation of Germany and immediately ask Congress to repeal the Neutrality Act.[23]Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956), p. 232.
In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt reported from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. “The Polish Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to Poland.”[24]U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 122.
On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy in Paris and told him: “War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after Britain and France enter it.”[25]“Von Wiegand Says-,” Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944, p. 2.
In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939, Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain and France in the anticipated European war.[26]Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the United States should establish “a patrol over the waters of the Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the event of war.” The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted that “although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be operated in our interests.”[27]Lash, p. 64.
Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister in 1939, confirmed Bullitt’s role as Roosevelt’s deputy in pushing his country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971, Bonnet wrote: “One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did everything he could to make France enter the war.”[28]Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (New York: Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1980), p. 62. An important confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in pushing Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first U.S. Secretary of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he wrote:
Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister] Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for [William] Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight; Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside.[29]James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references to Jews were deleted from the published version.
When Ambassador Potocki was back in Warsaw on leave from his post in Washington, he spoke with Count Jan Szembek, the Polish Foreign Ministry Under-Secretary, about the growing danger of war. In his diary entry of 6 July 1939, Szembek recorded Potocki’s astonishment at the calm mood in Poland. In comparison with the war psychosis that had gripped the West, Poland seemed like a rest home.
“In the West,” the Ambassador told Szembek, “there are all kinds of elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs. They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that as well.”[30]Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp. 475-76.
On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities, Chamberlain’s closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the American President to “put pressure on the Poles” to change course at this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone Kennedy told the State Department that the British “felt that they could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that we could.” Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain’s desperate plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost all hope. “The futility of it all,” Chamberlain had told Kennedy, “is the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of all Europe.”[31]David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253; A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback], 1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.
Roosevelt liked to present himself to the American people and the world as a man of peace. To a considerable degree, that is still his image today. But Roosevelt cynically rejected genuine opportunities to act for peace when they were presented.
In 1938 he refused even to answer requests by French Foreign Minister Bonnet on 8 and 12 September to consider arbitrating the Czech-German dispute.[32]Dallek, p. 164. And a year later, after the outbreak of war, a melancholy Ambassador Kennedy beseeched Roosevelt to act boldly for peace. “It seems to me that this situation may crystallize to a point where the President can be the savior of the world,” Kennedy cabled on 11 September from London. “The British government as such certainly cannot accept any agreement with Hitler, but there may be a point when the President himself may work out plans for world peace. Now this opportunity may never arise, but as a fairly practical fellow all my life, I believe that it is entirely conceivable that the President can get himself in a spot where he can save the world …”
But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to save the peace of Europe. To a close political crony, he called Kennedy’s plea “the silliest message to me that I have ever received.” He complained to Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in the neck: “Joe has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser … If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would start working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to get everybody to accept it.”[33]Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
Infuriated at Kennedy’s stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or at least limit the conflict that had broken out, Roosevelt instructed his Ambassador with a “personal” and “strictly confidential” telegram on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of the question. The Roosevelt government, it declared, “sees no opportunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the President of the United States. The people [sic] of the United States would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and aggression.”[34]Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 424.
Hamilton Fish Warns The Nation
In the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the most vigorous and prophetic American voice of warning against President Roosevelt’s campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. In a series of hard-hitting radio speeches, Fish rallied considerable public opinion against Roosevelt’s deceptive war policy. Here are only a few excerpts from some of those addresses.[35]The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were published in the Congressional Record Appendix (Washington) as follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939) same, pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21 April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp. 2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
On 6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:
The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress and the world [given two days before] has unnecessarily alarmed the American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to such speeches is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.
All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt … haven’t the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin America.
I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life, liberty and happiness of our people. The time has come to call a halt to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers, Communists, and hysterical internationalists, who want us to quarantine the world with American blood and money.
He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people off their own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his own imagination.
On 5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:
The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers are constantly inciting them to disregard the Munich Pact and resort to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in foreign lands the old nations of Europe would compose their own quarrels by arbitration and the processes of peace, but apparently we won’t let them.
Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company network on 5 April with these words:
The youth of America are again being prepared for another blood bath in Europe in order to make the world safe for democracy.
If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90 percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be wars of liberation.
The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped the better for the peace of the world.
I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.
New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering from a bad case of war jitters.
President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which has given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the jitters.
I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12 million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.
I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging us to go to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.
Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers, munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our participation in a new world war.
On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:
It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of foreign entanglements and the rotten mess and war madness of Europe and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is impelling us to armed conflict.
What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are forced into a foreign war by internationalists and interventionists at Washington, who seem to be more interested in solving world problems rather than our own.
In his radio address of 26 May, Fish stated:
He [Roosevelt] should remember that the Congress has the sole power to declare war and formulate the foreign policies of the United States. The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the official organ to carry out the policies determined by the Congress.
Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed almost daily by the internationalists and interventionists in America that we must participate in the next world war.
On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company radio network:
If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in defense of the munitions makers, war profiteers, Communists, to cover up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for a third term.
It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to war over Danzig, power politics, foreign colonies, or the imperialistic wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.
Powers Behind The President
President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe without help from powerful allies. Behind him stood the self-serving international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction of Germany. The principal organization which drummed up public support for U.S. involvement in the European war prior to the Pearl Harbor attack was the cleverly named “Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies.” President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and top administration officials consulted frequently with Committee leaders.[36]Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper publisher, William Allen White, the Committee was actually organized by powerful financial interests which stood to profit tremendously from loans to embattled Britain and from shrewd investments in giant war industries in the United States.
At the end of 1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a detailed examination of the Committee which exposed the base interests behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:
The Committee has powerful connections with banks, insurance companies, financial investing firms, and industrial concerns. These in turn exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well as on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One of the powerful influences used by the group is the ‘400’ and social set. The story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public interest.
The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British Empire helped plan the organization and donated its first expense money.
Some of the important figures active in the Committee were revealed by Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a paid war propagandist for the British government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S. Allen of the Pearson and Allen syndicated column; Henry R. Luce, the influential publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella LaGuardia, the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of New York City; Herbert Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with important financial holdings in war industries; and Frank Altschul, an officer in the Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings in munitions and military supply companies.
If the Committee succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned, “American boys will spill their blood for profiteers, politicians and ‘paytriots.’ If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans killed in a needless war.”[37]Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December 1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part 17, pp. 5808-14.
In March 1941 a list of most of the Committee’s financial backers was made public. It revealed the nature of the forces eager to bring America into the European war. Powerful international banking interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas W. Lamont and others of the great Morgan banking house were listed. Other important names from the New York financial world included Mr. and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm Forbes. Chicago department store owner and publisher Marshall Field was a contributor, as was William Averill Harriman, the railroad and investment millionaire who later served as Roosevelt’s ambassador in Moscow.
Of course, Jewish names made up a substantial portion of the long list. Hollywood film czar Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there, along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which had been set up by the head of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System, contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert H. Lehman, wife of the New York Governor, was also on the list.[38]New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry, Roosevelt’s policies make little sense. As Jewish historian Lucy Dawidowicz noted: “Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were his friends and trusted aides.”[39]Lucy Dawidowicz, “American Jews and the Holocaust,” The New York Times Magazine, 18 April 1982, p. 102. This is perhaps not so remarkable in light of Roosevelt’s reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.[40]“FDR ‘had a Jewish great-grandmother'” Jewish Chronicle (London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
In his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American aviator hero and peace leader, nailed the coalition that was pushing the United States into war:
The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to it, but the Administration seems to have ‘the bit in its teeth’ and [is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the ‘intellectuals,’ and the ‘Anglophiles,’ and the British agents who are allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many others.[41]Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh’s apprehensions about Jewish power. Before the outbreak of war he privately expressed concerns about “the Jews who dominate our press” and world Jewry in general, which he considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the beginning of hostilities, Kennedy lamented “the growing Jewish influence in the press and in Washington demanding continuance of the war.”[42]Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by Professor Hans A. Muenster, “Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA” in Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
Betrayal, Failure, Delusion
Roosevelt’s efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against Germany succeeded all too well. The result was untold death and misery and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had intended and planned, the Polish and French leaders expected the American president to at least make good on his assurances of backing in case of war. But Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of peace sentiment of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving his own people, Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had promised support.
Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as they were in late 1939 about staying out of war in Europe. When hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94 percent of the American people against involvement in war. That figure rose to 96.5 percent in December before it began to decline slowly to about 80 percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is hardly an issue that even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)[43]An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public opinion measurements to Roosevelt’s foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in 1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular feeling on this issue. That is why he lied repeatedly to the American people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S. out of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to plunge Europe and America into war.
In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to the growing fears of millions of Americans who suspected that their President had secretly pledged United States support to Britain in its war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part on the publication in March of the captured Polish documents. The speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to the nation on network radio. In the most emphatic language possible, Roosevelt categorically denied that he had
ledged in some way the participation of the United States in some foreign war. I give to you and to the people of this country this most solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any Government or any other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any war or for any other purpose.[44]Lash, p. 240.
We now know, of course, that this pious declaration was just another one of Roosevelt’s many brazen, bald-faced lies to the American people.
Roosevelt’s policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal. The Constitution of the United States grants authority only to the Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several major laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe. Roosevelt continually violated his oath as President to uphold the Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the public demand for his impeachment would very probably have been unstoppable.
The Watergate episode has made many Americans deeply conscious of the fact that their presidents can act criminally. That affair forced Richard Nixon to resign his presidency, and he is still widely regarded as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name will never receive the respect that normally goes to every American president. But Nixon’s crimes pale into insignificance when compared to those of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon’s lies compared to those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary cover-up compared to an illegal and secret campaign to bring about a major war?
Those who defend Roosevelt’s record argue that he lied to the American people for their own good — that he broke the law for lofty principles. His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was noble, while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to name two, is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard. And the argument doesn’t speak very well for the democratic system. It implies that the people are too dumb to understand their own best interests. It further suggests that the best form of government is a kind of benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.
Roosevelt’s hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate — almost personal. This was due in no small part to an abiding envy and jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in their personal characters but also in their records as national leaders.
Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were astonishingly similar. Both assumed the leadership of their respective countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military alliance during the most destructive war in history. Both men died while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945, just before the end of the Second World War in Europe. But the enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more remarkable.
Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His was a life utterly free of material worry. He took part in the First World War from an office in Washington as UnderSecretary of the Navy. Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provinicial family. As a young man he worked as an impoverished manual laborer. He served in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the Western battleground. He was wounded many times and decorated for bravery.
In spite of his charming manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt proved unable to master the great challenges facing America. Even after four years of his presidency, millions remained unemployed, undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with all the resources for incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor and capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country’s deep, festering racial problems which erupted repeatedly in riots and armed conflict. The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied his people behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years from an economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into Europe’s powerhouse. Germany underwent a social, cultural and economic rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the personalities of Roosevelt and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast between two diametrically different social-political systems and ideologies.
And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a cynical politician and front man for powerful alien interests. Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely believed that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring Britain and France into war against Germany. Like Wilson before him, and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called upon by destiny to reshape the world according to his vision of an egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was convinced, as so many American leaders have been, that the world could be saved from itself by remodeling it after the United States.
Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex of different nations, races and cultures which must mutually respect each others’ separate collective identities in order to live together in peace, but rather according to a selfrighteous missionary perspective that divides the globe into morally good and evil countries. In that scheme of things, America is the providentially permanent leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view just happens to correspond to the economic and political interests of those who wield power in the United States.
President Roosevelt’s War
In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically predicted that one day the Second World War would be remembered as Roosevelt’s war. “If we are ever involved in this war, it will be called by future historians by only one title, ‘the President’s War,’ because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5 October 1937] has been toward war.[45]New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
The great American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that war could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for Roosevelt’s meddling. “Indeed, there is fairly conclusive evidence that, but for Mr. Roosevelt’s pressure on Britain, France and Poland, and his commitments to them before September 1939, especially to Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur, William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in 1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter.”[46]Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets. In Revisionism: A Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:
President Roosevelt had a major responsibility, both direct and indirect, for the outbreak of war in Europe. He began to exert pressure on France to stand up to Hitler as early as the German reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was making his strongly isolationist speeches in the campaign of 1936. This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to the coming of the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum after the quarantine speech of October 1937. As the crisis approached between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles to stand firm against any demands by Germany, and urged the English and French to back up the Poles unflinchingly.
There is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September 1939 had it not been for Roosevelt’s encouragement and his assurances that, in the event of war, the United States would enter on the side of Britain just as soon as he could swing American public opinion around to support intervention.
Roosevelt had abandoned all semblance of neutrality, even before war broke out in 1939, and moved as speedily as was safe and feasible in the face of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve this country in the European conflict.[47]Harry Elmer Barnes, “Revisionism: A Key to Peace,” Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp. 29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to Peace and Other Essays(San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No. 12], 1980).
One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt’s place in history came from the pen of the great Swedish explorer and author, Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:
The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be explained because of the foundation laid by the peace treaties of 1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the First World War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great Britain and France. The decisive push came from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly. He slanders as undemocratic and un-American those who admonish him in the name of peace and the preservation of the American way of life. He has made democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about freedom of speech and silences those who don’t hold his opinion.
He talks about freedom of religion and makes an alliance with Bolshevism.
He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten million of his own people with work, bread or shelter. He talks about freedom from the fear of war while working for war, not only for his own people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis powers when it might have united with them, and he thereby drove millions to their deaths.
This war will go down in history as the war of President Roosevelt.[48]Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.
Officially orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace cannot conceal forever his crucial role in pushing Europe into war in 1939.
• • •
It is now more than forty years since the events described here took place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past. But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in Europe is very pertinent — particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the past have never been more important than in this nuclear age. For unless at least an aware minority understands how and why wars are made, we will remain powerless to restrain the warmongers of our own era.
Notes
[1] See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948); William Henry Chamberlin, America’s Second Crusade (Chicago: Regnery, 1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid (New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
[2] Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress, House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
[3] Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
[4] New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
[5] Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
[6] New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
[7] A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.
[8] Tansill, “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented], 1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.
[9] Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism (N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This booklet is reprinted in Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979).
[10] Chamberlin, p. 60.
[11] Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
[12] Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.
[13] Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W. Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
[14] Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942), p. 224.
[15] Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
[16] Jack Alexander, “He Rose From the Rich,” Saturday Evening Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see continuation in issue of 18 March 1939.) Bullitt’s public views on the European scene and what should be America’s attitude toward it can be found in his Report to the American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President’s blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France. For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist hysterics, this anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar propensities of many other interventionists in government and the press in those days.
[17] Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton, 1980), pp. 203-04.
[18] Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See also pp. 164-65.
[19] Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay, Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest L. Woodward), Third series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27; Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Origins of World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
[20] William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.: privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
[21] Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich: Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
[22] Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, “Washington Daily Merry-Go-Round,” Washington Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.), American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41.
[23] Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956), p. 232.
[24] U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 122.
[25] “Von Wiegand Says-,” Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944, p. 2.
[26] Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
[27] Lash, p. 64.
[28] Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (New York: Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1980), p. 62.
[29] James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references to Jews were deleted from the published version.
[30] Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp. 475-76.
[31] David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253; A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback], 1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.
[32] Dallek, p. 164.
[33] Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
[34] Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 424.
[35] The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were published in the Congressional Record Appendix (Washington) as follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939) same, pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21 April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp. 2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
[36] Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
[37] Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December 1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part 17, pp. 5808-14.
[38] New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
[39] Lucy Dawidowicz, “American Jews and the Holocaust,” The New York Times Magazine, 18 April 1982, p. 102.
[40] “FDR ‘had a Jewish great-grandmother'” Jewish Chronicle (London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
[41] Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
[42] Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by Professor Hans A. Muenster, “Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA” in Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
[43] An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public opinion measurements to Roosevelt’s foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in 1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
[44] Lash, p. 240.
[45] New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
[46] Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
[47] Harry Elmer Barnes, “Revisionism: A Key to Peace,” Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp. 29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to Peace and Other Essays(San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No. 12], 1980).
[48] Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.
Sources and References
Listed here are the published editions of the Polish documents, the most important sources touching on the questions of their authenticity and content, and essential recent sources on what President Roosevelt was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the prelude to war. Full citations for all references in the article will be found in the notes.
Beschloss, Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.
Bullitt, Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret. [Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt.] Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.
Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper. [White Book No. 3.] New York: Howell, Soskin and Co., 1940.
Germany. Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des Krieges. [White Book No. 3.] Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.
Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat in Paris 1936-1939. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
Wirsing, Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die Weltherrschaft. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942.
This item was first presented at the Fourth IHR Conference in Chicago, September 1982. It was first published in The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983 (Vol. 4, No. 2), pages 135-172.
For Further Reading
Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War’. New York: Crown, 2008.
William H. Chamberlain, America’s Second Crusade. Chicago: 1950.
Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory. New Rochelle: 1979.
Matthew DeFraga, “March 1939: America’s Guarantee to Britain,” Ex Post Facto: Journal of the History Students at San Francisco State University. 1998, Vol. VII.
(http://userwww.sfsu.edu/epf/journal_archive/volume_VII,_1998/defraga_m.pdf)
Thomas Fleming, The New Dealers’ War: Franklin Roosevelt and the War Within World War II. New York: Basic Books, 2001.
J. F. C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World. New York: 1987. Vol. 3, esp. pp. 372-375, 411-419.
Germany, Auswärtiges Amt [German Foreign Office]. Documents on the Events Preceding the Outbreak of the War. New York: 1940.
Adolf Hitler. Reichstag speech of Dec. 11, 1941. (Declaration of war against the USA)
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html )
David L. Hoggan. The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. IHR, 1989.
Herbert C. Hoover, Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and its Aftermath(George H. Nash, ed.). Stanford Univ., 2011.
Friedrich Stieve. What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers 1933-1939
( http://ihr.org/other/what-the-world-rejected.html )
Viktor Suvorov (pseud.), The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2008
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War. New York: 1983.
John Toland, Adolf Hitler. Doubleday & Co., 1976.
Mark Weber, “Roosevelt’s ‘Secret Map’ Speech,” The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1985 (Vol. 6, No. 1), pp. 125-127.
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html )
Mark Weber, “The ‘Good War’ Myth of World War Two.” May 2008.
( http://www.ihr.org/news/weber_ww2_may08.html )
Subscribe to All Mark Weber Comments via RSS
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
In 1936 Wyndham Lewis, a prominent English man of letters, wrote a book about the British government’s attempts to provoke a war that has been tpssed down the memory hole, the title is “Left Wings Over Europe, or, How to Make a War About Nothing”. A few quotes follow …..
Neville Chamberlain is on record moaning about American pressure to declare war over Poland. The Cost of (((American))) support over Poland as he put it.
There’s also the fact that Ford and GM sent their (((architects))) over to the USSR to build huge plane, truck, tank and car factories as early as 1930 in anticipation of a German War. That’s before the rise of Adolf. Before Roosevelt too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Kahn_(architect)
Thank you very much for this excellent piece.
An interesting document: HIGHLIGHTS OF MOBILIZATION, WORLD WAR II, 1938-1942; Office of the Chief of Military History; Department of the Army; Dr. Stetson Conn; 10 March 1959;
https://history.army.mil/documents/WWII/ww2mob.htm
Yes, the US Army began mobilizing for war in 1938! Roosevelt continued President Wilson’s effort to unite the world under one government based in New York. His “United Nations” was founded just weeks after the USA formally entered World War II.
I very much wish the current Russian leadership read this article and reflect on their dismal relations with the current and past American regimes.
The key fact here is that Roosevelt threatened Neville Chamberlain with a “shut off” of assistance with aircraft technology if Chamberlain didn’t actively oppose Adolf Hitler and declare war over Danzig.
Chamberlain was hyper sensitive about having enough Spitfires and Hurricanes along with long range bombers. He was very knowledgeable about the technological specifications of the aircraft industry. Threatening to cut off planes unless there’s a war with Germany resulted in the flip of Chamberlain’s policy of accommodating German demands.
Roosevelt hit him in the feels.
Most Americans are confused by what’s happening now in Ukraine. Luckily, the great Professor John Mearsheimer recently gave a great presentation best titled “The Russia-Ukraine War for Dummies.” Share this with naive friends. At the end he warns that a Ukrainian victory might cause a nuclear war. I fear a Russian victory may cause one.
Not to mention the Delano family connection to the monster profits from the Chinese opium trade in the 19th century. The parallels between the FDR deception and the current Ukie deception is striking. And it is the City of London with its usual tribe of bankers and insurance cronies leading the charge for was with the help of its usual tribe of media and “intelligence” operatives. The US is (and has been) infiltrated and dominated by the UK since long before 1776. Once you connect the dots you begin to realize just who the real enemy is.
Only when pooland has already been set up to do the same thing again after 80 plus years do people come to realize the truth…
Maybe Europe does deserve to get fucked by amerimutts, anglos and kikes. We should atone by exterminating these Sub-Humans in blazing, scorching waves of WMDs.
Thanks to Ron Unz for not only publishing these articles but just as importantly bringing them, and the author, to the attention of his readers.
The epithet “diseased war-criminal”, which the late Revilo Oliver often used for FDR, rather than being harsh…is actually benign.
I would have thought, say a decade ago, that my personal knowledge of America’s internal enemies was well-informed; as it turns out, I was abysmally ignorant. The awful thing to know now is that I still am only aware of the tip of the tip of the iceberg. The much worse thing is to know that virtually all genuine Americans are as lost to reality as a schizophrenic in a nuthouse.
Imagine if in late 1939 Franklin Roosevelt had confessed the following: “The UK and the US had negotiated over Danzig with Germany from 1933-1939 in order to buy Poland time for a Polish attack on West Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia.”
This is in effect what “Angela” Merkel just said, and then it was confirmed by Hollande and Zelinsky himself. In fact, all of Nato accepts and acknowledges that the Minsk accords are a complete farce and a fraud, yet they all parade around spewing the exact same narrative: “Putin’s War”.
The expression “Clown World” doesn’t do it justice.
It must be noted that a disproportionate amount of this violence was conducted by Communist Jews, just like the disproportionate amount of the violence against Russians in the USSR was being committed by the same tribe of Khazarian Communist Jews who had taken over the NKVD.
Excellent piece. Once again, the official narrative is a pile of lies, and the truth is consigned to obscurity. This article also saddens me; what could our country have become if we had not succumbed to the (((demonic influence))) described in such detail in this piece? This sadness is followed by a rising tsunami of disgust and anger. The monstrous betrayal … I’m just speechless. I can’t express my sorrow, disgust, and anger.
In reality Ukraine started the war when in the days before the Official Russian acknowledgement of the ‘new Republics’ , Ukrainian shelling went up to a thousands shells a day as reported by the OSCE.
That’s how Old Joe knew it would start, Old Joe green lite it, you know that’s how the exceptionally narcissist state does business, millions dead who cares.
“Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose”.
Only the players change but the play stays the same.
William Bullit, or more appropriately William Bullshit, and Franklin Rosenfelt, aka Franklin Roosevelt, both have some Jewish genes in them. Bullit’s family wealth came from banking and usury whereas FDR’s family wealth came from his grandfather’s wide dealings in the Opium trade in China. Both of them were warmongers whose principle is not unlike the modus operandi of the Jesuits “the end justifies the means”, except that the end for those two and their ilk is a horribly nefarious internationalist agenda at the service of the dictatorship of the Chosenites.
If the current conflict between Christian Russia and the Judaised West goes into full throttle, it might destroy the world, but if it leads to the dismantlement of all globalized institutions, starting with the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF, the WHO and all the plethora of globalist tools that at are at the service of a power elite whose most cherished aim is to push humanity into a master-slave relationship, then WWIII would not have been in vain.
Meanwhile, the worship of FDR among the majority of Americans will be hardly dented by the bold revisionism of this or similar articles as long as the Lippmann-Bernays’s mind control system is alive in the USSA.
Kudos for the author and Ron Unz for publishing this truth gem of real history.
Barack Hussein Obama, lied and deceived the American people to such an extent, that he everything in his power to earn the moniker ‘The Great Deceiver’.
But ‘The Great Deceiver’ Obama, could not hold a candle to the lies and deceptions of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was the daddy of them all, when it came to lying and deceiving.
Herbert Hoover, President of USA 1928-1932, published a history book titled ‘Freedom Betrayed” FIFTY years after he died. He did not want revenge taken on his family. What he said went against the Narrative of the times.
Herbert Hoover p. 818 in his long history of the Second World War ‘Freedom Betrayed’
“Kennedy, the Ambassador to Great Britain, told Hoover that FDR lobbied incessantly for Britain to give a war guarantee to Poland, thus steeling the Polish resolve and causing Britain to be drawn into a war that would lose its Empire.“Kennedy said that after the Germans had occupied Prague and the great cry of appeasement had sprung up in the world and after the Germans had pressed their demands for Danzig and an passage through the Corridor, that Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles. Kennedy said he had received a cable from Roosevelt to “put a poker up Chamberlain’s back and make him stand up.” Kennedy saw Chamberlain on numerous occasions, urging him in Roosevelt’s name to do all this with the implication that the United States would give the British support. He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him(Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he(Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.”
A similar situation exists today. In the last ten mins of this vid, Col Douglas Macgregor maintains, once again, the Poles are eager for a fight.Dragging the world into Gotterdamerung.
“The futility of it all,” Chamberlain had told Kennedy, “is the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of all Europe.”[31]
A few words that describe current events. It sure feels like a rerun with a few edits like the IQ of the leaders.
The 15,000 words went by quickly. Thank you Mr. Weber .
Luckily, the great Professor John Mearsheimer recently gave a great presentation best titled “The Russia-Ukraine War for Dummies.”
I am sure you listened to it, as it was addressed to your ilk.
The fraud Weber shows up with some decent info once in a while. Should be shunned and shamed at every opportunity for his role in the destruction of the Institute for Historical Research. The gonadless IHR now does next to nothing thanks to Weber and his handlers
Michael Collins Piper’s Coup d’Etat, the inside story of how an intelligence operative tied to the CIA and Israel’s Mossad Orchestrated the takeover of the Institute for Historical Review and set in motion the ultimate destruction of Liberty Lobby. How the IHR now operates as a classic Soviet-style “trust” name-gathering operation – a “controlled opposition” – http://www.balderexlibris.com/index.php?post/Piper-Michael-Collins-Coup-d-Etat
I have only read some of his writing before (a couple of slim books, and some of the Marinetti-inspired typographical experiment poetry, Vorticist manifestos), but not what you posted, it is interesting, thanks. He sure had a good idea of what was going on by 1936.
Man of letters? Sure, but he also did some good visual work.
It is immensely important that the Kennedy family became hated because Joe Kennedy as Ambassador to the Court of St James (England) discovered that there were many British agents trying to foment a World War 2. He reported it back to Roosevelt, assuming there US President would be against such a horror. But Roosevelt fired him. From that point on, the Yank WASP and Brit WASP Deep States hated the Kennedys and would always act to destroy them.
Thanks for this timely presentation. Washington is once again the prime mover behind the strategy of using an aggressive nationalist regime in a patchwork eastern European state to provoke a regime change war to dismember and plunder a resource-rich economic rival. Look how well that worked out for Britain (and Poland), and now there are nukes.
Can’t help but wonder if FDR’s treachery in 1939 was payback for British encouragement of the southern insurgency, and then abandoning it, just as perfidious Albion would send no troops to Poland once the shooting started. No one had more to gain by shattering America’s lone experiment in self-government than the British Empire in 1860, especially after the US-inspired rebellions that swept the Old World in the “European Spring” of 1848. In 1902, after the US eclipsed Britain economically and was fast building a navy to challenge her dominance of the high seas, British PM Lord Salisbury ruefully commented, “If we had interfered in the Confederate Wars it was then possible for us to reduce the power of the United States to manageable proportions. But two such chances are not given to a nation in the course of its existence.”
Mark Weber’s article is a long read but well worth the effort.
In another UR thread in recent weeks, I’d rated LBJ (the first Jewish POTUS), as the worst, followed by Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
As much as I was already aware of FDR’s intrigues to foment the outbreak of war in the European theatre, and his deliberate backing of the Japanese into a corner that resulted in the Pearl Harbour attack, the degree to which FDR prostrated himself to his Jewish controllers before and during the war, is really something to behold.
We could add to the long list of FDR’s shortcomings, the disastrous New Deal policies that turned what would have been a short and sharp recession, into the long lasting Great Depression.
FDR should therefore be promoted in the rankings and may indeed be on par with the depraved LBJ as the worst POS to ever occupy the White House.
The arms of WASP Deep Surface were preparing for WWW2 because it also prepared for WW! for many decades. WASP foreign affairs are always about large and long range piratical plans. The Crimean War, of example, was the first shooting phase of the current war against Russia.
The Brit WASP Deep State decided that England must literally conquer the entire world, and that in order to rule the entire world, England must either conquer or just smash into irrelevant pieces both Russia and China. That plan is best known under the Mackinder Heartland theory. Clearly they are still playing The Great Game by its rules today.
England decided that the new united Germany must reduced to a vessel to the WASP world when Germany industry began to out produce British industry and then as Germany began building a world class navy.
Cecil Rhodes played the most important role in making certain that the Brit WASPs seduced the Yank WASPs to fully ally with them in these endeavors to war until the entire world would be controlled by a WASP Deep State.
And so we’ve had the 19th, 20th and now 21st centuries feature the increasing destruction of white European civilizations while Jews come to own seemingly everything.
Let him who has eyes to see, see.
In 1937 Mauritz Hallgren wrote “The Tragic Fallacy”. Part 7, Chapter 3 is titled: Japan the Chosen Foe? This chapter details what the Roosevelt administration was doing behind the scenes to stir up a war with Japan. Nothing surprises me here.
In about 1971, a New York City radio commentator, Long John Nebel said in February 1941, he was a Lieutenant on a US destroyer in the Atlantic. He claimed that in February 1941, the Navy Department ordered him to make unprovoked attacks on German ships. He said the German ships never responded except to float away. Why wold Nebel lie about this?
My conclusion: Hitler did not want war with the US.
John Beaty, a colonel of military intelligence was responsible for producing INTSUMs [ intelligence summaries ] for the White House during WWII. He also debriefed many people coming back from the war. So he knew as much as anyone about what was happening. His book The Iron Curtain Over America (http://21pronto.com/iron_curtain_over_america.htm ] is solidly based on war time realities and his knowledge of history.
Doctor Beaty tells us that Roosevelt as President chose to infiltrate Europeans of questionable background and loyalties into positions of responsibility. Was FDR a traitor? Did he act like one? Perhaps it just looks that way.
His thesis is in accordance with Frank Britton’s book Behind Communism (http://www.colchestercollection.com/titles/chunk/B/behind-communism/title-page.html ]
More like dispossession and harassment; see Orphans of Versailles, — which is both exhaustive and quite sympathetic to the German position.
Moreover — thanks to that dispossession and harassment — the German population of Poland by 1939 was no longer one and a half million but about three-quarters of a million. The other three-quarters of a million had emigrated to Germany proper, mostly back around 1920. I’ve thought that they must have been very bitter, and presumably had done much to affect the general German attitude towards the restored Polish state.
Before somebody goes galloping off, actual Polish terror aimed at ethnic Germans was very real, but it didn’t occur in the run up to the war. Rather, it occurred almost entirely after Germany had already invaded. Whatever, the other justifications for Germany’s attack on Poland, the German minority there wasn’t in actual or imminent physical danger at the time of the attack.
Did you read this article? It’s Jews all the way down.
The iron up Chamberlain was no doubt a threat to cut off aero engines.
Chamberlain’s “appeasement” was not a mistake. The British gave Czechoslovakia to Germany on a platter deliberately to make Germany strong enough to wage war against the USSR. Then the British gave Poland a phony security guarantee to make them belligerent with Germany and spark WW2 just like NAT0’s guarantee to Poland now.
Actually, the war declaration by the Ukro-Nazis started on May 2nd 2014 with the burning in Odessa of the building where Russian Ukrainians were protesting the Maidan coup, killing tens of people for expressing their political disapproval of the Western instigated event. And not a peep from the oh so humane empire of lies, hypocrisy and chaos.
“ The epithet “diseased war-criminal”, which the late Revilo Oliver often used for FDR, rather than being harsh…is actually benign.”
I would rather refer to FDR as a “scheming spider from a wheelchair” to portray that sick, psychopathic, war mongering, war criminal who played perfect tango with his partner, the equally sick, cigar chomping sodomite, the British Mad Dog Winston Churchill.
Both of those creatures are the darlings of Western admirers, for they won, never mind their bloody legacy in a war that was totally unnecessary and which spelt the decline of the a White race without sparing other races from the ravages of WWII.
You are on target about those presidents. Also, Teddy Roosevelt gifted Korea to the Japanese in 1905 in violation of our treaty with Korea. Japanese occupation of Korea made their invasion of China possible and was the start of WW2. The Roosevelt family made its fortune in the opium trade along with other famous Americans like the Cabot Lodges and the Forbes. They are immoral and incompetent.
Lincoln killed more Americans than any other American before Fauci. That is why the ruling class made him our secular saint. The purpose of the Civil War was imperial ambitions, not the abolishment of slavery which was the propaganda just like b0mbing third world countries into the stone age to spread freedom and democracy.
LBJ orchestrated the assassination of JFK with the help of m0ssad in exchange for transferring nukes to lsrael which he did weeks after the assassination. He also staged the failed false flag incident with the USS Liberty which was covered up by the controlled media and Admiral John McCain Sr.
http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/speech.asp
In the 1920s, Hoover was in charge of the food distribution program to desperate starving Europe. In exchange for the food, he vacuumed up almost every document concerning WW1 and sent trainloads back to Stanford University to be processed by special scholars to publish their narrative of the causes of WW1 in our fake history books.
He was awarded the Presidency for his service to the deep state. Before government employment, he was a ruthless mining engineer working for the Rothschilds.
https://communityliteracy.org/how-many-indian-live-in-canada/
The cognitive dissonance of the ‘woke’ white mind.
1. So terrible that whites replaced the indigenous populations of the Americas.
2. So wonderful that mass immigration is remaking the Americas.
So, it was bad for whites to replace the indigenous Indians, but there can’t be too many immigrant Indians.
White Guilt about having replaced the indigenous and about not having let in more immigrants.
Of course, to the advantage of Jewish Power that feeds on white guilt(of whatever reason).
Roosevelt threatened Neville Chamberlain with a “shut off” of assistance with aircraft technology
Most unlikely: in all the key matters British technology was ahead of American – better fighters, better aero-engines, better radar.
The Brits fomented and backed the Russian communist revolution because they saw a formidable opportunity to destroy Russia before they could target China. But things started to go very wrong when the Bolcheviques exterminated the Russian royals. Communist ideas were blooming all over Europe and the European royalty was concerned that they would share the Romanov’s fate, the rest are truths, lies, told and untold history of WW2.
The Democrat party has been this way from its inception. It started out as the party of lies, now it is in charge of the empire of lies.
In my over 60 years I have run across dozens of liberals who think FDR was some kind of god. A lot of them probably vote Democrat today because of “the new deal”.
Chamberlian was well aware of how the US could switch from cars to a large volume of planes at Willow Run or River Rouge. Getting on the good side of Detroit was a factor for Chamberlain and just over the border from Canada.
If you read the article the Poles were being fed security promises by the US. The Poles were eagerly helping to carve up Czechoslovakia.
J-WOW or Jewish War on Whites.
Yeah, I dare Jewish Disney to do one about an angry Palestinian family.
This ‘wokeness’ isn’t really about the Left. It’s just Jewish Supremacism pushing Black-centrism to guilt-bait whites into ‘redemption’, which is sought by sucking up to Jews who then tell whites to support Jewish suprecism of Zionism and Neocon wars that dehumanize Russians, Chinese, Iranians, Syrians, etc.
Jewish Media do this, but the reaction from conzos and HBD?
1. Conzos: It’s the ‘far left’.
2. HBD: It’s a black thing(and never ever notice the Jewish Hand behind the Black Fist).
By the time FDR became president in March 1933, the Depression was already no longer short, and in Hoover’s last year it was at its most intense, and getting worse and worse.
If the Southern secession had succeeded, that would have benefited not only Britain, but also America, or rather the two surviving halves of what had been the United States, as the US would never have become world hegemon, with the disastrous effects on Americans that are now increasingly apparent.
My dad preached this, especially with respect to the Roosevelt’s administration goading Japanese to attack. According to him Roosevelt needed war due to the New Deal being a bust. I wonder if a war was needed to keep FDR on the throne just by looking at Americans and their voting patterns of today.
Canada was mostly open and empty country when whites settled it. Indian immigration is very bad for Canadians. But Jewish control of our media prevents this from being said.
Polish complicity? 1918 it is birthed, diaspora tend to come to more powerful countries to AVENGE A PERCEIVED slight. Treaty of Rapallo and the existence of the Brzezinski clan tend to dissuade me from reading this TRIPE:) BONUS- PROMETHEISM, the little sneaky technique attributed to JOSEF PILSUDSKI, we Americans have sloppily perfected this w/ a no longer plausible deniability:)
Did FDR conspire to help create WWII? Perhaps. Certainly the oil blockade of Japan was an act of war.
But there is another angle to this: when FDR took office, the United States was basically a third-world country, with massive poverty, chronic malnutrition, high crime, and child labor. When he left office, the United States was the most powerful military and industrial power the world had ever seen, with the highest standard of living. That is not a bad accomplishment – and no, success like the is never automatic. The bottom line is the bottom line.
During the depression FDR was frustrated that he could not get his New Deal programs enacted, because the rich and powerful liked mass poverty just fine. Cheap labor and all that. WWII gave him the excuse to do what he wanted, and the economy was unleashed. One wonders if, perhaps, FDR wanted a war for that reason?
Some noted scholars say that because the small amount of government spending in the 1930’s did not end the depression, that Keynesianism was wrong. Instead, these people say, it was the even more massive government spending of WWII that ended the depression. So obviously Keynes was wrong ROTFL.
That’s exactly correct. At the time, John T. Flynn was one of America’s most influential progressive columnists and here’s a crucial conversation he described:
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/#the-true-origins-of-the-second-world-war
I came across that item a dozen years ago when I was digitizing the archives of The New Republic and I don’t think anyone else had previously taken any notice of it.
“disproportionate amount of this violence was conducted by Communist Jews”…ahhh, you’re gonna hafta come up with some meat to back up this assertion. In this particular case it may well have been that some dumb Polaks came up with this all on their lonesome. However, British Talmudist Shekels could well have influenced these decisions.
Your POV appears to be overly weighted relative to the accounts I have viewed of Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans in what was, before the Versailles circumcision, their own native land. Many of these Germans were the descendants of actually Germanized Slavic tribes such as the Wends, Kashubians, Borussians, Old Prussians and Kashubians. Records are sparse on motivations, but it is quite possible that they felt that a German speaking identity was preferable to a Polish one.
The Great Depression did not just happen. It was the result of financial shenanigans pumping up the stock market on Wall Street. When that late 20’s boom busted, this was also attributable to the “Federal” Reserve Bank, with its Talmudist Supremacy owners scheme of first inflating and with the bust deflating the currency.
Those who still held considerable assets, such as the Yankee bondholders and industrialists, refused to gin up production again, mainly in an ultimately futile attempt to hold on to their assets. Result of this was that the working class was in large measure jobless, while the farmers were unable to maintain their economy because so many workers and small businessmen had gone broke.
Roosevelt was little more than an avid partner with the Bank$ters.
Come on, 1983? Why don’t you publish here Chinese doctrine of conquering the world by 2030? I mean, really, why?
• Thanks:
I was going to use the “Thanks” button just for your comment, but I decided to more completely thank you for presenting Weber’s essay here today, and for publishing so many other things that I wouldn’t be exposed to otherwise.
Perhaps not all of those things are reasonable, so it helps me to see when your own, considerable reasoning powers have found something worth considering.
You are doing good work, in the truest, most moral sense.
Why don’t you look up the Bromberg massacre.
The scumbag FDR came to power promising that Americans won’t die in Europe in a war but immediately started preparing for war once in power. He commanded the U.S. Navy to attack German submarines without any formal declaration of war or approval from Congress. He wanted another Lusitania like incident to incite the American people, like what was done during WW1. Also what is scary is that during WW1, FDR was the Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Navy while across the pond, Winston Churchill was Britain’s First Lord of the Admiralty!!!
Berlin knew what the Roosevelt was upto (Lusitania 2.0) and thus ordered its U-boats to avoid revenge attacks. Seeing that goading Germany to make a wrong move to rile up the American people, he set his eyes towards Japan.
Also let us not forget that Roosevelt LOVED Stalin, he was enamoured with Stalin. He was also afraid that the Japanese Empire may attack the USSR from the East while the Soviets fight the European Axis forces in the West. A war in between the USA and Japan, would remove anyn chance of that happening.
FDR was planning a sneak attack on Japan before Pearl Harbour attack.
JB-355. President FDR’s plan to use American mercenaries to use aircrafts with Chinese roundels to attack Japan.
More here
https://codoh.com/library/document/roosevelts-secret-pre-war-plan-to-bomb-japan/en/
https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/secret-plan-firebomb-japan/
Also interestingly, FD Roosevelt worked for the China Zhi Gong Party in the US as their lawyer at the very beginning of his career. And China Zhi Gong Party became one of the eight legally recognized minor political parties under the Communist Party of China since 1949!!!
And also FDR’s mother’s family, the Delano, made their fortune with transporting Opium during the Sassoon opium days from India/Turkey to China. Strange connections there.
If there is one person who can be blamed for destroying Western Civilization, it would be this scumbag Roosevelt.
Say, Germany and Poland would come to a reasonable agreement and solve their border disputes and the Third Reich would be still around, no way would Cultural marxism, anti-Whitism, mass migration into Western countries by enemy infiltrator populations, would have gone ahead. For the simple reason, that the elites of the west would all be shit scared of National Socialist revolutions in their own countries, by the people.
https://archive.org/download/WhatTheWorldRejectedHitlersPeaceOffers1933-1939/WhatTheWorldRejectedHitlersPeaceOffers1933-1939ByDr.FriedrichStieve.pdf
What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers 1933-1940
Friedrich Stieve
Sandycroft Publications, 25-Oct-2016 – History – 94 pages
Written by Germany’s foremost diplomatic historian of the early twentieth century, this work maps out all the numerous times that Adolf Hitler made unconditional offers of peace to all the nations of Europe–and how the major anti-German belligerents, France and Britain, turned down these offers each and every time.
The author lists all of Hitler’s offers in detail, complete with quotes, starting with his first offer of May 17, 1933, his second offer of December 18, 1933, his third offer of May 21, 1935, his fourth offer of March 31, 1936, his fifth offer of September 30, 1938, his sixth offer of December 6, 1938, his seventh offer of late 1939 to Poland to settle the Danzig Corridor issue peacefully, and finally, his offer of world peace on October 6, 1939, just over a month after Britain and France had declared war on Germany for invading Poland on September 1 (but not on the Soviet Union, which also invaded Poland on September 17).
A new edition benefits from four new sections which did not appear in the original publication (am not sure if the above linked pdf is the new one or the old one). These are:
– The full text of Hitler’s “Appeal for Peace and Sanity” speech, made before the Reichstag on July 19, 1940, following the fall of France. Although nearly half the British cabinet wanted to take up his offer, Churchill’s warmongering put an end to this final offer of peace;
– Hitler’s Political Testament, dictated just hours before his death on April 29, 1945, wherein he spelled out once again how he had tried to avoid the war, and blamed Jewish agitators for the refusal of other nations to accept his peace offers;
– Hermann Göring’s final letter–from this death cell in Nuremberg–to Winston Churchill, in which he blamed the latter’s warmongering on behalf of “Jewish Bolsheviks” for the conflict; and
– An extract from The Forrestal Diaries, in which the US Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal quotes British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain as complaining that “the world Jews” have forced England into the war.
Roosevelt simply gave Chamberlain what was an honest assessment of political reality. If Chamberlain had attempted to push the Poles into another Munich-style agreement right after Hitler had finished occupying Czechia, then not only would the Poles have refused to accept such terms, but the US public would have subsequently refused to support Britain after Hitler had violated the 2nd Munich. It was perfectly honest for Roosevelt to tell Chamberlain that he could not never have gotten the US public to agree to aid to Britain if a confrontation had broken out in 1940 because of violating the latest agreement. Once Hitler marched into Prague then Chamberlain’s credibility now depended upon taking a firm stand over Danzig, since Hitler had shown that he was not willing to accept merely the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia.
The Polish crackdown in Danzig only turned hardline after the occupation of Czechia. Even the diplomatic documents which Weber himself quotes here show that as late as March 9, 1939, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Jerzy Potocki, was speaking in sympathetic terms about Hitler. It was only the events of March 15 which made the Poles decide to draw the line.
Good old Windy… was always in trouble.
But, it didn’t work out as planned… US didn’t declare war on Germany.
Sure the Jews wanted the Nazis destroyed by any means possible… or imposable… But everyone knew it. The Jews weren’t very popular during the depression… to say the least. Times were hard… Jews were afraid to stick their necks out… politically or finacially. They were divided and confused… couldn’t even keep he boycott up. Hollywood sold out and even collaborated with the Nazis! (I never say that part in any Holocaust movie?) Americans said no… Isolationist movement… Laws were passed–Neutrality Acts of the 1930’s
International masonic skulduggery on overdrive.
The all seeing eye of providence is everywhere.
And we just keep “slouching towards bethlehem” in order to make Israel great again!
Thanks for that, Mr. Unz.
So, Ireland is lax about letting migrant-invaders enter their country… but strict about breakfast schedules. Irish are the new dumb polacks of Europe.
It’s like saying, “you can break into my house but is allowed to eat a sandwich only between 7 and 9.”
The only difference to 2022/2023 is that the Poles are giddily pressing for this current war like no other nation. I can think of none (Not even the Ukrainians) who have a bigger group of actual mental idiots running their politics. Genuinely Polish politicians are the stupidest in Europe by a long way. There is simply no intellectual discourse possible at all.
The Poles issued an ultimatum to Lithuania in 1938 threatening an invasion unless it ceded its Vilnius region. Lithuania had no allies and a small army so agreed to give up one-third its territory. Perhaps that nation should fear a new aggressive Poland that is spending huge sums on its military.
That’s certainly the traditional historical narrative, which I’d always heard and accepted. But back a few years ago, I read a book on that era written by John T. Flynn, who had been one of the most influential progressive columnists in the country during those years. According to his account, FDR himself had been the main force behind the Neutrality Acts, and he made supporting them a central issue in his 1936 reelection campaign against Kansas Gov. Alf Landon, which he won in a landslide.
I’ve never tried to investigate the issue, but I’d tend to believe Flynn’s political claims over those provided in Wikipedia or other modern sources.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-great-purge-of-the-1940s/
Then why did Hitler declare war on the U.S. first? He gave FDR the opening.
Good old Windy… was always in trouble.
But, it didn’t work out as planned… US didn’t declare war on Germany.
Sure the Jews wanted the Nazis destroyed by any means possible… or imposable… But everyone knew it. The Jews weren’t very popular during the depression… to say the least. Times were hard… Jews were afraid to stick their necks out… politically or finacially. They were divided and confused… couldn’t even keep he boycott up. Hollywood sold out and even collaborated with the Nazis! (I never say that part in any Holocaust movie?) Americans said no… Isolationist movement… Laws were passed–Neutrality Acts of the 1930’s
I simply can’t agree with you there, TruthV
The American revolution was fought, I contend, over slavery. Even more so than the Civil war, which was more about state sovereignty. The Founding Fathers of These United States, understood that fiat money issued with interest by a foreign power, was slavery. And they would have none of it. You can read what Ben Franklin and others wrote about how that led to the war.
https://www.opednews.com/articles/How-Benjamin-Franklin-Caus-by-Mike-Kirchubel-110711-773.html
then again in 1812, the Bank of England again tried to enslave the colonies, known as the War of 1812.
If anything, these scumbags are persistent!
Then again…!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War
and so for a hundred years or so, America printed its own money, and it retained its value that whole time. A dollar in 1812 was worth pretty much what the same dollar was worth in 1912.
Until Woodrow Wilson, (Rot in Hell) betrayed all those heroic men’s life-and-death struggles against the ((central bank)), to enslave the American people to usury and debt.
And he’s not just responsible for that, (near Biblical levels of treason and betrayal), but also for facilitating Trotsky’s endeavors to foment the Bolshevik genocidal enslavement of Russia- and beyond.
He was also instrumental in the Great Betrayal of Germany at the Armistice, with his deceptive ruse of the ‘Fourteen Points’, to get Germany to disarm, so that she could be starved to death and then enslaved at Versailles.
He also presided over the Income Tax enslavement of the American worker.
After just one hundred years of Wilson’s betrayal, the dollar was worth about 2% of its value before the (((Fed))) was given ownership of the dollar, and the ability to print it at interest, and enslave not just the American people, but every nation that was compelled to use the dollar after the Bretton Woods grand treason. A debt slavery to the world’s most evil men, that is bringing the planet to the brink of a nuclear WWIII. Such is ((their)) insane lust for abolute power.
All of it, set in motion by Woodrow Wilson, not just the worst president America has ever had, but a man whose magnitude of betrayals, of all the wars and rivers of blood that was spilled to keep America free, and the betrayals of Germany and Europe to the Bolshevik fiend, and the terrors and depravities of the (((Wiemar regime))), and all of today’s serial wars for ZOG, are all a direct consequence of the (((Fed))), and these evil people’s near unlimited power to print money from thin air, to corrupt every scintilla of our nations and cultures and people.
All of it, laid at the grave of the biggest scumfuck ever to betray a people, and even a civilization, to its worst enemy.
His betrayal is worse than even Ephialtes of Trachis, and I’d pretty much say, insofar as it has led to the cataclysmic destruction of Christendom, and its people, Wilson’s betrayal is literally on a league of Judas Iscariot, for it has certainty lead to the death of Christ, and slow, depraved death and genocide of Christ’s people.
May Wilson’s eternal fate be a just equivalent to all the men and women and children who died horribly in a prolonged WWI, who died horribly in WWII, and all the men, women and children who are now dying horribly in the serial wars for ZOG in the Middle East and Ukraine, as I write this.
All of it laid at Woodrow Wilson’s ledger of betrayal. Without whom, there would have been an end to WWI, no Bolshevik genocidal insanity, no Holodomor, no WWII, no Federal Reserve Bank or Great Depression or 9/11 or the millions upon millions of people who have suffered or died as a direct result of Woodrow Wilson’s Biblical level of treachery and betrayal.
It’s impossible to imagine where humanity would be today without all those horrors, but I’d say likely colonizing space with an end to all poverty and hunger and pointless misery – all of which are a direct consequence of the ((Fed)), and the nature of the people who wield that demonic power.
Come on, be honest. How many of you correctly guessed who the forces were that pushed for war?
Doesn’t this sound very familiar? I’m, of course, referring to the Ukraine conflict. If the playbook keeps working, why change it?
According to Wikipedia:
Looks like FDR bit the Bullitt?
I’ve never read the book, so I can’t say.. but the conspiracies (just like this one) always point to Roosevelt. Pearl Harbor was a set-up is the most popular. (Tora! Tora! Tora! A great film, tries to debunk this.) But I’m sure you know all this. But everything I’ve read claims the Roosevelt administration was in fact positioning for war.
There are a few passages in Mr. Weber’s essay that elude to a “hidden hand” operating behind FDR:
The “echo in foreign capitals” is the echo of the Masonic lodges.
A new crisis is April, decided upon by whom?
War in Europe was decided upon by whom?
Of course all this planning on a German invasion was at a time when Germany and Russia were still extreme enemies, before the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Yet somehow forces in both the US and the UK knew, without any protocols from meetings or letters of explanation, that war had been decided upon. By whom?
Below the more are some relevent Roosevelt photos and some of my comments.
Cousin Teddy, part of a long tradition in the Rosenfeld clan.
Brother Frankin at a meeting of the Craft in 1935. One might think that he is a 33 degree master.
Here is Franklin at his 32 degree initiation in 1929. Notice that this is the Scottish Rite lodge. The same lodge as Albert Pike. Roosevelt would surely have been well aware of Morals and Dogma, Pikes famous Masonic screed. Consider also that Pike predicted WWII:
Could FDR’s crusade against Germany have anything to do with Masonic predictions, oaths or rituals?
Germany’s Declaration of War Against the USA – Dec 1941. Hitler has some interesting things to say about Roosevelt –
Video Link
Overlooked even in this article, was the political influence of the “die hards” in England in the lead up to and the prolonging of the war with Germany after 1940. I am pleased to say they appear to have nothing to do with Jewish power and money. Rather they were the bull headed English County Tory politicians. They detested the rising power and influence of Germany eclipsing the British Empire. They were also like the American “patriots” in clamouring for another war. In 1940, a bellicose speech by Lord Gretton, a Tory die hard politician precipitated the resignation of Neville Chamberlain. Gretton had done the same in precipitating the overthrow of Lord George in 1922. Secret attempts were being made in 1940 to negotiate an end to the war. Hitler’s peace offers were vey generous for the British Empire. Hess flew to Scotland but was captured before he could make contact with the British peace party. They plotted to replace Churchill with Lord Halifax or Lloyd George. One of the main instigators of the plot was a younger brother of the King, the Duke of Kent. He died in a plane crash shortly later and his name once very prominent has been written out of history. It is mentioned in his memoirs by De Gaulle, that when he met Churchill in 1940, he was surprised to see Churchill shaking his fist at the sky and declaiming. “Why don’t they come?” Lord Gretton is a relative of mine.
Great article! I can’t say that I agree with all of the conclusions, however.
While it is really beyond question the FDR was stoking the fires of WWII from 1937-1939 and thereafter, the larger question is what forces were in play in the world that were trying to prevent the outbreak of war?
The German actions were, at best, reckless. The Polish approach was clearly insane and completely disconnected from a realistic appraisal of the realities on the ground; strikingly akin to Ukraine for the last nine years. The French policy was unworthy of a great power and relegated them to being lapdogs of the British. The calculated cynicism of the Soviet Union may have backfired in the end, but it did buy them time to further prepare for a war they believed was inevitable. And the British for the second time in twenty five years marched their Empire willfully or ignorantly (take your pick) into the abyss of a world war which anyone with the slightest degree of discernment should have known would inevitably destroy it. Oops!
I don’t buy into the idea of FDR as the great puppeteer and prime driver of this conflagration. His role was that of an important player no doubt, but more like that of a clever supporting actor who nudges the plot along at key moments rather than the main character who drives it. The importance and influence of the US in the build up to WWII was not the same as it was in 1945 and thereafter.
So, returning to my original question:
What forces were in play in the world that were trying to prevent the outbreak of war?
Other than the patriots of the American First movement and their cohorts both here and around the world, and the Italians, no one. Italy both bailed our of their commitment to join German march to war in 1939 (too bad for them they weren’t as cautious in 1940) and worked assiduously to try to bring it to a prompt end in 1939 once it started.
As for Mr. Weber’s conclusion regarding the role that a certain special group played in directing, cheerleading and urging on the destruction of Christian Europe wherever and with whatever means they could? We are now more than eighty years removed from that era. Look at the events in Eastern Europe today and who is directing, cheerleading and urging on those events now and ask yourself one question. What’s changed?
Interesting to see Chamberlain’s Birmingham speech (from “steady as she goes” to “right-about turn” as Churchill described it) in the light of the knowledge that “the President warned that Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued.”
I had no idea that Chamberlain’s about-turn was the result of US pressure. Churchill wrote that “he must have been through a period of immense moral strain” – which he had, only not in the sense of an inner conflict but of external pressure.
It makes me wonder if, when Chamberlain resigned, Lord Halifax (probably the favourite to succeed him) sat silent during the meeting with Chamberlain and Churchill on the succession because he’d already been told his fortune by the US, that Churchill was the candidate who would get most US support.
I assume the same dynamics are operating today, and explain why Boris is the State Department’s representative for War in Europe.
Apr 6, 2017 A Century Ago Woodrow Wilson Took America Into WWI: Blame Him For Communism, Fascism And Nazism
A century ago Congress declared war on Imperial Germany. It was a bizarre decision: the secure New World voluntarily joined the Old World slaughterhouse, consigning more than 117,000 Americans to death for no intelligible reason.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2017/04/06/a-century-ago-woodrow-wilson-took-america-into-wwi-blame-him-for-communism-fascism-and-nazism/amp/
FEBRUARY 27, 2019 ORIGINS OF WORLD WAR II IN EUROPE
Lafayette College Professor Robert Weiner taught a class on the origins of World War II in Europe. He described how the British and French governments initially saw Soviet Russia as a bigger threat than the fascists in Germany and Italy. He argued that some leaders’ reluctance to enter another war led to appeasement efforts with Hitler and military unpreparedness.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?458124-2/origins-world-war-ii-europe
“why did Hitler declare war on US first…”
Russians launched their large-scale counterattack on Army Group Center just outside of Moscow on
December 4-5, 1941. By the time the Japs hit Pearl Harbor, about 72 hours later, the Germans were in deep trouble and beginning to fall back westward; by 10 December many Wehrmacht units had been overrun and destroyed, and some of Hitler’s Generals were advising a Napoleonic retreat all the way back to the 22 June jump-off line. Hours later Hitler declared war on America in an effort to get a quid pro quo from Japan, i.e., a Japanese attack on Siberian Russia which, at a minimum, might prevent the Russians from bringing reinforcements from Soviet Asia to the Eastern Front. That attempt failed, as the Japs stuck to their April, 1941 Neutrality deal w the Red Empire. As in 1937 and 1939, Germany and Japan operated at complete strategic right angles; and did so again in the early spring of 1942, when the Japanese offered to extend their Indian Ocean naval operations to include the seizure of Madagascar, which would have cut the last Anglo-American convoy reinforcement route to the Middle East and drastically changed the course of the war. Cf.
(Captain) Werner Rahn, “Japan and Germany, 1941-1943: No Common Objective, No Common Plans, No Basis of Trust”, Naval War College Review, Vol. 46/3, Summer 1993, pp. 47-68
@ https://www.jstor.org/stable/44637471 (no pay wall; sign up for free access to thousands of articles in hundreds of journals)
Surely you mean The City of London. Hardly a WASP nest.
Roosevelt was already engaging in warfare against Germany prior to Hitler’s declaration. I have posted vid of Hitler explaining the declaration of war against the US in comment #73
Since when does Public Opinion affect arms shipments? When are public’s ever consulted? Having the Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany share a border would have been a political.
Yeah, as Wokechoke points out, perhaps Chamberlain was more concerned with having adequate production in case of war than he was with the exact level of American technological prowess relative to GB.
“for no intelligible reason”. Actually,
for a very intelligible reason. By the spring of 1917, it was becoming evident that Russia – with its home front crumbling toward chaos and collapse into revolution – might soon be dropping out of the war. So the Brits and the French desperately needed America into the war ASAP to provide a fresh supply of cannon foddor to replace the Russians. Meanwhile, from Bankster-stooge Wilson’s viewpoint, the US had been supplying Britain and France with massive shipments of food and munitions from 1914 onward…almost all of it on credit. If the US doesn’t get in and Germany and Austria-Hungary go on to win, a massive default will occur and the financial system could collapse. The irony, of course, is that postwar the Brits and French tried to fob off their war debts on a defeated Germany via reparations….which for the most part the Germans could not and did not pay. Result: beginning in 1929 the American financial system collapsed and (see also: Wall Street rackets, esp. speculation on margin), with the collapse of the Austrian-Rothschild Kreditinstalt in 1931 (see also: French Rothschild gold machinations), so did the European financial system. 12 years later, same old same old: with the Germans -apparently – about to take Moscow and knock Red Russia out of the war, it became imperative to get America in. And FDR/Churchill did so via the Japanese back door.
The landed Gentry like Mosely were pro fascist. Stop being stupid.
Fascinating insights. Thanks.
It comes as no surprise that the Poles would do it.
These little details do tend to demystify the problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Polish_ultimatum_to_Lithuania
Poland was an Imperial Power in 1938. They deserve little to no sympathy as innocents.
The Hegemony’s Masons+Zionists have been, and are still at this Game together. Protestants+Catholics are in it for the Ride
Their Plutarchy and their Vassal_Oligarchs run the Hegemony.
They’re joined at the Hip. The Jewish 10Tribe-Diaspora may or may not comprise the majority of the Plutarchy Headcount/AssetValuations; but they’re in this together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Polish_ultimatum_to_Lithuania
agreed. the exact nature of Germano-Balto-Slav borders wasn’t really Britain’s pressing concern. Chamberlain must have despised the Poles as much as Hitler did. But controlling the supply of aero engines was a real issue. Roosevelt’s threats on the objects must have done the trick.
This 1983 piece includes the oft-repeated misrepresentation of the Anglo-Polish Agreement of Mutual Assistance of August 25, 1939 as a “blank check” assuring British support of Polish action, even aggression, against Germany. Not so. It was an agreement of support against carefully described circumstances of aggression by Germany. Here is the document:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp
Please examine the first two of the Agreement’s eight Articles:
Note that in Article 2 I bolded the word “clearly,” which qualifier means, clear to everyone. Thus the defensive Agreement for Mutual Assistance is qualified, and is in no sense a “blank check.” Do read the remaining six Articles.
The “blank check” canard is used to suggest Polish eagerness for war, and in this article, to enhance Roosevelt’s alleged efficacy in pressuring Britain to nudge Poland into a desired act of war.
In fact, when Poland mobilized in the face of imminent German action, its allies required immediate demobilization, to minimize a supposed provocation. When the invasion actually began, Poland was in a state of only partial mobilization, and had to repeat the order to fully mobilize. That confused condition is not what’s termed aggressive.
And whether Roosevelt was satisfied or not, his efficacy was less than here suggested.
Agreed.
FDR always scores near the top of the list when surveys are conducted about best Presidents – no doubt due to the beliefs of clueless liberals.
Meanwhile, I watch a lot of Jimmy Dore videos and have a ton of respect for his gutsy work over the years.
But, like other indoctrinated progressives, he loves FDR (and not surprisingly still believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming).
Because of the mountain of good work that Jimmy Dore had done elsewhere, I make allowance for Dore’s ignorance on these matters.
We just have to work harder to incrementally convince these people to abandon their dangerous beliefs, and acknowledge that they became the way they are from a lifetime of Zio indoctrination that Big Government is the solution to all our problems.
The Poles reckoned they were going to be in Berlin in a few weeks.
The die hards were a class of their own. Moseley was an intellectual who before he went Fascist was a Parliamentary member of the Labour Party. Mussolini also began as a socialist. The die hards were British Imperialists and Unionists. They were the John Bulls. Lord Gretton, an Olympic rowing champion, led successfully the campaign to pay the pensions of the Irish loyalists in the Irish uprising. He would have regarded Moseley as a traitor to his class and to the British race. To Lord Gretton, both wars with Germany were Manichaean. I can confidently say my relative although a successful brewer was as thick as a brick.
People have this false impression that Hoover, being a Republican, was all about Free Markets and capitalism.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Hoover got the ball rolling in terms of economic stupidity, with massive government intervention and running huge budget deficits to finance B.S stimulus boondoggles.
Anyway you slice and dice it, Hoover was a RINO (Republican In name Only). Instead, he was a template for the economically illiterate Keynesian influenced Presidents that followed beginning with LBJ.
FDR actually campaigned on being fiscally responsible and said he’d run balanced budgets and end Hoover’s profligacy. Instead, he doubled down on Hoover’s policies and made the depression last another decade or so longer.
The following 6 min video explains how FDR and the New Deal was a disaster (start at 0:40):
Importantly also in that video, it speaks about the Great Recession of 1921 (that most people had never heard of).
In 1921, using ANY metric you choose (unemployment, reduction in GDP etc), the U.S was WORSE OFF than in the first few years of the 1929 – 1932 downturn.
Other than that Harding did NOTHING, instead letting market forces correct the imbalances and restructure the economy.
End Result: There was a short and sharp recession lasting a little over a year, and the economy was soon humming along very nicely indeed.
Very interesting observation. You are correct in your observation that the US uses the EU to carry out the US dictates. It was reported that the US always sits in on EU deliberations even within the Council of European Union the representative body made up of nation minister/ambassadors. The EU is totally owned by the US and the current war just demonstrates that is how power is used even when the policy for example , higher energy costs, hurts the member’s/and populations of the EU.
Comparing 1939 to 2022 we can say.
Same bullshit different year.
God man, I like your posts, they are often quite good.
What’s with this WIKIPEDIA stuff all the time, they are total BS
May be for a bio on a rock star but PLEASE!!!!!!!
‘insofar as it has led to the cataclysmic destruction of Christendom, and its people, Wilson’s betrayal is literally on a league of Judas Iscariot’ — Rurik
Let us recall that Wilson’s tomb lies in the National Cathedral. And as recently as six weeks ago, they were still honoring this depraved monster:
https://cathedral.org/calendar/ceremonial-laying-of-wreath-on-president-wilsons-tomb/
Satan’s Cathedral seems to be a close analogue of Satan’s Synagogue.
Excellent post, I could not agree more. For me, personally, the worst part of it is that I am a Jew. I don’t know where my ancestors came from, may be from Khazaria, although I don’t really care. All I know is that I am not part of the chosen people. Apparently, the criminals who run the world, consider themselves the chosen ones. If I ever had a chance to speak to one of them, I would ask them only one question: “What do we have in common?”. I don’t know the answer. Needless to say, this dialog will never take place and may be it shouldn’t as I will have to find this out by myself. It is hard, very hard.
Ron, in those days there was virtually no national debt so the tremendous wartime spending was absorbed although it did cause huge inflation.
Since it appears that Biden is copying Roosy virtually step for step, isn’t that time honored strategy bound to fail this time?
Where is the money going to come from?
The Poles reckoned they were going to be in Berlin in a few weeks.
Bold talk. They knew what they faced. And they stood down from full mobilization, mainly at French insistence.
Actually, there is always an underlying reason for everything. Lord Acton said I best, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton
Nov 22, 2013 Thomas DiLorenzo – The Revolution Of 1913
From the Tom Woods show, Loyola economics professor 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).
I feel like the narrative that Roosevelt wanted and needed war because the New Deal was a bust might be… reductive? Certain groups were intensely pressuring FDR to go after Hitler.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was NOT Jewish!
One of the most persistent Rumors of all time. Comon at the time and still believed today. All based on it’s similarity to the comon Jewish name Rosenfeld.
https://www.fdrlibrary.org/roosevelt-family
Deleno doesn’t help either, sounds like it could be Sephardic.
Mark Weber’s assertion is a new twist that I haven’t heard before:
This is what FDR thought about Jews:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2013-apr-07-la-oe-medoff-roosevelt-holocaust-20130407-story.html
https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/345006/fdrs-jewish-problem-and-its-japanese-link/
Still we have now 4 generations of lying poles including a pope.
Hard to consider them fellow Catholics.
Ridiculous. Roosevelt created “the West.” It was NATO propaganda that popularized this term.
Like saying the bank isn’t part of a shopping center when of course it is. Or are all 500,000 daily visitors in that square mile office park all Jews?
Well which is it?
If they’re in for the ride, someone’s driving. If they’re joined at the Hip, they move as one. The last thing those three groups do is move as one. One moves, the others follow.
When three parties are involved in an enterprise of this magnitude power belongs to one of the three. There is no taking turns and certainly no power-sharing.
Or as a Jewish professor of mine once said,
Israel a democracy? How can anything Jewish be democratic?
FUCK Mark Weber & the IHR for (in addition to a litany of other shady practices, including attacks against fellow revisonists!) what he/they did to SS-Sturmbannführer Lèon Degrelle! I spit on those filthy, sad-sacks of shit.
Sadly, this tragic story is virtually unknown, even amongst our circles, which is an absolute shame! Thankfully, you can still read all about this ultimate betrayal against poor Degrelle by Weber et al. in the Preface to the salvaged remains of what would’ve undoubtedly been Degrelle’s Magnum Opus: a 14-Volume Series on Hitler, tipifying the final chapter of a man of action who lived a truly exemplary life, collectively titled: The Hitler Century.
And indeed, based on what little has been painstakingly re-translated and stitched back together as seamlessly as was feasible given the circumstances (explained below) by dedicated friends & loyalists of Degrelle upon procuring the few surviving remnants of earlier, often-incomplete drafts–provided by his faithful wife–after the IHR shamelessly 86’d his book without warning, publicly denigrating his methods and works in a newsletter as unbefitting for such a prestigious institution as the IHR to publish (despite all of his previous books consistently ranking among their top-sellers!), before invariably delivering the final stab in the back: forever-destroying the only completed manuscript in existence[!!!], I am nevertheless confident that, had he been given a fair-shake, this series had all the inherent potential needed to supercede even his renowned, modern-day Homeric Epic: The Eastern Front: Memoirs of a Waffen SS Volunteer, 1941–1945!
Said preface was written by none-other than the well-respected Michael Collins Piper (RIP), who was one of the greatest and bravest researchers of our time! In all, since the vast majority of the book’s content got shoah’d, this Frankenstein-compilation of nicely polished rough drafts–though crafted with love–still only amounts to perhaps one large book (1/14, that is!). Again, eat shit and die, Mark Weber!
Admittedly, it’s still excellent for what it is and I’m grateful at least a portion of it is available today; a very cozy read, indeed. And since it ammounts to around one book in length, it’s named after what would have been the first book in the series. Thus:
>Hitler Democrat by SS-Sturmbannführer Lèon Degrelle (2012)
https://cdn.lewd.host/l93pg8pE.pdf
Behold what Weber has stolen from you, White man!!
̶H̶i̶t̶l̶e̶r̶ ̶D̶e̶m̶o̶c̶r̶a̶t̶; Hitler and the Germans; Hitler and the Church; Hitler and the United States; Hitler and Stalin; Hitler and England; Hitler and France; Hitler and the Banks; Hitler and the Communists; Hitler and the Jews; Hitler the Politician; Hitler the Military Strategist; and Hitler and the Third World.
Unfortunately, Weber is a good when it comes to aggregating and presenting information discovered by others, so I’m RELUCTANTLY compelled to add this article which can be viewed as a ‘Part II’/follow-up to this article:
Collusion: Franklin Roosevelt, British Intelligence, and the Secret Campaign to Push the US Into War
http://ihr.org/other/RooseveltBritishCollusion
Whew, I feel a sudden urge to take a long, scalding-hot shower…
But now that we’re done with Weasley-Weber, leaving him to crawl back to the hellish hovel from whence he came so he can do the only thing which brings him solace: plotting against his acquaintances and counting (and then re-counting) his pile of shekels in isolated contemplation … here are some additional, excellent WWII content relating to the pre-war topic in question:
>Who Started World War II? A Compilation of Articles by Various Authors
>[PDF]
https://cdn.lewd.host/h659H32F.pdf
>[ePub]
https://cdn.lewd.host/lHzTMLHX.epub⬇
>Hitler’s Revolution: Ideology, Social Programs, Foreign Affairs by Richard Tedor (2006)
>[PDF]
https://cdn.lewd.host/nqMZQrBU.pdf
>[ePub]
https://cdn.lewd.host/kIQogdlM.epub⬇
>The Myth of German Villianry by Brenton L. Bradberry (2012)
>[PDF]
https://cdn.lewd.host/UD7VlU1Q.pdf
>[ePub]
https://files.catbox.moe/xj9uvo.epub⬇
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000014031236&view=1up&seq=58
I have read through or browsed through 58 of the 83 memorandums, notes, letters and
I could not find a single sentence that implicated the US in orchestrating the war, not one. The closest one comes is a reference to preventing Germany from obtaining war munitions, but that was in reference to German aggression, in bloom long before 1939.
Now granted my condition may be hindering what is purported to be in those documents, but i didn’t even see a hint.
Anyone else notice that all of Ambassador Potocki’s reports back to Warsaw about Roosevelt successfully fomenting “war psychosis” ended up being 100 percent wrong? War breaks out, and the American public, as Weber notes, is overwhelmingly opposed to US involvement. Some war psychosis! After Hitler’s take over of the Czech rump state, why would anyone believe anything he agreed to? It’s frankly bizarre to read an account that’s totally credulous about Nazi Germany wanting peace…
Citizens of the United States, your nation is a fiction. Every last aspect of American life is controlled by an extraordinary faction of interests whose goal is nothing like that which is implied in the rhetoric appearing in your media, in your schools, in your universities, in your governments which you understandably find confusing and nonsensical given so much evidence to the contrary.
Your United States of America has never been united, ever. Not because you didn’t wish it to be united, or believe it was united, once upon a time. Your United States is not yours. You trusted the men you elected. Why not? Most of citizens of the United States hardly understand when they vote that it matters not that your vote counts for nothing. Or, that an extraordinary faction of interests, whose goals have no resemblance to your goals exists as a thing. …Something like a vampire!
Your citizens are brainwashed. What you think is reality, is a fabrication — everything you see which is of material comfort, or hear which reassures you, or think, which you imagine are your own thoughts — has been ever so carefully created by an extraordinary faction of interests whose goals have no resemblance to your goals or what you imagine are your goals. You are right to feel that something is wrong.
Your tripartite system of government has been hijacked. Even that is a fiction — the giant bureaucracy which is forever in your face is nothing but a faceless Behemoth — indeed a forth leg on the stool. It is a remorselessly unaccountable branch of government which it is impossible to countervail. It is unelected! Its actions are inimical to your interests. It serves itself and de facto serves an extraordinary faction of interests whose goals have no resemblance to your goals; or, what you imagine are your goals.
After reading Mark Weber’s exposé nothing should surprise you — but in July, 2022 an extraordinary declaration was signed in Jerusalem. The leaders of your United States of America and Israel, President Biden and Prime Minister Lapid, adopted a Joint Declaration on U.S. — Israel Strategic Partnership. Google it! You will be shocked.
Your antecedents — fed up with Great Britain’s impositions, which your Colonists found to be intolerable, resenting the implicit power a distant Crown and Parliament exerted — rebelled.
Your antecedents expressed their ideals in a Declaration of Independence signed August 2, 1776. And on March 4, 1789 the American Constitution became effective. It was ratified on June 21, 1788.
It seems improbable but an extraordinary faction of interests whose goals have no resemblance to your goals — at least to those goals which your antecedents explicitly recognized as being anathema to a free people — agreed to and signed an explicit Declaration between the United States and a foreign country which no less resembles the implicit relationship Great Britain manifested until the American War of Independence put an end to it.
This observer wonders what happened? Do Americans understand the import of this recently signed Joint Declaration on the U.S. — Israel Strategic Partnership. Surely this is treasonous.
Apparently, the criminals who run the world, consider themselves the chosen ones.
My best Jewish friend referred once without admiration to “the big Jewish crooks.” Call it, I guess, a class analysis.
There is also this report of Roosevelt’s dismissal of of the holocaust as a ‘mythical pogrom’ –
Ben Hecht was a Hollywood screenwriter who wanted to promote the holohoax in the US, and to that end he wrote and produced a theatrical production that played in several cities in the US. Elenor Roosevelt was impressed by the show. Hecht also wrote articles for the Reader’s Digest. In one article, see it here http://www.saveisrael.com/others/hecht/hechtchild.htm, he relates how Rabbi Wise and other Jewish notables approached Franklin Roosevelt in an attempt to get him to speak out on the matter. They were told “that President Roosevelt was too busy being the head of a nation to be bothered with saving Jews from a mythical pogrom.”
WRONG !! (on the standard if living part).
As bad as the U.S was during the Great Depression for that 20% or so that were out of work, it was not that bad for those who had a job.
You see, during the Depression there was widespread deflation. A dollar went much further than it did during the 1920’s.
Not so during the war years when there was considerable inflation for most consumer items – assuming of course, that you could even get them.
During the war years there was rationing. Petrol, meat and other food items were rationed to a small fraction of what people were getting in the 1930’s.
Many consumer items were not available at any price.
After Pearl Harbour, production of private automobiles ceased entirely so that those factories could be retooled to make war materiel.
I believe that construction of private housing also ceased. In other words, people had to make do with living in those rat infested dog boxes they were living in during the 1930’s – only now their dilapidated houses were even more run down by 1945 than they were in the 1930’s.
Make no mistake, most people were WORSE OFF during the war years despite having a job.
People worked long hours and extra shifts at armament factories and found they couldn’t buy those things they needed.
Instead, with the surplus of savings available and subject to the constant propaganda that they weren’t good patriots if they weren’t helping the war effort, they bought War Bonds to help Malevolent International Jewry consolidate its stranglehold of the western financial system and defeat the noble Germans and Japanese.
Now, in relation the U.S being [at war’s end] the greatest military/industrial power, America was indeed that – even though most people were WORSE OFF than they were in the 1930’s in absolute terms.
Let me explain.
During the war years the GDP of the U.S went up astronomically as the gubmint threw caution to the wind and spent obscene amounts of money on:
1) Incendiary bombs (so as to set fire to German and Japanese cities like Dresden, Tokyo etc, and burn innocent civilians alive).
2) The Manhattan Project (to build the A-bomb which the Jewish controllers of FDR had intended to drop on the Germans to teach them a lesson for challenging the Jewish banking cartel).
Unfortunately for ZOG, the war in Europe ended before the A-bomb was operational, so instead they decided to kill innocent Japanese civilians).
3) All manner of military hardware and munitions.
So, when Keynesian (voodoo) economists look at the GDP during the war years, they say it was multiples of what it was during the 1930’s, hence they extrapolate (falsely), that the ‘standard of living’ must have been multiples better also.
But the standard of living was WORSE during the war years for most people.
Think about it.
Apparently 15 million people were drafted/volunteered during the war years.
By war’s end we had a tally of:
At war’s end, America’s two main industrial competitors (Germany and Japan) were smoldering heaps.
Britain was bankrupted during the war and a good chunk of the country (like many areas of western Europe), were bombed out and in ruins.
In other words, the U.S was the LAST MAN STANDING, so of course it was going to look good in comparison to other nations.
At war’s end the U.S was much more powerful than all these countries in RELATIVE TERMS.
But in ABSOLUTE TERMS the U.S was worse off than it had been pre-war.
Mr/Ms TG, I gather from your remarks that you’re a typically left of centre Keynesian economic illiterate that’s lapped all the B.S you were indoctrinated with in your government school about Government spending stimulus and how ONLY government can solve our problems.
You have much to learn. I suggest you read some real economics (from the Austrian School like Dr Ron Paul), and stop listening to the likes of charlatans like Michael Hudson and his ilk of pretend economists.
Carlton, Wilno/Vilnius was one of the three major cities of the old Poland. That much can be said.
Roosevelt was a Bolshevik asset from the beginning and should have been hanged treason, along with his entire administration, but the greatest generation…reeeeeeeeeee
From Major Jordans Diaries
by George Racey Jordan
https://archive.org/details/FromMajorJordansDiaries1952Signed
Delano Roosevelt FDR My Exploited Father In Law ( 1970)
Curtis B. Dall
https://archive.org/details/DallCurtisB.FranklinDelanoRooseveltFDRMyExploitedFatherInLaw1970
I think Roosevelt was, politically speaking, a war-mongering scumbag – acting on behalf of Wall Street Financial interests. The sad thing is that he had huge support among very large numbers of poor Americans who wrongly saw him as their main hope.
But this isn’t good evidence:
In all the Communist regimes, from China through Eastern Europe, it was normal practice to incorporate former independent parties having wide representations into the new governments. It was a token measure, to provide the regimes with a democratic cover. So Roosevelt acting as the lawyer of this party beforethis even happened to it has no political significance at all.
The evidence indicates that the Bankers were terrified of German success, particularly looking decades down the track: how this would flow on to other nations by example as well as creating an unconquerable Germany with a different, far more successful way of running Capitalism and society, outside the reach of the tentacles of international finance. It would tend to create political revolutions by example.
Despite the defeat of Germany and all the differences with that period, broken nations, today and into the future, as a way out can follow many of the economic and social programs of 1930’s Germany.
Fascinating. it’s not as if Bohemia hasn’t been in the German orbit for centuries. Or that Munich made Prague indefensible anyway.
Threatening to cut off aero engines would have been just enough to tip Chamberlain off the edge. I’ve looked at his day to day notes.
I read most of this in David L. Hoggan. The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. It’s over 400 pages of tight text , and a tough read. It opened my eye’s to the role of the Roosevelt /Jewish government’s role in starting WW2. The interesting part was that the Poles actually thought they would take Berlin and after they received the British guarantee they become even more belligerent towards the Germans.
I read an interesting quote from Churchill made during the late 30’s where he states the bankers want rid of Hitlers non usury state banking, unfortunately in order to keep his country house he sold out to the Jews and took 60k from them in scarcely disguised loans and did everything in his power to get us in to the war and keep us there.
I also read Victor Suvorov’s two books on Stalin’s plan to invade and conquer the whole of Europe Operation Icebreaker and The Chief Culprit, nothing we were told is true about WW2 it’s all lies.
Finally I read a quote the other day
” If you really want to understand the mess we are in now you have to understand WW2 but if you really really want to understand the mess we are in now you have to understand WW1 and if you really really really want to understand the mess we are in now you have to understand the French Revolution and the roll the Jews played in all of it.”
The Poles were bullying the Czechs and Lithuanians for extra territory the entire time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Polish_ultimatum_to_Lithuania
Butter wouldn’t melt in a Pole’s mouth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Olza
The president of the Czech rump state, Emil Hache, travelled to Berlin to invite Germany to protect his rump state from Soviet invasion.
Good links, thanks.
For 123 years the entirety of Poland was extra territory.
Churchill was an asshole whose irrational anti-Germanism led to the end of the British Empire he loved so much. Add to that the termination of the Anglo Japanese alliance under the pressure of the U.S.A.
These below are a must watch
British policy 1914-41 and Winston Churchill part 2 featuring Horus
British policy 1914-41 and Winston Churchill part 3 featuring Horus
British policy 1914-41 and Winston Churchill part 4 featuring Horus
We know you aren’t all bad people, there’s no such thing as a purely good or evil people in the world, if you have friends in the Jewish community try to enlighten them to their brethren evil acts against the world, unfortunately in this despicable modern world you have less chance to get “canceled” than us Goys are, although even dissident Jewish voices aren’t protected 100% by any means.
I think the weakest point of this piece is that it assumes that prior to the Second World the US had the ability to dictate the behavior of either Poland, Germany, or Great Britain.
Certainly it had the power to influence them — but that’s a different matter. I think that regardless of what either the US or Britain advised, that Poland would have been intransigent over the Corridor, and I think that Germany was committed to a course that would have required Poland to make concessions over the Corridor — whatever Britain or the US threatened.
So I’d argue that Germany was bound to attack Poland. Moreover, guarantees or no, after Hitler’s seizure of Bohemia and Moravia I suspect a German invasion of Poland would have precipitated a British declaration of war — perhaps on September 10th rather than September 3rd, but war nevertheless. Britain simply would not have acquiesced in the establishment of German hegemony in Central Europe, even if it did happen one bite at a time.
So Roosevelt may well have been a bad man. World War Two would probably have happened even if he hadn’t been there.
‘…Records are sparse on motivations, but it is quite possible that they felt that a German speaking identity was preferable to a Polish one.’
Ironically, this was true of the Poles themselves. There were plebiscites in heavily-Polish districts of East Prussia, and it turned out many Poles preferred the known evils of limited Prussian discrimination to the unknown perils of life in a Polish-run state; they voted to remain in Germany.
So while the Poles had a demographic majority in the Corridor, their representatives at Versailles declined to risk a plebiscite. Just give it to us by fiat.
As so often is the case, the demographic frontier was a matter of degree rather than black-and-white. There must have been many ‘Poles’ who were familiar enough with German and Germans that the thought of living in a German-dominated state wasn’t intolerable. The situation could be compared to that of Mexicans in the United States. Sure, we’re Mexican. Do we want Mexican police?
…maybe not.
Learn to read
If the Confederacy had won somehow (I don’t see how personally, the Union made horrendous mistakes, but I don’t see how the Confederates could have won in the long term), wouldn’t the Union just surround them and just go for another round ?
Dunno how that Zelensky vid appeared, but here is the interview with Clayton Morris and Mike Krupa. This should be my intended posting.
1933 was the worst year.
Thanks, I didn’t know about that incident… That really sums up Roosevelt’s attitude towards Jews…
that’s one way to put it. Another is that Hitler threatened to flatten Prague if the Czech army didn’t surrender. There was never a threat of Soviet intervention. They’d have to cross through Poland and Hungary to get there, and Stalin was only willing to attack Poland under cover the M/R Pact…
I think that Germany was committed to a course that would have required Poland to make concessions over the Corridor
I agree that Roosevelt was not a sufficient cause for the war, but I would not hold the Corridor issue as sufficient either. Concerning the latter, the Führer evidently agrees. Here’s a clip from the Jan Peczkis review of Josef Lipski’s Diplomat in Berlin 1933-39:
The entire Peczkis review of Ambassador Lipkski’s notes and memoirs, here linked, includes mention of Teschen, the question of minorities, and other topics helpfully noted.
https://www.jewsandpolesdatabase.org/2019/11/04/hitler-monument-lipski-canard/
amazing, isn’t it
I have Catholics in my family, the best people you’ll ever know.
But the Vatican is as you say, a den of iniquity and anti-Christ
The pope inspires the vomit reflex when ever I see it or hear its edicts.
If the Second Coming were to happen tomorrow, I suspect that the first thing Christ would do is burn the Vatican down to the ground with a flaming sword.
While declaring How dare you do this in My name?!
Next would be the evangelical dispensationalists…
It’s useful starting point s for obscured details. Did you know that Poland was bullying Lithuania for a city while the Germans did the same to the Poles? Well, there it is.
Obviously Hitler did not expect Japan to attack the USSR after they had just started a war against the US.
The main idea was to thwart US efforts to support the USSR by sinking tonnage in the Atlantic. In the short term this could facilitate a victory in the East before the full force of US industry could be put into play.
Of course this is what the US wanted, but some fights just can’t be avoided. There is no alternative scenario where Germany would have an easy way to victory.
Not Hitler, Göring.
That Hacha came to Berlin and asked to become a protectorate is true. Germany also wanted this but they had taken no active steps to make it happen. The real cause was the Czechoslovakian Government’s inability to control their minority populations. Munich inspired the Slovaks and the Ruthenians to declare independence, and both Poland and Hungary had designs on their territory, with Poland already gobbling up the Teschen region under threat of war.
In this mess they needed help, and I think it is telling that Hacha did not even consult the Western powers before going to Berlin. He clearly saw the tutelage of Germany as the most preferable option.
The only reason Göring resorted to threats was to speed this development along. Hacha was concerned that his country should not appear to be bending over and he wanted to give the impression he was cajoled into making concessions. On this score the Germans did not disappoint and this somewhat false impression still lives on.
Adolf Hitler had an enormous distrust of the Czechs. For him the removal of this power was the removal of a constant security threat to Germany. This made him blind to the bigger picture where he was painted a European villain and betrayer of oaths.
Perhaps, at least in the minds of the always-modest British, but those items you cite were merely some of the key matters, rather than “all” of them.
I will argue that the decisive key matters, or trump cards, in WWII were first and foremost industrial capacity to mass produce the weapons of war, coupled with a large population to fill the ranks of big armies, along with unfettered access to abundant raw materials, including especially fuel.
Just two of the major combatants in WWII were holding all three of those cards, the United States and the Soviet Union, the USSR having just recently gained the first and most important one during the 1920s with critical assistance from U.S. industrial and engineering experts.
Of course, the Bolsheviks were able to finance the construction of these massive industrial projects during the ’20s with the money, gold, and jewels they’d stolen from the slain Tsar, the Church, and the Russian people only after paying off their masters immediately upon seizing power.
https://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/MullinsEustice/SecretsOfFedReserve/Ch08.htm
In reality, the Bolsheviks were little more than a gang of thugs and thieves hiding behind Marxist-Leninist ideology, which could be easily re-tuned by Marxists motormouths to suit the occasion.
It’s a convoluted and murky tale, with numerous indications it was Wall Street and the Bankers who’d helped finance the Bolsheviks in the first place, with Leon Trotsky as Jacob Schiff’s bagman who arrived in Petrograd at the critical moment with $10,000 to help finance the revolution, his passport for travel back to Russia having been provided by U.S. Pres. Woodrow Wilson.
Under Lenin’s NEP in the ’20s, the Soviets significantly built up the USSR’s industrial base with the help of American experts like Henry Ford.
https://www.americanheritage.com/how-america-helped-build-soviet-machine#1
During the 1930s, after putting the squeeze on the Kulaks and NEPmen with his brutal collectivization, Stalin used this new industrial muscle to build the world’s largest air force and tank park, but due to the relatively rapid pace of advance in military technology during the 1930s, much of this nominally impressive order of battle was approaching obsolescence on the eve of WWII.
However, much more modern tanks and aircraft were already rolling off the Soviet assembly lines in some quantity when the Germans launched Barbarossa, where the Wehrmacht was successful in grinding its teeth on a lot of Stalin’s old junk that he’d deviously moved up to his western frontier to goad and provoke Hitler into making his ultimately foolish and futile attack with forces that were entirely too weak for the task before them, a fatal shortcoming Hitler magnified by dividing his forces into three groups with divergent objectives.
Although Stalin had received numerous warnings of the impending German attack, both through foreign diplomatic channels as well as from his own intelligence staff, the Soviet dictator wanted to hear none of it, yet pretended to be surprised and shocked, even going into seclusion when the Germans launched Barbarossa.
For his part later that year, U.S. Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt had waved off numerous diplomatic warnings about an impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and played dumb just as Stalin had done, but of course FDR knew all about the approach of the Japanese carrier strike force Kido Butai from several sources, and had even cleared everything out of its way so the Japanese fleet wouldn’t be discovered during its passage across the N. Pacific.
Another alternative history? Does it ever end?
Stalin’s “trap” cost him half the standing Red Army, all of his stored ammunition, fuel and all of his forward bases and airfields. I suppose the trap was still working when he begged Hitler for a desperate peace a few weeks into the campaign. Also when he retreated to his Dacha and waited for his cadres to murder him, because the USSR was on the verge of collapse, that too was part of the plan.
Stalin would not hear of an impending German attack because he was not ready for it. The idea was for him to invade, not get invaded. His entire military doctrine was based on it. Hitler beat him to the punch.
FDR could play those games because he was sitting in an unassailable position. Stalin was hoping Hitler would become embroiled elsewhere. When that failed he attempted a catastrophically and greedy appeasement, which convinced Hitler he should definitely attack.
What city was Germany bullying Poland for???
Don’t tell us that it was Danzig, which had a 97% German population.
Please show where Hitler threatened to flatten Prague!
In fact, this statement was given in a hypothetical context that, if the Soviet Union were to invade Prague, Germany may be forced to bomb that city.
From what I read, there never was a German threat to Emil Hache to either accept Germany’s protection, or get bombed.
If Stalin had really lost “half the standing Red Army,” and all his fuel and ammo, it is highly doubtful he would have been able to spare three entire armies – the 44th, 47th and 53rd – to invade Iran in late August 1941, just two months after the German invasion.
That rubbish about Stalin begging for peace is quite a howler coming from a guy who wails about “alternate history,” and of course you gave no citation to support any of your claims.
Well, Stalin was begging alright, for a staggering pile of American goodies via Lend Lease, and he got them, alright, and you can read all about it in From Major Jordan’s Diaries by George Racey Jordan.
Lend Lease was a big part of the plan to transfer the latest American technology to the Soviet Union during the war, along with a pile of raw materials including uranium, and the Reds got just about everything they wanted, except heavy bombers.
Even FDR didn’t trust “Uncle Joe” that far.
The USSR fielded over a hundred armies during WW2. Diverting a portion of your forces to other fronts is something all the major players did. Even if you wanted to put all those forces in the same spot it would be impossible. Stalin was able to sustain an army of 6 to 7 million on the main front.
Officially the USSR had 3 million men under arms with 20 thousand tanks and aircraft in the Western Military District on June 22nd. By the end of autumn they had suffered 4,4 million human casualties with 40 thousand tanks and aircraft destroyed. This includes vast amounts of fuel and ammunition stored in border depots which were all captured. And those are just the losses the Soviet Government felt compelled to admit.
So when I say half I’m being generous. I could just as well say all when you count the quantity of resources that had to be replaced to keep on fighting. I don’t have the numbers for Lend Lease in my head right now, but they were also vast and vital to the survival of the red army. But Stalin did not base his war plans on the generosity of his capitalist enemies, as he saw them. That was pure luck on his part to have the world biggest industrial power go down on her knees for Communism. We know this now but it would have been absurd to expect such a thing back then. The way the Roosevelt administration licked Stalin’s balls was shameful and inexplicable.
That was some read because I was always instructed that it was the British Monarchy, the bankrupted Dukes, the City of London, most committed to war with Germany, and these powers prevailed on an unwilling Roosevelt. My father, who was drafted at 17 y.o., hated FDR for getting us into the war. He came back from Germany lucky to be alive but angry, and later with a little more education, say, ‘that pegged leg bastard was just itching to get us into war’. It was an unpopular sentiment, I feel bad, I didn’t know where my dad was coming from.
Yet, the history above does not recognize the undisguised Red Army build up at Poland’s 1939 border that could not have existed without US money and material support; and no one says a peep. In 1919 Lenin exhorted his Bolsheviks, ‘the way to Berlin and Paris is through Warsaw’ thus the 1920 Bolshevik Invasion of Poland that ended at the miraculous victory of Vistula. Everyone, EVERYBODY, had to see Stalin’s Red Army preparing to attack Poland; their suspicions confirmed by the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Soviet plan to invade all of Europe to destroy Catholic founded Western Civilization, is still kept secret. It will explain the easy capitulation of France to Germany; wanting German troops in France in case the Red Army blew through Poland and on to invade France. Hitler, the heroic, never trusted Stalin, the bank robber; suddenly recognizes his own Germany laid bare to Soviet attack. In 1941 Hitler ordered the German Army to Moscow and probably saved Western Europe. General Patton said America fought the wrong enemy. I can’t believe the Polish files neglected an assessment of the Red Army at their door; it’s a big omission.
That’s the whole point, you irony deficient commentator, you.
I can’t believe the Polish files neglected an assessment of the Red Army at their door; it’s a big omission.
Understood. But the Polish Plan West was drawn in 1938, and Molotov-Ribbentrop was 24 August 1939.
It adds little to mention that the annual rains did not happen as usual to make the eastern terrain maneuverable for horse cavalry but not for heavy armor.
Much thanks for the Suvorov.
It’s inexplicable only if you believe the standard narrative, including the parts that are provably false and/or make no sense, and fail to make the right adjustments so the big picture comes into focus. In my scenario, nothing is inexplicable because all the pieces fit.
Consider how both Josef Stalin and Franklin Roosevelt ignored many warnings of the impending German and Japanese attacks, not because they were stupid, but because they were in league with a deviously cunning plan to let or goad the enemy into striking the first blow.
Suffering those “surprise” attacks allowed the Soviets and the Americans to play the victim, and more importantly, let them seize the moral high ground almost unopposed, a lofty, self-righteous and vindictive position they would maintain throughout the war and in its aftermath.
The Allies were quick, merciless, and indefatigable in their determination to use that moral self-righteousness for all it was worth in seeking seemingly eternal retribution against their vanquished foe Germany, even when their cause was based entirely on lies, as the record shows.
And nothing stirs patriotism like a surprise enemy attack that spills a lot of blood. Even with that, hatred of the pockmarked Georgian with the withered arm was so great in the Soviet Union that no small number of Russians and Ukrainians welcomed the invading Germans with open arms, hoping they’d topple the Bolsheviks.
Alas, that didn’t happen, but the Ukrainians did have a few things to say about it all 50 years or so later.
Anyway, the Soviet invasion of Iran did not take place over the entire course of the war – although I think the occupation did – but rather the action began on Aug. 25, 1941 even with the Wehrmacht at high tide and about to complete the encirclement of three Soviet armies near Smolensk on the road to Moscow in a famous battle usually considered a smashing German victory and a devastating defeat for the Red Army.
Nevertheless, the Red Army continued to counterattack at Smolensk with some determination, even as Stalin sent those three armies to attack Iran, so the point should be clear that even while fighting furious battles against the Germans on the vital road to Moscow, the Red Army had plenty of reserve striking power to allow sending those three armies to attack Iran, and was thus probably in much better shape overall than the popular narrative dictates.
No doubt the Smolensk battles were costly for both sides, and Soviet casualties are put at over 750,000, but the Red Army could much more easily absorb the losses and immediately bring up fresh reserves, even while sending three entire armies to invade Iran.
Meanwhile, the Heer’s formations on its Eastern Front were slowly being ground to a pulp, as Hitler reportedly favored mustering new formations rather than replenishing the veteran units, but in any case, the Soviets had much more available manpower – one of those trump cards I mentioned – to conduct “the largest and fastest wartime mobilization in history,” from what some sources say were 12-15 million trained Red Army reservists.
https://www.operationbarbarossa.net/ww2-myths/
In the final analysis, the long and short of it is there was a conspiracy, or a pair of them, to smash Germany in the 20th century, with Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin and possibly Hitler himself in cahoots in the second one, seemingly to bring about a fate for Germany not unlike that predicted almost a century earlier by Karl Marx’s cousin, German poet and communist sympathizer Heinrich Heine…
Sorry, but I don’t buy the reasoning, the 1920 Bolshevik Invasion was only 20 years ago, it was as fresh in the national mind as 9/11 is to us today. Lenin’s diktat that ‘the way to Berlin and Paris was through Warsaw’ still lived in the mind of Stalin’s Soviet Party Plan for World Domination. I’m sure Poland had an Intelligence Service and recognized the physical threat. I believe the Poles preferred to let the German Army in to eventually confront the Red Army. Ron Unz has published a library, books by several actors that could support what I am saying. Dates, events, war or mass murder events, and the reality are important in compiling reasoning, plans, and objectives.
The more I think about it, the ‘file’ trove could be a plant, because British Intelligence was very active in Germany, France, Poland and Russia. I’m sure US Military Intelligence was very active and accurate. The Federal Reserve Bank was always supplying money to the Bolshevik government. FDR’s Lend Lease contributed to the Soviet war machine.
In furthering my concerns and history thesis, the 1938 Chamberlain/Hitler Munich Crisis, that gave us the ‘Peace in our time’ narrative of capitulation to Hitler, would not inform the public that by 1938 the crazy Bolsheviks since 1918 must have killed and murdered near 20 million people. I’m sure the Czechoslovakians wanted the German Army’s protection. The 1932-1933 Holodomor, Stalin’s mass murder of Ukrainian peasants and Kulaks, had to be known by men serving in any capacity, in any European, or American intelligence/diplomatic/banking service. And so, Hitler was seen as the better alternative, the strong man bulwark against Communism bent on world domination. The MSM of that era were running their own PsyOp to shape evitable world war in the minds of their readers and listeners.
Poland was killing Germans for a decade before WWII. Many in Poland saw the Red Army as their ‘liberators’. Fundamentally, WWI and WWII were ordered and organized to kill Germans period. Both Great Britain and the US wanted to destroy the German nation state and annihilate the German people for reasons of economic rivalry, as President Wilson testified before the Congress in his day. The post war, Iron Curtain, kept Russia out of Western Europe in the realization of the British plan to keep Russia out, the Americans in, and Germany down, which still exists today.
Heine may have been a decent writer but, judging by the foregoing tripe, was a bad historian.
Germany, Prussia, the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nations, were the most peaceful political entities in Europe.
Britain takes the cake in Europe for war mongering, having spent the longest at war; France invaded German territories 40 times over a period of 400 years.
Four independent authors, 2 British and 2 American, came to this conclusion when they studied this after WWI.
Yes, agree, since the 100 years war, 1337- 1453, since the British Monarchy claimed legitimate succession and rule over France, Dukes invaded and occupied France and after the 1429 coronation of Charles VII, demanded Joan of Arc be burned at the stake.
You write this:
I agree with just about everything you wrote in your comment, but I certain that Ron Unz would point out Operation Pike:
Operation Pike: How a Crazy Plan to Bomb Russia Almost Lost World War II
I don’t believe that the UK/USSR ever stopped their secret “understanding”. Since Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt were all Freemasons it is quite possible that there was some secret channel of communication. guess there were plans within plans. They would have us believe that UK/US both stopped all relations with the USSR after their invasion of Poland and then, for some strange reason, UK/France never declared war on the USSR.
During this time period (April 1941) we also had the UK/USSR Putsch in Yugoslavia. Then the UK ramped up both their Lend Lease, almost instantaneously, but the US Lend Lease too that had loopholes that allowed the UK to down ship war material to the USSR. US Garands had been shipped to the USSR while still desperately needed by the US Marines.
Agreed, but before that, William the Conquerer invaded England from Normandy, which is a part of France.
Yup. He also wanted the dissolution of all European Empires (French, Dutch, Belgian etc…) and especially the British Empire, to create a new global Wall Street era.
True, But the Norman Conquest had a different quality about it; William, Duke of Normandy, declared he had right, by his cousin’s, King Edward the Confessor, promise to the throne of the British Monarchy. The situation became complicated when rivals appeared, one Harold Godwinson, was crowned King Harold II, and combat ensued.
Your accurate mention of the Jew goal to destroy Christendom and enslave the goyim brings to mind the profoundly insightful first two paragraphs of the Preface to Waters Flowing Eastward ( http://whale.to/c/WatersFlowingEastward.pdf ), authored in 1933 by the widow of a Russian military officer, an American woman with first-hand knowledge of how in 1895 the document now known as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion came into Russian possession, knowledge which validates the document as being exactly what it proports to be, the outline or notes of a lecture given by Jew leadership to a meeting of Jews*.
* L. Fry’s book needs to be reemphasized today because it persuasively refutes the Jew lies which were concocted to refute the document’s validity, and unfortunately some of our greatest brave scholarly intellects alive today working to reveal Jew perfidy are not aware of her squelching those Jew lies.
I would like to add to your list of outstanding books by David Hoggan, “The Myth of the Six Million,” in which he gives an excellent overview of Hans Grimm’s fundamental analysis of Hitler, National Socialism, and the Jewish problem. Hans Grimm, the eminent German writer who died in 1959, wrote the best book to date on Hitler’s ideas and program: “Warum — Woher — Aber Wohin? (Why — From Where — To What End?). You can probably find it on archive.org in the “books to borrow” collection. “The Myth of the Six Million” is available for free download in the “fringe” collection.