A 1919 Austrian postcard depicting the "stab-in-the-back" legend, which
blamed Jews for Germany's defeat in World War I.
Click on this text to watch "ADOLF HITLER-THE GREATEST STORY NEVER TOLD" ...Full 6 hours Documentary
Click on this text to watch: Hitler's Prophecy (Alerta Judiada Int. 2)
WHY WERE THE GERMANS SO ANGRY ?
“The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.”
well aware of the political upheavals in
Czarist Russia lead by Jewish communists led by the
likes of German
born Karl Marx and Frederich Engels,
plus Marxist Communists Vladimir Lenin and Leon
Trotsky. Germans were very
aware of Jewish-Marxist
activists in Germany, such as Rosa Luxemburg, who
were union organizers at a time
when unions were
considered detrimental to the economic health of the
The various union strikes during World War I were
blamed as the root cause of Germany’s
German munitions manufacturing strike of 1918 was
seen by Adolph Hitler as THE root cause of
defeat and he considered German Jewish-Marxist-
Communists like Luxemburg, Karl Liebknect, Eduard
Bernstein and Paul Levi to be traitors of the worst sort.
Many Germans were incensed that Jewish leftist pacifists
and Jewish communists had pressured the German
leadership into surrendering with German troops still in
advantageous positions on the battlefield during World
War I. And to agree to the ridiculously unfair Treaty
Versailles, which contained 440 clauses (of which 414
were punitive), was also seen as subversive cowardice
that had further eviscerated the vanquished German
nation. This notion became known as the “Stab in
During the German Weimar Republic
era, from 1919 to
1933, Germans suffered from massive unemployment
(33%) and suicide was a plague (270,000
the Weimar government). Hyper-inflation and actual
starvation occurred, while many Jewish
Germans lived in
relative comfort. Outside Jewish money bought German
property and businesses for a pittance. German Jews in
business, and politics exploited the German
cheap labor, easily manipulated voting blocks, and
German Jews accounted for less than 2% of the
population in 1933 (505,000
out of 67,000,000). But they
owned or controlled more than 50% of the media and
70% of the judges within
the judicial system. Jewish
banksters and speculators totally controlled German
banking and industry and
caused catastrophic bank
collapses between 1870 and 1920. Jews were over-
represented in the movie, theater, art
industries, who introduced the German populace to moral
and cultural decadence. Homo sexuality,
sadomasochism and other perversions were foisted upon
Germans as being “natural and acceptable.”
...Sound at all familiar?
Many German activist free-thinkers strongly resented the
powerful and detrimental
influence of Jews on the
German economy, politics, culture, domestic and foreign
policy, judicial system,
media, entertainment, publishing,
etc. The many Jewish-German communist organizations
such as the Spartakusbund
(Spartacus League) and the
International Jewish Labor Bund were singled out as
being the cause of Germany’s
social and economic ills.
And it was certainly noticed that when Philip
Scheidemann declared Germany a republic on
November 9, 1918
(and himself as the first Chancellor of
the Weimar Republic), that a Jew passing as a Lutheran,
became Vice-Chancellor. This was
considered a Jewish over-reach by German-Christian
The Haskalah movement, inspired by Jewish-German
philosopher Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786), is firmly
entrenched in history as the “Jewish Enlightenment”
Europe and was born and rooted in Germany. The
Haskalah movement is today considered the time when
European Jews pressed for better integration into
European society and marked the beginning of wider
with the non-Jewish secular world. But
many Germans, and Europeans in general, regarded the
simply a Jewish re-establishment of
influence on politics, media, commerce and social order
after the reactive
Jewish expulsions such as the Spanish
Alhambra Decree of 1492 (The Inquisition), the German
expulsion of 1510 and
1551, the Austrian expulsion of
1421, the Papal States expulsion of 1595 and so on.
Some German activists, who considered themselves to be
loyal patriots, determined to do something
Jewish cronyism and their exploiting of the German
homeland. They became determined to throw
bonds of the hated Versailles Treaty. They became
determined to re-establish German territorial rights and
Germany’s rightful place as the cornerstone of European
On November 9 th , 1923 Adolph Hitler and his fellow
National Socialist German Workers Party
(Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP) members,
along with WW I hero General rich Ludendorff and other heads of the Kampfbund
staged an attempted take-over of the
government beginning in the largest beer hall in Munich,
This event became known as the
Beer Hall Putsch. The Bavarian state police nipped the
coup in the bud killing
sixteen NSDAP members while
suffering the loss of four policemen in the process.
BTW: The term "NAZI"
was created by an influential German Marxist Jew,
Konrad Heiden (aka:
Klaus Bredon), to ridicule the NSDAP in Germany.
Hitler was arrested along with fellow conspirators such as
future NSDAP kingpins Hermann
Goering and Rudolf
Hess, and was imprisoned.
Of course the NSDAP eventually gained ultimate legal
power in Germany
through the ballot box.
The German (and
Austrian) backlash against Jewish
influence and ownership officially began on
November 9 th , 1938 when
NSDAP Sturmabteilung or
“storm troopers”, or “brown shirts,” along with German
burned over 1,000 synagogues, destroyed over
7,000 Jewish businesses and killed at least ninety one Jews.
Tens of thousands of Jews were arrested
incarcerated. This date became known as Kristallnacht
(Crystal Night) or “Night of Broken Glass;”
to all the broken glass littering the streets in front of
Jewish business whose windows had
This backlash against Jews in Germany was directed at
full-Jews, not to be confused with so called “Milchlinge”
or partial Jews. The distinction made
was: four Jewish
grandparents made you a full-Jew, two Jewish
grandparents made you a half-Jew and one
grandparent made you a quarter-Jew. In the early days of
the Third Reich there were 100,000 Milchlinge
in the Wehrmacht (German Army) including twenty-two Generals.
The German Navy had seven admirals who were
and received the “Aryan Pass.” Even
Hermann Goering’s Luftwaffe (German Air Force)
three top commanders with partial Jewish
heritage. After the fall of France in 1940 all Milchlinge
purged from the military and by the autumn of 1941
all full-Jews were being deported from Germany to
in Eastern Europe; and from there to labor
“Night of the Long Knives” (Nacht der langen
Messer) was another earlier political purge between
30th and July 2 nd , 1934. It was perpetrated by the NSDAP
upon non-Jewish political enemies on the liberal-left and
of the NSDAP party. Many of those killed
were Hitler’s initial backers, the Sturmabteilung (or
Brown Shirts), that had become obsolete to
the NSDAP as they were fiercely independent and were
by the established rank and file German military
as being little else but street fighting thugs.
George Strasser, who led the left-wing faction of the
NSDAP Party called the Strasserist,
was murdered; as well
as far right anti-NSDAP members such as former Chancellor Kurt
von Schleicher who
had suppressed Hitler’s Beer Hall
Putsch in 1923.This purge was probably the most
in Hitler’s consolidation of power, but
is largely overshadowed in American history books by
such as the Beer Hall Putsch and Kristallnacht.
The German situation improved almost immediately after
Hitler’s rise to
power such as full employment. Health,
fitness and nutrition became a priority, especially for
Care and financial support was given to
expectant mothers. The autobahn road system was begun.
Volkswagen (people’s car) went into
production in 1937. There was a cleansing of the
media in general of sexual abomination
and decadent advocacy. Pornographic and communist
books were literally burned
in public bonfires (and there
is the reason for the much denigrated NAZI book
burning). The army was rebuilt
and armed. Crime was
largely eliminated. Class distinctions were purposely
blurred and equal rights were
restored to all citizens.
Hitler was looked upon as a savior
and may have gone
down in history as such had he died of assassination,
accident, or natural causes before 1939.
He was even ime magazine’s Man of the Year for 1938 ...!
Incidentally, the Berlin Wall is considered to have
commenced coming down on November 9 th ,
1989... making November 9 th (Schicksalstag-Fateful day)
date in German history on 5 major counts.
"Herrenvolk" in German means "masters in ones own house" or "masters in ones
not "master race" as the Jews would
have you believe.
It's an example of the extent of manipulation and propaganda.
Again... The term "NAZI" was created
by a Marxist called Konrad Heiden (Jewish),
to ridicule the German national
which was the nightmare of the international bankers.
The term "Racism" was created also by
a Marxist called Leon Trotsky (Jewish),
used ONLY on Europeans who dare
to protect their culture and traditions
from the corruption by those
same Jews controlling education and media.
The Stated Platform of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP)
The following Twenty-Five Points were abstracted and
from the 17th edition of Gottfried Feder’s
pamphlet, "Das Programm der NSDAP und seine
Grundgedanken" (Munich, 1930).
The Twenty-Five Points
of the Political Platform of the
National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei,
abbreviated NSDAP) first came to
light on February 25th, 1920 during a Munich
(beer hall) meeting.
After a general meeting of NSDAP members for discussion of the Twenty-
Five Points on May 22nd, 1920,
it was resolved that “this
program is unalterable.” This did not imply that every
stand unchanged or that any efforts to extend
or develop the program were to be prohibited; but it did
that the principals and basic ideas contained in the
stated Principals were not to be tampered with:
1) We demand the union of all Germans, on the basis of
the right of self-determination
of peoples, to form a Great Germany.
2) We demand the rights for the
German people in its
dealings with other nations, and abolition of the Treaty of
Versailles and St. Germain.
[The overwhelming majority
of the points made in the Versailles Treaty
3) We demand land and territory for
the nourishment of
our people and for settling our surplus population. [Tracts
of German land were ceded
to other countries after WWI
such as regions ceded to Poland. The Sudetenland region
was predominately German in the first
place; not to mention Austria that voted 99.73% in favor
the Reich and joyously cheered the German
Wehrmacht as it entered Austria in March of 1938
The Germans wanted it all back].
4) None but members of the nation may
be citizens of
the State. None but those of German blood, whatever
their creed, may be members of the nation.
therefore, may be a member of the nation.
who is not a citizen of the state may live in
Germany only as a guest and must be regarded as being
to Alien Laws.
6) The right of voting on the leadership and laws of the
State is to be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone.
We demand, therefore, that all official positions,
whatever kind, whether in the Reich, the provinces, or
the small communities, shall be held by citizens
State alone. We oppose the corrupt parliamentary custom
of filling posts merely with a view to party
considerations, and without reference to character or
7) We demand that the State shall make it its first duty to
promote industry and livelihood of the citizens
state. If it is not possible to nourish the entire population
of the State, foreign nationals must be excluded from the
8) All further non-German immigration must be
prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered
Germany subsequently to August 2, 1914, shall be
required forthwith to depart from the Reich.
9) All citizens of the State shall possess equal rights and
10) It must be the first duty of every citizen of the State
to perform mental
or physical work. The activities of the
individual must not clash with the interests of the whole,
must proceed within the framework of the
community and must be for the general good.
We Demand Therefore:
11) Abolition of incomes unearned by work.
BREAKING OF THE THRALLDOM OF
[Thralldom is the condition of being
enslaved; or servitude]
In view of the enormous sacrifice of life and
property demanded of a nation by every war, personal
through war must be regarded as a crime
against the nation. We demand therefore, the total
of all war profits.
13) We demand the nationalization of all
which have hitherto been amalgamated into trusts.
We demand that there shall be profit sharing in the
We demand a generous development of provision for
demand the creation and maintenance of a
healthy middle class, immediate communalization of the
stores, and their lease at a low rate to
small traders, and that the most careful consideration
shown to all small traders in purveying to the
State, the provinces, or smaller communities.
17) We demand a land reform suitable to our national
requirements, the passing of
a law for the confiscation
without compensation of land for communal purposes,
the abolition of interest on land
prohibition of all speculation in land. [Regarding Point
17: On April 13, 1928, Adolph Hitler
made the following
explanation... “Because of the mendacious
interpretations on the part of our opponents
of Point 17 of
the program of the NSDAP, the following explanation is
necessary: Since the NSDAP is fundamentally
the principal of private property, it is obvious that the
expression ‘confiscation without
merely to the creation of possible legal means of
confiscating when necessary,
land illegally acquired, or
not administered in accordance with the national welfare.
It is therefore directed
in the first instance against the
Jewish companies which speculate in land.”]
18) We demand ruthless war upon all those whose
activities are injurious to the common interest.
criminals against the Nation, usurers, profiteers, etc.,
must be punished with death, whatever their
We demand that the Roman law, which serves the
materialistic world order, shall be replaced by German
20) With the aim of opening to every capable and
German the possibility of higher education
and consequent advancement to leading positions, the
consider a thorough reconstruction of our
national system of education. The curriculum of all
establishments must be brought into line with
the requirements of practical life and teach pupils to
the idea of the State. We demand the
education of specially gifted children of poor parents,
whatever their class
or occupation, at the expense of the
21) The State must apply
itself to raising the standard of
health in the nation by protecting mothers and infants,
prohibiting child labor,
and increasing bodily efficiency
by legal obligatory gymnastics and sports, and by
extensive support of
clubs engaged in physical training of
demand the abolition of mercenary troops and
the formation of a national army.
23) We demand legal warfare against conspicuous
political lies and their dissemination in the press. In
to facilitate the creation of a German national press we
demand that: (a) all editors, and their
newspapers employing the German language must be
members of the nation; (b) special permission
State shall be necessary before non-German newspapers
may appear (these need not necessarily be
printed in the
German language); (c) non-Germans shall be prohibited
by law from participating financially in or influencing
German newspapers, and the penalty for contravention
shall be suppression of any such newspaper, and the
immediate deportation of the non-German involved. It
must be forbidden to publish newspapers that are
damaging to the national welfare. We demand the legal
prosecution of all tendencies in art and literature which
exert a destructive influence on our national life
closing of institutions which militate against the above-
24) We demand liberty for all religious denominations in
the State, so far
as they are not a danger to it and do not
militate against the moral and ethical feelings of the
race. The Party, as such, stands for positive
Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of
to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-
materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced
that our nation can achieve permanent recovery from
within only on the principal: THE COMMON
BEFORE SELF INTEREST.
25) That all the foregoing may be realized
the creation of a strong, central national authority;
unconditional authority of the central
over the entire Reich and its organizations in general; and
the formation of diets and vocational
chambers for the
purpose of executing the general laws promulgated by
the Reich in the various states of
the confederation. The
leaders of the Party swear to proceed regardless of
consequences – if necessary
at the sacrifice of their lives
– toward the fulfillment of the foregoing Points.
So... The two cornerstones of the NSDAP agenda,
BREAKING OF THE THRALLDOM OF
INTEREST (the kernel of National Socialism)
COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF INTEREST
(the spirit of
the program) were purposely printed in bold
capital lettering in the original Twenty-Five Points.
Americans presently pay exorbitant interest rates
tantamount to usury.
Web of Deceit: The Jewish Puppet Masters Behind World War II
Edited by Lasha
ROOSEVELT, STALIN (1945)
It was these three powerful individuals, the winners of WWII,
who decided to carve up the world between them by manufacturing pretexts for a catastrophic world war that would
claim 60-80 million lives, roughly 3 per cent of the world’s population, and reduce Germany to a wasteland
of rubble. Behind them, lurking in the shadows, stood their Jewish Puppet Masters, egging them on and telling them
exactly what they had to do.
the highly toxic and politically incorrect views of four key diplomats who were close to the events leading up to
World War II. Ponder them carefully and ask yourselves: Could they all have been mistaken?
Joseph P. Kennedy, US Ambassador to Britain
during the years immediately preceding World War II, was the father of the famous American Kennedy dynasty. James
Forrestal, the first US Secretary of Defense (1947-1949), quotes him as saying “Chamberlain [the British
Prime Minister] stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.” (The Forrestal
Diaries, Cassell 1952, p.129).
Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office in
January 1939, is quoted approvingly by the highly respected British military historian Major-General JFC Fuller.
Concerning public opinion in America, Count Potocki says:
Above all, propaganda here is entirely
in Jewish hands. Their propaganda is so effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs
is interesting to observe that in this carefully thought-out campaign no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia.
If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet
Russia is part of the democratic group of countries.
Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the
New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike
camps. President Roosevelt has been given the power to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which
the Jews are deliberately heading for.”
JFC Fuller, The Decisive Battles of the Western World, vol 3, pp 372-374.
Hugh Wilson, the American
Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out, found anti-Semitism in Germany “understandable.”
This was because before the advent of the Nazis “the stage, the press, medicine and law were crowded with
Jews. Among the few with money to splurge, a high proportion were Jews. The leaders of the Bolshevist movement
in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred.”
— Hugh Wilson, American diplomat, quoted in Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh, Hodder, 1976.
Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in
Berlin “said further that the hostile attitude [toward Germany] in Great Britain was the work of Jews, which
was what Hitler thought himself.” (AJP Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, Penguin 1987,
ANTI-SEMITIC CARTOON. “One could feel the spreading resentment
and hatred.” — Hugh Wilson, American ambassador in Berlin, c.1938
Is this negative attitude toward international
Jewry attributable to a groundless antisemitism—to a hatred of Jews for no valid or justifiable reason? A
knowledge of the economic background to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding of this complex question.
At the end of
the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked into paying massive reparations to France and other economic
competitors and former belligerent countries by the terms of the iniquitous Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the
meddling of liberal American President Woodrow Wilson, himself acting under Jewish advice. [See Paul Johnson, A
History of the Modern World (1983), p.24; and H. Nicholson, Peacemaking, 1919 (1933),
Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the Great War of 1914-1918 in spite of the fact that
“Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts, though too belated, to
avert one.” (Professor Sydney B. Fay, The Origins of the World War (Vol. 2, p. 552).
As a result of
these massive enforced financial reparations made by the Versailles Treaty, by 1923 the situation in Germany became
desperate. Inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were
engaged to print money around the clock. (See this picture). In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar; by 1924, it had become roughly 5 trillion marks
to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle classes, reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero.
(See Arthur Koestler, The God that Failed, p. 28).
According to distinguished British historian Sir Arthur Bryant:
It was the Jews with their international affiliations
and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities. They did so with such effect
that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according
to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like A THIRD OF THE PROPERTY IN THE REICH. Most
of it came into their hands during the hyperinflation.
To those who had
lost their all, this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice.
prolonged sufferings THEY HAD NOW BEEN DEPRIVED OF THEIR LAST POSSESSIONS. THEY SAW THEM PASS INTO THE HANDS
OF STRANGERS, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and WHO CARED LITTLE OR NOTHING FOR THEIR
NATIONAL STANDARDS AND TRADITIONS.
The Jews obtained a wonderful
ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions in spite of constituting LESS THAN ONE PERCENT
OF THE POPULATION.
The banks, including the Reichsbank and the
big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres
and a large part of the press—all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country
is formed. The largest newspaper combine in the country, with a daily circulation of four millions, was a Jewish monopoly.
EVERY YEAR IT BECAME HARDER AND HARDER FOR A GENTILE TO GAIN OR KEEP A FOOTHOLD IN ANY
At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’
who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised
by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination. It was the contrast between
the wealth enjoyed—and lavishly displayed—by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery
of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe.
Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out
of the saddle.
— Sir Arthur Bryant, Unfinished Victory,
1940 pp. 136-144, emphasis added.
caption to a famous anti-Semitic German cartoon headed sarcastically “The Land of Freedom”, referring
to Germany under the Jewish heel, has a caption in German that translates as: “When one is ruled by the Jews,
freedom is only an empty dream.” (See the 1939 cartoon here).
— § —
Strangely enough, a book unexpectedly published
by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon’s Hitler, Germans and the “Jewish Question”,
essentially confirms what Sir Arthur Bryant says above. Sarah Gordon, incidentally, is Jewish, so this is a rare
example of a Jew actually admitting that anti-Semitism could have a rational basis:
“Jews were never a large percentage of the total German
population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.
Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private service. They were especially
visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private
non-Jewish banks. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses. Jews were very
active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of
the stock exchange.
By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews
from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their “race”.
At least a quarter of full professors and instructors at German universities had Jewish origins. In 1905-6 Jewish
students comprised 25% of the law and medical students. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were
Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.
In 1929 it was estimated
that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents.”
Arthur Koestler, also Jewish, confirms
the Jewish over-involvement in German publishing:
“Ullstein’s was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind in Europe, and probably
in the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these the venerable Vossische Zeitung,
founded in the eighteenth century, and the BZ am Mittag, an evening paper. Apart from these, Ullstein’s
published more than a dozen weekly and monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own travel agency,
and were one of the leading book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers Ullstein: they were five, like
the original Rothschild brothers, and like them also, they were Jews.”
God that Failed (1950), ed. R.H.S. Crossman, p. 31.
Edgar Mowrer, Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News,
wrote an anti-German tract called “Germany Puts the Clock Back”, published as a Penguin Special and
reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938. He notes alarmingly:
“In the all-important administration
of Prussia, any number of strategic positions came into the hands of Hebrews.
A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THREE JEWS IN MINISTERIAL OFFICES
COULD RESULT IN THE SUSPENSION OF ANY PERIODICAL OR NEWSPAPER IN THE STATE.
The Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration
that same considerable part that they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the
Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual and cultural life of the country. And thereby the impression
was strengthened that Germany, a country with a mission of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners.
No one who lived through the period
from 1919 to 1926 is likely to forget the sexual promiscuity that prevailed. Throughout a town like Berlin, hotels
and pensions made vast fortunes by letting rooms by the hour or day to baggageless, unregistered guests. Hundreds
of cabarets, pleasure resorts and the like served for purposes of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper
(“Germany Puts The Clock Back”,
pp. 153-4, emphasis added)
Sir Arthur Bryant, already quote above, describes throngs of child prostitutes outside the doors of the
great Berlin hotels and restaurants. He adds “Most of them—the night clubs and vice resorts—were
owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after
years.” (pp. 144-5).
Marlene Dietrich (1930) in The Blue Angel,
directed by Josef von Sternberg. (CLICK TO EXPAND).
“Most of the night clubs and vice resorts were owned and managed by Jews.” — St Arthur
Bryant, British historian.
† “It’s disgusting how the Jews are taking everything
by storm. Even the Rome of Seutonius has never known such orgies as the pervert balls of Berlin.” —
Jewish German writer Stefan Zweig.
† “The decay of moral values in all areas
of life—the period of deepest German degradation—coincided exactly with the height of Jewish power
in Germany.” — Dr Friedrich Karl Wiehe, German historian, in Germany and the Jewish
(Quotes added by LD)
Douglas Reed, Chief Central European correspondent before WWII for the London Times,
was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported:
“I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes
the word “Jew” in dripping red letters. The Kurfürstendamm was to me a revelation. I knew that
Jews were prominent in business life, but I did not know that they almost monopolized important branches of it.
Germany had one Jew to one hundred gentiles, said the statistics; but the fashionable
Kurfürstendamm, according to the dripping red legends, had about one gentile shop to ninety-nine Jewish ones.
— Douglas Reed, Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3, emphasis added.
In Reed’s book Disgrace Abounding (1939), he
“In the Berlin (of the pre-Hitler
years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and stage actors were
Jews, the plays performed were often by German, Austrian or Hungarian Jews and were staged by Jewish film producers,
applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers…
Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the
common feeling of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews
out of it. It is not true that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin papers
because the proprietors and editors were Jewish.”
Disgrace Abounding, 1939, pp. 238-9).
Jewish writer Edwin Black gives a similar picture. “In Berlin alone,” he states, “about
75 percent of the attorneys and nearly as many of the doctors were Jewish.” (The Transfer Agreement (1984),
the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes the word JEW in dripping
red letters.” — Douglas Reed, 1938. Note that 99 out of 100 shops in the High Street were owned
by Jews, and yet Jews made up less than one percent of the population.
To cap it all, Jews were perceived as dangerous
enemies of Germany after Samuel Untermeyer, the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation, declared war on
Germany on August 6, 1933. (See Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement: the Untold Story of the Secret Pact
between the Third Reich and Palestine (1984), pp. 272-277). According to Black, “The one man who
most embodied the potential death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermeyer” (p. 369).
This was the culmination of a worldwide
boycott of German goods led by international Jewish organizations.
The London Daily Express on March 24,
1933 carried the headline “Judea Declares War on Germany”. The boycott was particularly motivated
by the German imposition of the Nuremberg Laws, which ironically were similar in intent and content to the Jewish
cultural exclusivism practiced so visibly in present-day Israel. At a single stroke, this headline disproves
the lie that Germany initiated World War II. International Jewry is here clearly seen declaring war on Germany
as early as 1933. It would take the Jews another six years to cajole their Anglo-American stooges to go to war
on their behalf.
Next time you hear anyone claim falsely that “Germany started World War Two”, send them a copy
of this headline picture from The Daily Express, dated March 24, 1933:
Hitler saw the tremendous danger posed to Germany by Communism. He appreciated the desperate need to eliminate
this threat, a fact that earned him the immense hatred and animosity of the Jewish organisations and the media
and politicians of the west which they could influence. After all, according to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant,
although Jews formed less than five percent of Russia’s population, they formed more than fifty percent
of its revolutionaries. According to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant in his book The Jews (1977,
must be added that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last
century and the first decades of this one, stemmed from prosperous Jewish families.. They were perhaps typified
by the father of revolution, Karl Marx. Thus when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions broke out all over
Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm: Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia; Bela Kun in Hungary;
Kurt Eisner in Bavaria; and, most improbable of all, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin.
To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially
when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik
Party had a preponderance of Jews. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four,
Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews.”
Other authors agree with this assessment , including Jewish historian
Sarah Gordon, already cited once above:
There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish
intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine and objective reasons
for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War 1….
prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this was a very serious contributing
cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years.
is clear then that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists led many Germans to distrust the Jewish
minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation.”
— Sarah Gordon, Hitler, Germans and the ‘Jewish Question’, Princeton University Press
(1984), p 23. (Emphasis added)
Martin Bernal in Back Athena (vol 1), pp.367-387 reinforces the above:
“The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism
came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic
crises of the 1920s and 30s. Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived
and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution.. Such feelings were not restricted to Germany, or to vulgar
extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism became the norm in ‘nice
society’, and ‘nice society’ included the universities.”
Is it any wonder that Hitler, along with millions of others all over
Europe, should join the growing ranks of the anti-Semites?
It is clear that the Jews were almost universally hated, not because
they Jews, but because of their obnoxiously pushy behavior and the fact that they were in the forefront of dangerous
revolutionaries dedicated to the downfall of their host countries. You cannot move into someone else’s house
and take it over and expect to be loved by your victims.
— § —
Hitler came to power in Germany with two main
aims, the rectification of the unjust provisions of the Versailles Treaty and the destruction of the Soviet/ Communist
threat to Germany. Strangely enough, contrary to the mythology created by those who had an opposing ethnic agenda,
he had no plans or desire for a larger war of conquest. Professor AJP Taylor proved this in his book The
Origins of the Second World War, much to the annoyance of the professional court historians. Taylor says:
“The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war,
and probably not intending war at all” (p.267). And again: “Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped
for a prolonged war; in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership”
British historian Basil Liddell Hart confirms this assessment. He writes: “Britain and France declared
war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler wanted peace with Britain, as the German generals admitted. (Basil
Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill, 1948, Pan Books 1983).
David Irving wraps it all up in the foreword
to his book The Warpath (1978) where he refers to “the discovery that at no time did
this man (Hitler) pose or intend a real threat to Britain or the Empire.”
I think all this proves, beyond any shadow of
doubt, that the chief aggressors in World War II were the Anglo-Americans—as indeed they were arguably the
chief aggressors in World War I and most of the wars that have plagued the world during the 20th century and up
to the present time. As for the moneyed international Jews, these were demonstrably the Puppet Masters jerking
the strings of the three great leaders of the Western World—Churchhill, Roosevelt and Stalin—who went
to war at their behest and on their behalf.
It is not without significance that each of the legendary figures mentioned above
has been accused at some time or other of enjoying exceptionally strong Jewish connections.
Of one thing we can be reasonably sure: whenever
there is a major new war or revolution being planned which requires heavy financial backing—the Russian Revolution
is a perfect example—the hidden hand of international Jewry is almost certain to be behind it. Partout
où il y a de l’argent, il y a des Juifs, said Montesquieu. — “Wherever there is
money, there you will find the Jew.”
And wherever there is war, the most profitable money spinning activity known to man, there
also you are likely to find the Eternal Jew—Der Ewige Jude—counting his gold coins over a mound of corpses.
attempts to resolve the unrest within Danzig and the stolen ‘Polish Corridor‘
The 1939 August 28 headline
of the New York Times, confirmed that Hitler sought to avoid war, it read; “BERLIN THINKS DOOR IS LEFT OPEN TO PEACEFUL
Hitler’s supposed ludicrous suggestion to resolve the issue, was to hold a Referendum, for
the people to decide their own status.
Danzig was formerly part of Germany
before the so-called ‘Peace Treaty’ of Versailles annexed it to Polands’ ownership as a purported
‘Free City’ under the League of Nations.
Along with its surrounding German area of East Prussia, Danzig
was also isolated from the German mainland by the harsh post-World War I Treaty. The new territory that now belonged to
Poland, cut right through the Prussian/Pomeranian region of Germany, to the Baltic Sea. Over night, through no choice of
their own, millions of Germans were converted to a disarmed ethnic minority in the new-Poland, at the behest of several
political ‘Diplomats’ in an obscure Train-Car far away in France.
Hitler proposes that the people
living in Danzig and the “Corridor” be permitted to vote in a referendum to decide whether they would return
to being German citizens again, or remain a disarmed German minority forced to be part of Poland, where they had been continually
attacked since the 1919 ‘Peace Treaty’ – that is, those who had not been expelled from their homes that
Hitler proposed, that if the region was returned to German sovereignty, Poland would be given a 1 mile wide
access path to the Baltic Sea, so that it would not be landlocked.
Poland apparently considered Hitler’s
solution, however, with the ongoing political manipulations, Poland is urged by Franklin.D Roosevelt to not make any deals
with Germany. Germans stranded in the stolen ‘corridor’ and the “free city” of Danzig were
abused and denied their right of self-determination. There, they were continually being subjected to beatings, imprisonment
(for as little as speaking German) and bestial attacks by Jewish Partisans, Polish Officers and Bolshevik NKVD Operatives.
1939, one full week before Germany crosses the border, German refugees from the annexed German territory of new-Poland,
tell of their personal experiences after escaping to safety in the camps on the German side of the border. It was reported
in this German weekly news-reel (original in German with English subtitles).
When it became apparent to Hitler that
Poland would not permit a referendum for the people, he then proposes another solution… International control of
the former German regions.
This sensible offer was also ignored and the internationalists continued to use foolish
Poland as the provocative bait to ignite an international bloodbath, now known as World War II… or what the profiteers
like to call, “The Good War.”
August 25, 1939, Britain and Poland agree to a Military Alliance
The ‘Polish-British Common Defense
Pact’ contained promises of military assistance in the event that either country was attacked by any other
“European Country.” This built upon a previous agreement (March 1939) between the two countries and
also France, by specifically committing to military assistance in the event of an invasion… although the French commitment
was never ratified prior to the regional conflict, only AFTER ‘France Declared War on Germany’ (a retroactive
enactment), making France the aggressor state when it invaded Germany. (see here)
With this agreement in
place, the powerful Zionist-Internationalist forces within the UK, had now trapped the reluctant Prime Minister, Neville
Chamberlain, as well as the willing (and illegal) France and Poland into military action, or at least international ‘Declarations
of War’. All that was left to do was for Polish-Jewish border Guerilla’s to continue deliberately provoking
Germany into action to get the ball rolling… However, assisting Poland was never their intention. (see here)
Also on that
same day, August 25 1939, a draft is written for a reactionary ‘Declaration of War’ for HRH King George
VI to address the world.
the 3rd of September 1939, King George VI read the famous ‘Kings Speech’ addressing the British nation
and the world. The speech that began with, “In this grave hour, perhaps the most fateful in our history …”
was to inform the world that Germany had allegedly invaded a sovereign nation, that the world was at war due to
this military attack and the Allies of the world should unite steadfastly against this purportedly – Surprise
Aggression – of a common enemy to all peaceful peoples… However, the draft of this speech is dated the
25th of August, 1939 – a week before Germany entered the Corridor to liberate the German people and 9 days before the
King delivered the speech. This indicates that Britain had plans to ‘Declare War on Germany’
before the Wehrmacht entered new-Poland to liberate the German people… thus, Britain’s ‘Declaration’
was not a reactionary response to a surprise invasion. Further, the typed document, which was actually the second draft
of the speech, was retained by civil servant Harold Vale Rhodes, who had previously written a first attempt (date unknown).
In a penciled note in the left-hand margin, Mr Rhodes criticised the length of some of the sentences in the second draft
and hinted that his should be used.
It would appear his advice was followed – the final speech read to the nation
by the King on September 3 contained shorter, more concise sentences.
The early draft accused Germany of being a bully
who wanted to dominate the world by brute force and stressed that, we are fighting for the principles of freedom and justice…
“Brute Force of a Bully” – if it could be considered such – had not even occurred at the
time the speech was drafted.
HRH King George VI delivers the final draft of the speech
One of the tens of
thousands of Ethnic German victims of Jewish Partisan attacks
The “Brute Force of Bullies” the
Empire turned a blind eye to.
August 30, 1939 – Poland Mobilises
Poland mobilises her army strategically for the German frontier.
According to International Law, any mobilisation of a country’s army, is equal to a ‘Declaration of War’
on a neighboring country especially without consultation. The Official Declaration came midnight that same date. [See: the German White Book]
August 31, 1939.
The Gleiwitz (and other) Border Attacks – Jewish-Polish Guerilla’s attack German Radio Station
strength, but naively believing that France and the UK would now be forced to back them, Polish-Jewish terrorists cross
the border and attack a German radio station in Silesia, Germany. It was only the latest in a string of deliberate border
instigations against Germany.
“Poles” then broadcast a message (in Polish) urging others to take up arms and start attacking Germans. German
police quickly arrived and retake the station, killing one of the Red terrorists. Jewish Red terrorists, their Polish government
protectors and their Globalist-Zionist masters, have picked a fight with Germany!
Modern ‘Court Historians’ claim that the Gleiwitz incident was staged by
Germans dressed as Polish terrorists. A theory that ignores the outrageous and repeated pattern of provocations directed
at Hitler’s Germany ever since 1933, the numerous border incidents, the attacks on the Volksdeutsche since 1919 and
also Hitler’s repeated sincere attempts to negotiate a fair resolution to the Corridor and Danzig atrocities.
Witnesses who lived on the border attested
to the repeated attacks by Polish Jews since 1919
A German Customs Official said it was so bad on the border, they were
armed and also had grenades in their office ready for the frequent attacks.
Farmers confirm their live-stock were often
stolen by Polish terrorists.
Another told of his niece being raped by a Polish Jew who crossed the border. He said
they had caught the man and still held a copy of the death order signed by Heydrich, in which he ordered the man put to
These are only a very small
few of many, many stories told by German civilians, who witnessed these border incursions just like had happened between
One thing many people fail to recognise is that Poland openly attacked Germany right after World War I (during
Germany’s Civil War, between alien Communist elements and German Nationals), which led to multiple border battles.
Once Hitler started pressing Poland to work out
a solution to the corridor, the attacks increased again… And one thing that should be clear, is that Germany did not
fabricate these attacks.
quotes of related importance:
“Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even
if she wants to.”
∼ Polish Marshal Rydz-Smigly, as reported in the Daily Mail, August 6th, 1939.
“It will be the Polish army that will
invade Germany on the first day of war.”
∼ Juliusz Łukasiewicz, Polish Ambassador in Paris, August
On September 2nd 1939
a delegate of the Labour Party met with the British Foreign Minister Halifax in the lobby of Parliament.
you still have hope?” he asked. “If you mean hope for war,” answered Halifax, “then
your hope will be fulfilled tomorrow.” – “God be thanked!” replied the representative
of the British Labour Party.
(Professor Michael Freund)
“In April, 1939, (four months before the outbreak of war) Ambassador William
C. Bullitt, whom I had known for twenty years, called me to the American Embassy in Paris. The American Ambassador told
me that war had been decided upon. He did not say, nor did I ask, by whom. He let me infer it. … When I said that
in the end Germany would be driven into the arms of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, the Ambassador replied: “What of
it? There will not be enough Germans left when the war is over to be worth Bolshevising.”
(Karl von Wiegand,
April, 23rd, 1944, Chicago Herald American)
“I emphasized that the defeat of Germany and
Japan and their elimination from world trade would give Britain a tremendous opportunity to swell her foreign commerce in
both volume and profit.”
∼ Samuel Untermeyer, The Public Years, p.347.
“Germany is too strong. We must destroy her.”
∼ Winston Churchill, Nov. 1936
“The war was not just a matter of the elimination of Fascism in Germany, but rather of obtaining German
∼ Winston Churchill. March, 1946.
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told US Ambassador to Britain, Joseph P. Kennedy
(father of future US President John F. Kennedy), that “it was America and world Jews who had forced Britain into
war against Hitler.”
asked Joe Kennedy (US Ambassador in London) about his talks with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain in 1938. He said
it had been Chamberlains belief in 1939 that Great Britain has nothing in its hands to fight and therefore wouldn’t
dare to go to war against Hitler… Neither the French nor the English would have made Poland a motive for war if they
hadn’t been continuously spurred on by Washington… America and the World-Jewry have driven England to war.”
~ US defence minister J. Forrestal 27.12.1945 in his diary (The Forrestal Diaries, New York, 1951, S. 121 ff)
“When the National Socialists and their
friends cry or whisper that this [the war] is brought about by Jews, they are perfectly right.”
(The Jewish magazine ‘Sentinel of Chicago’, October 8, 1940)
“We are not denying and are not afraid
to confess that this war is our war and that ‘it is waged’ for Jewry… Stronger than all fronts together
is our front, that of Jewry. We are not only giving this war our financial support on which the entire war production is
based, we are not only providing our full propaganda power which is the moral energy that keeps this war going. The guarantee
of victory is predominantly based on weakening the enemy forces, on destroying them in their own country, within the resistance.
And we are the Trojan horses in the enemy’s fortress.”
~ Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Jewish Congress, Head of the Jewish Agency and
later, 1st President of Israel, in a Speech on December 3, 1942, in New York.
“Britain was taking advantage of the situation to go to war against Germany
because the Reich had become too strong and had upset the European balance.”
(Ralph F. Keeling, Institute
of American Economics)
millions of Jews living in America, England, France, North Africa and South, not forgetting Palestine, have decided to carry
on the war in Germany to the very end. It is to be a war of extermination.”
Jewish newspaper, ‘Central Blad Voor Israeliten’ in Nederlands (13 September 1939)
“In no country has the
historical blackout been more intense and effective than in Great Britain. Here it has been ingeniously christened The Iron
Curtain of Discreet Silence. Virtually nothing has been written to reveal the truth about British responsibility for the
Second World War and its disastrous results.”
∼Harry Elmer Barnes. American Historian
“The last thing Hitler wanted was to
produce another great war.” ∼ Sir. Basil Liddell Hart
“Hitler doesn’t want war but he will be forced to it, and in fact soon.
England has the final say like in 1914.”
~ Zionist Emil Ludwig Cohn, “Annalen”
“Although Hitler may want to prevent this war, which can devour him, in the last moment, he will
be forced to war anyway.”
~ Emil Ludwig Cohn (1938)
“In this hour
I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense in Great Britain as much
as elsewhere. I consider myself in a position to make this appeal, since I am not the vanquished, begging favors, but the
victor speaking in the name of reason. I can see no reason why this war must go on. I am grieved to think of the sacrifices
which it will claim. I would like to avert them.”
Adolf Hitler, July, 1940 – ‘Last Appeal to Reason’
“We entered the war of our own free will, without ourselves being directly assaulted.”
∼ Winston Churchill, Guild Hall Speech, July 1943.
“I believe now that
Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with
our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the ‘Americans’ around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler’s
pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realize that Hitler was right.”
– Attorney General,
Sir. Hartley Shawcross, March,16th, 1984
(Who were the so-called ‘Americans’ around Roosevelt? See here)
Hitler has to make a choice
Knowing that with the ‘British-Polish Common Defense Pact’ (built
upon a previous agreement with France) in place; and that no one in any of the international institutions sought to do anything
about the atrocities continually committed against ethnic Germans in the Corridor and, he had exhausted all other diplomatic
avenues, that any German mobilisation in the corridor, would be technically subject to aggression from Britain and France
– although not necessary and definitely not legally where France was concerned.
The increasing attacks on Germans in new-Poland, saw large waves of
refugees flocking across the border to escape. Trains were being loaded to full capacity day and night, while others loaded
what they could onto carts and walked… however, the attacks continued – some made it, some did not.
If Hitler mobilised the Wehrmacht (German Army), the attacks might increase, with the possibility of a British-French
aggression as well… but if he did nothing, the attacks would continue until the potential toward ultimate extinction
of the German minority within the Corridor, would result… The barbarous massacres had to be stopped!
His intended approach was to make the rescue of
the German minority hard and brief, to have the problem over within the shortest time frame possible, in attempt to avoid
any prolonged hostilities.
has taken all he could from Poland against the Volksdeutsche in the ‘Corridor’ and German Forces advance eastward
September 1st, the
Polish Army, Red Terrorist Partisans and NKVD retreat from the German-New Poland border.
September 3rd, the attacks against Germans in Poland continue. Over
national radio it was repeatedly announced, “Carry out order no. 55 – Carry out order no. 55” (in
In the town of Bromberg on one day alone, 5,500 German Men, Women and Children were hunted down the streets,
in their homes and were shot, tortured, beaten, raped, women had their breasts cut off, men were castrated, eviscerated,
crucified, bludgeoned, hacked, mutilated and those who could not flee, were scorched in their burning homes… or both.
September 3rd, the world press shrieks in horror
over German aggression; and Britain together with France [officially] ‘Declare War on Germany’… the massacre of ethnic Germans was conveniently ignored.
We will not forget them – “Never Forget” – May they be at peace
“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the
The castration of uncircumcised
men, was common practice
by Jewish Terrorists right across
Europe, especially in
Jewish Bolshevik Russia and in their
Gulag Death Camps
Three of the Jewish Partisan
Terrorists, who were Sentenced for the Bestial Slaughter
the innocent Danzig German Minority, within the stolen new-Polish Corridor
Jewish Partisan neighbours were all over
Europe, who did not take prisoners
or spare civilians. Many
of these Jewish Bolshevik Militia’s were killed in battle
summarily executed after capture, not because they were Jewish, but because
they were savage and murderous, non-uniformed, combatant, Red Guerilla Terrorists.
These summary executions
were legal and warranted within the articles of the
Geneva Conventions’ Laws of War –
Germany was signatory to.
Hitler speaks of the atrocities committed against
Germans in the annexed territory
17, 1939 – The Jewish Soviets invade Poland from the East… Allies and Western Media remain silent
With the Polish army being routed by the advancing Germans in the west,
Stalin cleverly decides to break the Soviet-Polish Non Aggression Pact of 1932. Poland is stabbed in the back as Soviet
forces pour in from the east. The advancing Red Bolsheviks, occupy the East, take prisoners and carry out massacres…
the most famous being the Katyn Forest Massacre of an estimated 15,000 – 22,000 Polish officers, dignitaries and other
intellectuals… blamed on Germans, of course.
Seven German men hung for this Jewish Bolshevik crime and another
three were sentenced to twenty years in the Jewish Gulag death camp system, never to be seen again – yet another result
of Nuremberg’s Show Trial of purported justice.
One of the mass graves of Ethnic Poles found in the
Katyn Forrest, committed by Jewish Bolshevik NKVD
Other than the pre-Versailles German areas which Germany would reclaim, the Jewish
Soviets took all of Poland. In a shocking double-standard, the anti-German Jewish press, FDR, France & the UK remain,
not surprisingly, silent about this brutal Soviet aggression against Poland, despite the military assistance Britain and
France had assured Poland of, in the event of an invasion by a European Country.
Poland appeals to Britain for help, citing the Poland-British Defense Pact signed only a few weeks earlier! The
Polish ambassador in London contacts the British Foreign Office pursuing clause 1(b) of the agreement, which concerned an
“aggression by a European power” on Poland, stating it should apply to the Soviet invasion also. The
UK Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, responds with hostility stating that it was “Britain’s decision whether
to declare war on the Soviet Union!”
It was apparent that
the Allies did not care about Poland or to honour any contractual agreement. They only used its foolish ultra-nationalist
leader to instigate Hitler, so that they could have their war to destroy Germany and ultimately, all of Europe. The horror
that Poland would suffer under Soviet occupation was apparently Poland’s problem, not Britain’s.
September 19, 1939, Germany has defeated Poland – Germany and Western
Prussia are reunited with Germany again
Within a few
weeks, the German-Polish Regional Conflict is already over. Hitler receives a hero’s welcome upon his arrival
in liberated Danzig. Hitler addresses the Danzig crowd;
power on earth would have borne this condition as long as Germany. I do not know what England would have said about a similar
peace solution (Versailles) at its expense or how America or France would have accepted it?
I attempted to find a tolerable solution – even for this problem. I submitted this attempt to the Polish rulers in
the form of verbal proposals… You know these proposals. They were more than moderate. I do not know what mental condition
the Polish Government was in when it refused these proposals.
As an answer, Poland
gave the order for the first mobilization. Thereupon wild terror was initiated, and my request to the Polish Foreign Minister
to visit me in Berlin once more to discuss these questions was refused. Instead of going to Berlin, he went to London.”
Hitler is greeted with open arms in liberated Danzig
October 1939 – May 1940… Hitler pleads for peace with France and Britain
The German-Polish ‘Regional Conflict’ had ended quickly, in fact, within less than
3 weeks, as Hitler had hoped. There was nothing to which the All-lies could do to help their Polish puppet. The conflict
was over, the German minority within the Corridor were liberated from the atrocities and no further action was sought by
Germany – except for the offer to repair the various damage done to the region during the conflict. The French actually
invaded Germany on September 7th, advancing 8 km before stopping (apparently the Defence Pact to protect Poland
could be achieved by invading Germany, when the Wehrmacht were in new-Poland?), while the Bolsheviks had positioned themselves
in the east. The quiet period between the end of the German-Polish regional conflict until May 1940, was dubbed by a US
“The Phony War.”
During this time, Hitler pleads for the Allies to withdraw their war declarations. Towards France he declares:
“I have always expressed to France my desire to
bury forever our ancient enmity and bring together these two nations, both of which have such glorious pasts.”
To the British, Hitler says:
“I have devoted no less effort to the achievement of Anglo-German friendship. At no time
and in no place have I ever acted contrary to British interests….Why should this war in the West be fought?”
Hitler’s pleas for peace are ignored as the Glorious Allies amass
600,000 troops in Northern France. Plans are openly discussed to advance eastward upon Germany, via Belgium and Holland,
as well as establishing operations in Norway and Denmark, with or without their consent… their “Declarations
of Neutrality” meant nothing to the war mongers.
final appeal for unconditional peace, a speech aired across Europe from the Reichstag (German Parliament), was printed
in English and aerial dropped over London, in hope of by-passing British propaganda, to ensure the people received his message
The British response to Hitlers olive
branch, was mockery and ignorance to any thought of peace… While Hitler dropped Leaflets, Churchill dropped bombs.
With all of Poland’s bravado and threatening war cries
to instigate hostilities for an international blood-bath, where did that leave Poland?
In the end … Poland,
for whose liberty the West had supposedly gone to war for, ended up with none at all. On the contrary, she was destroyed,
with her Polish leaders slaughtered and the entire nation handed over to Stalin, along with the whole of Eastern Europe,
including a part of Germany.
Even so, there are some people in the West who continue to believe that the West won
the Second World War. Stalin and Jewish Bolshevism became the absolute conquerors of a vast empire hostile to the West, which
had been created with the help OF the West. For all that, Stalin especially, was able to preserve his reputation as naive
and trusting in helping the Western actions, while Hitler went down in history as the ultimate aggressor…
Nothing could be further from the truth!
Excerpt from Hitler’s Danzig speech:
“…I do not intend to speak about the injustices
of Versailles. Perhaps the worst thing in the lives of the nations is not so much the injustice, but the senselessness,
the folly, and the utter stupidity with which in those days a peace was imposed upon the world, that completely disregarded
all historical, economic, national and political facts. Regulations were arrived at which actually force one to doubt whether
the men who perpetrated them were really in their right mind. Devoid of all knowledge of the historical development of these
districts, devoid even of all economic understanding, these people juggled about with Europe, tore States apart, divided
up countries, suppressed and handed over nations, destroyed culture.
This land, too, was a victim of that madness and the Polish State itself a product of this folly.
What Germany had to sacrifice for this Polish State the world probably does not know. One thing only I should like to declare
here: The development of all the territories which were at that time incorporated into Poland is entirely due to German
energy, German industry, and German creative work. They owe their cultural importance exclusively to the German nation.
At that time the pretext for rending more than a whole
province from the Reich and for allocating it to this new Polish State was that it was a matter of racial necessity. Actually
the plebiscite held at a later date showed in every case that nobody really had any desire to be incorporated in this Polish
State. This same Poland which owes its existence to the supreme sacrifice of countless German regiments, expanded, without
regard for reason or economic considerations, at the expense of territory in which Germans had settled centuries ago…”
Hitler’s full Speech at Danzig
Hate and murder toward Germans had been taught to Poles for centuries
Katyn Forest Massacre – a “Who done it?” Jews or Germans? from the US National Archives.
‘Polish Atrocities Against the German Minority in Poland’ Published by Order of the Foreign Office, Berlin 1940 – Based on Documented Evidence – 299 pg Report (Warning:
Further reading from Justice4Germans
Hundred Years of War against Germany
1895 to 1995
By Steffen Werner
In August 1895, a series of articles began in the British weekly The Saturday Review, which called
for the annihilation of Germany and whose disastrous greed for German plunder still reverberates to the present day.
With the Second Reich, a German state came into being which was rapidly creating a modern economy which
imperiled the economic predominance of Great Britain. Coal and steel were the two indicators by which national economies
were measured prior to the First World War. The production of raw materials in Germany grew by 334% in the quarter-century
before the First World War, from 4 million to 17.8 million tons, while the figures for Great Britain rose from 7.7 to 9
million, therefore an increase of 17%. During the same period the mining of coal in Germany increased from 76.2 to 255.8
million tons (240%) but in Britain only 60%, to 240 million tons. Germany's foreign trade was reaching proportions alarming
to Great Britain. An investigation by the English Parliament in 1885 noted that the Germans produced more cheaply and their
products were geared to the preferences of their buyers. Knowledge of languages, tirelessness and flexibility were considered
to be the merits of the German commercial travelers. A trademark law was passed in England as a counter-measure, which prescribed
that German products be marked "Made in Germany," yet the British middlemen and consumers nevertheless still often
preferred the German goods, on which account the obligatory mark was modified to "Foreign made."
That this new development was no accident was discovered by Paul Valéry in a British
commissioned work from the year 1896, in which the reasons for this new development would be raised to a dogma:
"One learns that the military victories through
which this [German] nation established itself are small when compared with the economic triumphs which it has already
wrested; already their many markets in the world are more tightly held than the territories which it owes to its army [...]
one grasps that Germany has turned to industry and trade as it once did to its military: with level-headedness and resolve.
One senses that it is omitting no means. If one wishes to explain this new [...] greatness, then one should call
to mind: constant hard work, most precise investigation of the sources of wealth and unrelenting manufacturing of the means
for producing it; exact topography of the favorable sites and most convenient connecting routes; and above all, perfect obedience,
a subordination of all motives under a sort of simple, exclusive, powerful thought - which is strategic in form, economic
in purpose, scientific in its profound design and its realm of authority. Thus does the totality of the German enterprises
have its impact upon us."
The European upper classes saw their indolent life imperiled by this upswing of the German economy. They were living,
according to Max Scheler, in a Paradise:
"For our Eastern neighbors there was more dreaming, plotting, feeling, praying,
and quiet submission to the yoke of fate, but also the drinking of schnapps, strolling romantically through life, careless
and illicit coarse enjoyment [...] For the English, it was easy to buy and sell, according to the old way, accustomed
to winning, and in the manner of old grand merchants, proud of the old proven types of goods, without adapting to the needs
of customers in the world market [...] it was also, however, to enjoy life in sports, wagering, gaming, country
life, traveling, to end the week's work on Friday evening and to go to the sports stadium [...] - but to do all
this with a matter-of-fact feeling, grounded in the situation and geography of the island, of having been divinely chosen
to be Lord of the Sea [...] not as a member of Europe, but as a power equal to all of Europe, indeed, a power which
was a match for the entire world, equal to guiding the nations outside of Europe, of leading them and of being their political
arbiter. And the same paradise meant for France: increasing financial wealth with few children, pensions after 20-30 years
of work, great colonial empire, time and idle leisure for luxury, intellect, outward appearances, adventures full of sensuality
with beautiful women."
The terror which the
German power of achievement set loose in these European upper classes, was captured by Max Scheler in the parable:
"There [...] appeared on their every horizon [...] the image
of a new, strange archangel, the face [...] as severe and iron-like as the old one of the myth, but otherwise quite
different [...] He bore the stamp of a plain workman, with good, tough fists, he was a man who labored and kept
working, on and on, according to the inner testimonial of his own convictions, not in order to outdo or for the sake of
some sort of renown, and not for enjoyment apart from or after the work, nor in order to contemplate and admire the beauty
of the world in that spare time following work, but quietly and slowly, immersed in his labor, yet with a terror-exciting
steadiness, exactitude and punctuality when seen from the outside, and wholly lost within himself and his task, he worked,
worked on and kept working - and this the world was least able to grasp - out of pure joy in boundless work in itself -
without goal, without purpose, without end. What will become of us, what shall happen to us - felt the nations [...]
How shall we exist, faced by these new masses? Shall we change ourselves, seeking to emulate him? No and again no! We
cannot obey this new demand! But we do not want it and shall not do it!"
1895 these upper classes, beginning with Great Britain, formed a War Party against Germany which is still at work today
and which will be documented by citations from the years 1895 to 1994.
Delendam, Delendam, Delendam!
The Saturday Review of 24 August 1895:
"OUR TRUE FOREIGN POLICY.
[...] As we have before pointed out, the dominant
fact of the situation with regard to our foreign policy is the steadfast enmity of France. We can call this enmity unreasonable
or untimely, but its existence is not to be doubted. Some papers, therefore, recommend that England should at once join
the Triple Alliance; that Lord Salisbury should promise the German Emperor assistance and support in case of any attack made
upon the estates or interests of the Allies in Europe, on condition that the Allies should support England in case of any
aggression upon her territories in other parts of the world. For various reasons this policy, although eminently safe, does
not altogether please us. First of all, we English have always made war hitherto upon our rivals in trade
and commerce; and our chief rival in trade and commerce to-day is not France but Germany. In
case of a war with Germany, we should stand to win much and lose nothing; whereas, in case of a war with
France, no matter what the issue might be, we stand to lose heavily."
The Saturday Review of 1 February 1896:
"A Biological View of our Foreign Policy by
The record of the past
history of life upon the catch has made us familiar with one phase in the drama of evolution. For countless generations a
number of species may have been struggling on tolerably equal terms, now one, now the other, securing some little advantage,
when suddenly a turn in the kaleidoscope of the world gives one of them an advantage of real moment. The lucky species multiplies
rapidly; it spreads over the land and the seas, its rivals perishing before it or being driven into the most inhospitable
The great nations of
the earth are local varieties, species in the making. It is not necessary that there should be anatomical distinctions among
them; although, indeed, the English, Germans, French, Russians and Americans, Chinese and Japanese, have each their distinct
groups of average characters. [...]
world is rapidly approaching the epoch of these last wars, of wars which cannot end in
peace with honour, of wars whose spectre cannot be laid by the pale ghost of arbitration. The facts are
patent. Feeble races are being wiped off the earth, and the few great, incipient species arm themselves against each other.
England, as the greatest of these - greatest in geographical distribution, greatest to expansive force,
greatest in race-pride - has avoided for centuries the only dangerous kind of war. Now, with the whole earth occupied and
the movements of expansion continuing, she will have to fight to the death against successive rivals. [...]
Of European nations, Germany is most alike
to England. In racial characters, in religious and scientific thought, in sentiments and aptitudes, the Germans, by their
resemblances to the English, are marked out as our natural rivals. In all parts of the earth, in every pursuit, in commerce,
in manufacturing, in exploiting other races, the English and the Germans jostle each other. Germany is
a growing nation; expanding far beyond her territorial limit, she is bound to secure new foothold or to perish in the attempt.
[...] Were every German to be wiped out to-morrow, there is no English trade, no
English pursuit that would not immediately expand. Were every Englishman to be wiped out tomorrow, the
Germans would gain in proportion. Here is the first great racial struggle of the future: here are two growing nations pressing
against each other, man to man all over the world. One or the other has to go; one or the other will go.
The biological view
of foreign policy is plain. First, federate our colonies and prevent geographical isolation turning the Anglo-Saxon race
against itself. Second, be ready to fight Germany, as Germania est delenda [Germany
must be destroyed]; third, be ready to fight America when the time comes. Lastly,
engage in no wasting tears against peoples from whom we have nothing to fear."
The Saturday Review of 11 September 1897:
"England and Germany
Prince Bismarck has long recognised what at length
the people of England are beginning to understand - that in Europe there are two great, irreconcilable,
opposing forces, two great nations who would make the whole world their province, and who would levy from it the tribute
of commerce. England, with her long history of successful aggression, with her marvellous conviction
that in pursuing her own interests she is spreading light among nations dwelling in darkness, and Germany, bone of
the same bone, blood of the same blood, with a lesser will-force, but, perhaps, with a keener intelligence, compete
in every, corner of the globe. In the Transvaal, at the Cape, in Central Africa, in India and the East, in the islands of
the Southern sea, and in the fair North-West, wherever - and where has it not ? - the flag has followed the Bible and trade
has followed the flag, there the German bagman is struggling with he English peddler. Is there a mine to exploit,
a railway to build, a native to convert from breadfruit to tinned meat, from temperance to trade gin, the German and the
Englishman are struggling to be first. [That's in the mind of these Englishmen -cy] A million petty disputes
build up the greatest cause of war the world has ever seen. If Germany were extinguished to-morrow, the
day after to-morrow there is not an Englishman in the world who would not be the richer. Nations have fought for years over
a city or a right of succession; must they not fight for two hundred million pounds of commerce?
Secret speech of Winston S. Churchill in March 1936 in the Lower House:
"For four hundred years the
foreign policy of England has been to oppose the strongest, most aggressive, most dominating Power on the Continent
[...]. Faced by Philip II of Spain, against Louis XIV under William III and Marlborough, against Napoleon, against
William II of Germany, it would have been easy and must have been very tempting to join with the stronger and share the
fruits of his conquest. However, we always took the harder course, joined with the less strong Powers, made
a combination among them, and thus defeated and frustrated the Continental military tyrant whoever he was, whatever nation
he led. Thus we preserved the liberties of Europe [...].
Observe that the policy of England takes no account of which nation
it is that seeks the overlordship of Europe. The question is not whether it is Spain, or the French Monarchy, or the French
Empire, or the German Empire, or the Hitler régime. It has nothing to do with rulers or nations; it is concerned
solely with whoever is the strongest or the potentially dominating tyrant. Therefore, we should not be afraid of being accused
of being pro-French or anti-German. If the circumstances were reversed, we could equally be pro-German and anti-French. It
is a law of public policy which we are following, and not a mere expedient dictated by accidental circumstances, or likes
and dislikes, or any other sentiment.
The question, therefore, arises which is today the Power in Europe which is the strongest, and which seeks in
a dangerous and oppressive sense to dominate. Today, for this year, probably for part of 1937, the French Army is the strongest
in Europe. But no one is afraid of France. Everyone knows that France wants to be let alone, and that with
her it is only a case of self-preservation. Everyone knows that the French are peaceful and overhung by fear. [...]
Germany, on the other hand, fears no one.
She is arming in a manner which has never been seen in German history. She is led by a handful of triumphant desperadoes.
The money is running short, discontents are arising beneath these despotic rulers. Very
soon they will have to choose, on the one hand, between economic and financial collapse or internal upheaval, and on the
other, a war which could have no other object, and which, if successful, can have no other result, than a Germanised Europe
under Nazi control. Therefore, it seems to me that all the old conditions present themselves again, and that
our national salvation depends upon our gathering once again all the forces of Europe to contain, to restrain, and if necessary
to frustrate, German domination. For, believe me, if any of those other Powers, Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Kaiser
Wilhelm II, had with our aid become the absolute masters of Europe, they could have despoiled us, reduced us to insignificance
and penury on the morrow of their victory."
Carl J. Burkhardt [Swiss diplomat] of a conversation on 15 August 1938 with the Polish foreign minister [Jozef] Beck:
"The Poles are waiting in apparent calm. Beck,
during our nocturnal journey, made me privy to his plans to some extent. Furthermore, he is playing his double-game. It
is no German game, as many French and the Polish opposition believe. It is a game in which the greatest profit is hoped
for Poland, a profit which is supposed to come out of a final and unavoidable German catastrophe. For
this reason, the Germans are being encouraged in their wrong actions, and in Danzig they are enjoying letting the extremists
triumph while at the same time they repeatedly stress adherence to the outer form of the treaties. One day there will be
a reckoning, interest and compound interest will be demanded. Already now, by collaborating in this way with the National
Socialists, they have succeeded in creating a solidarity of aversion toward any revision of the treaties in the whole West,
in France, England and America. [...] That was entirely different in 1932. At that time Western opinion in the great
democracies for the most part supported the German minorities. People got excited over badly drawn borders, over isolated
provinces. Thanks to the excessive methods of Nazism, all of that has ended, and now in Warsaw they are
hoping not only for the unconditional integration of Danzig into the Polish state territory, but for much more, for all of
East Prussia, for Silesia, even for Pomerania. In the year 1933 they still spoke in Warsaw of Polish Pomerania,
but now they say 'our Pomerania.' Beck makes a purely Polish policy, ultimately an anti-German policy, a
policy of only a seeming Polish-German détente, since the occupation of the Rhineland and the French passivity at
the occasion of this event. But they are making efforts to encourage the Germans quite methodically in their errors."
Note of Eduard Benesch [Czechoslovakia President] of August 23/24, 1939, in London:
"It was a properly tough tactic, to
drive Hitler to war."
Report of Friedrich
Grimm [German constitutional lawyer] concerning a visit in May 1945:
"In May 1945, a few days after the collapse,
I had a memorable discussion with an important representative of the opposing side. He introduced himself to me as a university
professor of his nation who wished to talk with me about the historical foundations of the war. It was a conversation on
an elevated level that we were having. Suddenly, he broke off and pointed to the leaflets which were lying on the table in
front of me, with which we were flooded in the first days after the surrender and which were mainly concerned with the concentration
camp atrocities. 'What do you say to that?' he asked me. I replied: 'Oradour and Buchenwald? You're beating a dead horse
with me. I am an attorney and condemn injustice wherever I meet it, but most of all when it occurs on our side. Nonetheless,
I know how to make a distinction between facts and the political usage made of them. I know what atrocity propaganda
is. After the First World War, I read all publications of your experts concerning these questions, the writings
of the Northcliff bureau, the book 'From War to Peace' of the French finance minister Klotz, in which he describes how the
fairy tales about the hacked-off children's hands were invented, and what use was made of them, the enlightening writings
of the magazine Crapouillot, which compares the atrocity propaganda of 1870 with that of 1914/1918, and finally the classic
book by Ponsonby: 'Falsehood in Wartime.' In it, it is revealed that in the previous war they already had magazines
in which artificial mountains of corpses were arranged by means of a photo montage with dolls. These pictures were distributed.
In doing so, the captions were left blank. They were later inserted telephonically by propaganda headquarters according to
need.' My visitor exploded: 'I see I've come across an expert. Now I also want to say who I am. I am no university
professor. I am from the headquarters of which you have spoken. For months I have been conducting what you have correctly
described: atrocity propaganda - and with it we have won the total victory.' I replied: 'I know and now you must stop!'
He responded: 'No, now we are just properly beginning! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will increase
it until no one will have a good word to say about the Germans any longer, until any of the sympathy you have had in other
countries will have been destroyed, and until the Germans themselves will have fallen into such confusion that they no longer
know what they are doing!' I ended the conversation: 'Then you will be taking a great responsibility upon yourself!'"
The British magazine Sunday Correspondent on September 17, 1989, for the fiftieth
anniversary of the start of the Second World War and of the reunification marking it:
"We must now be honest about the German question,
as uncomfortable as it may be for the Germans, for our international partners and even ourselves [...] The
question remains, in essence, the same. Not how do we prevent German tanks from rolling over the Oder or
the Marne, but how Europe will deal with a people whose number, talent, and efficiency is allowing it to
become our regional super-power. We did not enter the war in 1939 in order to save Germany
from Hitler or the Jews from Auschwitz or the Continent from Fascism. As in 1914, we entered the war for the no less noble
reason that we were not able to accept a German predominance in Europe."
Lech Walesa [Polish President] in an interview with the Dutch newspaper Elsevier of April 7, 1990:
"I do not shrink even from making a declaration
which makes me unpopular in Germany. If the Germans destabilize Europe anew in one way or another, one should no
longer resort to a division, but rather simply eradicate the nation from the map. The East and the West possess
the necessary advanced technologies to carry out this sentence."
Henry Kissinger in the Welt am Sonntag of November 13, 1994:
"President Clinton's idea of the USA and Germany as Partners in Leadership was not exactly very wise [...]
Actually, this notion drives everyone to the barricades, for in the final analysis two world wars were
waged in order to prevent just that, a dominant role of Germany."
* * *
The citations imply that all the wars, revolutions, persecutions and expulsions of the 20th century were
matter-of-factly initiated by rationally planning nations or were tolerated, for the sake of power and money. In view of
the apocalyptic terror and horror resulting from these undertakings, a clear analysis appears more practical than moral
For the British upper class - and their international partners
- war is an entirely normal activity. The British pragmatically ask: How did our forebears hold it? What was their
advantage? Did they not, for four hundred years, wage war against their main rival or the strongest continental power? One
weighs, like a merchant: is it advantageous to wage war against France, can Austria hurt us? What will war against Germany
bring us? 250 million pounds = 5 million marks per year? The security of our predominance? Must we fight against the USA
The thought of whether a war is morally defensible does not even occur! For
it is, in any case, "tough" to drive someone to war. For war becomes a game, a double-game. For one places snares
by quite methodically encouraging the opponent in his errors. In this 'game,' the 'greatest profit' entices. "Take
inside Germany whatever you like": that's how one buys allies; for oneself, one takes money. Is it not better that the
other, the enemy, totally disappears? Does he not destabilize the situation, imperil the loot, if he has recovered?
Is it not better to exterminate the Germans at once? Is it not smarter to eradicate Germany from the map? Germania
esse delendam! One has the advanced technologies - by which the neutron bomb is probably meant: the Germans would be dead
and the loot intact.
For there is no honorable peace permitted. For the
atrocity propaganda is to be continued and increased until no one will any longer have a good word to say about the enemy.
The enemy becomes Evil in himself. The objection of Friedrich Grimm, which generally applies to such actions: "Then
they will take a great responsibility upon themselves" - fails here. Responsibility toward the enemy does not exist
and guilt not at all. Guilt, in this system, is merely a question of power. God isn't needed here, there is no God permitted!
"Thou shalt not kill" devolved into meaningless chatter. Man puts himself in God's place.
sponsors embracing such ideas are: a high British politician, Navy Minister of the First World War and Prime Minister of
the Second World War; a former Czech state President; a Polish foreign minister of the year 1938; a Polish President of
1990; and a former American Secretary of State.
The continuity with which these
ideas are pursued from 1895 to 1994 is alarming, and the matter-of-fact attitude with which not only the ideas, but also
their acceptance, are still presumed in 1989 by a probably broad public of a British weekly paper. Baffled, with Kissinger,
that here it is no longer preventing a German predominance, which is discussed, since even the thought of a Germany as partner
of the USA is pronounced dangerous.
The Tough Kernel
The authors of the three anonymous articles quoted in the beginning
are partly known. Concerning the author of the first article of August 24, 1895: "The Proper Foreign Policy for Us
English," Hans Grimm, who in 1895 was in Great Britain as a young businessman, learned this about his host:
"And it happened by chance that my boss, who himself belonged to the English Conservative Party, had been unexpectedly
informed that that essay of August 24, 1895, on English foreign policy had originated from a quite definite faction
in the English Foreign Office, directed by the half-German, Sir Eyre Crowe." (Shown right)
Behind the biologist, the author of the article of February 1, 1896: "A Biological
Perspective on our English Foreign Policy by a Biologist," is concealed Sir P. Chalmers Mitchell, Professor of Astronomy
and Biology at Oxford, as Hans Grimm likewise discovered. According to Grimm, Mitchell was a Captain in the British General Staff from 1916 to 1919 and had connections to Crowe.
Information about the group around Crowe is given in a diary note of October 12, 1918, of First Lieutenant
C. Repinton, in which he writes that Crowe, Mallet, and Tyrell will be going as negotiators from the Foreign Office to the
planned peace conference. Moreover, he maintains:
"They joined the F.O. between 1885 and 1893, and, with Carnock
and Bertie, were the head and front of the anti-German party all along, vexed at our surrenders to Germany and persuaded
that Germany planed our ruin. Between them they made the German peril the central feature of our foreign policy."
There is still one more to be counted as belonging to this circle of the F.O., whose significance
for the outbreak of the First World War can hardly be overestimated: Sir Edward Grey.
Edward Grey became parliamentary Under-Secretary under Lord Rosebery, who took over the Foreign Office. In 1895 Rosebery
is voted out and Grey loses his office. Grey writes that these years were "very important" for his life.
To these experiences clearly belongs also the world-view
that England must oppose Germany and turn to France. In his memoirs, couched in a very vague diplomatic language, we read:
"In light of after-events, the whole policy of these years from 1896 to 1904
may be criticized as having played into the hands of Germany."
is expressed by Grey in this manner:
"We relied on German support i and we received
it; but we never could be sure when some price for that support might not be extracted."
The England of Grey wanted to remain the sole master of the world and not share the power with
anyone, most certainly not Germany. This is the basic thought, which runs through Grey's memoirs, and his joy when
the British policy of 1904 draws closer to France expresses itself effusively in comparison with his otherwise dry text:
"The real cause for satisfaction was that the
exasperating friction with France was to end, and that the menace of war with France had disappeared. The gloomy clouds
were gone, the sky was clear, and the sun shone warmly. Ill-will, dislike, hate, whether the object of them be a person
or a nation, are a perpetual discomfort; they come between us and all that is beautiful and happy; they put out the sun.
If the object be a nation with whom our interests are in contact, they poison the atmosphere of international affairs. This
had been so between Great Britain and France. [...] That was all to be changed; it was to become positively pleasant,
where we had seen before only what was repellant; to understand and to be understood where before there had been misrepresentation
and misconstruction; to have friends instead of enemies - this, when it happens, is one of the great pleasures of life."
Of course, the price for this was "perpetual discomfort," "poison,"
"misrepresentation," and "misconstruction" in the relationship to Germany, but that did apparently not
let anything come between Grey and "all that is beautiful and happy." In Grey's eyes, France was no longer a match
for England, whereas Germany was about to outperform England economically. In 1905, Grey took over the Foreign Office
and subsequently surrounded himself with the gentlemen from the anti-German circle of the Foreign Office. Crowe, Mallet,
Tyrell, and Bertie all reached key positions and collaborated closely with Grey. Carnock is the only one about
whom I did not find anything. Bertie had already previously been ambassador in Paris and in future formed one of the pillars
of the new British policy. According to Margaret Bovari, the ambassadors of the most important European nations were exchanged under Grey, but the
Parisian embassy, with Sir F. Bertie, remained unchanged, and "it emerges from the private letters between him and
Grey that close relations and an excellent accord must have prevailed between the two men." From 1905 to 1906, Louis
Mallet was Private Secretary to Grey, and from 1906 to 1907, he was Senior Clerk in the Foreign Office. From 1907-1913, he
was Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and diplomat in Constantinople between 1913 and 1914. Margaret Boveri sees
the influence of Mallet upon Grey as having been "considerable" and numbers him "amongst the most zealous
advocates of English-Russian friendship. Still more pronounced with him than this tendency is the anti-German attitude."
William Tyrell was Senior Clerk in the Foreign Office from 1907 to 1918 and from 1907 to 1915 he was Private Secretary to
In his memoirs, Grey especially emphasized Tyrell and writes in reference to him:
"The public little or no means of knowing how
much it owes in public service to special gifts and qualities in individual civil servants in high positions in the Department
of State. In each case, where such qualities exist, a man renders service peculiarly his own, besides taking an able part
in the conduct of business in the Department. [...] I had the occasion, in office to know the great value of Tyrell's
public service; but the thing that is prize is our friendship, that began in the Foreign Office, and has continued uninterrupted
and intimate after official ties ceased."
finally became Senior Clerk in the Foreign Office in 1906 and was Assistant Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
from 1912 to 1920. His role in the British policy toward Germany cannot be overestimated. For Hermann Lutz, expert in the investigatory
committee of the Reichstag for the war-guilt question, Eyre Crowe is "the Evil Spirit of the Foreign Office.", and Margaret Boveri confirms this:
"Although we [...] must assess his
direct influence upon the daily decisions in the Foreign Office as small [because of his relatively low position; due
to his German mother he presumably climbed only slowly], his fixed stance was however surely of enormous effect upon
the shaping of the atmosphere which prevailed in the Western Department and from which policy was made."
It should be briefly remarked - this will be developed later - that from a subordinate
position, as expert on Germany, Crowe decisively influenced official policy several times. Edward Grey himself gives Crowe
prominent mention in his memoirs:
"It has been a great satisfaction since I left
office to see great knowledge, ability and unsurpassed devotion to the public service recognized in the promotion of Sir
Eyre Crowe to be head of the Foreign Office."
And he added
as a footnote:
"Since these words were written the public
service of the country has suffered an irreparable loss in the death of Sir Eyre Crowe."
Under Grey, the anti-German circles which were behind the Saturday
Review article of 1895, thereby ascended to key positions.
Grey knew portions
of the pattern of thinking there and approved indirectly. Thus, Grey recorded a conversation of 28 April 1908 with Clemenceau
and considered it to be so important that he included it as one of the few documents in his memoirs. There we read:
"M. Clemenceau had some conversation with me
at the Foreign Office this morning.
He dwelt with great emphasis upon the certainty
that we should have to intervene on the continent of Europe against any power which attained a position of domination there,
just as we had had to do in the time of Napoleon.
He said we ought to be prepared
for this. [...] He felt this to be most important. The fate of Napoleon had been decided not at Trafalgar but at
Waterloo. And so it would have to be again, in the case of any Power which attempted to dominate the continent."
Clemenceau is consciously making use of those modes of thought from the Saturday Review
articles in order to drive England into war against Germany, and Grey responds in such a way that not only are these modes
of thought familiar to him, but he is also influenced by them. This is also shown by a quotation from Grey, which is found
in Margaret Boveri:
"The Germans are not clear about the fact that
England always has gotten into opposition to or has intentionally proceeded against any power which establishes a hegemony
By his conduct, Grey deceived
many Germans about his anti-German attitude, and not only diplomats but also scientists, to the extent that caused Hans
Rothfels to derisively refer to the remark of a Prussian artillery lieutenant concerning Napoleon:
"A kindhearted fellow, but stupid, stupid."
As a contributor to The Saturday Review in the years from 1895 to 1897, G.B. Shaw
was of course familiar with the anti-German development and surely knew the authors of the articles agitating against Germany.
He tried to warn the German ambassador Lichnowsky in London about Grey and his policy. He laid out a proposal to Lichnowsky.
"He rejected it without reflecting for a moment.
It was inappropriate [he said], because Sir Edward Grey was one of the greatest living statesmen, moreover the most
sincere friend of Germany. I could [...] not raise my hands to heaven and, with Huss, cry out: Sancta simplicitas
[holy simpleton]! Besides, it was of course Lichnowsky, not I, who was going to the stake. [...] It was not my
task to enlighten the Duke about the fact that he was walking straight into a trap."
A trap so thorough in construction that Shaw writes concerning the British wire-pullers on the occasion
of the outbreak of the First World War:
"They felt in this important hour, as though
England was lost if but a single traitor in their midst let out into the world a tiny kernel of truth about anything."
From 1905 onward, the Foreign Office begins systematically to construct a front
with Russia and France against Germany. This development is proven on the basis of the public documents from the
German side after the lost war. Crowe, but not only he, worked systematically against Germany through numerous papers,
but above all through his memorandum of January 1, 1907, in which he claimed that Germany was striving for world rule and wanted to secretly attack England. In
a counter-expert opinion, Sanderson, Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from 1894 to 1906, dismissed
the worst distortions in Crowe's memorandum. Grey passed the paper on only to his like-minded comrades; otherwise it went
It would lead us too far afield to present all the lies, distortions, misrepresentations
and ploys with which Grey, Crowe, and Company prepared the way for a war against Germany. They have been thoroughly
explored to the last detail in many investigations in Germany.
G.B. Shaw has reduced the First World War to this nullity:
"The present destruction of the German military power is [...] a completely regular operation of
British foreign policy, which was executed according to plan with all the resolve, patience, cunning and power which we
in England are accustomed to use, and with overwhelming success. But likewise also, however, with the amazing
English talent of veiling from oneself what one is doing. The Englishman never knows what the 'Foreign Office'
is up to; [...] An instinct tells him that it is better for him [...] not to know."
The whole text is rife with such quotations and others, which describe the techniques
and partly the motive of British imperialism. Concerning the key role of Grey and his methods, one more citation:
"Grey was not ruined over his mistakes; rather, for him the fact became fatal that
the necessity of feeding the British public a children's fairy-tale about the nature and causes of the war made
it impossible for him to highlight his triumph; for this was of a kind which he himself had described as machiavellian."
There is also a solid fact, which proves that Shaw knew exactly what he was talking about,
that he knew the fundamental ideas of Grey. In 1912, he made a public proposal for how the peace could be kept; that is what
he had also laid out to Lichnowsky:
"In order to avoid war, England would have
to strengthen its army as guardian over the balance of powers and officially and unambiguously declare that in the event
of a German attack on France, it will throw its sword onto the scales in favor of the latter. But on the other hand, it
would have to give its assurance that it will defend Germany in the event the latter is attacked by Russia or France or by
According to all that is known
today, the First World War of 1914 would not have happened. Germany would have been able to calmly put up with the parade
from Russia toward its borders!
As is well known, Rome and Carthage fought three wars, Great Britain
and Germany, so far, only two! Since Germany has been reunified and Communism has collapsed, as a result of which German
assistance against the Soviet Union is no longer needed, this Carthage Syndrome surfaced again. Kissinger and Walesa, whose
greed for loot is immeasurable, were cited. But there are still other texts without aggressive background, which give reason
On March 12, 1948, a few days after the downfall in the CSR and the subsequent suicide
of Jan Masaryk, the Chief Prosecutor for Great Britain at the Nuremberg war crime trials, Sir Hartley Shawcross,
stated according to the London Times:
"Believe me, three years ago, two years ago, I was violently pro-Russian, on the
extreme left of my party." [...]
"Step by step I have been forced more and more
to the conclusion that the aims of Communism in Europe are sinister and deadly aims.
prosecuted the Nazis in Nuremberg. With my Russian colleagues I condemned Nazi aggression and Nazi terror.[]I feel shame and humiliation now to see under a different name the same aims pursued, the same technique
followed, without check."
The international edition
of the U.S. magazine Newsweek wrote on May 8, 1995, the 50th anniversary of the unconditional surrender
of the German Armed Forces:
"The chiefs of state who are assembling this
week for the solemn remembrance of the end of the Second World War, will formally dedicate themselves to the theme of reconciliation.
The winners of the year 1945 showed toward the losers an unusual degree of generosity, as they had not done after the First
World War - with disastrous consequences. However, the state which first brought about this reconciliation will not be taking
part in the gathering. It is the Soviet Union, whose ideological menace caused the victorious Western powers to put Germany
and Japan on their feet again in the framework of a free-market economy and political democracy. More closely considered,
this war did not end even in 1945. Those who were waging war merely found themselves in new systems of alliances, and with
modified tactics. The end did not come until 1990-91, when Germany was reunified and the Soviet Union imploded. According
to this general view of the chronology, it can be said that the war lasted seventy-five years. The Kaiser and Hitler lost
and Germany has won."
And the German government?
A small episode proves that those who govern there know much better than the governed what is going on globally. When then
British Prime Minister John Major, in his address in Berlin for the 50th anniversary of the war's end, spoke of the
second Thirty Years War from 1914-1945:
years ago Europe saw the end of the 30 Years War, 1914 to 1945. The slaughter in the trenches, the destruction of
cities and the oppression of citizens: all these left a Europe in ruins just as the other 30 Years War did three centuries
The Bulletin of the German government
(No. 38, May 12, 1995) falsified the text of the speech into:
"Vor fünfzig Jahren erlebte Europa das Ende der dreißig Jahre, die nicht einen, sondern zwei
Weltkriege beeinhaltet hatten. Das Gemetzel in den Schützengräben, die Zerstörung der Städte und die
Unterdrückung der Bürger hinterließen ein Europa in Trümmern, gerade, wie es einige Jahrhunderte zuvor
der Dreißigjährige Krieg getan hatten."
"Fifty years ago, Europe experienced the end of the thirty years which encompassed not one, but two world
wars. The slaughter in the trenches, the destruction of cities and the oppression of citizens left behind a Europe in ruins,
just as the Thirty Years War had done some centuries before."
weeks after the speech, the British embassy sent the upper text with the clear formulation "the other 30 Years War"!
By the will of the German Federal Government, the fact that Major sees the
First and Second World War as parts of a single event, was not allowed to become publicly known in Germany.
Berthold Brecht once wrote warningly, with an eye on Germany:
"Great Carthage waged three wars. It was still
powerful after the first, still inhabitable after the second. After the third, it could no longer be found."
After the First World War, a foreign diplomat expressed to Churchill:
"In the twenty years of my residency there,
I was witness to a profound and total revolution in England, even as the French Revolution was. The ruling classes in your
country have been almost completely robbed of their political power and, to a large extent, their prosperity and property
as well; and all this [...] without the loss of a single human life."
The European upper classes, the idle ones of Scheler and Shaw, who wanted to be "clever"
as they went out of their way to start a war, they have paid! Anastasia, the wife of the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevitch
- who, in 1914 after a murder in Sarajevo, is supposed to have called out triumphantly to Poincaré: "War will
break out. Nothing more will remain of Austria [...] Germany will be destroyed!" - lost everything!
In 1947, after the Second World War, India, the Crown of the British
Empire, became independent. Egypt freed itself from Great Britain and subsequently Great Britain had to cede the Suez Canal.
In 1957 the Gold Coast became the first independent state of Black Africa, after which a large number of colonies followed.
Churchill had yet to learn what Shaw knew: that the world for which one exchanged one's soul, had its own way of melting
in one's hands. Not even the First, and most certainly not the Second World War, Great Britain was able to win by its own
resources! From a position as master of the world, Great Britain was relegated to insignificance, and the descent
seems not to have come to an end yet. New powers are arising. Their influence, by means of the modern terrorist
techniques of war and the unhesitating way with which they are used, can easily grow to extreme proportions. They are staking
claims and creating new centers of conflict. They threaten to unite the Islamic powers and Fundamentalism. A new war against
Germany would propel their power into the stratosphere. It is to be feared that powerful groups will continue not to see
that the world of today is much larger than the White man's world.
In any case, the analogy
of Rome = Great Britain and Carthage = Germany is false. For Carthage was the commercial and sea power and Rome the land
power of antiquity! Brecht was a master of language, but had no head for politics. His history would tell a different story
today: Great Britain won two wars. It was still powerful after the first, still inhabitable after the second. Does anyone
seriously believe that Great Britain could dare to wage yet a third war against Germany?
Source: The Revisionist 1(4) (2003), pp. 373-385.