http://rense.com/general84/declare.htm

The Jewish Declaration
Of War On Germany The Economic Boycott of 1933
Article from The Barnes Review, Jan./Feb. 2001, pp. 41-45.

The Barnes Review, 645 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Suite 100, Washington D.C. 20003, USA.

By M. Raphael Johnson, Ph.D., assistant editor of TBR;

published here with kind permission from TBR.

This digitalized version © 2002 by The Scriptorium.
1-14-9

 

Few people know the facts about the singular event that helped spark what ultimately became known as World War II - the international Jewish declaration of war on Germany shortly after Adolf Hitler came to power and well before any official German government sanctions or reprisals against Jews were carried out. The March 24, 1933 issue of The Daily Express of London (shown above) described how Jewish leaders, in combination with powerful international Jewish financial interests, had launched a boycott of Germany for the express purpose of crippling her already precarious economy in the hope of bringing down the new Hitler regime. It was only then that Germany struck back in response. Thus, if truth be told, it was the worldwide Jewish leadership - not the Third Reich - that effectively fired the first shot in the Second World War. Prominent New York attorney Samuel Untermyer (above right) was one of the leading agitators in the war against Germany, describing the Jewish campaign as nothing less than a "holy war."   Long before the Hitler government began restricting the rights of the German Jews, the leaders of the worldwide Jewish community formally declared war on the "New Germany" at a time when the U.S. government and even the Jewish leaders in Germany were urging caution in dealing with the new Hitler regime.   The war by the international Jewish leadership on Germany not only sparked definite reprisals by the German government but also set the stage for a little-known economic and political alliance between the Hitler government and the leaders of the Zionist movement who hoped that the tension between the Germans and the Jews would lead to massive emigration to Palestine. In short, the result was a tactical alliance between the Nazis and the founders of the modern-day state of Israel - a fact that many today would prefer be forgotten.   To this day, it is generally (although incorrectly) believed that when Adolf Hitler was appointed German chancellor in January of 1933, the German government began policies to suppress the Jews of Germany, including rounding up of Jews and putting them in concentration camps and launching campaigns of terror and violence against the domestic Jewish population.   While there were sporadic eruptions of violence against Jews in Germany after Hitler came to power, this was not officially sanctioned or encouraged. And the truth is that anti-Jewish sentiments in Germany (or elsewhere in Europe) were actually nothing new. As all Jewish historians attest with much fervor, anti- Semitic uprisings of various degrees had been ever-present in European history.   In any case, in early 1933, Hitler was not the undisputed leader of Germany, nor did he have full command of the armed forces. Hitler was a major figure in a coalition government, but he was far from being the government himself. That was the result of a process of consolidation which evolved later.   Even Germany's Jewish Central Association, known as the Verein, contested the suggestion (made by some Jewish leaders outside Germany) that the new government was deliberately provoking anti- Jewish uprisings.   The Verein issued a statement that "the responsible government authorities [i.e. the Hitler regime] are unaware of the threatening situation," saying, "we do not believe our German fellow citizens will let themselves be carried away into committing excesses against the Jews."   Despite this, Jewish leaders in the United States and Britain determined on their own that it was necessary to launch a war against the Hitler government.   On March 12, 1933 the American Jewish Congress announced a massive protest at Madison Square Gardens for March 27. At that time the commander in chief of the Jewish War Veterans called for an American boycott of German goods. In the meantime, on March 23, 20,000 Jews protested at New York's City Hall as rallies were staged outside the North German Lloyd and Hamburg-American shipping lines and boycotts were mounted against German goods throughout shops and businesses in New York City.   According to The Daily Express of London of March 24, 1933, the Jews had already launched their boycott against Germany and her elected government. The headline read "Judea Declares War on Germany - Jews of All the World Unite - Boycott of German Goods - Mass Demonstrations." The article described a forthcoming "holy war" and went on to implore Jews everywhere to boycott German goods and engage in mass demonstrations against German economic interests. According to the Express:   The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany. The appearance of the Swastika as the symbol of the new Germany has revived the old war symbol of Judas to new life. Fourteen million Jews scattered over the entire world are tight to each other as if one man, in order to declare war against the German persecutors of their fellow believers.   The Jewish wholesaler will quit his house, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his business, and the beggar his humble hut, in order to join the holy war against Hitler's people.   The Express said that Germany was "now confronted with an international boycott of its trade, its finances, and its industry.... In London, New York, Paris and Warsaw, Jewish businessmen are united to go on an economic crusade."   The article said "worldwide preparations are being made to organize protest demonstrations," and reported that "the old and reunited nation of Israel gets in formation with new and modern weapons to fight out its age old battle against its persecutors."   This truly could be described as "the first shot fired in the Second World War."   In a similar vein, the Jewish newspaper Natscha Retsch wrote:   The war against Germany will be waged by all Jewish communities, conferences, congresses... by every individual Jew. Thereby the war against Germany will ideologically enliven and promote our interests, which require that Germany be wholly destroyed.   The danger for us Jews lies in the whole German people, in Germany as a whole as well as individually. It must be rendered harmless for all time.... In this war we Jews have to participate, and this with all the strength and might we have at our disposal.   However, note well that the Zionist Association of Germany put out a telegram on the 26th of March rejecting many of the allegations made against the National Socialists as "propaganda," "mendacious" and "sensational."   In fact, the Zionist faction had every reason to ensure the permanence of National Socialist ideology in Germany. Klaus Polkehn, writing in the Journal of Palestine Studies ("The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941"; JPS v. 3/4, spring/ summer 1976), claims that the moderate attitude of the Zionists was due to their vested interest in seeing the financial victory of National Socialism to force immigration to Palestine. This little- known factor would ultimately come to play a pivotal part in the relationship between Nazi Germany and the Jews.   In the meantime, though, German Foreign Minister Konstantin von Neurath complained of the "vilification campaign" and said:   As concerns Jews, I can only say that their propagandists abroad are rendering their co-religionists in Germany no service by giving the German public, through their distorted and untruthful news about persecution and torture of Jews, the impression that they actually halt at nothing, not even at lies and calumny, to fight the present German government.   The fledgling Hitler government itself was clearly trying to contain the growing tension - both within Germany and without. In the United States, even U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull wired Rabbi Stephen Wise of the American Jewish Congress and urged caution:   Whereas there was for a short time considerable physical mistreatment of Jews, this phase may be considered virtually terminated.... A stabilization appears to have been reached in the field of personal mistreatment.... I feel hopeful that the situation which has caused such widespread concern throughout this country will soon revert to normal.     This New York Daily News front page headline hailed the massive anti-German protest rally held in Madison Square Garden on March 27, 1933. Despite efforts by the German government to alleviate tensions and prevent the escalation of name-calling and threats by the international Jewish leadership, the rally was held as scheduled. Similar rallies and protest marches were also being held in other cities during the same time frame. The intensity of the Jewish campaign against Germany was such that the Hitler government vowed that if the campaign did not stop, there would be a one-day boycott in Germany of Jewish-owned stores. Despite this, the hate campaign continued, forcing Germany to take defensive measures that created a situation wherein the Jews of Germany became increasingly marginalized. The truth about the Jewish war on Germany has been suppressed by most histories of the period.   Despite all this, the leaders of the Jewish community refused to relent. On March 27 there were simultaneous protest rallies at Madison Square Garden, in Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland and 70 other locations. The New York rally was broadcast worldwide. The bottom line is that "the New Germany" was declared to be an enemy of Jewish interests and thus needed to be economically strangled. This was before Hitler decided to boycott Jewish goods.   It was in direct response to this that the German government announced a one-day boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany on April 1. German Propaganda Minister Dr. Joseph Goebbels announced that if, after the one-day boycott, there were no further attacks on Germany, the boycott would be stopped. Hitler himself responded to the Jewish boycott and the threats in a speech on March 28 - four days after the original Jewish declaration of war - saying:   Now that the domestic enemies of the nation have been eliminated by the Volk itself, what we have long been waiting for will not come to pass.   The Communist and Marxist criminals and their Jewish- intellectual instigators, who, having made off with their capital stocks across the border in the nick of time, are now unfolding an unscrupulous, treasonous campaign of agitation against the German Volk as a whole from there.... Lies and slander of positively hair-raising perversity are being launched about Germany. Horror stories of dismembered Jewish corpses, gouged out eyes and hacked off hands are circulating for the purpose of defaming the German Volk in the world for the second time, just as they had succeeded in doing once before in 1914.   Thus, the fact - one conveniently left out of nearly all history on the subject - is that Hitler's March 28, 1933 boycott order was in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership just four days earlier. Today, Hitler's boycott order is described as a naked act of aggression, yet the full circumstances leading up to his order are seldom described in even the most ponderous and detailed histories of "the Holocaust".   Not even Saul Friedlander in his otherwise comprehensive overview of German policy, Nazi Germany and the Jews, mentions the fact that the Jewish declaration of war and boycott preceded Hitler's speech of March 28, 1933. Discerning readers would be wise to ask why Friedlander felt this item of history so irrelevant.   The simple fact is that it was organized Jewry as a political entity - and not even the German Jewish community per se - that actually initiated the first shot in the war with Germany.       Placard text: "Germans! Defend yourselves! Don't shop at Jewish stores!" Photo not part of original TBR article - added by The Scriptorium.   Germany's response was a defensive - not an offensive - measure. Were that fact widely known today, it would cast new light on the subsequent events that ultimately led to the world-wide conflagration that followed.   To understand Hitler's reaction to the Jewish declaration of war, it is vital to understand the critical state of the German economy at the time. In 1933, the German economy was in a shambles. Some 3 million Germans were on public assistance with a total of 6 million unemployed. Hyper-inflation had destroyed the economic vitality of the German nation. Furthermore, the anti-German propaganda pouring out of the global press strengthened the resolve of Germany's enemies, especially the Poles and their hawkish military high command.   The Jewish leaders were not bluffing. The boycott was an act of war not solely in metaphor: it was a means, well crafted, to destroy Germany as a political, social and economic entity. The long term purpose of the Jewish boycott against Germany was to bankrupt her with respect to the reparation payments imposed on Germany after World War I and to keep Germany demilitarized and vulnerable.   The boycott, in fact, was quite crippling to Germany. Jewish scholars such as Edwin Black have reported that, in response to the boycott, German exports were cut by 10 percent, and that many were demanding seizing German assets in foreign countries (Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement - The Untold Story of the Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine, New York, 1984).   The attacks on Germany did not cease. The worldwide Jewish leadership became ever the more belligerent and worked itself into a frenzy. An International Jewish Boycott Conference was held in Amsterdam to coordinate the ongoing boycott campaign. It was held under the auspices of the self-styled World Jewish Economic Federation, of which famous New York City attorney and longtime political power broker, Samuel Untermyer, was elected president.   Upon returning to the United States in the wake of the conference, Untermyer delivered a speech over WABC Radio (New York), a transcript of which was printed in The New York Times on August 7, 1933.   Untermyer's inflammatory oratory called for a "sacred war" against Germany, making the flat-out allegation that Germany was engaged in a plan to "exterminate the Jews." He said (in part):   ...Germany [has] been converted from a nation of culture into a veritable hell of cruel and savage beasts.   We owe it not only to our persecuted brethren but to the entire world to now strike in self-defense a blow that will free humanity from a repetition of this incredible outrage....   Now or never must all the nations of the earth make common cause against the... slaughter, starvation and annihilation... fiendish torture, cruelty and persecution that are being inflicted day by day upon these men, women and children....   When the tale is told... the world will confront a picture so fearful in its barbarous cruelty that the hell of war and the alleged Belgian atrocities pale into insignificance as compared to this devilishly, deliberately, cold-bloodedly planned and already partially executed campaign for the extermination of a proud, gentle, loyal, law-abiding people...   The Jews are the aristocrats of the world. From time immemorial they have been persecuted and have seen their persecutors come and go. They alone have survived. And so will history repeat itself, but that furnishes no reason why we should permit this reversion of a once great nation to the Dark Ages or fail to rescue these 600,000 human souls from the tortures of hell....   ...What we are proposing and have already gone far toward doing, is to prosecute a purely defensive economic boycott that will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.   ...We propose to and are organizing world opinion to express itself in the only way Germany can be made to understand....   Untermyer then proceeded to provide his listeners with a wholly fraudulent history of the circumstances of the German boycott and how it originated. He also proclaimed that the Germans were bent on a plan to "exterminate the Jews":   The Hitler regime originated and are fiendishly prosecuting their boycott to exterminate the Jews by placarding Jewish shops, warning Germans against dealing with them, by imprisoning Jewish shopkeepers and parading them through the streets by the hundreds under guard of Nazi troops for the sole crime of being Jews, by ejecting them from the learned professions in which many of them had attained eminence, by excluding their children from the schools, their men from the labor unions, closing against them every avenue of livelihood, locking them in vile concentration camps and starving and torturing them without cause and resorting to every other conceivable form of torture, inhuman beyond conception, until suicide has become their only means of escape, and all solely because they are or their remote ancestors were Jews, and all with the avowed object of exterminating them.   Untermyer concluded his largely fantastic and hysterical address by declaring that with the support of "Christian friends... we will drive the last nail in the coffin of bigotry and fanaticism...."   The Biggest Secret of WWII? Why Germany Began Rounding Up Jews and Deporting Them to the East         Why did the Germans begin rounding up the Jews and interning them in the concentration camps to begin with? Contrary to popular myth, the Jews remained "free" inside Germany - albeit subject to laws which did restrict certain of their privileges - prior to the outbreak of World War II.   Yet, the other little-known fact is that just before the war began, the leadership of the world Jewish community formally declared war on Germany - above and beyond the ongoing six-year- long economic boycott launched by the worldwide Jewish community when the Nazi Party came to power in 1933.   As a consequence of the formal declaration of war, the German authorities thus deemed Jews to be potential enemy agents.   Here's the story behind the story: Chaim Weizmann (above), president of both the international "Jewish Agency" and of the World Zionist Organization (and later Israel's first president), told British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in a letter published in The London Times on September 6, 1939 that:   I wish to confirm, in the most explicit manner, the declarations which I and my colleagues have made during the last month, and especially in the last week, that the Jews stand by Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies. Our urgent desire is to give effect to these declarations [against Germany].   We wish to do so in a way entirely consonant with the general scheme of British action, and therefore would place ourselves, in matters big and small, under the coordinating direction of His Majesty's Government. The Jewish Agency is ready to enter into immediate arrangements for utilizing Jewish manpower, technical ability, resources, etc. [Emphasis in red added by The Scriptorium.]   That his allegations against Germany were made long before even Jewish historians today claim there were any gas chambers or even a plan to "exterminate" the Jews, displays the nature of the propaganda campaign confronting Germany.   However, during this same period there were some unusual developments at work: The spring of 1933 also witnessed the beginning of a period of private cooperation between the German government and the Zionist movement in Germany and Palestine (and actually worldwide) to increase the flow of German-Jewish immigrants and capital to Palestine.   The modern-day supporters of Zionist Israel and many historians have succeeded in keeping this Nazi-Zionist pact a secret to the general public for decades and while most Americans have no concept of the possibility that there could have been outright collaboration between the Nazi leadership and the founders of what became the state of Israel, the truth has begun to emerge.   Dissident Jewish writer Lenni Brennar's Zionism In the Age of the Dictators, published by a small press and not given the publicity it deserves by the so-called "mainstream" media (which is otherwise obsessed with the Holocaust era), was perhaps the first major endeavor in this realm.   In response to Brennar and others, the Zionist reaction has usually consisted of declarations that their collaboration with Nazi Germany was undertaken solely to save the lives of Jews. But the collaboration was all the more remarkable because it took place at a time when many Jews and Jewish organizations demanded a boycott of Germany.   To the Zionist leaders, Hitler's assumption of power held out the possibility of a flow of immigrants to Palestine. Previously, the majority of German Jews, who identified themselves as Germans, had little sympathy with the Zionist cause of promoting the ingathering of world Jewry to Palestine. But the Zionists saw that only the anti-Semitic Hitler was likely to push the anti-Zionist German Jews into the arms of Zionism.   For all the modern-day wailing by worldwide supporters of Israel (not to mention the Israelis themselves) about "the Holocaust", they neglect to mention that making the situation in Germany as uncomfortable for the Jews as possible - in cooperation with German National Socialism - was part of the plan.   Note to readers of this article who can also read German: a booklet discussing the emigration of Jews from Third Reich Germany, and the Transfer Agreement that facilitated their emigration, may be found here!   This was the genesis of the so-called Transfer Agreement, the agreement between Zionist Jews and the National Socialist government to transfer German Jewry to Palestine.   According to Jewish historian Walter Laqueur and many others, German Jews were far from convinced that immigration to Palestine was the answer. Furthermore, although the majority of German Jews refused to consider the Zionists as their political leaders, it is clear that Hitler protected and cooperated with the Zionists for the purposes of implementing the final solution: the mass transfer of Jews to the Middle East.   Edwin Black, in his massive tome The Transfer Agreement (Macmillan, 1984), stated that although most Jews did not want to flee to Palestine at all, due to the Zionist movement's influence within Nazi Germany a Jew's best chance of getting out of Germany was by emigrating to Palestine. In other words, the Transfer Agreement itself mandated that Jewish capital could only to go Palestine.   Thus, according to the Zionists, a Jew could leave Germany only if he went to the Levant.   The primary difficulty with the Transfer Agreement (or even the idea of such an agreement) was that the English [!!!; Scriptorium] were demanding, as a condition of immigration, that each immigrant pay 1,000 pounds sterling upon arrival in Haifa or elsewhere. The difficulty was that such hard currency was nearly impossible to come by in a cash-strapped and radically inflationary Germany. This was the main idea behind the final Transfer Agreement. Laqueur writes:   A large German bank would freeze funds paid in by immigrants in blocked accounts for German exporters, while a bank in Palestine would control the sale of German goods to Palestine, thereby providing the immigrants with the necessary foreign currency on the spot. Sam Cohen, co-owner of Hanoaiah Ltd. and initiator of the transfer endeavors, was however subjected to long-lasting objections from his own people and finally had to concede that such a transfer agreement could only be concluded on a much higher level with a bank of its own rather than that of a private company. The renowned Anglo-Palestine Bank in London would be included in this transfer deal and create a trust company for [this] purpose.   Of course, this is of major historical importance in dealing with the relationship between Zionism and National Socialism in Germany in the 1930s. The relationship was not one merely of mutual interest and political favoritism on the part of Hitler, but a close financial relationship with German banking families and financial institutions as well. Black writes:   It was one thing for the Zionists to subvert the anti-Nazi boycott. Zionism needed to transfer out the capital of German Jews, and merchandise was the only available medium. But soon Zionist leaders understood that the success of the future Jewish Palestinian economy would be inextricably bound up with the survival of the Nazi economy. So the Zionist leadership was compelled to go further. The German economy would have to be safeguarded, stabilized, and if necessary reinforced. Hence, the Nazi party and the Zionist organizers shared a common stake in the recovery of Germany.   Thus one sees a radical fissure in world Jewry around 1933 and beyond. There were, first, the non-Zionist Jews (specifically the World Jewish Congress founded in 1933), who, on the one hand, demanded the boycott and eventual destruction of Germany. Black notes that many of these people were not just in New York and Amsterdam, but a major source for this also came from Palestine proper.   On the other hand, one can see the judicious use of such feelings by the Zionists for the sake of eventual resettlement in Palestine. In other words, it can be said (and Black does hint at this) that Zionism believed that, since Jews would be moving to the Levant, capital flight would be necessary for any new economy to function.   The result was the understanding that Zionism would have to ally itself with National Socialism, so that the German government would not impede the flow of Jewish capital out of the country.   It served the Zionist interests at the time that Jews be loud in their denunciations of German practices against the Jews to scare them into the Levant, but, on the other hand, Laqueur states that "The Zionists became motivated not to jeopardize the German economy or currency." In other words, the Zionist leadership of the Jewish Diaspora was one of subterfuge and underhandedness, with only the advent of German hostility towards Jewry convincing the world's Jews that immigration was the only escape.   The fact is that the ultimate establishment of the state of Israel was based on fraud. The Zionists did not represent anything more than a small minority of German Jews in 1933.   On the one hand, the Zionist fathers of Israel wanted loud denunciations of Germany's "cruelties" to the world's Jews while at the same time demanding moderation so that the National Socialist government would remain stable, financially and politically. Thus Zionism boycotted the boycott.   For all intents and purposes, the National Socialist government was the best thing to happen to Zionism in its history, for it "proved" to many Jews that Europeans were irredeemably anti-Jewish and that Palestine was the only answer: Zionism came to represent the overwhelming majority of Jews solely by trickery and cooperation with Adolf Hitler.   For the Zionists, both the denunciations of German policies towards Jews (to keep Jews frightened), plus the reinvigoration of the German economy (for the sake of final resettlement) was imperative for the Zionist movement. Ironically, today the Zionist leaders of Israel complain bitterly about the horrific and inhuman regime of the National Socialists. So the fraud continues.

 

Disclaimer

 

Donate to Rense.comSupport Free And Honest Journalism At Rense.com

Email Article

Subscribe To RenseRadio!Enormous Online Archives, MP3s, Streaming Audio Files, Highest Quality Live Programs

2. Δεν υπαρχει ελπις για το ανθρωπινο γενος

"... Το παρακατω κειμενο γραφτηκε στον καιρο του Οθωνα και δημοσιευθηκε σε ημερησια εφημεριδα των Αθηνων.
Αναφερεται στον θανατο ενος παλληκαριου, του Λαμπρου, παλαιου αγωνιστη της Επαναστασης, που ειχε καταντησει να ζητιανευει στους δρομους, οπως και οι περισσοτεροι αγωνιστες του 21.
Ο ανωνυμος αρθρογραφος φαινεται οτι ηταν συναγωνιστης του Λαμπρου στον αγωνα για την απελευθερωση του Γενους.
Ζητουλας και αυτος...

Εν Αθηναις, 30ην Μαρτιου του 1849

"Ξημερωνοντας η Τετραδη, βρηκαν τον Λαμπρο αποθαμενον καταμεσης της οδου Ερμου, ολιγα βηματα αποστασιν απο το καφενειον "Η Ωραια Ελλας", οπου συνηθως μαζωχνομαστε ημεις οι κακομοιραιοι, δια να ζητιανεψωμεν την παλαιαν μας ηρωοσυνην, προς το οφελος και την δοξαν της σημερνης πατριδος.
Το αλλοτες ρωμαλεον σωμα του ειχε περιελθει εις αθλιαν καταστασιν, απο τες πολλες πληγες που του ειχαν δωκει οι μαχαιρες των Τουρκων και οι αρρωστειες της ανεχειας.
Τοσον ταλαιπωρημενη ητο η αδυναμη σαρκα του, ωστε θα ελεγες οτι τον ανθρωπο αυτον, τον ειχαν φονευσει πριν απο τον φυσικον του θανατον...

Πολλοι ειχαν ακουστα για τες ανδρειες του και την αρετη του, κανενος ομως δεν πηγαινε ο νους οτι αυτος ο ξεφτιλισμενος ζητουλας ηταν ενα απο τα παλληκαρια που τραγωδουσαν οι θρυλοι του εικοσιενα. Κι αν ποτε τον αρωτουσε ανθρωπος, αν ηταν αυτος ο Λαμπρος που χε τρυπωσει αλλοτε στο καστρο της Ακροπολεως, σφαζοντας δωδεκα Τουρκους του Κιουταχη, το αρνιοτανε - οχι, δεν ημουν εγω αυτος ο Λαμπρος...
Σαν να μην του αξιζε ουτε αυτο το ελαχιστο - να κατεχει δηλαδης ενα ονομα οπως ο καθε τελευταιος...

Ο κοσμακης ομως, οταν τον ειπανε οι εφημεριδες οτι ο πεθαμενος δεν ητο αλλος απο το πρωτοπαλληκαρο του Καραϊσκακη που χε σωσει τους πολιορκημενους των Αθηνων στον καιρο του Φαβιερου, ερχοντουσαν με κατεβασμενο το κεφαλι και απιθωναν ενα ματσακι αγριολουλουδα απανου στο νεκρο σωμα και ετσι, γοργα-γοργα και πριν να παρελθει η μεσημβρια ο τοπος γυρω απο την "Ωραια Ελλαδα" αρχισε να ευωδιαζει ωσαν Ανοιξις.
Ισως, αν οσο ζουσε ακομα ο Λαμπρος ευαρεστουνταν να του ριξουνε και καμια δεκαρα, οσα λουλουδια του εριξαν οντας νεκρος, δεν θα ειχε τη χρειαν να αποθανει εκ πεινης. Ωστοσον, φαινεται οτι ετσι λειτουργουν οι ψυχες των Ελληνων.
Ξοδευουνε για τον θανατο οσα τσιγκουνευονται να δωκουν για τη ζωη...

Την εκτην ωρα του εσπερινου εδεησε να φθασει το καρον της δημαρχιας και αφου εσωριασαν τον Μεγα νεκρον εις τσουβαλι απο λινατσαν, οι υπαλληλοι της καθαριοτητος περισυνελεξαν ολα τα ανθη και εξαφανισαν παντα τα ιχνη της αγαπης των ανθρωπων, για να μην φανει λεει στους ξενους επισκεπτες, οτι οι αλλοτινοι ηρωες του Γενους, ψωμολυσσανε τωρα εις τας οδους των Αθηνων και επιδεικνυουν τες πληγες των για να τους ελεησουν καμιαν ελιαν, κανεναν κρασοβολον, ισως ενα κρομμυδι, ενω οι τωρινοι αφεντες της Ελλαδος διοργανωνουν χοροεσπεριδας εις τα ανακτορα και την περνουνε κοτα/πιττα.
Τι κριμα που η Ανοιξις εκρατησε τοσον λιγο...

Η μοιρα του Λαμπρου, δεν ειναι διαφορος της μοιρας των ονειρευτων εις παντα τα εθνη της γης - και εις εκεινα οπου ανδραγαθησαν δια την ελευθεριαν τους απεναντι ξενων τυρρανων αλλα και εις εκεινα οπου εσηκωσαν τα οπλα δια να αποδιωξουν εντοπιους εκμεταλλευτες.
Τες δεκα πληγες που ελαβα δια την πατριδαν φαινεται οτι τες επληρωθησαν αλλοι. Και αυτο μεν ολιγον με θλιβει, διοτι δοξα τω Θεω εγω ουτε χερι εχασα, ουτε ποδι και σημερον ειμαι εις θεσιν να κραταω γερα το δισκακι της επαιτειας, ενω αλλοι, σερνονται ωσαν τις σαυρες στο προαυλιον της Αγιας Ειρηνης, αναμενοντας να βγει ο Βασιλιας και οι κυριες της Αυλης, για να κλονισουν την καρδιαν τους με την φρικιαστικην οψιν της αναπηριας των.
Με θλιβει ομως και με πονα περισσοτερον και απο το γιαταγανι του Τουρκου οτι, βλεποντας οι νεωτεροι τα χαλια τα εδικα μου, ποτε πια δεν θα στερξουν να δωκουνε πιστιν εις αγωνας και ελευθεριαν...

Και αν κρινω απο τα οσα διαδιδουν οι λογιοι, για την αισχρη καταληξη των επαναστασεων, οπου αυτες ξεσπασαν για το καλο και το δικαιο του ανθρωπου, τετοια και χειροτερη ειναι η μοιρα ολωνων των ονειρευτων, ειτε Νταντον τους αποκαλουν, ειτε Κολοκοτρωναιους.
Γιατι, στους γυρους της Ιστοριας, η καθε νεα Βαστιλη γεννα εναν Λουδοβικο Βοναπαρτη και το καθε δοξασμενο Δερβενι, οδηγει σε εναν Οθωνα. Φαινεται οτι ο αγωνας του ανθρωπου για εναν καλυτερο κοσμο, ειναι καταδικασμενος να καταντησει το πρωτο σκαλι για τους επομενους εκμεταλλευτες, που με το μπαϊρακι του Δικαιου, θα φτιαξουν εναν κοσμο χειροτερο κι απο τον προηγουμενο. Μονον που αυτη η σκαλα οπου αναρριχωνται οι εξουσιαστες, ειναι καμωμενη απο ματωμενα κορμια και προδομενα ονειρα...

Ημουνα κοντα εις τον Λαμπρον, οταν ακομη γιομιζαμε Πιστη για ενα ωραιο Αυριο και ημουν ακομα πιο κοντα του, οτε νικημενοι κι οι δυο βγαναμε την αλλοτινην μας ηρωοσυνην εις επαιτειαν - και τωρα ειμαι μονον μιαν ανασα πισω του, οντας κι ο ιδιος μελοθανατος.
Δεν ηξευραμε, τοτε που ριχτηκαμε εις τον αγωνα δια ελευθεριαν της Ελλαδος, οτι οι Ελληνες ειναι ανθρωποι οπως οι ανθρωποι ολουνου του Κοσμου και οτι η μονη αληθεια ειναι, πως δεν υπαρχει ελπις για το ανθρωπινον γενος..."

Δεκάλογος εθνικοσοσιαλισμού.

Iδού ένας δεκάλογος, όπου παρουσιάζονται εν συντομία οι βασικές αρχές κι αξίες της Ιδέας:

Η Φύση στην Ολότητα της είναι το επίκεντρο της Κοσμοθεωρίας μας.

Πιστεύουμε στον Φυλετικό Ανθρωπισμό και προστατεύουμε την ποικιλία που η ίδια η Φύση δημιούργησε.

Θεωρούμε το Έθνος ως την Φυλή εν συνειδήσει και φροντίζουμε για την πλήρη ανάπτυξη του σε κάθε επίπεδο.

Υποστηρίζουμε μία Πολιτεία - την παρούσα νομική έκφραση του Έθνους - που θα εξυπηρετεί τα συμφέροντα του σε κάθε επίπεδο, ενώ όλες της οι εξουσίες θα πρέπει να νομιμοποιούνται άμεσα από την Λαϊκή Κοινότητα.

Αντιμετωπίζουμε την οικονομία ως υπηρέτη του Λαού και όχι το αντίστροφο δίνοντας ιδιαίτερη σημασία στην αυτάρκεια της Πολιτείας στα βασικά υλικά αγαθά που απαιτούνται για την επιβίωση της Λαϊκής Κοινότητας και η οποία (Λαϊκή Κοινότητα) κατέχει και ελέγχει τους στρατηγικούς τομείς της παραγωγής 

Προστατεύουμε την ατομική ιδιοκτησία - και ιδιαίτερα την μικρή και μεσαία - στο βαθμό που αποτελεί αποτέλεσμα τίμιας εργασίας.

Στεκόμαστε με σθένος υπέρ μιας πλήρους ανεξιθρησκείας στο βαθμό που η θρησκεία αυτή δεν στρέφεται εναντίον των συμφερόντων της Φυλής, του Έθνους, της Λαϊκής Κοινότητας και της Πολιτείας.

Παλεύουμε για μια πορεία επιστροφής από τις μεγαλουπόλεις στην γεμάτη μαγεία και ζωτικότητα Ελληνική ύπαιθρο.

Πιστεύουμε σε μια Λαϊκή Κοινότητα καθολικά ένοπλη και σε έναν Λαϊκό Εθνικιστικό Στρατό.

Θέλουμε μια νεολαία μορφωμένη, υγιή, γυμνασμένη που θα ανακαλύπτει εκ νέου και διαρκώς την μαγεία του Κόσμου.

πως οι λευκοί κατάκτησαν την αμερική

What the World Rejected: Adolf Hitler's Peace Offers 1933-1939

Germany's enemies maintain today that Adolf Hitler is the greatest disturber of peace known to history, that he threatens every nation with sudden attack and oppression.

That he has created a terrible war machine in order to cause trouble and devastation all around him. At the same time they intentionally conceal an all-important fact: they themselves drove the Leader of the German people finally to draw the sword. They themselves compelled him to seek to obtain at last by the use of force that which he had been striving to gain by persuasion from the beginning: the security of his country.

They did this not only by declaring war on him on September 3, 1939, but also by blocking step for step for seven years the path to any peaceful discussion.

The attempts repeatedly made by Adolf Hitler to induce the governments of other states to collaborate with him in a reconstruction of Europe resemble an ever-recurring pattern in his conduct since the commencement of his labors for the German Reich. But these attempts were wrecked every time by reason of the fact that nowhere was there any willingness to give them due consideration, because the evil spirit of the Great War still prevailed everywhere, because in London and Paris and in the capitals of the Western Powers' vassal states there was only one fixed intention: to perpetuate the power of Versailles.

A rapid glance at the most important events will furnish incontrovertible proof for this statement.

When Adolf Hitler came to the fore, Germany was as gagged and as helpless as the victors of 1918 wanted her to be. Completely disarmed, with an army of only 100,000 men intended solely for police duties within the country, she found herself within a tightly closed ring of neighbors all armed to the teeth and leagued together. To the old enemies in the West, Britain, Belgium and France, new ones were artificially created and added in the East and the South: above all Poland and Czechoslovakia. A quarter of the population of Germany were forcibly torn away from their mother country and handed over to foreign powers. The Reich, mutilated on all sides and robbed of every means of defense, at any moment could become the helpless victim of some rapacious neighbor.

Then it was that Adolf Hitler for the first time made his appeal to the common sense of the other powers. On May 17, 1933, a few months after his appointment to the office of Reichskanzler, he delivered a speech in the German Reichstag, from which we extract the following passages:

    "Germany will be perfectly ready to disband her entire military establishment and destroy the small amount of arms remaining to her, if the neighboring countries will do the same thing with equal thoroughness.

    ... Germany is entirely ready to renounce aggressive weapons of every sort if the armed nations, on their part, will destroy their aggressive weapons within a specified period, and if their use is forbidden by an international convention.

    ... Germany is at all times prepared to renounce offensive weapons if the rest of the world does the same. Germany is prepared to agree to any solemn pact of non-aggression because she does not think of attacking anybody but only of acquiring security."

No answer was received.

Without paying any heed the others continued to fill their arsenals with weapons, to pile up their stores of explosives, to increase the numbers of their troops. At the same time the League of Nations, the instrument of the victorious powers, declared that Germany must first pass through a period of "probation" before it would be possible to discuss with her the question of the disarmament of the other countries. On October 14, 1933, Hitler broke away from this League of Nations with which it was impossible to come to any agreement. Shortly afterwards, however, on December 18, 1933, he came forward with a new proposal for the improvement of international relations. This proposal included the following six points:

    "1. Germany receives full equality of rights.

    2. The fully armed States undertake amongst themselves not to increase their armaments beyond their present level.

    3. Germany adheres to this agreement, freely undertaking to make only so much actual moderate use of the equality of rights granted to her as will not represent a threat to the security of any other European power.

    [3] 4. All States recognize certain obligations in regard to conducting war on humane principles, or to the elimination of certain weapons for use against the civilian population.

    5. All States accept a uniform general control which will watch over and ensure the observance of these obligations.

    6. The European nations guarantee one another the unconditional maintenance of peace by the conclusion of non-aggression pacts, to be renewed after ten years."

Following upon this a proposal was made to increase the strength of the German army to 300,000 men, corresponding to the strength required by Germany "having regard to the length of her frontiers and the size of the armies of her neighbors", in order to protect her threatened territory against attacks. The defender of the principle of peaceable agreement was thus trying to accommodate himself to the unwillingness of the others to disarm by expressing a desire for a limited increase of armaments for his own country. An exchange of notes, starting from this and continuing for years, finally came to a sudden end with an unequivocal "no" from France. This "no" was moreover accompanied by tremendous increases in the armed forces of France, Britain and Russia.


In this way Germany's position became still worse than before. The danger to the Reich was so great that Adolf Hitler felt himself compelled to act. On March 16, 1935, he reintroduced conscription. But in direct connection with this measure he once more announced an offer of agreements of an extensive nature, the purpose of which was to ensure that any future war would be conducted on humane principles, in fact to make such a war practically impossible by eliminating destructive armaments. In his speech of May 21, 1935, he declared:

    "The German Government is ready to take an active part in all efforts which may lead to a practical limitation of armaments. It regards a return to the former idea of the Geneva Red Cross Convention as the only possible way to achieve this. It believes that at first there will be only the possibility of a gradual abolition and outlawry of weapons and methods of warfare which are essentially contrary to the Geneva Red Cross Convention which is still valid.

    Just as the use of dumdum bullets was once forbidden and, on the whole, thereby prevented in practice, so the use of other definite arms should be forbidden and prevented. Here the German Govern- [4] ment has in mind all those arms which bring death and destruction not so much to the fighting soldiers as to non-combatant women and children.

    The German Government considers as erroneous and ineffective the idea to do away with aeroplanes while leaving the question of bombing open. But it believes it possible to proscribe the use of certain arms as contrary to international law and to excommunicate those nations which still use them from the community of mankind, its rights and its laws.

    It also believes that gradual progress is the best way to success. For example, there might be prohibition of the dropping of gas, incendiary and explosive bombs outside the real battle zone. This limitation could then be extended to complete international outlawry of all bombing. But so long as bombing as such is permitted, any limitation of the number of bombing planes is questionable in view of the possibility of rapid substitution.

    Should bombing as such be branded as a barbarity contrary to international law, the construction of bombing aeroplanes will soon be abandoned as superfluous and of no purpose. If, through the Geneva Red Cross Convention, it turned out possible as a matter of fact to prevent the killing of a defenseless wounded man or prisoner, it ought to be equally possible to forbid, by an analogous convention, and finally to stop, the bombing of equally defenseless civilian populations.

    In such a fundamental way of dealing with the problem, Germany sees a greater reassurance and security for the nations than in all pacts of assistance and military conventions.

    The German Government is ready to agree to any limitation which leads to abolition of the heaviest arms, especially suited for aggression. Such are, first, the heaviest artillery, and, secondly, the heaviest tanks. In view of the enormous fortifications on the French frontier such international abolition of the heaviest weapons of attack would ipso facto give France 100 per cent security.

    Germany declares herself ready to agree to any limitation whatsoever of the calibre-strength of artillery, battleships, cruisers and torpedo boats. In like manner the German Government is ready to accept any international limitation of the size of warships. And finally it is ready to agree to limitation of tonnage for submarines, or to their complete abolition in case of international agreement.

    [5] And it gives the further assurance that it will agree to any international limitation or abolition of arms whatsoever for a uniform space of time."

This time again Hitler's declarations did not find the slightest response. On the contrary, France made an alliance with Russia in order to increase her preponderating influence on the Continent still further, and to augment to a gigantic degree the pressure on Germany from the East.


In view of the evident destructive intentions of his opponents, Adolf Hitler was therefore obliged to take new measures to ensure the safety of the German Reich. On March 3, 1936, he occupied the Rhineland, which had been without military protection since Versailles, and thus closed the wide gate through which the Western neighbor could carry out an invasion. Once again he followed the defensive step which he had been obliged to take with a liberal appeal for general reconciliation and for the settlement of all differences. On March 31, 1936, he formulated the following peace plan:

    "1. In order to give to future agreements securing the peace of Europe the character of inviolable treaties, those nations participating in the negotiations do so only on an entirely equal footing and as equally esteemed members. The sole compelling reason for signing these treaties can only lie in the generally recognized and obvious practicability of these agreements for the peace of Europe, and thus for the social happiness and economic prosperity of the nations.

    2. In order to shorten in the economic interest of the European nations the period of uncertainty, the German Government proposes a limit of four months for the first period up to the signing of the pacts of non-aggression guaranteeing the peace of Europe.

    3. The German Government gives the assurance not to add any reinforcements whatsoever to the troops in the Rhineland during this period, always provided that the Belgian and French Governments act in the same way.

    4. The German Government gives the assurance not to move during this period closer to the Belgian and French frontiers the troops at present stationed in the Rhineland.

    5. The German Government proposes the setting up of a commission composed of the two guarantor Powers, Britain and Italy, and a disinterested third neutral power, to guarantee this assurance to be given by both parties.

    [6] 6. Germany, Belgium and France are each entitled to send a representative to this Commission. If Germany, France or Belgium think that for any particular reason they can point to a change in the military situation having taken place within this period of four months, they have the right to inform the Guarantee Commission of their observations.

    7. Germany, Belgium and France declare their willingness in such a case to permit this Commission to make the necessary investigations through the British and Italian military attaches, and to report thereon to the Powers participating.

    8. Germany, Belgium and France give the assurance that they will bestow the fullest consideration to the objections arising therefrom.

    9. Moreover the German Government is willing on a basis of complete reciprocity with Germany's two western neighbors to agree to any military limitations on the German western frontier.

    10. Germany, Belgium and France and the two guarantor Powers agree to enter into negotiations under the leadership of the British Government at once or, at the latest, after the French elections, for the conclusion of a 25-years non-aggression or security pact between France and Belgium on the one hand, and Germany on the other.

    11. Germany agrees that Britain and Italy shall sign this security pact as guarantor Powers once more.

    12. Should special engagements to render military assistance arise as a result of these security agreements, Germany on her part declares her willingness to enter into such engagements.

    13. The German Government hereby repeats its proposal for the conclusion of an air-pact to supplement and consolidate these security agreements.

    14. The German Government repeats that should the Netherlands so desire it is willing to include that country too in this West-European security agreement.

    15. In order to stamp this peace-pact, voluntarily entered into between Germany and France, as the reconciliatory conclusion of a centuries-old dispute, Germany and France pledge themselves to take steps to see that in the education of the young, as well as in the press and publications of both nations, everything shall be avoided which might be calculated to poison the relationship between the two [7] peoples, whether it be a derogatory or contemptuous attitude, or improper interference in the internal affairs of the other country. They agree to set up at the headquarters of the League of Nations at Geneva, a joint commission whose function it shall be to lay all complaints received before the two Governments for information and investigation.

    16. In pursuance of their intention to give this agreement the character of a sacred pledge, Germany and France undertake to ratify it by means of a plebiscite of the two nations.

    17. Germany expresses her willingness, on her part, to establish contact with the states on her south-eastern and north-eastern frontiers, in order to invite them directly to conclude the pacts of non-aggression already proposed.

    18. Germany expresses her willingness to re-enter the League of Nations, either at once, or after the conclusion of these agreements. At the same time, the German Government again expresses as its expectation that, after a reasonable time and by the method of friendly negotiations, the question of colonial equality of rights and that of the separation of the Covenant of the League of Nations from its foundations in the Versailles Treaty will be cleared up.

    19. Germany proposes the setting up of an International Court of Arbitration, which shall be responsible for the observance of the various agreements concluded, and whose decisions shall be binding on all parties.

    After the conclusion of this great work of securing European peace, the German Government considers it urgently necessary to endeavor by practical measures to put a stop to the unlimited competition in armaments. In her opinion this would mean not merely an improvement in the financial and economic position of the nations, but above all a diminution of the psychological tension.

    The German Government, however, has no faith in the attempt to bring about universal settlements, as this would be doomed to failure from the outset, and can therefore be proposed only by those who have no interest in achieving practical results. On the other hand it is of the opinion that the negotiations held and the results achieved in limiting naval armaments should have an instructive and stimulating effect.

    The German Government therefore proposes that future conferences shall have one clearly defined objective.

    [8] For the present, it believes the most important task is to bring aerial warfare into the moral and humane atmosphere of the protection afforded to non-combatants or the wounded by the Geneva Convention. Just as the killing of defenseless wounded, or prisoners, or the use of dumdum bullets, or the waging of submarine warfare without warning, have been either forbidden or regulated by international conventions, so it must be possible for civilized humanity to prevent the senseless abuse of any new type of weapon, without running counter to the object of warfare.

    The German Government therefore puts forward the proposal that the immediate practical tasks of this conference shall be:

    1. Prohibition of dropping gas, poison, or incendiary bombs.

    2. Prohibition of dropping bombs of any kind whatsoever on open towns and villages outside the range of the medium-heavy artillery of the fighting fronts.

    3. Prohibition of the bombarding with long-range guns of towns more than 20 km. distant from the battle zone.

    4. Abolition and prohibition of the construction of tanks of the heaviest type.

    5. Abolition and prohibition of artillery of the heaviest calibre.

    As soon as possibilities for further limitation of armaments emerge from such discussions and agreements, they should be utilized.

    The German Government hereby declares itself prepared to join in every such settlement, in so far as it is valid internationally.

    The German Government believes that if even a first step is made on the road to disarmament, this will be of enormous importance to the relationship between the nations, and to the recovery of confidence, trade and prosperity.

    In accordance with the general desire for the restoration of favorable economic conditions, the German Government is prepared immediately after the conclusion of the political treaties to enter into an exchange of opinions on economic problems with the other nations concerned, in the spirit of the proposals made, and to do all that lies in its power to improve the economic situation in Europe, and the world economic situation which is closely bound up with it.

    [9] The German Government believes that with the peace plan proposed above it has made its contribution to the reconstruction of a new Europe on the basis of reciprocal respect and confidence between sovereign states. Many opportunities for such a pacification of Europe, for which Germany has so often in the last few years made her proposals, have been neglected. May this attempt to achieve European understanding succeed at last!

    The German Government confidently believes that it has opened the way in this direction by submitting the above peace plan."

Anyone who today reads this comprehensive peace plan will realize in what direction the development of Europe, according to the wishes of Adolf Hitler, should really have proceeded. Here was the possibility of truly constructive work, this could have been a real turning-point for the welfare of all nations. But once more he who alone called for peace was not heard. Only Britain replied with a rather scornful questionnaire which avoided any serious consideration of the essential points involved. Incidentally, however, she disclosed her actual intentions by setting herself up as the protector of France and by instituting and commencing regular military staff conversations with the French Republic just as in the period before the Great War.


There could no longer be any doubt now that the Western Powers were following the old path towards an armed conflict and were steadily preparing a new blow against Germany, although Adolf Hitler's whole thoughts and endeavors were directed towards proving to them that he wanted to remain on the best possible terms with them. In the course of the years he had undertaken numerous steps in this direction, of which a few more shall be referred to here. He negotiated the Naval Agreement of June 18, 1935 with Great Britain, which provided that the German Navy should only have a strength of 35% of that of the British Navy. By this he wanted to demonstrate that the Reich, to use his own words, had "neither the intention nor the means, nor was it necessary" to enter into any rivalry as regards naval power, such as had had so fateful an influence on its relations to Great Britain in the well-remembered days before the Great War.

He assured France on every possible occasion of his desire to live at peace with her. He repeatedly renounced in plain terms any claim to Alsace-Lorraine. On the return to the Reich of the Saar territory as the result of the plebiscite, he declared on March 1, 1935:

    [10] "It is our hope that through this act of just compensation, in which we see a return to natural reason, relations between Germany and France have permanently improved. Therefore as we desire peace, we must hope that our great neighbor is ready and willing to seek peace with us. It must be possible for two great people to join together and collaborate in opposing the difficulties which threaten to overwhelm Europe."

He even endeavored to arrive at a better understanding with Poland, the eastern ally of the Western Powers, although this country had unlawfully incorporated millions of Germans in 1919 and had subjected them to the worst oppression ever since. On January 26, 1934, he concluded a non-aggression pact with her in which the two Governments agreed "to settle directly all questions of whatever sort which concern their mutual relations."

Thus on all sides he opposed to the enemy plans his determination to preserve peace and strove to protect Germany in this way. When however he saw that London and Paris were arming for attack, he was once more obliged to undertake fresh measures of defense. The enemy camp, as we have seen above, had been enormously extended through the alliance between France and Russia. In addition to this the two powers had secured a line of communication to the south of the Reich through Czechoslovakia having concluded a treaty with Russia which put her in the position of a bridge between east and west. Czechoslovakia, however, was in control of the high-lying country of Bohemia and Moravia, which Bismarck had called the citadel of Europe, and this citadel projected far into German territory. The threat to Germany thus assumed truly overpowering proportions.

The genius of Adolf Hitler found a way of meeting this danger. The conditions in German Austria, which under the terror of the Schuschnigg Government were tending towards civil war, offered him the opportunity of stepping in to save the situation, and to lead back into the Reich the sister nation to the south-east that had been sentenced by the victorious powers to lead the life of a hopelessly decaying "Free State". After he had thus established himself near the line of communication between France and Russia mentioned above, a process of dissolution set in in the mixed State of Czechoslovakia, which had been artificially put together from the most diverse national elements, until after the liberation of the Sudetenland and the secession of Slovakia, the Czechs themselves asked for the protection of the German Reich. With this the enemy's bridge came into Adolf Hitler's possession; and at the same time direct [11] connection was made possible with Italy, whose friendship had been secured some time previously.

While he was gaining this strategical success for the security of his country, Adolf Hitler was again endeavoring with great eagerness to reach a peaceable understanding with the Western Powers. In Munich directly after liberation of the Sudeten Germans, approved by Britain, France and Italy, he made an agreement with the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, the text of which was a follows:

    "We have had a further meeting to-day and have agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for the two countries and for Europe.

    We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.

    We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

                September 30, 1938. Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain."


Two months later, on Hitler's instructions, the German Foreign Minister, von Ribbentrop, made the following agreement with France:

    "Herr Joachim von Ribbentrop, Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs,
          and M. Georges Bonnet, French Minister of Foreign Affairs,
          acting in the name and by order of their Governments, are, at their meeting in Paris, on December 6, 1938, agreed as follows:

    1. The German Government and the French Government fully share the conviction that peaceful and good-neighborly relations between Germany and France constitute one of the most essential elements for the consolidation of the situation in Europe and the maintenance of general peace. The two Governments will in consequence use all their efforts to ensure the development of the relations between their countries in this direction.

    [12] 2. The two Governments recognize that between the two countries there is no territorial question outstanding, and they solemnly recognize as final the frontiers between their countries as they now exist.

    3. The two Governments are resolved, while leaving unaffected their particular relations with other Powers, to remain in contact with regard to all questions concerning their two countries, and mutually to consult should the later evolution of those questions lead to international difficulties.

    In token whereof the representatives of the two Governments have signed the present Declaration, which comes into immediate effect.

    Done in two original Documents in the French and German language respectively, in Paris, December 6, 1938.

                Joachim von Ribbentrop,
                Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs

                Georges Bonnet,
                Minister for Foreign Affairs"

According to all calculations one should have been able to assume that the way was clear for collaborative reconstruction in which all leading powers would participate, and that the Fuehrer's endeavors to secure peace would at last meet with success. But the contrary was true. Scarcely had Chamberlain reached home when he called for rearmament on a considerable scale and laid plans for a new and tremendous encirclement of Germany. Britain now took over from France the leadership of this further encirclement of the Reich, in order to obtain a substitute for the lost Czechoslovakia many times its value. She opened negotiations with Russia, granted Poland a guarantee and also Rumania, Greece and Turkey. These were alarm signals of the greatest urgency.

Just at this time Adolf Hitler was occupied with the task of finally eliminating sources of friction with Poland. For this purpose he had made an uncommonly generous proposal by which the purely German Free City of Danzig would return to the Reich, and a narrow passage through the Polish Corridor, which since 1919 had torn asunder the north-eastern part of Germany to an unbearable extent, would provide communication with the separated area. This proposal, which moreover afforded Poland the prospect of a 25-year non-aggression pact and other advantages, was nevertheless rejected in Warsaw, because there it was believed, conscious as the authorities were of forming one of the principal members of the common [13] front set up by London against Germany, that any concession, however minor, could be refused. This was not all! With the same consciousness Poland then started to be aggressive, threatened Danzig, and prepared to take up arms against Germany.

Thus the moment was close at hand for the attack on the Reich by the countries which had been brought together for the purpose. Adolf Hitler, making a final extreme effort in the interests of peace, saved what he could. On August 23rd, Ribbentrop succeeded in reaching an agreement in Moscow for a non-aggression pact with Russia. Two days later the German Fuehrer himself made a final and truly remarkable offer to Britain, declaring himself ready "to enter into agreements with Great Britain", "which... would not only, on the German side, in any case safeguard the existence of the British Empire, but if necessary would guarantee German assistance for the British Empire, irrespective of where such assistance might be required". At the same time he was prepared "to accept a reasonable limitation of armaments, in accordance with the new political situation and economic requirements". And finally he assured once again that he had no interest in the issues in the west and that "a correction of the borders in the west are out of any consideration."

The reply to this was a pact of assistance signed the same day between Britain and Poland, which rendered the outbreak of war inevitable. Then a decision was made in Warsaw to mobilize at once against Germany, and the Poles began with violent attacks not only on the Germans in Poland, who for some time had been the victims of frightful massacres, but on Germans in German territory.

But even when Britain and France had already declared the war they desired, and Germany had overcome the Polish danger in the east by a glorious campaign without a parallel, even then Adolf Hitler raised his voice once more in the name of peace. He did so although his hands were now free to act against the enemy in the west. He did so, although the fight against him personally was proclaimed in London and Paris, in immeasurable hate, as a crusade. At this moment he possessed the supreme self-control to proclaim in his speech of October 6, 1939, a new plan for the pacification of Europe to public opinion throughout the world. This plan was as follows:

    "By far the most important task, in my opinion, is the creation of not only a belief in, but also a sense of, European security.

    [14] 1. For this it is necessary that the aims of the foreign policy of each European State should be made perfectly clear. As far as Germany is concerned, the Reich Government is ready to give a thorough and exhaustive exposition of the aims of its foreign policy. In so doing, it begins by stating that the Treaty of Versailles is now regarded by it as obsolete, in other words, that the Government of the German Reich and with it the whole German people no longer see cause or reason for any further revision of the Treaty, apart from the demand for adequate colonial possessions justly due to the Reich, involving in the first place a return of the German colonies. This demand for colonies is based not only on Germany's historical claim to her colonies, but above all on her elementary right to a share of the world's resources of raw materials. This demand does not take the form of an ultimatum, nor is it a demand which is backed by force, but a demand based on political justice and sane economic principles.

    2. The demand for a real revival of international economic life coupled with an extension of trade and commerce presupposes a reorganization of the international economic system, in other words, of production in the individual states. In order to facilitate the exchange of the goods thus produced, however, a new system of markets must be found and a final settlement of currencies arrived at, so that the obstacles in the way of unrestricted trade can be gradually removed.

    3. The most important condition, however, for a real revival of economic life in and outside of Europe is the establishment of an unconditionally guaranteed peace and of a sense of security on the part of the individual nations. This security will not only be rendered possible by the final sanctioning of the European status, but above all by the reduction of armaments to a reasonable and economically tolerable level. An essential part of this necessary sense of security, however, is a clear definition of the legitimate use and application of certain modern armaments which can at any given moment strike straight at the heart of every nation and hence create a permanent sense of insecurity. In my previous speeches in the Reichstag I made proposals with this end in view. At that time they were rejected - presumably for the simple reason that they were made by me.

    I believe, however, that a sense of national security will not return to Europe until clear and binding international agreements [15] have provided a comprehensive definition of the extent to which the use of certain weapons is permitted or forbidden.

    The Geneva Convention once succeeded in prohibiting, in civilized countries at least, the killing of wounded, the ill-treatment of prisoners, war against non-combatants, etc., and just as it was possible gradually to achieve the universal observance of this statute, a way ought surely to be found to regulate aerial warfare, the use of poison gas, of submarines etc., and also so to define contraband that war will lose its terrible character of a conflict waged against women and children and against non-combatants in general. The growing horror of certain methods of modern warfare will of its own accord lead to their abolition, and thus they will become obsolete.

    In the war with Poland, I endeavored to restrict aerial warfare to objectives of military importance, or only to employ it to combat resistance at a given point. But it must surely be possible to emulate the Red Cross in drawing up some universally valid international regulation. It is only when this is achieved that peace can reign, particularly on our densely populated continent a peace which, un-contaminated by suspicion and fear, will provide the only possible condition for real economic prosperity. I do not believe that there is any responsible statesman in Europe who does not in his heart desire prosperity for his people. But such a desire can only be realized if all the nations inhabiting this continent decide to work together. To assist in ensuring this co-operation must be the aim of every man who is sincerely struggling for the future of his own people.

    To achieve this great end, the leading nations on this continent will one day have to come together in order to draw up, accept and guarantee a statute on a comprehensive basis which will ensure for them a sense of security, of calm, - in short, of peace.

    Such a conference could not possibly be held without the most thorough preparation, i. e. without exact elucidation of every point at issue. It is equally impossible that such a conference, which would determine the fate of this continent for many years to come, could carry on its deliberations while cannons are thundering, or mobilized armies bringing pressure to bear upon it. Since, however, these problems must be solved sooner or later, it would surely be more sensible to tackle the solution before millions of men are first uselessly sent to their death, and billions of dollars' worth of property destroyed.

    The continuation of the present state of affairs in the west is unthinkable. Each day will soon demand increasing sacrifices. Perhaps the day will come when France will begin to bombard and demolish Saarbrücken. The German artillery will in turn lay Mühlhausen in ruins. France will retaliate by bombarding Karlsruhe, and [16] Germany in her turn shell Strassburg. Then the French artillery will fire at Freiburg, and the Germans at Kolmar or Schlettstadt. Long-range artillery will then be set up, and from both sides destruction will strike deeper and deeper, and whatever cannot be reached by the long-range artillery will be destroyed from the air. And that will be very interesting for certain international journalists, and very profitable for the aeroplane, arms, and munition manufacturers, etc., but appalling for the victims. And this battle of destruction will not be confined to the land. No, it will reach far out over the sea. To-day there are no longer any islands.

    And the national wealth of Europe will be scattered in the form of shells, and the vigor of every nation will be sapped on the battlefields. One day, however, there will again be a frontier between Germany and France, but instead of flourishing towns there will be ruins and endless graveyards."

The fate of this plan was the same as that of all the previous appeals made by Adolf Hitler in the name of reason, in the interests of a true renascence of Europe. His enemies paid him no heed. On this occasion also no response was forthcoming from them. They rigidly adhered to the attitude which they had taken up in the beginning.

In the face of this series of historical facts is there any need for further details as to the question of why they did so? They had created Versailles, and when Versailles threatened to collapse they wanted the war, in order to follow it with an even worse Versailles. The reproaches which they make today to Adolf Hitler and Germany, recoil one and all on those who make them, and characterize their actions. They are the disturbers of peace, they are the ones who meditate the forcible oppression of other peoples and seek to plunge Europe in devastation and disaster. If if were not so, they would long ago have taken the hand that was stretched out to them or at least have made a gesture of honestly wishing to cooperate in a new order, and thus spare the nations "blood, tears and sweat" in excess.

World history is the world court; and in this case as always when it reaches its decision it will pronounce a just verdict.

Dr. Friedrich Stieve

Published in 1940 by the Washington Journal under the auspices of the Deutsche Informationsstelle.This digitalized version © 2009 by The Scriptoriu