Adolf Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the United States

http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a120a.jpg

On December 11, 1941, at 3:00 PM, Adolf Hitler spoke before the assembled German Reichstag. In this very significant and illuminating address, he gave his many cogent reasons for his declaration of war on the United States of America.

Very few of Hitler’s speeches have ever been translated into English and those that have, like the Mannheim translation of “Mein Kampf,” have been badly executed, undoubtedly on purpose to obscure the clarity of Hitler’s ideas.

As this speech reflects favorably on Hitler’s motivations and badly on those of his opponents, it is evident why so few of these speeches and directives are studiously ignored.

Deputies! Men of the German Reichstag!

A year of world-historical events is coming to an end. A year of great decisions is approaching. In this grave period I speak to you, deputies of the Reichstag, as the representatives of the German nation. In addition, the entire German nation should also review what has happened and take note of the decisions required by the present and the future.

After the repeated rejection of my peace proposal in 1940 by the British Prime Minister [Churchill] and the clique that supports and controls him, it was clear by the fall of that year that this war would have to be fought through to the end, contrary to all logic and necessity.

You. my old Party comrades, know that I have always detested half-hearted or weak decisions, If Providence has deemed that the German people are not to be spared this struggle, then I am thankful that She has entrusted me with the leadership in a historic conflict that will be decisive in determining the next five hundred or one thousand years, not only of our German history, but also of the history of Europe and even of the entire world.

The German people and its soldiers work and fight today not only for themselves and their own age. but also for many generations to come. A historical task of unique dimensions has been entrusted to us by the Creator which we are now obliged to carry out The western armistice which was possible shortly after the conclusion of the conflict in Norway compelled the German leadership, first of all, to militarily secure the most important political, strategic and economic areas that had been won. Consequently,’ the defense capabilities of the lands which were conquered at that time have changed.

From Kirkenes [in northern Norway] to the Spanish frontier stretches the most extensive belt of great defense installations and fortresses. Countless air fields have been built, including some in the far north which were blasted out of granite. The number and strength of the protected submarine shelters that defend naval bases are such that they are practically impregnable from both the sea and the air. They are defended by more than one and a half thousand gun battery emplacements, which had to be surveyed, planned and built. A network of roads and rail lines has been laid out so that the lines of communication between the Spanish frontier and Petsamo [in the far North] can be defended independently from the sea. The installations built by the Pioneer and construction battalions of the navy, army and air force in cooperation with the Todt Organization are not at all inferior to those of the Westwall [along the German frontier with France]. The work to further strengthen all this continues without pause. I am determined to make this European front impregnable against any enemy attack.

This defensive work, which continued during the past winter, was complemented by military offensives insofar as seasonal conditions permitted. German naval forces above and below the waves continued their steady war of annihilation against the navy and merchant marine of the British and their subservient allies. Through reconnaissance flights and air attacks, the Germen air force helps to destroy enemy shipping and in countless retaliation air attacks to give the British a better idea of the reality of the so-called "exciting war" which is the creation, above all, of the current British Prime Minister [Churchill].

Germany was supported in this struggle during the past summer above all by its Italian ally. For many months our ally Italy bore on its shoulders the main weight of a large part of British might. Only because of the enormous superiority in heavy tanks were the British able to bring about a temporary crisis in North Africa, hut by 24 March of this past year a small combined force of German and Italian units under the command of General [Erwin] Rommel began a counterattack.

Agedabia fell on 2 April. Benghazi was reached on the 4th. Our combined forces entered Derna on the 8th, Tobruk was encircled on the 11th, and Bardia was occupied on 12 April. The achievement of the German Afrika Korps is all the more outstanding because this field of battle is completely alien and unfamiliar to the Germans. climatically and otherwise. As once in Spain [1936-1939], so now in North Africa, Germans and Italians stand together against the same enemy. While these daring actions were again securing the North African front with the blood of German and Italian soldiers, the threatening clouds of terrible danger were gathering over Europe.

Compelled by bitter necessity, I decided in the fall of 1939 to at least try to create the prerequisite conditions for a general peace by eliminating the acute tension between Germany and Soviet Russia [with the German/Soviet non-aggression pact of 23 August 1939]. This was psychologically difficult because of the basic attitude towards Bolshevism of the German people and, above all, of the [National Socialist] Party. Objectively, though, this was a simple matter because in all the countries that Britain said were threatened by us and which were offered military alliances, Germany actually had only economic interests.

I may remind you, deputies and men of the German Reichstag. that throughout the spring and summer of 1939 Britain offered military alliances to a number of countries, claiming that Germany intended to invade them and rob them of their freedom. However, the German Reich and its government could assure them with a clear conscience that these insinuations did not correspond to the truth in any way. Moreover, there was the sober military realization that in case of a war which might be forced upon the German nation by British diplomacy, the struggle could be fought on two fronts only with very great sacrifices. And after the Baltic states, Rumania and so forth were inclined to accept the British offers of military alliance and thereby made clear that they also believed themselves to be threatened , it was not only the right but also the duty of the German Reich government to delineate the [geographical] limits of German interests [between Germany and the USSR].

All the same, the countries involved realized very quickly-which was unfortunate for the German Reich as well-that the best and strongest guarantee against the [Soviet] threat From the East was Germany. Thus, when these countries, on their own initiative, cut their ties with the German Reich and instead put their trust in promises of aid from a power [Britain] which, in its proverbial egotism, has for centuries never given help but has always demanded it, they were lost. All the same, the Fate of these countries aroused the strongest sympathy of the German people. The winter war of the Finns [against the USSR, 1939-1940] aroused in us a feeling of admiration mixed with bitterness: admiration because. as a soldierly nation, we have a sympathetic heart for heroism and sacrifice, and bitterness because our concern for the enemy threat in the West and the danger in the East meant that we were not in a position to help. When it became clear to us that Soviet Russia concluded that the [German-Soviet] delineation of political spheres of influence [in August 1939] gave it the right to practically exterminate foreign nations, the [German/Soviet] relationship was maintained only for utilitarian reasons, contrary to reason and sentiment

Already in 1940 it became increasingly clear from month to month that the plans of the men in the Kremlin were aimed at the domination, and thus the destruction, of all of Europe. I have already told the nation of the build-up of Soviet Russian military power in the East during a period when Germany had only a few divisions in the provinces bordering Soviet Russia. Only a blind person could fail to see that a military build-up of unique world-historical dimensions was being carried out. And this was not in order to protect something that was being threatened, but rather only to attack that which seemed incapable of defense.

The quick conclusion of the campaign in the West [May-June 1940] meant that those in power in Moscow were not able to count on the immediate exhaustion of the German Reich. However, they did not change their plans at all, but only postponed the timing of their attack. The summer of 1941 seemed like the ideal moment to strike. A new Mongol invasion was ready to pour across Europe. Mr. Churchill also promised that there would he a change in the British war against Germany at this same time. In a cowardly way, he now tries to deny that during a secret meeting in the British House of Commons in 1940 he said that an important factor for the successful continuation and conclusion of this war would be the Soviet entry into the war, which would come during 1941 at the latest, and which would also make it possible for Britain to take the offensive. Conscious of our duty, we observed the military build-up of a world power this last spring which seemed to have inexhaustible reserves of human and material resources. Dark clouds began to gather over Europe.

What is Europe, my deputies? There is no geographical definition of our continent, but only a racial and cultural one. The frontier of this continent is not the Ural mountains, but rather the line that divides the Western outlook on life from that of the East

At one time, Europe was confined to the Greek isles, which had been reached by Nordic tribes, and where the flame first burned which slowly hut steadily enlightened humanity. And when these Greeks fought against the invasion of the Persian conquerors. they did not just defend their own small homeland, which was Greece, but [also] that concept which is now Europe. And then [the spirit of] Europe shifted from Hellas to Rome. Roman thought and Roman statecraft combined with Greek spirit and Greek culture. An empire was created, the importance and creative power of which has never been matched, much less surpassed, even to this day. And when the Roman legions defended Italy in three terrible wars against the attack of Carthage from Africa, and finally battled to victory, in this case as well Rome fought not just for herself, but [also] for the Greco- Roman world, which then encompassed Europe.

The next invasion against the home soil of this new culture of humanity came from the wide expanses of the East. A horrific storm of cultureless hordes sprang from the center of Asia deep into the heart of the European continent, burning, ravaging and murdering as a true scourge of God. Roman and Germanic men fought together for the first time on the Catalaunian battle fields in a decisive conflict [451 A.D.] of tremendous importance for a culture which had begun with the Greeks, passed on to the Romans, and then encompassed the Germanic peoples. Europe had matured. The Occident arose from Hellas and Rome, and for many centuries its defense was the task not only of the Romans, but above all of the Germanic peoples.

What we call Europe is the geographic territory of the Occident enlightened by Greek culture, inspired by the powerful heritage of the Roman empire, its territory enlarged by Germanic colonization. Whether it was the German emperors fighting back invasions from the East by the Unstrut or on the Lechfeld [near Augsburg, in 955], or others pushing back Africa from Spain over a period of many years, it was always a struggle of a developing Europe against a profoundly alien outside world.

Just as Rome once made her immortal contribution to the building and defense of the continent, so now have the Germanic peoples taken up the defense and protection of a family of nations which, although they may differ and diverge in their political structure and goals, nevertheless together constitute a racially and culturally unified and complementary whole.

And from this Europe there have not only been settlements in other parts of the world, but intellectual and cultural fertilization as well, a fact which anyone realizes who is willing to acknowledge the truth rather than deny it. Thus, it was not England, which cultivated the continent, but rather Anglo-Saxon and Norman branches of the Germanic nation from our continent that moved to the [British] island and made possible her development, which is certainly unique in history. In the same way, it was not America that discovered Europe, hut the other way around. And all that which America did not get from Europe may seem worthy of admiration to a Jewified mixed race, hut Europe regards that merely as symptomatic of decay in artistic and cultural life, the product of Jewish or Negroid blood mixture.

My Deputies! Men of the German Reichstag!

I have to make these remarks because this struggle, which became obviously unavoidable in the early months of this year, and which the German Reich, above all, is called upon this time to lead, also greatly transcends the interests of our own people and nation. When the Greeks once stood against the Persians, they defended more than just Greece. When the Romans stood against the Carthaginians. they defended more then just Rome. When the Roman and Germanic peoples stood together against the Huns, they defended more than just the West. When German emperors stood against the Mongols they defended more than just Germany. And when Spanish heroes stood against Africa, they defended not just Spain, but all of Europe as well. In the same way, Germany does not fight today just for itself, but for our entire continent.

And it is an auspicious sign that this realization is today so deeply rooted in the subconscious of most European nations that they participate in this struggle, either with open expressions of support or with streams of volunteers.

When the German and Italian armies took the offensive against Yugoslavia and Greece on the 6th of April of this year, that was the prelude to the great struggle in which we now find ourselves. That is because the revolt in Belgrade [on 26 March 1941] which led to the overthrow of the former prince regent and his government determined the further development of events in that part of Europe. Although Britain played a major role in that coup, Soviet Russia played the main role. What I had refused to Mr. Molotov [the Soviet by Foreign Minister] during his visit to Berlin [in November 1940], Stalin believed he could obtain indirectly against our will revolutionary activity. Without regard for the treaties they had signed, the Bolshevik rulers expanded their ambitions. The [Soviet] treaty of friendship with the new revolutionary regime [in Belgrade] showed very quickly just how threatening the danger had become.

The achievements of the German armed forces in this campaign were honored in the German Reichstag on 4 May 1941. At that time, though, I was not able to reveal that we were very quickly approaching a confrontation with a state [Soviet Russia] which did not attack at the time of the campaign in the Balkans only because its military build-up was not yet complete and because it was not able to use its air fields as a result of the mud from melting snow at this time of year which made it impossible to use the runways.

My Deputies! Men of the Reichstag!

When I became aware of the possibility of a threat to the east of the Reich in 1940 through [secret] reports from the British House of Commons and by observations of Soviet Russian troop movements on our frontiers, I immediately ordered the formation of many new armored, motorized and infantry divisions. The human and material resources for them were abundantly available. [In this regard] I can make only one promise to you, my deputies, and to the entire German nation: while people in democratic countries understandably talk a lot about armaments, in National Socialist Germany all the more will actually be produced. It has been that way in the past, and it is not any different now. Whenever decisive action has to be taken, we will have more and, above all, better quality weapons with each passing year.

We realized very clearly that under no circumstances could we allow the enemy the opportunity to strike first into our heart Nevertheless, the decision in this case [to attack the USSR] was a very difficult one. When the writers for the democratic newspapers now declare that I would have thought twice before attacking if I had known the strength of the Bolshevik adversaries, they show that they do not understand either the situation or me.

I have not sought war. To the contrary, I have done everything to avoid conflict. But 1 would forget my duty and my conscience if I were to do nothing in spite of the realization that a conflict had become unavoidable. Because I regarded Soviet Russia as a danger not only for the German Reich but for all of Europe, I decided, if possible, to give the order myself to attack a few days before the outbreak of this conflict.

A truly impressive amount of authentic material is now available which confirms that a Soviet Russian attack was intended. We are also sure about when this attack was to take place. In view of this danger, the extent of which we ere perhaps only now truly aware, I can only thank the Lord God that He enlightened me in time and has given me the strength to do what must be done. Millions of German soldiers may thank Him for their lives, and all of Europe for its existence.

I may say this today: If this wave of more than 20,000 tanks, hundreds of divisions, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, along with mom than 10,000 airplanes, had not been kept from being set into motion against the Reich, Europe would have been lost.

Several nations have been destined to prevent or parry this blow through the sacrifice of their blood. If Finland [for example] had not immediately decided, for the second time, to take up weapons, then the comfortable bourgeois life of the other Nordic countries would have been quickly ended.

If the German Reich, with its soldiers and weapons, had not stood against this opponent, a storm would have burned over Europe which would have eliminated once and for all time the laughable British idea of the European balance of power in all its intellectual paucity and traditional stupidity.

If the Slovaks, Hungarians and Rumanians had not also acted to defend this European world, then the Bolshevik hordes would have poured over the Danube countries as did once the swarms of Attila’s Huns, and [Soviet] Tatars and Mongols would [then] force a revision of the Treaty of Montreux [of July 1936] an the open country by the lonian Sea.

If Italy. Spain and Croatia had not sent their divisions, then a European defense front would not have arisen which proclaims the concept of a new Europe and thereby effectively inspires all other nations as well. Because of this awareness of danger, volunteers have come from northern and western Europe: Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Flemish, Belgians and even French. They have all given the struggle of the allied forces of the Axis the character of a European crusade, in the truest sense of the word.

This is not yet the right time to speak of the planning and direction of this campaign. However, in a few sentences I would like to say something about what has been achieved [so far1 in this greatest conflict in history. Because of the enormous area involved as well as the number and size of the events, individual impressions may be lost and forgotten.

The attack began at dawn on 22 June [1941]. With dauntless daring, the frontier fortifications which were meant to protect the Soviet Russian build-up against us from surprise attack were broken through. Grodno fell by 23 June. On 24 June, following the capture of Brest-Litovsk, the fortress [there] was taken in combat, and Vilnius and Kaunas [in Lithuania] were also taken. Daugavpils [in Latvia] fell on 26 June.

The first two great encirclement battles near Bialystok and Minsk were completed on 10 July. We captured 324.000 prisoners of war, 3,332 tanks and 1,809 artillery pieces. By 13 July the Stalin Line had been broken through at almost every decisive place. Smolensk fell on 16 July after heavy fighting, and German and Rumanian units were able to force their way across the Dniester [River] on 19 July. The Battle of Smolensk ended on 6 August after many encircling operations. As a result, another 310,000 Russians were taken as prisoners. Moreover, 3,205 tanks and 3,120 artillery pieces were counted-either destroyed or captured. Just three days later the fate of another Soviet Russian army group was sealed. On 9 August in the battle of Uman, another 103,000 Soviet Russian prisoners of war were taken, and 317 tanks and 1,100 artillery pieces were either destroyed or captured.

Nikolayev [in the Ukraine] fell on 13 August, and Kherson was taken on the 21st. On the same day the battle near Gomel ended, resulting in 04,000 prisoners as well as 144 tanks and 848 artillery pieces either captured or destroyed. The Soviet Russian positions between the Ilmen and Peipus [Lakes] were broken through on 21 August, while the bridgehead around Dnepropetrovsk fell into our hands on 26 August. On the 28th of that month German troops entered Tallinn and Paldiski [Estonia] after heavy fighting, while the Finns took Vyborg on the 20th. With the capture of Petrokrepost on 8 September, Leningrad was finally cut off from the south. By 16 September bridgeheads across the Dnieper were formed, and on 18 September Poltava fell into the hands of our soldiers. German units stormed the fortress of Kiev on 19 September, and on 22 September the conquest of [the Baltic island of] Saaremaa was crowned by the capture of its capital.

The battle near Kiev was completed on 27 September. Endless columns of 665,000 prisoners of war marched to the west. In the encircled area, 884 tanks and 3,178 artillery pieces were captured.

The battle to break through the central area of the Eastern front began on 2 October, while the battle of the Azov Sea was successfully completed on 11 October. Another 107,000 prisoners, 212 tanks and 672 artillery pieces were counted. After heavy fighting, German and Rumanian units were able to enter Odessa on 16 October. The battle to break through the center of the Eastern front that had begun on 2 October ended on 18 October with a success that is unique in world history. The result was 663,000 prisoners, as well as 1,242 tanks and 5.452 artillery pieces that were either destroyed or captured. The capture of Dagoe was completed on 21 October. The industrial center of Kharkov was taken on 24 October. After very heavy fighting, the Crimea was finally reached, and on 2 November the capital of Simferopol was stormed. On 16 November the Crimea was overrun as far as Kerch.

As of 1 December, the total number of captured Soviet Russian prisoners was 3,806,865. The number of destroyed or captured tanks was 21,391, of artillery pieces 32,541, and of airplanes 17,322. During this same period of time, 2,191 British airplanes were shot down. The navy sank 4,170,611 gross registered tons of shipping, and the air Force sank 2,346,180 tons. Altogether, 6,516,791 gross registered tons were destroyed.

My Deputies! My German people!

These are sober facts and, perhaps, dry figures. But may they never be forgotten by history or vanish from the memory of our own German nation! For behind these figures are the achievements, sacrifices and sufferings, the heroism and readiness to die of millions of the best men of our own people and of the countries allied with us. Everything had to be fought for at the cost of health and life, and through struggle such as those back in the homeland can hardly imagine.

They have marched endless distances, tortured by heat and thirst, often bogged down with despair in the mud of bottomless dirt roads, exposed to the hardships of a climate that varies between the White and Black Seas from the intense heat of July and August days to the winter storms of November and December, tormented by insects, suffering from dirt and pests, freezing in snow and ice, they fought-the Germans and the Finns, the Italians, Slovaks, Hungarians, Rumanians and Croatians, the volunteers from the northern and western European countries-in short, the soldiers of the Eastern front!

Today I will not single out specific branches of the armed forces or praise specific leaders-they have all done their best. And yet, truth and justice requires that something be mentioned again: As in the past, so also today, of all of our German fighting men in uniform, the greatest burden of battle is born by our ever-present infantry soldiers.

From 22 June to 1 December [1941], the German army has lost in this heroic struggle: 158,773 dead, 563,082 wounded and 31,191 missing. The air force has lost: 3,231 dead, 8,453 wounded and 2,028 missing. The navy: 310 dead, 232 wounded and 115 missing. For the German armed forces altogether: 162,314 dead, 571,767 wounded and 33,334 missing.

That is, the number of dead and wounded is somewhat more than double the number of those lost in the [four month long] battle of the Somme of the [First] World War [in 1916], but somewhat less than half the number of missing in that battle-all the same, fathers and sons of our German people.

And now let me speak about another world which is represented by a man [President Franklin Roosevelt] who likes to chat nicely at the fireside while nations and their soldiers fight in snow and ice: above all, the man who is primarily responsible for this war.

When the nationality problem in the former Polish state was growing ever more intolerable in 1939, I attempted to eliminate the unendurable conditions by means of a just agreement. For a certain time it seemed as if the Polish government was seriously considering giving its approval to a reasonable solution. I may also add here that in all of these German proposals, nothing was demanded which had not previously belonged to Germany. In fact, we were willing to give up much that had belonged to Germany before the [First] World War.

You will recall the dramatic events of that period-the steadily increasing numbers of victims among the ethnic Germans [in Poland]. You, my deputies, are best qualified to compare this loss of life with that of the present war. The military campaign in the East has so far cost the entire German armed forces about 160,000 deaths, whereas during just a few months of peace [in 1939] more than 62,000 ethnic Germans were killed, including some who were horribly tortured. There is no question that the German Reich had the right to protest against this situation on its border and to press for its elimination, if for no other reason than for its own security, particularly since we live in an age in which [some] other countries [notably, the USA and Britain] regard their security at stake even in foreign continents. In geographical terms, the problems to be resolved were not very important. Essentially they involved Danzig [Gdansk] and a connecting link between the torn-away province of East Prussia and the rest of the Reich. Of much greater concern were the brutal persecutions of the Germans in Poland. In addition, the other minority population groups [notably the Ukrainians] were subject to a fate that was no less severe.

During those days in August [1939], when the Polish attitude steadily hardened, thanks to Britain's blank check of unlimited hacking, the German Reich was moved to make one final proposal. We were prepared to enter into negotiations with Poland on the hasis of this proposal, and we verbally informed the British ambassador of the proposal text. Today I would like to recall that proposal and review it with you.

Text of the German proposal of 29 August 1939

Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig Corridor problem and the German-Polish minority question:

The situation between the German Reich and Poland is now such that one more incident could lead to action by the military forces which have taken position on both sides of the frontier. Any peaceful solution must be such that the basic causes of this situation are eliminated so that it does not simply repeat itself, which would mean that not only eastern Europe but other areas as well would he subject to the same tensions. The causes of this situation are rooted in, first, the intolerable border that was specified by the dictated peace of Versailles [of 1919], and, second, the intolerable treatment of the minority populations in the lost territories.

In making this proposal, the German Reich government is motivated by the desire to achieve a permanent solution which will insure that both sides have vitally important connecting roads, and which will solve the minority problem, insofar as that is possible, and if not, will at least insure a tolerable life for the minority populations with secure guarantees of their rights. The German Reich government is convinced that it is absolutely necessary to acknowledge the economic and physical destruction that has occurred since 1918 and to completely compensate for it. Of course, it regards this obligation as binding on both sides.

On the basis of these considerations, we make the following practical proposals:

1. The Free City of Danzig returns immediately to the German Reich on the basis of its purely German character and the unanimous desire of its population.

2. The territory of the so-called [Polish] Corridor will decide for itself whether it wishes to belong to Germany or to Poland. This territory consists of the area between the Baltic Sea [in the north] to a line marked [in the south1 by the towns of Marienwerder, Graudenz, Kulm and Brom -and then westwards to Schoenlanke.

3. For this purpose a plebiscite will De conducted in this territory. All Germans who lived in this territory on 1 January 1918 or were born there before that date are entitled to vote in the plebiscite. Similarly, all Poles, Cashubians, and so forth, who lived in this territory on that date or were born there before that date are also entitled to vote. Those Germans who were expelled from this territory will return to vote in the plebiscite.

To insure an objective plebiscite and to make sure that all necessary preliminary preparation work is completely carried out, this territory will come under the authority of an international commission, similar to the one organized in the Saar territory. This commission is to be organized immediately by the four great powers of Italy, the Soviet Union, France and Britain. This commission will have all sovereign authority in the territory. Accordingly, Polish soldiers, Polish police and Polish authorities are to clear out of this territory as soon as possible, by a date to be agreed upon.

4. This territory does not include the Polish harbor of Gdynia, which is regarded as fundamentally sovereign Polish territory, to the extent of [ethnic] Polish settlement The specific border of this Polish harbor city will be negotiated by Germany and Poland and, if necessary, determined by an international court of arbitration.

5. In order to insure sufficient time for the preparations necessary in order to conduct a just plebiscite, the plebiscite will not take place until after at least 12 months have passed.

6. In order to guarantee unhindered traffic between Germany and East Prussia, and between Poland and the [Baltic] Sea during this period [before the plebiscite], roads and rail lines may be built to insure free transit. The only tolls that may be imposed are those necessary for the maintenance of the transit routes or for transport itself.

7. A simple majority of the votes cast will decide whether the territory will go to Germany or to Poland.

8. After the plebiscite has been conducted, and regardless of the result, free transit will be guaranteed between Germany and its province of Danzig-East Prussia, as well as between Poland and the [Baltic] Sea. If the plebiscite determines that the territory belongs to Poland, Germany will obtain an extraterritorial transit zone, consisting of an auto super-highway [Reichsautobahn] and a four- track rail line, approximately along the line of Buetow-Danzig and Dirschau. The highway and the rail line will be built in such a way that the Polish transit lines are not disturbed, which means that they will pass either above or underneath. This zone will be one kilometer wide and will be sovereign German territory. In case the plebiscite is in Germany's favor, Poland will have free and unrestricted transit to its harbor of Gdynia with the same right to an extraterritorial road and rail line that Germany would have.

9. In case the Corridor returns to Germany, the German Reich declares that it is ready to carry out an exchange of population with Poland to the extent that this would be suitable for the Corridor.

10. The special rights desired by Poland in the harbor of Danzig will also be given to Germany in the harbor of Gdynia on the basis of parity.

11. In order to eliminate all fear of threat from either side, Danzig and Gdynia will he purely commercial centers, that is, with no military installations or military fortifications.

12. The peninsula of Hela, which will go to either Poland or Germany on the basis of the plebiscite, will also be demilitarized in any case.

13. The German Reich government has protested in the strongest terms against the Polish treatment of its minority populations. For its part, the Polish government also believes itself called upon to register protests against Germany. Accordingly, both sides agree to submit these complaints to an international investigation commission which will be responsible for investigating all complaints of economic and physical damage as well as other acts of terror.

Germany and Poland pledge to compensate for all economic and other harm inflicted on minority populations on both sides since 1918, or to annul all expropriations and provide for complete reparation for the victims of these and other economic measures.

14. In order to eliminate the feeling of deprivation of international rights of the Germans who will remain in Poland, as well as of the Poles who will remain in Germany, and above all, to insure that they are not forced to act contrary to their ethnic-national feelings, Germany and Poland agree to guarantee the rights of the minority populations on both sides through comprehensive and binding agreements. These will insure the right of these minority groups to maintain, freely develop and carry on their national-cultural life. In particular, they will be allowed to maintain organizations for these purposes. Both sides agree that members of their minority populations will not be drafted for military service.

15. If agreement is reached on the basis of these proposals, Germany and Poland declare that they will immediately order and carry out the demobilization of their armed forces.

16. Germany and Poland will agree to whatever measures are necessary to implement the above points as quickly as possible.

[End of the text of the German proposal]

The former Polish government refused to respond to these proposals in any way. In this regard, the question presents itself. How is it possible that such an unimportant state could dare to simply disregard such proposals and, in addition carry out further cruelties against the Germans, the people who have given this land its entire culture. and even order the general mobilization of its armed forces?

A look at the documents from the [Polish] Foreign Ministry in Warsaw later provided the surprising explanation. They told of the role of a man [Roosevelt1 who, with diabolical lack of principle. used all of his influence to strengthen Poland's resistance and to prevent any possibility of understanding. These reports were sent by the former Polish ambassador in Washington, Count [Jerzy] Potocki, to his government in Warsaw. These documents clearly and shockingly reveal the extent to which one man and the powers behind him are responsible for the Second World War.

Another question arises: Why had this man [Roosevelt] developed such a fanatic hostility against a country that, in its entire history, had never harmed either America or him?

With regard to Germany's relationship with America, the following should be said

1. Germany is perhaps the only great power that has never had a colony in either North or South America. Nor has it been otherwise politically active there, apart from the emigration of many millions of Germans with their skills, from which the American continent, and particularly the United States, has only benefited.

2. In the entire history of the development and existence of the United States, the German Reich has never been hostile or even politically unfriendly towards the United States. To the contrary, many Germans have given their lives to defend the USA.

3. The German Reich has never participated in wars against the United States. except when the United States went to war against us in 1917. It did so for reasons which were completely explained by a commission which President Roosevelt himself established [or rather, endorsed] to investigate this issue. [This was the special US. Senate investigating committee, 1934-1935, chaired by Senator Gerald Nye.] This commission to investigate the reasons for America's entry into the [First World] war clearly established that the United States entered the war in 1917 solely for the Capitalist interests of a small group, and that Germany itself had no desire or intention to come into conflict with America.

Furthermore, there are no territorial or political conflicts between the American and German nations which could possibly involve the existence or even the [vital] interests of the United States. The forms of government have always been different. But this cannot be a reason for hostility between different nations, as long as one form of government does not try to interfere with another, outside of its naturally ordained sphere.

America is a republic led by a president with wide-ranging powers of authority. Germany was once ruled by a monarchy with limited authority, and then by a democracy which lacked authority. Today it is a republic of wide- ranging authority. Between these two countries is an ocean. If anything, the differences between capitalist America and Bolshevik Russia, if these terms have any meaning at all, must be more significant than those between an America led by a President and a Germany led by a Führer.

It is a fact that the two historical conflicts between Germany and the United States were stimulated by two Americans, that is, by Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, although each was inspired by the same forces. History has given its verdict about Wilson. His name will always be associated with the most base betrayal of a pledge [Wilson's "14 points”] in history. The result was the disruption of national life, not only in the so-called vanquished countries, but among the victors as well. Because of this broken pledge, which alone made the imposed Treaty of Versailles [1919] possible, countries were torn apart, cultures were destroyed and the economic life of all was ruined. Today we know that a group of self-serving financiers stood behind Wilson. They used this paralytic professor in order to lead America into a war from which they hoped to profit. The German nation once believed this man, and had to pay for this faith with political and economic ruin.

After such a bitter experience, why is there now another American president who is determined to incite wars and, above all, to stir up hostility against Germany to the point of war? National Socialism came to power in Germany in the same year that Roosevelt came to power in the United States [1933]. At this point it is important to examine the factors behind the current developments.

First of all, the personal side of things: I understand very well that there is a world of difference between my own outlook on life and attitude, and that of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt came from an extremely wealthy family. By birth and origin he belonged to that class of people which is privileged in a democracy and assured of advancement. I myself was only the child of a small and poor family, and I had to struggle through life by work and effort in spite of immense hardships.

As a member of the privileged class, Roosevelt experienced the [First] World War in a position under Wilson's shadow [as assistant secretary of the Navy]. As a result, he only knew the agreeable consequences of a conflict between nations from which some profited while others lost their lives. During this same period, I lived very differently. I was not one of those who made history or profits, but rather one of those who carried out orders. As an ordinary soldier during those four years, I tried to do my duty in the face of the enemy. Of course, I returned from the war just as poor as when I entered in the fall of 1914. I thus shared my fate with millions of others, while Mr. Roosevelt shared his with the so-called upper ten thousand.

After the war, while Mr. Roosevelt tested his skills in financial speculation in order to profit personally from the inflation, that is, from the misfortune of others, I still lay in a military hospital along with many hundreds of thousands of others. Experienced in business, financially secure and enjoying the patronage of his class, Roosevelt then finally chose a career in politics. During this same period, I struggled as a nameless and unknown man for the rebirth of my nation, which was the victim of the greatest injustice in its entire history.

Two different paths in life! Franklin Roosevelt took power in the United States as the candidate of a thoroughly capitalistic party, which helps those who serve it. When I became the Chancellor of the German Reich, I was the leader of a popular national movement, which I had created myself. The powers that supported Mr. Roosevelt were the same powers that I fought against out of deepest inner conviction and because of the fate of my people. The "brain trust" which served the new American president was made up of members of the same national group [Jewish] which we fought against in Germany as a parasitical expression of humanity, and which we began to remove from public life.

And yet, we also had something in common: Franklin Roosevelt took control of a country with an economy which had been ruined as a result of democratic influences, and I assumed the leadership of a Reich which was also on the edge of complete ruin, thanks to democracy. There were 13 million unemployed in the United States, while Germany had seven million unemployed and another seven million part-time workers. In both countries, public finances were in chaos, and it seemed that the spreading economic depression could not be stopped.

From then on, things developed in the United States and in the German Reich in such a way that future generations will have no difficulty in making a definitive evaluation of the two different social political theories. Whereas the German Reich experienced an enormous improvement in social, economic; cultural and artistic life in just a few years under National Socialist leadership, President Roosevelt was not able to bring about even limited improvements in his own country. This task should have been much easier in the United States, with barely 15 people per square kilometer, as compared to 140 in Germany. If economic prosperity is not possible in that country, it must be the result of either a lack of will by the ruling leadership or the complete incompetence of the men in charge. In just five years, the economic problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was eliminated. During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously increased his country's national debt, devalued the dollar, further disrupted the economy and maintained the same number of unemployed.

But this is hardly remarkable when one realizes that the intellects appointed by this man, or more accurately, who appointed him, are members of that same group who, as Jews, are interested only in disruption and never in order. While we in National Socialist Germany took measures against financial speculation, it flourished tremendously under Roosevelt. The New Deal legislation of this man was spurious, and consequently the greatest error ever experienced by anyone. If his economic policies had continued indefinitely during peace time, there is no doubt that sooner or later they would have brought down this president, in spite of all his dialectical cleverness. In a European country his career would certainly have ended in front of a national court for recklessly squandering the nation's wealth. And he would hardly have avoided a prison sentence by a civil court for criminally incompetent business management

Many respected Americans also shared this view. A threatening opposition was growing all around this man, which led him to think that he could save himself only by diverting public attention from his domestic policies to foreign affairs. In this regard it is interesting to study the reports of Polish Ambassador Potocki from Washington, which repeatedly point out that Roosevelt was fully aware of the danger that his entire economic house of cards could collapse and that therefore be absolutely had to divert attention to foreign policy.

The circle of Jews around Roosevelt encouraged him in this. With Old Testament vindictiveness they regarded the United States as the instrument which they and he could use to prepare a second Purim [slaughter of enemies] against the nations of Europe, which were increasingly anti-Jewish. So it was that the Jews, in all of their satanic baseness, gathered around this man, and he relied on them.

The American president increasingly used his influence to create conflicts, intensify existing conflicts, and, above all, to keep conflicts from being resolved peacefully. For years this man looked for a dispute anywhere in the world, but preferably in Europe, that he could use to create political entanglements with American economic obligations to one of the contending sides, which would then steadily involve America in the conflict and thus divert attention from his own confused domestic economic policies.

His actions against the German Reich in this regard have been particularly blunt. Starting in 1937, he began a series of speeches, including a particularly contemptible one on 5 October 1937 in Chicago, with which this man systematically incited the American public against Germany. He threatened to establish a kind of quarantine against the so called authoritarian countries. As part of this steady and growing campaign of hate and incitement, President Roosevelt made another insulting statement [on 15 Nov. 1938] and then called the American ambassador in Berlin back to Washington for consultations. Since then the two countries have been represented only by charges d'affaires.

Starting in November 1938, he began to systematically and consciously sabotage every possibility of a European peace policy. In public he hypocritically claimed to be interested in peace while at the same time he threatened every country that was ready to pursue a policy of peacefu1understanding by blocking credits. economic reprisals, calling in loans, and so forth. In this regard, the reports of the Polish ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels provide a shocking insight

This man increased his campaign of incitement in January 1939. In a message to the US. Congress [of 4 Jan. 1939] he threatened to take every measure short of war against the authoritarian countries. He repeatedly claimed that other countries were trying to interfere in American affairs and he talked a lot about upholding the Monroe Doctrine. Starting in March 1939 he began lecturing about internal European affairs which were no concern of the President of the United States. In the first place, he doesn't understand these problems, and secondly, even if he did understand them and appreciated the historical circumstances, he has no more right to concern himself with central European affairs than the German head of state has to take positions on or make judgments about conditions in the United States.

Mr. Roosevelt went even beyond that. Contrary to the rules of international law, he refused to recognize governments he didn't like, would not accept new ones, refused to dismiss ambassadors of non-existent countries, and even recognized them as legal governments. He went so far as to conclude treaties with these ambassadors, which then gave him the right to simply occupy foreign territories [Greenland and Iceland].

On 15 April 1939 Roosevelt made his famous appeal to me and the Duce [Mussolini], which was a mixture of geographical and political ignorance combined with the arrogance of a member of the millionaire class. We were called upon to make declarations and to conclude non-aggression pacts with a number of countries, many of which were not even independent because they had either been annexed or turned into subordinate protectorates by countries allied with Mr. Roosevelt [Britain and France]. You will recall, my Deputies, that 1 then gave a polite but straightforward answer to this obtrusive gentleman [on 28 April 1939], which succeeded in stopping. at least for a few months, the storm of chatter from this staunch warmonger.

But now the honorable wife [Eleanor Roosevelt] took his place. She and her sons [she said] refused to live in a world such as ours. That is at least understandable, for ours is world of work and not one of deceit and racketeering. After a short rest, though, he was back at it. On 4 November 1939 the Neutrality Act was revised and the arms embargo was repealed in favor of a one-sided supply [of weapons] to Germany's adversaries. In the same way in eastern Asia, he pushed for economic entanglements with China which would eventually lead to effective common interests. That same month he recognized a small group of Polish emigrants as a so-called government in exile, the only political basis of which was a few million Polish gold pieces which were taken away from Warsaw.

On 9 April [1940] he froze all Norwegian and Danish assets [in the United States] on the lying pretext of wanting to keep them from falling into German hands, even though he knew full well, for example, that Germany has not interfered with, much less taken control of, the Danish government's administration of its financial affairs. Along with the other governments in exile, Roosevelt now recognized one of Norway. On 15 May 1940, Dutch and Belgian governments in exile were also recognized, and at the same time Dutch and Belgian assets [in the USA] were frozen.

This man revealed his true attitude in a telegram of 15 June [1940] to French Premier [Paul] Reynaud. Roosevelt told him that the American government would double its aid to France, on the condition that France continue the war against Germany. In order to give special emphasis to his desire that the war continue, he declared that the American government would not recognize acquisitions brought about by conquest, which included, for example, the retaking of territories which had been stolen from Germany. I do not need to emphasize that now and in the future, the German government will not be concerned about whether or not the President of the United States recognizes a border in Europe. I mention this case because it is characteristic of the systematic incitement of this man, who hypocritically talks about peace while at the same time he incites to war,

And now he feared that if peace were to come about in Europe, the billions he had squandered on military spending would soon be recognized as an obvious case of fraud, because no one would attack America unless America itself provoked the attack. On 17 June 1940 the President of the United States froze French assets [in the USA] in order, so he said, to keep them from being seized by Germany, but in reality to get hold of the gold that was being brought from Casablanca on an American cruiser.

In July 1940 Roosevelt began to take many new measures towards war, such as permitting the service of American citizens in the British air force and the training of British air force personnel in the United States. In August 1940 a joint military policy for the United States and Canada was established. In order to make the establishment of a joint American-Canadian defense committee plausible to at least the stupidest people, Roosevelt periodically invented crises and acted as if America was threatened by immediate attack. He would suddenly cancel trips and quickly return to Washington and do similar things in order to emphasize the seriousness of the situation to his followers, who really deserve pity.

He moved still closer to war in September 1940 when he transferred fifty American naval destroyers to the British fleet, and in return took control of military bases on British possessions in North and Central America. Future generations will determine the extent to which, along with all this hatred against socialist Germany, the desire to easily and safely take control of the British empire in its hour of disintegration may have also played a role.

After Britain was no longer able to pay cash for American deliveries, he imposed the Lend-Lease Act on the American people [in March 19411. As President, he thereby obtained the authority to furnish lend-lease military aid to countries which he, Roosevelt, decided it was in America's vital interests to defend. After it became clear that Germany would not respond under any circumstances to his continued boorish behavior, this man took another step forward in March 1941.

As early as 19 December 1939, an American cruiser within the safety zone [the Tuscaloosa] maneuvered the [German] passenger liner Columbus into the hands of British warships. As a result, it had to he scuttled. On the same day, US military forces helped in an effort to capture the German merchant ship Arauca. Again contrary to international law, on 27 January 1940 the US cruiser Trenton reported the movements of the German merchant ships Arauca. La Plata and Wangoni to enemy naval forces.

On 27 June 1940 he announced a limitation on the free movement of foreign merchant ships in US harbors, completely contrary to international law. In November 1940 he permitted US warships to pursue the German merchant ships Phrygia, Idarwald and Rhein until they finally had to scuttle themselves to keep from falling into enemy hands. On 13 April 1941 American ships were permitted to pass freely through the Red Sea in order to supply British armies in the Middle East.

In the meantime, all German ships were confiscated by the American authorities in March [1941]. In the process, German Reich citizens were treated in the most degrading way, ordered to certain locations in violation of international law, put under travel restrictions, and so forth. Two German officers who had escaped [to the United States] from Canadian captivity were shackled and returned to the Canadian authorities, likewise completely contrary to international law.

On 27 March [1941] the same president who is [supposedly] against all aggression announced support for [General Dusan] Simovic and his clique of usurpers, who had come to power in Belgrade Yugoslavia] after the overthrow of the legal government. Several months earlier, President Roosevelt had sent [OSS chief] Colonel Donovan, a very inferior character, to the Balkans with orders to help organize an uprising against Germany and Italy in Sofia [Bulgaria] and Belgrade. In April he [Roosevelt] promised lend-lease aid to Yugoslavia and Greece. At the end of April he recognized Yugoslav and Greek emigrants as governments in exile. And once again, in violation of international law, he froze Yugoslav and Greek assets.

Starting in mid-April [1941] US naval patrols began expanded operations in the western Atlantic, reporting their observations to the British. On 26 April, Roosevelt delivered twenty P.T. boats to Britain. At the same time, British naval ships were routinely being repaired in US harbors. On 12 May, Norwegian ships operating for Britain were armed and repaired [in the USA], contrary to international law. On 4 June, American troop transports arrived in Greenland to build airfields. And on 9 June came the first British report that a US war ship, acting on orders from President Roosevelt, had attacked a German submarine near Greenland with depth charges.

On 14 June, German assets in the United States were frozen, again in violation of international law. On 17 June, on the basis of a lying pretext, President Roosevelt demanded the recall of the German consuls and the closing of the German consulates. He also demanded the closing down of the German “Transocean” press agency, the German Library of Information [in New York] and the German Reichsbahn [national railway] office.

On 6 and 7 July [1941], American armed forces acting on orders from Roosevelt occupied Iceland, which was in the area of German military operations. He hoped that this action would certainly, first, finally force Germany into war [against the USA] and. second, also neutralize the effectiveness of the German submarines, much as in 1915-1916. At the same time, he promised military aid to the Soviet Union. On 10 July, Navy Secretary [Frank] Knox suddenly announced the existence of en American order to fire against Axis warships. On 4 September the US destroyer Greer, acting on orders, operated together with British airplanes against German submarines in the Atlantic. Five days later, a German submarine identified US destroyers as escort vessels with a British convoy.

In a speech delivered on 11 September [1941]. Roosevelt at last personally confirmed that be had given the order to fire against all Axis ships, and he repeated the order. On 29 September, US patrols attacked a German submarine east of Greenland with depth charges. On 17 October the US destroyer Kearny, operating as an escort for the British, attacked a German submarine with depth charges, and on 6 November US armed forces seized the German ship Odenwald in violation of international law, took it to an American harbor, and imprisoned its crew.

I will overlook as meaningless the insulting attacks and rude statements by this so-called President against me personally. That he calls me a gangster is particularly meaningless, since this term did not originate in Europe, where such characters are uncommon, but in America. And aside from that, I simply cannot feel insulted by Mr. Roosevelt because I regard him, like his predecessor Woodrow Wilson, as mentally unsound.

We know that this man, with his Jewish supporters, has operated against Japan in the same way. I don’t need to go into that here. The same methods were used in this case as well. This man first incites to war, and then he lies about its causes and makes baseless allegations. In an offensive way, he wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy, while at the same time slowly but very steadily leading humanity into war. And finally, as an old Freemason, he calls upon God as his witness that his actions are honorable.

His shameless misrepresentations of truth and violations of law are unparalleled in history. I am sure that all of you have regarded it as an act of deliverance that a country Japan] has finally acted to protest against all this in the very way that this man had actually hoped for, and which should not surprise him now [the Pearl Harbor attack of 7 December 1941]. After years of negotiating with this deceiver, the Japanese government finally had its fill of being treated in such a humiliating way. All of us, the German people and, I believe, all other decent people around the world as well, regard this with deep appreciation.

We know the power behind Roosevelt. It is the same eternal Jew that believes that his hour has come to impose the same fate on us that we have all seen and experienced with horror in Soviet Russia. We have gotten to know the Jewish paradise on earth first hand. Millions of German soldiers have personally seen the land where this international Jewry has destroyed and annihilated people and property. Perhaps the President of the United States does not understand this. If so, that only speaks for his intellectual narrow- mindedness.

But we know that their entire effort is aimed at this goal: Even if we were not allied with Japan, we would still realize that the Jews and their Franklin Roosevelt intend to destroy one country after another. The German Reich of today has nothing in common with the Germany of the past. For our part, we will now do what this provocateur has been trying to achieve for years. And not just because we are allied with Japan, but rather because Germany and Italy with their present leaderships have the insight and strength to realize that in this historic period the existence or non-existence of nations is being determined, perhaps for all time. What this other world has in store for us is clear. They were able to bring the democratic Germany of the past [1918-1933] to starvation, and they seek to destroy the National Socialist Germany of today.

When Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt declare that they want to build a new social order later on, that's about the same as a barber with a bald head recommending a tonic guaranteed to make hair grow. These gentlemen, who live in the most socially backward countries, should worry about their own unemployed people rather than incite war. They have enough misery and poverty in their own countries to keep themselves busy insuring a just distribution of food there. As far as the German nation is concerned, it doesn't need charity from either Mr. Churchill. Mr. Roosevelt or [British foreign secretary] Mr. Eden, but it does demand its rights. And it will do what it must to insure its right to life, even if a thousand Churchills and Roosevelts conspire together to prevent it

Our nation has a history of almost 2,000 years. Never in this long period has it been so united and determined as it is today, and thanks to the National Socialist movement it will always be that way. At the same time, Germany has perhaps never been as clear-sighted and seldom as conscious of honor. Accordingly, today I had the passports returned to the American Charge d'Affaires, and he was informed of the following:

President Roosevelt's steadily expanding policy has been aimed at an unlimited world dictatorship. In pursuing this goal, the United States and Britain have used every means to deny the German, Italian and Japanese nations the prerequisites for their vital natural existence. For this reason, the governments of Britain and the United States of America have opposed every effort to create a new and better order in the world, for both the present and the future. Since the beginning of the war [in September 1939], the American President Roosevelt has steadily committed ever more serious crimes against international law. Along with illegal attacks against ships and other property of German and Italian citizens, there have been threats and even arbitrary deprivations of personal freedom by internment and such. The increasingly hostile attacks by the American President Roosevelt have reached the point that he has ordered the American navy to immediately attack, fire upon and sink all German and Italian ships, in complete violation of international law. American officials have even boasted about destroying German submarines in this criminal manner. American cruisers have attacked and captured German and Italian merchant ships, and their peaceful crews were taken away to imprisonment. In addition, President Roosevelt's plan to attack Germany and Italy with military forces in Europe by 1943 at the latest was made public in the United States [by the Chicago Tribune and several other papers on 4 Dec. 1941], and the American government made no effort to deny it.

Despite the years of intolerable provocations by President Roosevelt, Germany and Italy sincerely and very patiently tried to prevent the expansion of this war and to maintain relations with the United States. But as a result of his campaign, these efforts have failed.

Faithful to the provisions of the Tripartite Pact of 27 September 1940, Germany and Italy have consequently now finally been forced to join together on the side of Japan in the struggle for the defense and preservation of the freedom and independence of our nations and empires against the United States of America and Britain.

The three powers have accordingly concluded the following agreement, which was signed today in Berlin:

[Agreement text:]

With an unshakable determination not to lay down arms until the common war against the United States of America and Britain has been fought to a successful conclusion, the German, Italian and Japanese governments have agreed to the following:

Article 1. Germany, Italy and Japan will together conduct the war that has been forced upon them by the United States of America and Britain with all the means at their command to a victorious conclusion.

Article 2. Germany, Italy and Japan pledge not to conclude an armistice or make peace with either the United States of America or Britain unless by complete mutual agreement.

Article 3. Germany, Italy and Japan will also work very closely together after a victorious conclusion of the war for the purpose of bringing about a just new order in accord with the Tripartite Pact concluded by them on 27 September 1940.

Article 4. This agreement is effective immediately upon signing and is valid for the same period as the Tripartite Pact of 27 September 1940. The high contracting parties shall inform each other in due time before the expiration of this term of validity of their plans for cooperation as laid out in Article 3 of this agreement.

[End of Agreement text]

Deputies! Men of the German Reichstag!

Ever since my peace proposal of July 1940 was rejected, we have clearly realized that this struggle must be fought through to the end. We National Socialists are not at all surprised that the Anglo-American, Jewish and capitalist world is united together with Bolshevism. In our country we have always found them in the same community. Alone we successfully fought against them here in Germany, and after 14 years of struggle for power we were finally able to annihilate our enemies.

When I decided 23 years ago to enter political life in order to lead the nation up from ruin, I was a nameless, unknown soldier. Many of you here know just how difficult those first years of that struggle really were. The way from a small movement of seven men to the taking of power on 30 January 1933 as the responsible government is so miraculous that only the blessing of Providence could have made it possible. Today I stand at the head of the mightiest army in the world, the most powerful air force and a proud navy. Behind and around me is a sacred community-the [National Socialist] Party, with which I have become great and which has become great through me.

Our opponents today are the same familiar enemies of more than 20 years. But the path before us cannot be compared with the road we have already taken. Today the German people fully realizes that this is a decisive hour for our existence. Millions of soldiers are faithfully doing their duty under the most difficult conditions. Millions of German farmers and workers, and German women and girls, are in the factories and offices, in the fields and farmlands, working hard to feed our homeland and supply weapons to the front. Allied with us are strong nations which have suffered the same misery and face the same enemies.

The American President and his plutocratic clique have called us the “have not" nations. That is correct! But the "have nots" also want to live, and they will certainly make sure that what little they have to live on is not stolen from them by the "haves."

You, my Party comrades, know of my relentless determination to carry out to a successful conclusion any struggle which has already begun. You know of my determination in such a struggle to do everything necessary to break ell resistance that must be broken. In my first speech [of this war] on 1 September 1939, I pledged that neither force of arms nor time would defeat Germany. I want to assure my opponents that while neither force of arms nor time will defeat us, in addition no internal uncertainty will weaken us in the fulfillment of our duty.

When we think of the sacrifice and effort of our soldiers, then every sacrifice of [those here in] the homeland is completely insignificant and unimportant. And when we consider the number of all those in past generations who gave their lives for the survival and greatness of the German nation, then we are really conscious of the magnitude of the duty which is ours.

But whoever tries to shirk this duty has no right to be regarded as a fellow German. Just as we were pitilessly hard in the struggle for power, so also will we be just as ruthless in the struggle for the survival of our nation. During a time in which thousands of our best men, the fathers and sons of our people, have given their lives, anyone in the homeland who betrays the sacrifice on the front will forfeit his life. Regardless of the pretext with which an attempt is made to disrupt the German front, undermine the will to resist of our people, weaken the authority of the regime, or sabotage the achievements of the homeland, the guilty person will die. But with this difference: The soldier at the front who makes this sacrifice will be held in the greatest honor, whereas the person who debases this sacrifice of honor will die in disgrace.

Our opponents should not deceive themselves. In the 2,000 years of recorded German history, our people have never been more determined end united than today. The Lord of the universe has been so generous to us in recent years that we bow in gratitude before a Providence which has permitted us to be members of such a great nation, We thank Him, that along with those in earlier and coming generations of the German nation, our deeds of honor may also be recorded in the eternal hook of German history!

[b]Germany’s Formal Declaration of War Against the United States

[i]About two hours before Hitler began his speech to the Reichstag. Germany formally declared war against the United States when Reich Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop delivered a diplomatic note to the American Charge d’Affaires in Berlin, Leland B. Morris.

At almost the some time, the German Charge d’Affaires in Washington, Hans Thomsen, presented a copy of this note to the Chief of the European Division of the Department of State, Roy Atherton. Here is the text of the note:

The government of the United States of America, having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, brought on by the British declaration of war against Germany on 3 September 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On 11 September 1941, the President of the United States of America publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight any German war vessel. In his speech of 27 October 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force.

Acting under this order, American war vessels have systematically attacked German naval forces since early September 1941. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance, the Greer, the Kearny and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The American Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that the American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States of America, under order of their government and contrary to international law, have treated and seized German merchant ships on the high sees as enemy ships.

The German government therefore establishes the following facts: Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States of America during every period of the present war, the government of the United States of America from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. It has thereby virtually created a state of war,

The government of the Reich consequentially breaks off diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that in these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a125.htm

What did the declaration of war accomplish? Did it stop the war material flowing to the Allies from the U.S.? Did it discredit Roosevelt and his cronies? Did it strengthen Roosevelt's enemies? Who benefitted from the declaration of war, other than Churchill and Stalin? Hitler gave Roosevelt everything he wanted.

Hitler had chosen allies badly. The Italians got the Germans embroiled in several pointless fights, and were utterly worthless when it came to waging war.

The Japanese were militarily quite successful, but suffered from even more arrogance and overreaching than Hitler did, and didn't aid him much against the Russians, which is what he was presumably going for with the declaration of war against the US.

The best advice I ever got was to choose your battles carefully.

The paper is strong on Hitlers views on Jews , Jewsish influence /threat, racial/blood issues and the desire of he Hitler to preserve peace and the intent of others to cause war , jewish influence is again never far away.

Russia is cast as the intended aggressor and Germany as the potential victim.
This is again Hitler's view on the situation serving Hitler's prupose and excusing his actions.

I think Fade and Sinclair are correct in their seperate views.
Declaring war on America served only to stack things more against Germany , he should not have declared against America.
The declaration effectively lost Germany any chance she had of destroying the convoy system.

Few listening to this brodcast could have had the slightest idea of what exactly was being taken on given the soundbites and background.
those who listened carefully must have known that germany was being taken into a war she could not win , for causes which did not exist.

Hitler miscalculated and exaggerated the extent of Jewish influence over American foreign policy. It was not until the 1950s and 1960s, with the new postwar affluence of American Jewry, that things really began to change. While it is true there were powerful Jews around Roosevelt, it is likewise true that they were held in check by widespread organised support for isolationism in the United States. Organised Jewry was actually quite inhibited throughout FDR's reign because of fear of inciting domestic antisemitism which was on the rise throughout the 1930s. The best example of this is the failure of the Jewish boycott of Germany because of infighting amongst American Jewish organisations. America did not enter the war until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war upon the U.S. The leadership of American Jewry also begged Roosevelt to do something about the escalating persecution of Jews by the National Socialists, over and over again, but he refused to alter U.S. war aims in order to advance their interests, even when he had full of knowledge of what was going on.

Fade what do you define by "full knowledge of what is going on" ?
It does imly knowledge of the "Final Solution".

Hitler lost his nerves at this very critical point.

If he had just KEEP COOL for a month or two, the American public would have probably concentrated on beating Japan to pulp, and it would have been actually HARDER for Jewish warmongers to get them interested about the war in Europe.

I understand Hitler's pact with Japan didn't even require him to declare war.

He should have done to Japanese what Mussolini did to himself in the autumn of 1939 - let them strike it on their own.

Why was he allied with the Japs in first place? What did they ever do for Germany?


Petr

Since Japan was such a "great" ally in informing the Germans about their intentions and having left them up and dry with the Russian front issue, I see no reason why Germany should have really declared war on the US. Yes, the US was doing all in its power to get into the war but there is still a pragmatic line between getting your Subs attacked in the Atlantic and materiel sold to Britain and having the whole US Army mobilitze their millions of grunts to fight you in Europe.
I would have feigned outrage and declared war myself unto the Japanese with a simbolic sinking of some Cargo ship in a German harbor. That might have made the US´drive for European intervention a bit harder.

Not having the Japanese join the Germans in the Summer of 1941 against Soviet Russia was one of the biggest blunders ever.

- "Yes, the US was doing all in its power to get into the war but there is still a pragmatic line between getting your Subs attacked in the Atlantic and materiel sold to Britain and having the whole US Army mobilitze their millions of grunts to fight you in Europe."


Amen, Ebus! Not to mention them sending their flying fortresses to grind your cities to dust!

Yeah, that would have been the right idea - Germany joining in a White crusade against the Yellow Peril!

Hitler had his chance to change the world history in December 1941 and he blew it, no way to get out of that conclusion.


Petr

Hitler miscalculated and exaggerated the extent of Jewish influence over American foreign policy. It was not until the 1950s and 1960s, with the new postwar affluence of American Jewry, that things really began to change. While it is true there were powerful Jews around Roosevelt, it is likewise true that they were held in check by widespread organised support for isolationism in the United States. Organised Jewry was actually quite inhibited throughout FDR's reign because of fear of inciting domestic antisemitism which was on the rise throughout the 1930s. The best example of this is the failure of the Jewish boycott of Germany because of infighting amongst American Jewish organisations. America did not enter the war until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war upon the U.S. The leadership of American Jewry also begged Roosevelt to do something about the escalating persecution of Jews by the National Socialists, over and over again, but he refused to alter U.S. war aims in order to advance their interests, even when he had full of knowledge of what was going on.I see Fade’s gone anti-hitler again I suppose it's a reaction to the recent flush(?) of antiamerican and esp¸ antiBritish we've had lately. He always likes to stir things up here (eg his objectivist stage) :p:op
but you can't say that roosevelt wasn't jew infested—and did nothing to help them all of the outrageous provacations against germany above actually happened —it may not have been best but no other leader would have put up with it please forgive cerabus impression but am using hchar(??) map

:: I see Fade’s gome anti-histler again Isuoppose its a rdeaction to the recent flusgh ofantiamerican and esp¸ antiBritish weve had lately

No. I agree with Ebusitanus and others that mistakes were made during the war. That does not make me anti-Hitler, simply because I disagree with a few of his policies. I generally agree with Hitler on most issues. Ask cerberus!

:: He always klikes to rstir ssthings uphere (eg hiso objektivik rstage)

You drinking, Chris? :p

:: bust u cant say that roorsevelt wasnt jew infesutde

Roosevelt had Jews around him, true, but Organised Jewry was not strong enough in those days to have hegemony over American foreign policy. The Jewish community in America was quite divided before and during the war. You have to remember here that the majority of American Jews were recent immigrants from Eastern Europe at this time. They were generally poor. This only began to change after the war was over.

:: alnd did mnothimngtohelp them all of theoutsragusprovactions against germanxy above actuallyhappened —it may noth havebeen best but no other le`ader would ghave put up with it please foqrgive cerabus impression but am ursing hchar map

You are not coming through here. :p

- "Yes, the US was doing all in its power to get into the war but there is still a pragmatic line between getting your Subs attacked in the Atlantic and materiel sold to Britain and having the whole US Army mobilitze their millions of grunts to fight you in Europe."


Amen, Ebus! Not to mention them sending their flying fortresses to grind your cities to dust!

Yeah, that would have been the right idea - Germany joining in a White crusade against the Yellow Peril!

Hitler had his chance to change the world history in December 1941 and he blew it, no way to get out of that conclusion.


Petr

Excuse me if I state this so bluntly, but you are a fool.

Like the Jews would ever give up their desire to destroy us. Like the Jewnitedstates would have imeadiately stopped the flow of Material to the Bolsheviks and English.
They would have then done it like in China, with "volounteers" (Flying Tigers).
Those Bombers would then just have had British Insignia on them and Yanks still bombing us.
Their aim was to dominate Europe. As if these LIARS and CRIMMINALS that instigated the Pearl Harbour attack, who supported the Poles not to come to an agreement with us would let themselves be disrupted by such an act of treachery from us against our allie. Mr. Rossenfeld who presented the secret German Plans (including Map!) how Germany wanted to invade southamerica (reminds me of the WMD swindle), sure wouldn't have any scruples in making up another story like that or even instigating a second "Maine" or "Luitsitania" to get the gullible yankee IDIOTS behind him. And of course the entire JEWISH PRESS and FILMINDUSTRY behind him.


It doesnt surprise me at all, that certain people here don't have the slightest sense of honour, demanding from us that we behave like Italians and attack our comrades in arms.
Japan and Germany fighting the British and then Germany starts sinking japanese ships, while England continues to Bomb our citys. What a great logic.

It is obvious - you have all become spiritual JEWS. You are disgusting.

Yes fade oten diagrreess wid me an hesnot gone auntie Hitler.
Chris2 yor nearly as good asme on the thekey board side but not justa s good .
Practise my sone and you will get there eventually.

[Edit: Watch your Mouth or next time your entire Post will be deleted!]

Chris 2 you are correct my keyboard skills are bloody awful , I hold my hands up , no contest :) :o

I think Wehrmacht is missing the entire point here. Yes, Roosevelt wanted to get into the war. His stunt with the fake map is a classical example. But why did it take something like Pearl Harbor to get America into the war? Very simple. The American people, despite all the agitation of Roosevelt and the Jews, were absolutely opposed to entering the war. America was thoroughly isolationist and Roosevelt would never have been able to get a declaration of war out of the U.S. Congress, even if Britain collapsed, had it not been for Pearl Harbor or a similar incident. America was not 'controlled by the Jews' in 1941. That is ridiculous. Organised Jewry was thoroughly divided into factions, which is why the anti-German boycott failed. Britain would have soon went bankrupt as well.

Germany had nothing to win by going from suffering US materiel shippments to the Comonwealth and the ocassional US Destroyer attacking German Subs in the Atlantic to an outright mobilization of millions of soldiers into the European Theatre.
Japan betrayed Germany in that it got fooled into believing that declaring war on the US as support to Japan (about which Japan did not give a hoot in telling Germany in beforehand its Peral Habour plans) would result in a Japanese second front against the Soviets in the far east which could have helped Germany in 1942 much to finish the war there and thus concentrate against the UK middle east and India.
Japan followed only its own short sighted plans counting on their famous "decisive strike" doctrine to steal the South east rich resources and get away with it gor free. Sadly Japan did totally miscalculate that its possible victory depended totally upon Germany´s success or defeat. Germany should have never let Japan force its hand in regards of the US and in so much was an even worse ally than Italy. Speaking of which as I hear did not behave much diferently than any other of the German Allies-Satelites when invaded and its goverment in shambles like Romania, Bulgaria, Finnland...It was just not Italy´s war and it would have been better if they would have kept totally out of it..as it was hardly more than a poorly ready army sent after the jelous land grabs of Mussolini which brough again Germany nothing but headaches (Greece, Egypt, Mediterranean, Yugoslavia).

The more time Germany would have been able to keep those 11 Million GIs from actually becomming Europe bound divisions and squadrons the better.

America was not 'controlled by the Jews' in 1941.

Must disagree with this, and with your conclusion regarding influence on foreign policy.

Control of foreign policy has been a Jewish fait accompli since Wilson, who was under the direct control of Samuel Untermeyer, Bernard Baruch, and Felix Frankfurter. Some say by blackmail, others say by normal means, but I have no questions of the fact of it.

According to Benjamin Freedman, Jewish control of the press was the deciding influence in America's entry into WWI. The Jewish press network was activated after Rothschild had recieved his declaration from Balfour.

Freedman was Untermeyer's secretary and was present at Versailles.

Baruch and Untermeyer, along with Morgenthau and others, dominated Roosevelt's cabinet, and in my estimation, worldview, although I will admit that their control was not quite so direct as with Wilson.

Somewhere in here Warburg arranges for the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Jewish press power was such that Lindburg was destroyed after his warning. My own father, who fought in WWII, told me that the day after his speech, every paper and radio broadcast gave heavy intimation, for weeks, that he was an enemy agent and Nazi sympathizer. Sixty years on, he is still disturbed by how sudden and thoroughgoing the denunciation was.

Even outside of controlling presidents and press monoploy, they influenced world events via banking and money power:

One man, Jacob Schiff, was responsible, via war loans, for Russia' loss against Japan. Schiff explicity made the loans to destroy the Czar.

Schiff also sent Trotsky (then a Brooklynite) with twenty million in gold, to Russia.

Untermeyer reportedly financed development of the Scofeld Bible at this time.

Though Jews were embarrased by ostjuden, they still financed their 'assimilation', and were ferociously well organized. After beginning their mass influx from about 1880, I would say the United States was under virtual lockdown by 1920.

And yes, I do think that Christianity had more than a little to do with this. Particularly messianic Protestantism.

Wintermute

Excuse me if I state this so bluntly, but you are a fool.

Another poster sees through Petr.



It is obvious - you have all become spiritual JEWS. You are disgusting.

Petr, who in fact wishes that the last iota of White freedom be crushed beneath Jewish Law forever (he wants Biblical theocracy), is in fact a spiritual Jew. I would say, between his literalism and his legalism, that he looks every inch the Whited Sephuchre that he is.

Wintermute

Baruch and Untermeyer, along with Morgenthau and others, dominated Roosevelt's cabinet, and in my estimation, worldview, although I will admit that their control was not quite so direct as with Wilson.

Wintermute

Excellent summary, Brother Wintermute.

Frankfurter's was probably the greatest influence in pushing the crippled cretin into the duplicitous devising of Greater Judean entry. FF and FDR exchanged several hundred letters during the decade leading up thereto, the most incriminating of which they later discarded by mutual agreement. The substance of this embarassing detritus is known to have been to the effect of the old Bolshevik whispering into the ear of the elevated stooge that Hitler's was a "criminal" regime that must be resisted. The stooge evidently adjusted his opinion of Germany accordingly.

:: Baruch and Untermeyer, along with Morgenthau and others, dominated Roosevelt's cabinet, and in my estimation, worldview, although I will admit that their control was not quite so direct as with Wilson.

I can't say that I agree with this. If Jewish influence in the U.S. truly was as significant as you are suggesting here, then the U.S. most certainly would entered WW2 well before '41. That was obviously not the case, despite the efforts of Wise and his campaign against the Nazis (which failed, btw, due to the opposition of B'nai Brith and the AJC). And furthermore, despite Jewish influence within the press (major newspapers, with nothing like the circulation of the modern mass media), American public opinion was adamantly opposed to entering the war virtually all the way up until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. The strongest support for entering WW2 also came at Roosevelt from the Anglophile elite on the Eastern seaboard and the Southern military-industrial complex which was in turn opposed and held in check by the isolationist Midwest. The U.S. Congress was even investigating Jewish influence culture-distortion in Hollywood at the time. Anti-Semitism was flourishing in America and the organised Jewish leadership was mortally afraid of exercising its power, lest domestic antisemitism grow even further.

Jewish power did not become hegemonic in the U.S. until after World War 2, when the majority of American Jews (who were of Eastern European descent) began to climb the social ladder in wealth and social status. It was also during this period when television came of age, which has hitherto played the decisive role in advancing the Jewish social agenda. Most major universities also still had quotas on Jewish enrollment in the '20s and '30s, an obvious sign that Jewish penetration of the American elite was nowhere near as widespread as it is today. Jewish power truly came of age in this country during the 1960s (although it had been building since the end of the war), when the Jews were able to piggyback their way into the American elite by stirring up Negro hatred of white Southerners. The old gentile elite completely disintegrated in the 1970s.

American support for Israel was tepid until the later Kennedy Administration and LBJ and only became a 'strategic asset' under Nixon. Israel won its independence with Czech weapons courtesy of the Soviet Union. There was a U.S. arms embargo on Israel at the time, which again would make no sense if Jewish power was hegemonic in '48. Keep in mind here that the Ku Klux Klan had revived and was flourishing throughout the '20s as well. Wilson's agenda for the League of Nations was thwarted by Congress which also passed the National Origins Act. And this is probably the clearest example of the impotence of Jewish power prior to the war: as hundreds of thousands of Jews were unable to immigrate to the U.S. during the Roosevelt Administration. Organised Jewry never forgot this either, which is why they pushed so hard to change the immigration laws in the 1950s and 1960s.

It should also be pointed out that 'The Holocaust' was nowhere to be seen until the 1960s and 1970s. There are several reasons for this as well, as Finkelstein explains in his book:

1.) There was ferocious Jewish opposition to Zionism until the '67 war.
2.) Fear of antagonizing West Germany, which was being integrated into NATO.
3.) Fear of antisemitism in the U.S.

There's a lot of useful information in your post, Fade. I think that the missing middle term between your accounting of American life in the twenties and thirties and mine is semantic in part. My post responds to your statement that Jews did not have 'control over' America - a notoriously vague term. In the post above, your language is different:

which again would make no sense if Jewish power was hegemonic in '48.

Hegemonic control is invoking a very high standard. Would it still be reached if we include the internet?

I'll stand by my account: foreign policy during the Wilson administration was under substantial Jewish control. Entry into WWI was guaranteed by American papers and radios, under Jewish control, reporting spurious 'Hun atrocity' stories. American negotiations at Versailles were under Jewish 'control'. And so on.

None of this falsifies what is in your post above, which argues for a more multivalent model of U.S. entry into the Second World War. I would regard that as a seperate topic, though I again stand by the information I have given regarding the personal destuction of Charles Lindbergh. If being able to destroy a great American hero - virtually overnight - does not constitute control, then what does? Though I agree that Jewish power only grew over the following decades, the spectre of this power was quite terrible on the verge of war.

They were also powerful enough to force retractions from Henry Ford, which is an astonishing achievement. This may not constitue 'hegemonic control', but it does bespeak a degree of influence that is more than just troubling.

Wintermute

A measure of contemporary Jewish power and influence on Allied wartime culture was their astonishing ability to turn the utter defeat of all initial Allied war aims (Polish independence, Continental balance-of-power, Chinese republicanism as understood in American terms) into an unalloyed and glorious "victory". This turning of the conflict into a Morality Play for the Morons is now properly referenced as the Hollywood History of the Second World War (a thoroughly Jewish production, following on [the Italian] Capra's disgracefully mendacious Why We Fight).

This turning of the conflict into a Morality Play for the Morons is now properly referenced as the Hollywood History of the Second World War

Agreed. This is why I believe that attacking the 'Holocaust' is potentially one of the worst things we could possibly do to our opponents. With no 'holocaust' in Germany, and a very definite Holocast in the Ukraine, the whole war could easily be brought into question.

Another example of Jewish power: where are all the anti-Communist films?

And another: who brought down Joe McCarthy?

WM

As between Brothers Fade and Wintermute's offerings we must understand the difference between control as exercised by domination and that exercised by manipulation.

We strong-but-stupid Aryans/Goyim perfectly understand governance by force, by command, by organized and overt public office - but we lack the subtlety possessed by the Masters of the Lie - who persuade, who cajole, who suborn and corrupt in secret. Men are necessarily governed by Lies and Violence, Priests and Warriors, Ideologues and Soldiers. And that the former do not govern after the pattern of the latter, with the latter's immediacy and explicitness, does not mean that they do not ultimately govern, nevertheless.

:: Hegemonic control is invoking a very high standard. Would it still be reached if we include the internet?

Well. The Jews do not really 'control' the United States today either, like some absolute monarch or dictator. No one does. Political power in the U.S. is far too diffuse for any one group to literally 'control' the entire nation. The productive sectors of our economy tend to still be dominated by gentiles. So I avoid using the phrase, as it is not really descriptive of our current situation. However, one can make an argument that Jews have a 'hegemonic' influence (circa 1970) over certain aspects of American life today: the mass media, academia, finance, our Middle East foreign policy (e.g., sectors where American Jews are mostly employed or wield decisive influence). That is, Jewish concentration and organised Jewish political activity in certain aspects of our natural life has a decisive influence on the values that structure such fields. This has a noticeable distorting effect upon our culture and polity which is contrary to our interests. Jewish power is exercised indirectly (and I cannot stress this enough) for the most part, through the taboos and habits they are able to establish through their influence in the media. When a white racist finds himself in some social situation and is inhibited by a social taboo from expressing his true feelings, that is Jewish power. Its the submission of gentiles to social attitudes and norms constructed by Jews that is the crux of the problem. This usually does not require the imposition of force.

:: I'll stand by my account: foreign policy during the Wilson administration was under substantial Jewish control. Entry into WWI was guaranteed by American papers and radios, under Jewish control, reporting spurious 'Hun atrocity' stories. American negotiations at Versailles were under Jewish 'control'. And so on.

I am sure the gallery would benefit from further elucidation on this subject by yourself. There might have been a few court Jews around American Presidents prior to the Second World War, but I would not go so far as to say that the organised Jewish community was hegemonic at the time. Eugenics is a good example of this. American Eugenics, to cite one example, was attacked throughout this era by William Randolph Hearst's media empire (which also incited the Spanish-American War). As far as I know, Hearst was not a Jew.

I will have more to say later about Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh. In fact, I have several books in my library that deal with this specific issue: Neal Baldwin's Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate (2001) and Max Wallace's The American Axis: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the Third Reich (2003).

we must understand the difference between control as exercised by domination and that exercised by manipulation.

That is exactly what I meant to say to Brother Fade. Thank you for clarifying.

We strong-but-stupid Aryans/Goyim perfectly understand governance by force, by command, by organized and overt public office - but we lack the subtlety possessed by the Masters of the Lie - who persuade, who cajole, who suborn and corrupt in secret.

We lack the subtlety because we have never before percieved the need for it.

In part, I believe that the current phase of the Contestings of Arya and Judea is a spiritual one: since Aryans have shown to Nature their unwillingness to understand the spiritual dimensions of conflict, she has happily arranged our struggle so that we must learn these essential truths, or perish.

Understanding manipulation necessarily leads to an examination of just how much material in our own minds is not ours. It was picked up, second hand, and often from dealers with ulterior motives.

If, at the end of our struggle, our numbers are reduced by nine-tenths, and yet that remnant has learned something about actual mental hygeine and self-knowledge, it will all have been worth it.

And that the former do not govern after the pattern of the latter, with the latter's immediacy and explicitness, does not mean that they do not ultimately govern, nevertheless.

A very Shelleyan thought, the poet as Unacknowledged
Legislator of mankind. Everyone who thinks in terms of Good and Evil, for example, has a debt to Zoroaster. There is so much we take as being the world in itself, when we are dealing with nothing besides our own unexamined prejudices.

People should read more Robert Anton Wilson.

WM

There might have been a few court Jews around American Presidents prior to the Second World War, but I would not go so far as to say that the organised Jewish community was hegemonic at the time.

There's our semantic difficulty again. Given the necessary imprecision in the use of the term 'control' - which you accurately point out, I can maintain that Jewish control was an accomplished fact by Wilson's time, while you can - and fairly - maintain that this control was not accomplished until much later. As Brother NN points out, the two ends of the continuum we are arguing are, respectively, manipulation and domination.

At this point, I do not see that we are actually disagreeing about anything substantive, and will therefore leave off with the observations that I have made.

Wintermute

:: This turning of the conflict into a Morality Play for the Morons is now properly referenced as the Hollywood History of the Second World War (a thoroughly Jewish production, following on [the Italian] Capra's disgracefully mendacious Why We Fight).

NN,

I can't say I agree that Jewish influence is responsible for that here. The tendency of Anglo-Saxon nations to moralise wars into crusades for higher principles is a direct legacy of evangelical Protestant Christianity. Correlli Barnett expounds upon this at length in The Collapse of British Power. The British attitude towards the Great War is an excellent example of this:

"They failed. They failed because there was another, competing influence on politicians, a more congenial and therefore in the end a more effective influence: a constellation fo moralising internationalist cliques, each with its ideas-peddlers, its contact-men in high places, and its tame press. These busy romantics -- from Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian) and Lord Robert Cecil on the Right, through liberals like Smuts and Gilbert Murray in the middle to Kingsley Martin and Clifford Allen on the Left -- not only believed, admirably enough, that morality rather than power ought to govern relations between states but acted as though it did. They conversed, corresponded and combined in their efforts to sway British governments, on whose members they worked by private letter, the telephone and by personal persuasion during the long English country weekend. Their task was made the easier because of the smallness and intimacy of the British governing world, with its friendships, kinships, schools and universities in common. The internationalists successively imposed on governments their pretension to speak for the inarticulate and unsounded body of the British nation; that is, to represent public opinion at large. They also occupied the key strongholds of 'informed' public opinion, to which governments paid special deference, such as the League of Nations Union, the Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), the New Statesman, The Times, the Observer, the Manchester Guardian and the News Chronicle, the Common Room at All Souls, the laws at Cliveden and the parterre at Blickling. It was their counsel, intimate, insidious, bigotedly certain, that prevailed.

British policy was therefore the child of their insemination of the politicians -- politicians like Baldwin and MacDonald, the Chamberlains, Simon and Henderson, Halifax, Eden. It was as if the encumbents of quiet early-nineteenth-century rectories and nonconformists ministers' houses had been miraculously transported into the great offices of State of a hundred years later."

Correlli Barnett, The Collapse of British Power (William Morrow & Company, Inc, 1972), p.240

The situation was quite similar in the United States, as a related moral revolution incited by evangelical Protestants also took place there in the early 19th century. This moralizing tendency had long been present in the U.S. Numerous examples illustrate this: Lincoln's transformation of the War Between the States into a moral crusade against slavery, the incitement of the Spanish-American War with atrocity propaganda etc. So while it is true that Jewish film makers during the Second World War made use of such themes, it is likewise true that they were appealing to indigenous and long-established traditional Christian mores.

Lincoln's transformation of the War Between the States into a moral crusade against slavery,

Interestingly, this strand of the American temperment was called 'Hebraic Puritan' by Edgar Lee Masters. From Richard Early's magnificent "War, Money, and American Memory":

The great myth in American popular history has continued to be that the war was fought over slavery. The salving of the New England conscience and present-day pandering to imagined grievances of Americans of African heritage has demanded as much. Yet intelligent men have long believed differently.

The poet, Edgar Lee Masters, in one of the great polemics of this century contested the historical memory of Abraham Lincoln. That his work is not remembered today should be seen as proof positive that he wounded deeply. Masters used the term, "Hebraic-Puritan", to denote the mind of what was for him the obnoxious American Christian or those exposed to that culture. Masters dated the madness of America from the day the Puritans started the American Hebraic culture. This exactitude should be expected from a man who was once Clarence Darrow's law partner. The poet described the professed love of Hebraic-Puritanism as "inverted hate" which had access to the will of God and meant to carry it out even if the whole land were made a tomb. After complimenting Robert E. Lee as being a product of the best blood in England, that of the warrior and cavalier, Masters portrayed Lincoln, whether he was an atheist, a deist, or a free thinker, as a product of the Hebraic-Puritan culture. The great principle of the Hebraic-Puritan culture was to assume to act as one's brother's keeper, but the true motive was to be one's brother's jailer. In great insult Masters accused Lincoln of inculcating the government of the United States with the cant and hypocrisy of Christianity and poisoning the flesh of the republic. Previous to Lincoln presidents had not espoused the beliefs of Godly righteousness. Many had been deists.

Driven by the Hebraic-Puritan spirit of madness, the North was led to war. War had been initiated by radicals and fanatics like Garrison, Thaddeus Stevens and Senator Sumner whose lofty ideals were intimately connected to cruelty and would require bayonet and torch. However, the masterminds of the Republican party did not have the same goal. These men cared very little for the Union, but cared deeply for money and power. During the war the new American masters bought off, ran away and evaded danger in any way possible. During the fighting the North was riotously prosperous, and war contractors stole the country blind. Young men doing the soldiering did not know what the fight was about at first, but later just carried on to kill and subdue. The soldier who died at Gettysburg died not for honor or glory, but for gain. After the war the Hebraic-Puritan abolitionist cursed the slave holder while applauding the oppressor of laborers in the mills and mines of the North. This oppressor paid wages and was therefore a holy man. Abolitionists and their offspring went South after the war and looted the area. They controlled the Congress and forbade the Supreme Court from declaring any law they passed unconstitutional. The Supreme Court acquiesced. At long last the Thaddeus Stevenses and the corporations ceased to care for the Negro. The war had furnished the occasion and cause for capitalism to take over the wealth of the land and subdue the liberties of the people. Lincoln had laid the foundation for a state where carpenters and rail splitters had nothing to say in America. The war was far more fundamental than the matter of slavery, and Lincoln knew that. The war allowed the pious Jehovah-men to overcome the remnant of classical civilization as a "rising tide of filth might submerge a Greek temple". The civilization based on this barbaric superstition of Hebraic-Puritanism could not produce a culture worth anything to the spirit of man. It would be a civilization which must be destroyed for America to rise out of the hypocrisy and materialism of the Civil War. Masters maintained the War between the States proved salvation was not of the Jews, but of the Greeks.

Writing in 1931 after the then recent World War I and 10 years before American entry into World War II, Masters added to this hypothesis. Woodrow Wilson did many of the things Lincoln did while citing Lincoln as his authority. Prophesying, Masters thought it highly likely a small group of men after deciding what was a cause of war and what was necessary for a successful prosecution once again would do exactly what Lincoln and Wilson did by limiting discussion and shackling the press. In less than a decade Franklin Roosevelt proved him correct by guiding the United States into another war by stealth and deceit. Masters considered the right of free speech so important he thought Negro slavery a "small evil" compared to a political milieu where men could not speak their thoughts. One may reasonably deduce that Masters was not of African-American heritage.

No great literature came out of the Civil War. The great reason was the preeminent theme of the war which suggested liberty was dishonored and destroyed. Great themes of the war could not be used for poetry or drama because the civilization which rose from the war could not believe this. American literary culture, founded chiefly on the Bible, could only glimpse superficially the infinite and profound currents of life. These insights were narrowed to particular instances of injustice and suffering in societies. Lincoln whose oratory derived from the Bible with its sacred curses and appalling prophesies based his moralities on parables in which there were no thought or real integrity. This coruscating portrayal of Lincoln so offended the loyal sons of Illinois that talk arose of chiseling from the tombstone of Ann Rutledge, Lincoln's first love, the epitaph composed by Masters in his Spoon River Anthology. The men of Illinois soon received solace from another quarter when Ambassador Katsuki Debuchi of Japan stood shoulder to shoulder with Governor Emerson of Illinois, and both spoke of their admiration for Lincoln at his tomb in Springfield, Illinois. Ambassador Debuchi let everyone know that "From my boyhood Lincoln has been one of my heroes". This commendation came 10 years before the attack at Pearl Harbor.

I disagree slightly with Early's notes on literature, but I still can't quite rank "Gone with the Wind" or "Red Badge of Courage" as great literature. I still like both of them. Vidal's "Lincoln", on the other hand, may be just shy of great.

I can't say I agree that Jewish influence is responsible for that here.

Not the Jewish influence that you and I were discussing earlier, but still: "Hebraic Puritan" culture did not come from China, you know.

Wintermute

Some info on the failure of the anti-German boycott:

The Anti-German Boycott

American Jewish leaders faced their first overseas test within months of Hitler's rise to power. On April 1, 1933, the Nazi government backed a one-day boycott of Jewish businesses and within a week limited almost all civil service positions to "Aryans." Jewish physicans and lawyers faced severe restrictions on their ability to practice, and Jewish academics faced dismissal as the German government began a campaign of terror against the Jews in Nazi-controlled Europe. The JDC reacted swiftly, transferring its world headquarters overseas and devoting even larger sums of money to relief. Repeating a familar refrain, JDC leaders justified their overseas aid by appealing ot the religious rights of a persecuted minority. By emphasizing protections guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution, the JDC dodged questions of double loyalty and placed defence of European Jews squarely within the American liberal tradition of religious freedom.

For most in the Jewish community, though, the JDC/AJC position translated into a dangerous defence of the status quo. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise emerged as the leaders spokesperson for more activist Jews. Despite his affiliation with the Reform movement and his Central European ancestry, Wise took the lead against the old guard and offered a powerful critique of their version of liberal accomodationism. From his position as president of the American Jewish Congress, Wise demanded a tough public campaign against Hitler. In early March, the AJCongress broke with the AJC leadership and called for a March 20 protest meeting at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Two days later, rally backers journeyed to Washington to enlist President Roosevelt's support.

The AJC and B'nai B'right blasted Wise and the American Jewish Congress for what they considered to be a counterproductive effort. In a bid to redirect American Jewish Congress strategy along more conventional lines, they pointed to opposition by both the State Department and leaders of Germany's Jewish community. "The agitation, instead of calming," one critic believed, "continued to grow in intensity and we were told that unless some good news were forthcoming . . ., the speeches and resolutions [at the rally] might prove exceedingly embarrassing." Joseph Proskauer agreed. Born in Mobile, Alabama in 1877 to German immigrant parents, Proskauer spent almost his entire life as a New York attorney and later as a judge. A classical Reform Jew, Proskauer took over leadership of the American Jewish Committee in 1943, guided his organisation through its most turbulent time, and eventually helped secure U.S. government support for the new state of Israel. In 1933, though, he considered marches and mass meetings "unintelligent" and feared they would have an adverse affect on German Jews.

Tensions mounted when leaders of the American Jewish War Veterans decided to counter Hitler's anti-Jewish boycott with one of their own. Rejecting the accomodationism of the AJC, JDC, and B'nai B'rith, they appealed to a sympathetic Jewish polity frustrated with Hitler's anti-Semitism. In Many, the American League for the Defence of Jewish Rights, created for the express purpose of expanding the boycott, joined the cause. The league's vice-president, Abba Hillel Silver of Cleveland, used the boycott to launch a fifteen year anti-Nazi crusade. Silver, a Reform rabbi who would become a fiery proponent of American Zionism and nemesis of the old guard German-Jewish elite, argued that Hitler "must be attacked with political weapons and the strongest political weapon, when all others fail, is the economic boycott." Within months, the Jewish Labour Committee, representing 500,000 Jewish workers in the United States, approved the boycott as well.

Initially, Rabbi Wise opposed the boycott, hoping that his strategy of combining public protests with quiet negotiations would achieve the same result. Boycotts, he believed, should be "the last and not the first weapon of the Jewish people." On August 14, though, Wise and the American Jewish Congress reversed their position and, much to the delight of the organisers, joined the economic boycott of Germany. The Congress Boycott Council planned protests such as the October 1934 international trade fair in New York City, which advertised that "no merchandise or products shall be exhibited which have been created, manafactured, fabricated or imported from Germany." After two years of deteriorating overseas conditions, the non-Zionist Jewish Labour Committee's boycott committee added its support and the sponsering organisations merged to form the Joint Boycott Council in 1936.

The AJC and B'nai B'rith opposed the boycott from the outset. AJC President Morris Waldman considered the boycott "future [and] possibly dangerous" as well as "a threat to the United States" and suggested that the AJC seek the intervention of President Roosevelt. Proskauer feared that boycott activities, like rallies and marches, would further imperil German Jews. He advocated a policy of "quiet diplomacy" and enjoyed the support of several German-Jewish leaders who feared the American action would prompt a wave of Nazi retaliation. With the United States suffering from a trade imbalance with Germany, the AJC also worried that a boycott would exacerbate the economic depression.

In synagogues, some rabbis took positions even more extreme than the AJC's. "A publically delcared boycott by the Jews," a rabbi from Glencoe, Illinois, explained in December 1933, "means the excuse for the furthering of Nazi propaganda here." Twenty million German Americans lived in the United States, and fears of an anti-Jewish backlash ran high. "Blood," he stated, "is thicker than water [and] can quickly be brought to hatred of the Jew." The religious leader, in a response typical to both the AJC and B'nai B'rith, feared that a boycott would "encourage the purchase of German goods because their fatherland was attacked by Jews." He believed that Jews should only boycott "as American citizens affiliated with some movement in which all American citizens join. They cannot with safety to their own position come out as Jews in declaration of war against anyone. They are not too well loved in our own country or any other country."

Boycott organisers, even as they advocated a more aggressive public posture, shared many of the AJC and B'nai B'rith's concerns. With domestic anti-Semitism on the rise, activist leaders also feared a backlash. They needed to articulate an acceptable justification for their boycott, demonstate how it strengthened the nation, and show how it would protect the interests of Jews in both Germany and the United States."

Marc Dollinger, Quest for Inclusion: Jews and Liberalism in America (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2000), pp.46-48

:: Not the Jewish influence that you and I were discussing earlier, but still: "Hebraic Puritan" culture did not come from China, you know.

Its true that dogmatic evangelical Protestantism is ultimately derived from Old Testament bible-thumping, but such moralizing is only indirectly Jewish, operating through the medium of Christianity. I don't dispute that Protestantism is ultimately derived from Judaism, but attributing the moralizing attitude of Anglo-Saxon nations to contemporary organised Jewry is stretching our case a little to thin IMO. The legacy of Christianity is also a huge problem for us. Woodrow Wilson is a classic example of that.

WM, Consider this. I myself had no idea how widespread opposition to Jewry was within the United States at the time:

"When the Gallup organisation conducted a survey in April 1938, it discovered that more than half the American public believed the persecution of European Jewry was either partly or entirely the Jews' fault. The next month, 20 percent of the respondents said they wanted to "drive the Jews out of the United States" in order to check their power, while almost one quarter sought Jewish exclusion from the government."

Ibid., p.59

Found some more information in the footnote at the back of the book:

"Breitman and Kraut, American Refugee Policy, 88. In addition, 18 percent favored business restriction of Jews. Twenty-four percent sought Jewish exclusion from government, 31.9 percent though the Jews possessed too much business power, and 10.1 percent believed that Jewish immigrants should face deportation. Nearly a third of the respondents to a July 1939 Gallup poll though that Jews possessed too much business power and recommended action to curtail Jewish influence. As German-Jewish refugees laboured to secure one of the coveted quota spaces, more than 10 percent of Americans indicated that these Jewish immigrants should be deported from U.S. shores."

Ibid., p.242

Organised Jewry was under sustained assault in the 1930s. Millions of white Americans sought the expulsion of Jewry from the United States. Judaism was being rolled back in Europe. We were making enormous progress. There was a strong domestic movement to destroy Jewish power once and for all. Support for Roosevelt was ebbing and there was another economic downturn in the late '30s. If Jewry had been toppled in America like it was in Germany, then international Jewry as a whole would have been finished forever. All of this was thrown in the trash with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war.

Organised Jewry was under sustained assault in the 1930s.

In Germany.

Millions of white Americans sought the expulsion of Jewry from the United States.

Answering 'yes' to a poll and 'seeking expulsion' are two wildly different things.


Judaism was being rolled back in Europe.

Judaism was being rolled back in Germany. It's grip on Great Britian was quite powerful. Google on the Balfour declaration and see who it is addressed to.

We were making enormous progress.

Who is this we?

There was a strong domestic movement to destroy Jewish power once and for all.

See above. 20% of respondants in a poll is not a movement.

Support for Roosevelt was ebbing and there was another economic downturn in the late '30s.

Too bad there was no movement to take advantage of these felicitous occurances.

If Jewry had been toppled in America like it was in Germany, then international Jewry as a whole would have been finished forever.

True, but it is equally true that if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a wagon.

The only people who actually publicly resisted Jews were Lindberg and Ford. Both were neutralized.

I still fail to see what we are arguing about.

WM

:: In Germany.

In the U.S. as well.

:: Answering 'yes' to a poll and 'seeking expulsion' are two wildly different things.

20% of Americans wanting to drive the Jews out of the U.S. is not insignificant. A majority of Germans did not support Hitler when he came to power either.

:: Judaism was being rolled back in Germany.

Actually, antisemitism was also rampant in the United States, mired as it was in the Great Depression.

:: It's grip on Great Britian was quite powerful.

The Jews were far more powerful in Great Britain than they were in the United States, but had antisemitism triumphed in the United States, British Jewry would not have had a prayer.

:: Google on the Balfour declaration and see who it is addressed to.

I am quite familar with the Balfour Declaration. I actually have a history of British Jewry right here as well.

:: Who is this we?

Enemies of international Jewry.

:: See above. 20% of respondants in a poll is not a movement.

If such a poll was a representative sample of Americans, as it probably was (since it was conducted by Gallup), then I would say one can logically infer there were strong antisemitic currents in the U.S at the time. This should not come as a real surprise either, with the revival of the second Ku Klux Klan and the popularity of antisemites like Coughlin.

:: Too bad there was no movement to take advantage of these felicitous occurances.

"At the time, few Americans shared Kallen's views. Scientific racism reached its zenith in the 1920s as a serious of restriction acts ended immigration from Asia and instituted strict national origins quotas against southern and eastern Europeans. Some cultural anthropologists poisted pseudo-scientific theories tying intelligence to race and ethnic origin, while more and more Americans read the xenophobic works of Madison Grant and William Z. Ripley. The Ku Klux Klan reemerged and enjoyed great success in Indiana and Colorado, where it elected scores of candidates to statewide office and prevented the Democratic party from including and anti-KKK statement on its national platform. The Klan's "100% Americanism" motto translated into a reject of both cultural pluralism, since it encouraged immigrant ethnicity, and assimilation, since it demanded the integration of non-Anglo-Saxon traits in native-born American stock. Nativists, whether in the KKK or in the halls of Congress, harbored strong anti-Semitic feelings. The Anglo-Saxon nation they dreamed of creating did not include Jews."

Ibid., p.41

:: True, but it is equally true that if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a wagon.

Yet there was a powerful racialist and antisemitic movement in America during the 20s and 30s, with elected representatives in both Congress and the State Legislatures. Millions of Americans also supported expelling the Jews from the United States, although nothing of the sort is the case today.

:: The only people who actually publicly resisted Jews were Lindberg and Ford. Both were neutralized.

There was actually far more antisemetic public figures than Lindbergh and Ford, although the latter soak up most of press on the time period. Actually, antisemitism did not become taboo in the United States until the postwar era (See J.J. Goldberg's Jewish Power and Edward S. Shapiro's A Time For Healing: American Jewry Since World War II).

:: I still fail to see what we are arguing about.

I am not sure I am getting your point here. No one denies there was a powerful antisemitic movement in America during the 20's and 30's. Numerous books have been written on the subject. If we today had the support and/or financial backing of popular figures of the magnitude of Charles Lindbergh or Henry Ford, then we would be ecstatic.

One more thing: there was also a powerful antisemitic movement in France as well. Vichy enjoyed widespread public support and its antisemitic legislation was entirely the result of indigenous political forces.

Check out this preface:

"Twelve years had passed since Germany was compelled to sign the Treaty of Versailles when Annetta Antona arrived at 17 Brienner Strasse on the afternoon of December 28, 1931, to interview a rising politician named Adolf Hitler. Thirteen years of stewing in the bile of defeat. Thirteen years of Germany's pondering a suitable scapegoat for its capitulation in World War I and humiliation at the peace conference. Thirteen years of longing to reinvigorate Aryan pride.

A longtime Detriot News columnist, Antona was part of a team dispatched by the paper to tell the story of how the defeated nation was rebuilding itself. She was the author of a popular weekly column called "Five Minutes With Men in the Public Eye," wherein she profiled notable figures from the world of politics, literature, and entertainment.

Detroit boasted a significant German immigrant population and the News frequently provided its readers with reports from their former homeland. The National Socialist German Workers Party had achieved great strides in the German Reichstag a year earlier, winning 107 out of 556 seats in the national election. That Hitler's message of nationalism and anti-Semitism was appealing to a growing audience was undeniable. Antona believed the man she referred to as the "Bavarian Mussolini" was destined to one day take power. Through a friend who enjoyed influence with the National Socialists, she had secured a five-minute interview with the party leader, although her friend warned that Hitler had a profound dislike for foreign journalists.

At the appointed time, the American columnist arrived at the small brick building -- an elegant Munich mansion, nicknamed Brown House, which the Party had recently acquired as its headquarters. Announcing herself to the hard-faced sentry posted at the door, she was ushered into a large office where her subject waited. Flanking a large desk were a pair of red flags bearing the menacing black swastika. But as Hitler welcomed her in, the American's eyes immediantly locked on a large portrait hung over his desk. It was an incongruous work to encounter in the capital of Bavaria, four thousand miles from home. The imposing oil-painted figure, dressed in a brown suit and gray vest, was immediantly familiar to anybody from Detroit -- the city's great industrialist, automobile pioneer Henry Ford.

Wasting no time, the reporter commenced her brief questioning of the radical nationalist politician she would later describe in print as "the Pan-German Siegfried with a Charlie Chaplin moustache."

Hitler answered each of her questions about the party's political goals, outlining pedantically his vision of a new Reich. Finally, she concluded the interview with a question that the rest of the world would soon be asking" "Why are you anti-Semitic?"

"Somebody has to be blamed for our troubles," came the immediate response. "Judaism means the rule of gold. We Germans are land-minded, not money-minded."

The interview had already extended past the pre-arranged time limit and the journalist rose from her chair, apologizing for taking up so much of Hitler's time. But before she made her exist, she couldn't resist asking for an explanation of the portrait that loomed over the entire interview.

The reason is simple, explained the future Führer. "I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration."

Nine years later, Hitler ruled the Third Reich and had assembled the most powerful war machine in history. The German blitzkrieg was poised to topple France as it continued on its seemingly unstoppable drive toward Britain. It appeared that only American intervention could forestall a Nazi-dominated Europe. But one man was determined that the United States would not thwart Hitler's plans.

The country's most celebrated hero was rallying the isolationist forces to keep America out of the European conflict and prevent military assistance to Britain, depiste the desperate determination of President Franklin Roosevelt to supply aid to the beleaguered island nation. On May 19, 1940, Charles Lindbergh took to the airwaves and delivered a national radio address urging America not to interfere with the internal affairs of Europe.

The next day, President Roosevelt was having lunch with U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau at the White House. Midway through the meal, the President put down his fork, turned to his most trusted Cabinet official and declared, "If I should die tommorrow, I want you to know this. I am absolutely convinced that Lindbergh is a Nazi."

Max Wallace, The American Axis: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the Third Reich (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2003), pp.1-3

Another interesting excerpt:

"With renewed fervor, Fritsch reminds his readers of the past history of The International Jew, beginning with the trail-blazing first issue of the Dearborn Independent thirteen years before -- "a blow that took Judah's breath away." It was as if Ford had toassed a stone into the middle of a pool, and ripples were still emanating outward. Fritsch played skillfully upon the argument. In the preface to the German edition, he insists that "the value of Ford's work is constantly growing, and the older it becomes the more its value will grow." As if he were handed Henry Ford's baton directly, "Adolf Hitler under the symbol of the swastika took over the fight against Judah in the spring of 1933." Stepping readily into line to demonstrate his loyal faith in Geichschaltung, Fritsh now enlists Ford's book as an integral ideological player in the "coalition of all anti-Jewish movements . . . this movement will yet eliminate Judah . . .After all," the preface concludes, "our final goal is to save mankind and humanity from destruction."

Neil Baldwin, Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate (New York: Public Affairs, 2001), pp.271-271

"In late 1932, antisemitism in America was still perceived in many quarters as predominantly religious or intellectual in nature, "a subtle, whispered thing, something sensed, felt under the skin, as it were." However, Hitler's early success in his visible campaign to persecute German Jews set off a chain reaction in America. There soon flourished a bumper crop of Americanist-xenophobic, quasi-fascist groups in the United States, eventually more than 120 of them, championed by a colourful assortment of demagogues -- William Dudley Pelly's Silver Legion, later the Silver Shirts/Christian Party, founded in California in late January 1933; "Radio Priest" Father Charles Coughlin's National Union for Social Justice/Christian Front, founded in 1935; the American Vigilant Intelligence Federation (established in Chicago to combat "the menace of the Jews" by Honorary General Manager Harry A. Jung in April 1933); Colonel Edwin Marshall Hadley and Mrs. Elizibeth Kirkpatrick Silling's Paul Reveres, incorporated in November 1932 (she wrote that "Talmudists," otherwise known as Communists had always hated Christians); and fundamental Reverend Gerald Burton Winrod's Defenders of the Christian Faith (established in Wichita in 1925; in February 1933, he condemned "Jewish Bolshevism" as the root cause of the evils of modernism, derived from "the same impulse which killed Jesus Christ"). Facilely characterizing Jews as agents for extreme moral subversion and social upheaval, these and other Fifth Column organizations were infused with a kind of "misty, yeoman ideology." They were energized to frenzied rabble-rousing by hatred of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his "Jew Deal."

By the end of 1933, the climate had substantially darkened for Jews in America. There was discerned an "ever-widening stain of ostracism," in Carey McWilliam's haunting phrase. To be sure, the Depression cut through all ethnic strata, but it had special significance for the Jews -- representing only 3 percent of the total population -- because social discrimination expanded easily into flagrant economic exclusion. As had been the case in the early 1920s, employment quotas were reinstated at the same time that immigration rules were tightened anew, especially against refugees from Poland, Romania, and Germany."

Ibid., pp.278-279

This turning of the conflict into a Morality Play for the Morons is now properly referenced as the Hollywood History of the Second World War (a thoroughly Jewish production, following on [the Italian] Capra's disgracefully mendacious Why We Fight).

NN,

I can't say I agree that Jewish influence is responsible for that here. The tendency of Anglo-Saxon nations to moralise wars into crusades for higher principles is a direct legacy of evangelical Protestant Christianity.

No disputing that Popes, Princes, and Politicians have long resorted to "moralis wars into crusades" manned by morons inclined to such intoxication - but the history of the present instance is, in fact, that of [i]Jewish Hollywood having been responsible for the misrepresentation and transformation of the issue in the popular mind.

And does not "evangelical Protestant Christianity" verily issue, proudly unmediated, from the Jewish comic book account of origins, itself?
*

:: No disputing that Popes, Princes, and Politicians have long resorted to "moralis wars into crusades" manned by morons inclined to such intoxication - but the history of the present instance is, in fact, that of [i]Jewish Hollywood having been responsible for the misrepresentation and transformation of the issue in the popular mind.

Virtually every major war that America has ever fought since the 19th century has been some sort of moralising crusade against evil. I already mentioned the War Between the States and the Spanish-American War. Wilson's campaign to 'make the world safe for democracy' is another example. So why would World War 2 or the Cold War have been any different? Don't get me wrong. It is very true that Hollywood Jews appealed to such mores in their films. I have researched the issue myself and documented (http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=618) the matter in the Jewish Studies forum.

"The presence of the Jew in wartime and post-World War II films reversed the “de-Semitizing” of Hollywood movies of the thirties. During the Great Depression, Hollywood film executives, who were mostly Jewish, feared that films with Jewish characters and Jewish themes might exacerbate anti-Semitism and be unpopular at the box office. When novels were brought to screen, the names of Jewish characters were frequently anglicized. Even anti-Nazi films such as Confessions of a Nazi Spy (1939) and The Moral Storm (1940) did not stress the persecution of Germany’s Jews.

Because it assumed that platoon films would help the war effort, the federal government’s Office of War Information encouraged their production. Jewish characters appeared in Air Force (1943), Bataan (1943), Guadalcanal Diary (1943), The Purple Heart (1944), Winged Victory (1944), Objective Burma (1945), and A Walk in the Sun (1945). Among the most important of these fims was Warner Brother’s Pride of the Marines (1945).

At one point in Pride of the Marines, Lee Diamond, a wounded Jewish marine played by Dane Clark, describes his hopes for an America in which everyone will have a fair shake. “One happy afternoon when God was feeling good, he sat down and thought up a beautiful country and named it the USA . . . Don’t tell me we can’t make it work in peace like we do in war. Don’t tell me we can’t pull it together.” These words were accompanied by the strains of “America the Beautiful” in the background. At the film’s end, Diamond says, “Maybe some guys won’t hire me because my name is Diamond and not Jones. ‘Cause I celebrate Passover instead of Easter. . . We need a country to live in where no one gets booted around for any reason.”Edward S. Shapiro, A Time For Healing: American Jewry Since World War II (Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins Univiersity Press, 1992), p.18

A few things stand out here:

1.) American public opinion was utterly opposed to entering the war until Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war. Furthermore, antisemitism was rampant throughout the 1930s in the U.S. So whatever one might say about Jewish influence in the American media in the 1930s, its influence was obviously negligable at best.

2.) Organised Jewry was disunited and afraid of rising antisemitism during the 1930s. The failure of the anti-German boycott is one example of this. The inhibition of Hollywood Jews in using Jewish themes in their movies, as the gallery can see above, is obviously another. Jewish power was in an embyronic state during this time period.

3.) Despite the participation of Jews in the Allied propaganda effort and the U.S. being in a state of war with Nazi Germany, antisemitism did not diminish during the war, it actually increased:

"Unfortunately, Jewish leadres proved mistaken in almost all their wartime analyses. Popular opposition to Hitler did little to stave off domestic anti-Semitism, which took a turn for the worse during the war years. When pollsters asked Americans in 1940 if they heard any criticism or talk against Jews in the last six months, almost half responded in the affirmative. In 1942, that number inched higher and topped out at 64 percent by 1946. In 1945, more than half of those polled believed that American Jews possessed too much power, a steep climb from prewar levels. The war did not, as communal leaders hoped, ease the integration of Jews into the American mainstream."

Dollinger, p.78

Some more information in the footnote:

"In the 1940 poll, 46 percent responded positively to the question, "Have you heard any criticism or talk against the Jews in the last six months?" In 1942, the number rose to 52 percent. A 1945 poll asking whether Jews had too much power yielded a 58 percent "yes" response. Seventy-eight percent of respondents to a 1942 poll asking high school students to list their least favourite roommate listed "Negroes," while 45 percent responded "Jews." None of the other ethnicities surpassed a 9 percent rating. Dinnerstein, Antisemitism in America, 131-121. When asked "what nationality, religious, or racial groups in this country are a menace to Americans," survey respondents first expressed more aversion to Japanese than Jews but later switched. In February 1942, 24 percent labeled the Japanese a menace compared to 15 percent who cited the Jews. In June 1944, however, nearly a quarter listed the Jews while only 9 percent answered the Japanese. A 1945 poll of American high school students about "their last choice as a roommate" ranked Jews second only to blacks. Dinnerstein, Antisemitism in America, 131-132.

Ibid., p.246-247

So I cannot agree that Jewish culture-distortion prior to and during the Second World War was as significant as you are making it out to be here. There was an organised Jewish community. There was a powerful Jewish presence in Hollywood and in the media. No doubt. But Jews were political amateurs at the time. Jewish influence was neither hegemonic or politically effective. It was actually, believe it or not, bitterly contested at the time. And when Jews did make films, they more or less appealed to already established Christian mores and values in order to identify their cause with their audience.

:: And does not "evangelical Protestant Christianity" verily issue, proudly unmediated, from the Jewish comic book account of origins, itself?

Absolutely. I agree. But it was the legacy of evangelical Protestatism, as opposed to organized Jewry, which was the more debilitating influence prior to the Second World War. We have only been the 'Jewnited States' since the late 1960s/early 1970s, really.

- "Petr, who in fact wishes that the last iota of White freedom be crushed beneath Jewish Law forever (he wants Biblical theocracy), is in fact a spiritual Jew. I would say, between his literalism and his legalism, that he looks every inch the Whited Sephuchre that he is."


Oh boy. You've really become obsessed with me, you sore loser. You can't now even pass my posts without spewing insults and half-truths (worst kind of lies there is) at my direction.

Did I say "half-truths?". By saying that I want "the last iota of White freedom be crushed beneath Jewish Law forever", you are LYING, you effeminate little twerp!


And who made you a spokesman for "White freedom" anyways? And how do you define what "White freedom" is? Probably you are just addicted to empty phrases and gestures.


Petr

By saying that I want "the last iota of White freedom be crushed beneath Jewish Law forever", you are LYING,

I'm sorry - are you now no longer in favor of theocracy? Then I will happily retract the statement.

you effeminate little twerp

Thticks and thtones, Petr, thticks and thtones.

And who made you a spokesman for "White freedom" anyways?

I am self appointed.

And how do you define what "White freedom" is?

Self determination for starters, which means that alien laws from wandering tribes of duplicitous megalomaniacs should be put where they belong, with the rest of the rubbish.



WM

I am for theocracy among Christians - not everyone is forced to join - as I hoped I had made myself clear on that other thread already!

I even believe Christians and pagans can fight together against some common enemies in this world - like Abraham fought with the king of Sodom, (Genesis 14) but refused to accept any gifts from him or become dependent from him in any way.


Petr

I am for theocracy among Christians - not everyone is forced to join - as I hoped I had made myself clear on that other thread already!

So there will be a civil government outside the Mosaic system?

WM

Among pagans, yes. If there are people who refuse to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, which looks depressingly probable...

On the other hand, Christians will not have to support the rotten pagan system, like Christian taxpayers are nowadays forced to fund evolutionist propaganda, to give just one example.

And pagans better withstand themselves from aggression - physical or ideological - against the Christian commonwealth, if they know what's good for them.


Petr

Dr. Brandt , what struck me most is that you talk as if WW2 is still on .
Its over , it ended 60 years ago.
The Hollywood presentation of history and the "Why we Fight" , certainly all to be taken with a pinch of salt.
All involved in WW2 produced similar films , they all serve the one purpose.

I think Fade is correct when he says that "Jewish Influence" was somewhat amplified and over played and I agree with you completely that talk of germany invading South America is alittle like obtaining "dung from China".
(Rather far fetched).

Hitlers declaration of war on America , if it was based only on what might and I say might be considered "Jewish issues" well it was one stupid daft and silly thing to do.
Ebusitanus makes a good point in that by sitting tight and letting a few weeks pass German interests might have been better served.

Japan kept Berlin in the dark about Pearl Harbour , which is just as well or their ships would never have made it home without major loss.
Hitlers declaration of war , might have more to do with Hitlers psyche or as much to do with it. Always a man for the big event , the major action , the man of action , he over played it and comprehensively shot himself in the foot.

Dr. Brandt , not wanting to engage in a flame war with you.
Its painfully obvious we are at loggerheads , but you took part of my post in purely black and white terms .
For heavens sake lighten up , I had noticed your "being away" it was nothing more than that.
Did I come back with the big red print when you write me up as being the devil incarnate , or when Chris2 right pointed out that my keyboard skills are worse than those of the average 10 year old.

No disputing that Popes, Princes, and Politicians have long resorted to "moralis wars into crusades" manned by morons inclined to such intoxication - but the history of the present instance is, in fact, that of [i]Jewish Hollywood having been responsible for the misrepresentation and transformation of the issue in the popular mind.

Virtually every major war that America has ever fought since the 19th century has been some sort of moralising crusade against evil. I already mentioned the War Between the States and the Spanish-American War. Wilson's campaign to 'make the world safe for democracy' is another example. So why would World War 2 or the Cold War have been any different? Don't get me wrong. It is very true that Hollywood Jews appealed to such mores in their films....

So I cannot agree that Jewish culture-distortion prior to and during the Second World War was as significant as you are making it out to be here. There was an organised Jewish community. There was a powerful Jewish presence in Hollywood and in the media. No doubt. But Jews were political amateurs at the time. Jewish influence was neither hegemonic or politically effective. It was actually, believe it or not, bitterly contested at the time. And when Jews did make films, they more or less appealed to already established Christian mores and values in order to identify their cause with their audience.

The distinction I am trying to make here is between the conventional and time-honored propaganda, however couched, that rationalizes a self-interested enterprise as a holy one (as you have well illustrated), and that with which the Second World War is popularly understood. In the latter instance, the representation is so radically mendacious and duplicitous and contrary in result to the established and self-interested goals which began the enterprise that the question is howlingly begged of cui bono.

And the survey says: [resounding klang!] THE JEWS

For Roosevelt was surrounded by them in his home and his office, with Louis Howe living in his house, indoctinating the First Couple in Communism ("Some of my best friends...") and with Felix Frankfurter whispering in his ear that Hitler must be eliminated, and with the Treasury Secretary, Morgenthau, and his subordinates (Harry Dexter White, z.B.) ultimately running Greater Judean foreign policy. Further, among Frankfurter's 200-odd "Happy Hotdogs" whom the latter brought to Washington, were numbered many a Soviet agent and apologist and fifth-amendment case, illustrating the ideological climate and ethnicity of the regime. Rosenman the Jew wrote his speeches - Hillman the Jew had to be consulted on any domestic matter. His collaborator, the drunken exhibitionist, Churchill, was bankrupt, and was bought for service by organized Jewry.

As previously noted, all the rightly-understood goals of the war were LOST - the hallowed "victory" was PHONY - our supposed "enemies" were, in fact, and proved to have been, would-be ALLIES - and our supposed "ally" of the East (Good old "Uncle Joe" and the "peace-loving and democratic Russian people") always was, and became overtly and expensively, a mortal ENEMY, insanely threatening the elimination of all life on the planet. And we recall in conclusion that our domestic reaction to this obvious insanity and inversion led to the Jew-execrated McCarthy era of paranoia and that desperate and deceptive search for an explanation as to whom this might be attributed.
*

I am not convinced that Roosevelt was controlled by the Jews in his administration, much less that American foreign policy was subordinated to the interests of organised Jewry during the Roosevelt Administration. If you have evidence to that effect, then I would very much like to see it. That there were Jews around Roosevelt should not surprise anyone (after all, the 'New Deal' was coined by a Jew), but to suggest that Roosevelt was somehow under their thumb is an entirely different matter altogether. Throughout history, gentile leaders have found Jews to be useful for their purposes. The interests of gentile elites and Jews often coincide. But such court Jews should not be confused with the sort of Jewish hegemony that prevails today in the U.S., as the relationship of dependency has been utterly inverted.

The notion that the Roosevelt Administration was captive to Jewish interests simply does not make sense. For starters, the Jewish boycott of Germany failed. But not only that, hundreds of thousands of Jews were unable to immigrate to the U.S. because of our immigration laws during his administration. The U.S. only entered WW2 in 1941 after the attack on Pearl Harbor and our military objectives were not subordinated to stopping the persecution of Jews by the Germans, despite our full knowledge of what was going on.

On balance, it does not appear that international Jewry gained much during the war. No one disputes that lots of Jews died in the camps. But it is quite obvious to anyone familar with the conflict that stopping the persecution of Jews by the Germans was subordinated to the goal of defeating the Axis powers. If Jewish interests truly were paramount, then it is certainly interesting how that was not the case.

I am convinced that America entered World War 2 to advance what was at the time perceived to be American interests (e.g., to increase American power viz the other great powers). It was definitely not in the best interests of America for an avatistic Germany to attain utter hegemony over all its continental rivals (or Japan in East Asia, for that matter). So it would logically follow that the American government would attempt to frustrate German and Japanese territorial ambitions. And that is precisely what happened. America simply followed its traditional strategy: dividing the great European powers against themselves in order to take advantage of their infighting. America supported France and Britain in World War 2 for the same reason America propped up the Spanish Empire, because France and Britain were weak and declining powers that were not a threat to American interests.

Laying sentiments aside, World War 2 was a total victory for the United States. Germany was destroyed, divided, and subordinated to the U.S. Japan was devastated and occupied by U.S. forces. France was permanently crippled. Britain became an American satellite during the war with Lend-Lease. Even Russia was laid to waste. America entered the postwar era as a world hegemon with complete freedom to restructure the international system (e.g., Bretton Woods) to its own liking. What more could America possibly ask for? It had absolutely everything to gain by entering World War 2 when it did. And history shows this.

Certainly America came out on top and her influence was extended , not least as all of Europe knew she saved the dinner from being burnt.
America staying out would have left Stalin washing his tanks in the North Sea , a Soviet dominated Europe and all that would have come with it.

America may not have entered the war to come out as she did but by 43 onwards it was 90% America in most theatres.

Would germany have won had america stayed out , not when Barbarossa went in. Until then everything to play for.

I agree Fade this Jewish paranoia is born out of Hitlers attitude towards the USA and it is still believed today.
Peral harbour was not a Jewish plot and Hitler was not maniputlated by Jews into declaring war.
Saw an interesting programme on banking / Allied banks / Germany 39-45 last night , a lot of money changing hands and not a Jew in sight , not one.
Interesting in that an international bank in the Uk holding polish , Czech Gold simply handed it over to the occupying powers. Amazing !

Some interesting quotes:

"Roosevelt issued his invitation to the conference on refugees, which he assumed would be largely attended by private sector organisations, from Warm Springs on March 25, 1938. Hitler spoke in Konigsberg that same night. Not without a perverted logic, he expressed the hope that (i.e., Roosevelt) who had "such a deep sympathy for these criminals will at least be generous enough to convert this sympathy in practical aid." He claimed to be ready to evacuate the Jews from Germany on "luxury ships." As usual, Hitler had found the soft, flabby, underside of Western democratic moralism.

What Hitler's didn't grasp, or it so only partially, was that Roosevelt, in tactical terms, could be just as agile and almost as cynical as he could be himself. Roosevelt was sincerely horrified by Hitler's atrocities, even at this early stage. But he knew that Hitler was a mortal danger who could be defeated only when Western opinion was fully aware of the impossibility of appeasing or reasoning with him."

"On several occasions over the next three and one-half years, Hitler would think he had exposed Roosevelt as a hypocrite and embarrassed him. But he knew nothing of America, (apart from having devoured Karl May's stories of the Wild West). Hitler didn't realise that every time Roosevelt made a humane or constructive suggestion and Hitler ridiculed him, American public opinion firmly lined up behind the President.

But Roosevelt knew Germany, and he knew something of the mentality of the mad psychopathic demagogue. There were some partial historical precedents to work from. And his formidable political intuition, what Tom Corcoran called his "androgynous" insight, told him practically all he needed to know about Hitler from the start. Hitler compounded his misjudgment of Roosevelt by massively underestimating the military and industrial potential of the United States.

Hitler took Roosevelt for another witless Western idealist, more altruistic and stylish than Chamberlain, but just as weak and gullible, and set at the head of a more powerful but less distinguished country. He realised too late, if ever, that he was dealing with a leader who reciprocated his hatred, matched his cunning, and was implacably determined to be rid of him, an ambition that Hitler never particularly entertained toward Roosevelt. Roosevelt knew from the start, and before Hitler himself did, that Hitler was a menace to him. Roosevelt knew that the world could never be safe for democracy nor America unambiguously the world's most important country while Hitler reigned and Hitlerism flourished. In this, he antedated even Churchill, as the Hitler entry in Churchill's 1937 book, Great Contemporaries, makes clear, though by mid-1938 Churchill's and Roosevelt's views of Hitler were almost identical.

As in his manipulation of William Randolph Hearst, all the western progressive isolationists, of the Southern Segregationist Democrats, and of his own budget balancers, in American domestic politics, Roosevelt would protect and build his foreign policy consensus as he had deftly built a new domestic consensus for each phase of the evolving New Deal.

A man of Hitler's political cunning, if he paid more attention to American affairs, or even listened to his often astute ambassador in Washington, Hans Dieckhoff, would have had some idea of the mortal danger that Roosevelt's America, uniquely of all the countries in the world, posed to Nazi Germany. He would then, presumably, have behaved more cautiously. Hitler realised only when he was half way to military defeat and personal physical extinction what a threat to him Roosevelt was and always had been. Hitler's defective political judgment in an area where he was usually very astute was probably aggravated by his contempt for Roosevelt's illness and his preoccupation with the presence of Zionist Jews (i.e. Cohen and Frankfurter) in Roosevelt's entourage and "Negroes" on his domestic staff.

In general Roosevelt was influenced by no one, only by the impact of events upon his idea of the United States as the world's predestined nation, and of himself as recipient of both a divine and popular mandate to lead his country to the pinnacle of benign power, where he had always known it belonged. In addition to his being almost as objectively good in his purposes -- if not always in his methods -- as Hitler was evil in his, Roosevelt was an ambitious visionary and as artistic, if more scrupulous, as Machiavellian as Hitler. In the middle of 1938 these facts were known to, and probably suspected by, no one except the grand and enigmatic occupant of the White House."

Conrad Black, Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom (New York: Public Affairs, 2003), pp.450-452

What would you get out of that last piece Fade? Roosevelt was great and Hitler dumb? Roosevelt knew Germany but Hitler had only Karl May notions of the States? Mhhh

What would you get out of that last piece Fade? Roosevelt was great and Hitler dumb? Roosevelt knew Germany but Hitler had only Karl May notions of the States? Mhhh
No. I get the impression that Hitler was too European and too focused on Germany's neighbours. He underestimated the threat posed by Roosevelt and the U.S. under his leadership. The biographer is probably correct in this assessment, as this is the impression that I also get from other sources. I simply ignored his moralising rhetoric.

Roosevelt was certainly not 'controlled' by the Jews. Hitler offered to ship all of Germany's Jews to America. Roosevelt would have none of it. So that does not suggest to me either that American foreign policy was subordinated to Jewish interests. And the Jews had even less sway in Congress, at that. Roosevelt was certainly concerned about the Jews, but this concern was only a secondary one to his larger agenda: exploiting European division in order to advance American interests.

P.S. Organised Jewry was much more powerful at the time in Britain than the United States, as Irving demonstrates in Churchill's War.

On April 1, 1933, the Nazi government backed a one-day boycott of Jewish businesses and within a week limited almost all civil service positions to "Aryans." Jewish physicans and lawyers faced severe restrictions on their ability to practice, and Jewish academics faced dismissal as the German government began a campaign of terror against the Jews in Nazi-controlled Europe

There is an incredible amount of disinformation packed into this short passage.

First of all, it is important to note that Germany's one-day boycott of Jewish businesses was a rather mild retaliation against the ONGOING (since March) Jewish boycott of German businesses, which had begun with their declaration of war on Germany and could potentially have dealt a crippling blow (as was the intention) to Hitler's goal of getting Germany back on her economic feet.

Secondly, all Jews who lost positions through the new laws were entitled to a full pension, and physicians were guaranteed an adequate amount of business through an insurance program.

Thirdly, the program did not consist of an abrupt dismissal of all Jews in proscribed positions (as for instance happened in postwar Germany and postwar Iraq, when tens of thousands of workers were abruptly terminated with no pension). In fact, in 1939 a large number of Jews still held their old positions, owing to the gradualness of the program.

Fourthly, what "campaign of terror" are you referring to? At the peak of their prewar population, National Socialist concentration camps held 7,000 prisoners in all, and a minority of these were Jewish and would have been interned, not for being Jewish, but for subversion, homosexuality, or common crime. What are you talking about? Even Kristallnacht, which didn't occur till the fall of 1938, turns out to have been a Jewish op.

Also, "Nazi-controlled Europe" at that time would have consisted solely of Germany--right?

Here is an interesting excerpt from a book that I managed to find today. Although I do not agree with all of the author's conclusions, he does raise some interesting questions of relevance to this debate (e.g., whether or not Jewish hegemony existed over American foreign policy during the Roosevelt Administration):

"In summary form, these are the findings that I regard as most significant:

1. The American State Department and the British Foreign Office had no intention of rescuing large numbers of European Jews. On the contrary, they continually feared that Germany or other Axis nations might release tens of thousands of Jews into Allied hands. Any such exodus would have placed intense pressure on Britain to open Palestine and on the United States to take in more Jewish refugees, a situation the two great powers did not want to face. Consequently, their policies aimed at obstructing rescue possibilities and dampening public pressures for government action.

2. Authenticated information that the Nazis were systematically exterminating European Jewry was made public in the United States in November 1942. President Roosevelt did nothing about the mass murder for fourteen months, then moved only because he was confronted with political pressures he could not avoid and because his administration stood onthe brink of a nasty scandal over its rescue policies.

3. The War Refugee Board, which the President then etablished to save Jews and other victims of the Nazis, received little power, almost no cooperation from Roosevelt or his administration, and grossly inadequate government funding. (Contributions from Jewish organisations which were necessarily limited, covered 90 percent of the WRB's costs.) Through dedicated work by a relatively small number of people, the WRB managed to help save approximately 200,000 Jews and at least 20,000 non-Jews.

4. Because of State Department administrative policies, only 21,000 refugees were allowed to enter the United States during the three and one half years the nation was at war with Germany. That amounted to 10 percent of the number who could have been legally admitted under the immigration quotas during that period.

5. Strong popular pressure for action would have brought a much fuller government commitment to rescue and would have produced it sooner. Several factors hampered the growth of public pressure. Among them were anti-Semitism and anti-immigration attitudes, both widespread in American society in that era and both entrenched in Congress; the mass media's failure to publicize Holocaust news, even though the wire services and other news sources made most of the information available to them; the near silence of the Christian churches and almost all of their leadership; the indifference of most of the nation's political and intellectual leaders; and the President's failure to speak out on the issue.

6. American Jewish leaders worked to publicize the European Jewish situation and pressed for government rescue steps. But their effectiveness was importantly diminished by their inability to mount a sustained or unified drive for government action, by diversion of energies into fighting among the several organisations, and by failure to assign top priority to the rescue issue.

7. In 1944 the United States War Department rejected several appeals to bomb the Auschwitz gas chambers and the railroads leading to Auschwitz, claiming that such actions would divert essential airpower from decisive operations elsewhere. Yet in the very months that it was turning down the pleas, numerous massive American bombing raids were taking place within fifty miles of Auschwitz. Twice during that time large fleets of American heavy bombers struck industrial targets in the Auschwitz complex itself, not five miles from the gas chambers.

8. Analysis of the main rescue proposals put forward at the time, but brushed aside by government officials, yields convincing evidence that much more could have been done to rescue Jews, if a real effort had been made. The record also reveals that the reasons repeatedly invoked by government officials for not being able to rescue Jews could be put aside when it came to other Europeans who needed help.

9. Franklin Roosevelt's indifference to so momentous an historical event as the systematic annihilation of European Jewry emerges as the worst failure of his presidency.

10. Poor though it was, the American rescue effort was better than that of Great Britain, Russia, or the other Allied nations. This was the case because of the work of the War Refugee Board, the fact that American Jewish organisations were willing to provide most of the WRB's funding, and the overseas rescue operations of several Jewish organisations."

David S. Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984), pp.x-xi

Hitler offered on numerous occasions (even one time in 'luxury ships') to send the Jews to the Allied nations if they would take them. If American Jewry was truly hegemonic over American foreign policy during the Roosevelt Administration, then why didn't they accept his offer? He was probably being sincere.

Roosevelt tricked Hitler into declaring war on the United States. This is a very informative excerpt from one of the books in my library:

The Big Leaker

Between a war with Japan and the next step -- a declaration of war against Germany, the imperative heart of Rainbow Five -- there was a large and mostly inscrutable void. In the scenario Roosevelt had envisioned on the eve of Pearl Harbor, the orders to the Lanikai make it clear that the president realised he had a problem. It would be difficult to persuade the nation that America, with its heritage of opposition to colonialism, enshrined in the American Revoution and restated often in other eras, should go to war to defend British and Dutch colonies in the East Indies and the Malay Peninsula and Singapore.

It was all too easy to envisage a raging quarrel over declaring war against Japan that even if successful would consume almost all Roosevelt's political capital. To pile on a proposal for war against Germany might trigger an unthinkable possibility: a congressional rejection that would make Adolf Hitler invulnerable. There was only one solution to this dilemma. Germany -- more specifically, Adolf Hitler -- had to declare war on the United States.

How could the Nazi dictator be provoked into such a decision when it was obvious that keeping the United States out of the war was one of his top priorities? He had issued orders to his U-boats and air force to avoid attacks on Americans, and had studiously ignored or downplayed the numerous provocations Roosevelt had flung his way. Moreover, the Tripartite Pact did not obligate Germany to join Japan in a war Tokyo initiated.

Pondering this awesome problem, Franklin D. Roosevelt decided to captialise on the one huge advantage he had over his opponents, both home and abroad. He knew, thanks to Purple intercepts, that war with Japan was going to start in a few days, a week at most. Why not leak Rainbow Five to one of the antiwar leaders, who would undoubtedly leak it to one of the antiwar newspapers, and inspire all these angry people to fulminate against it in their most choleric fashion? When Japanese aggression exploded in their faces, they would be left speechless with embarrassment -- and politically neutered. But that would be a minor triumph, compared to the real purpose of the leak: to provoke Adolf Hitler into a declaration of war.

II.

There is no absolute proof of this scenario, but its fits the devious side of Franklin D. Roosevelt's complex personality. He often liked to boast about the way he outwitted his opponents. Six months after Pearl Harbor, he told Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau: "You know I am a juggler, and I never let my right hand known what my left hand does . . . and furthermore I am perfectly willing to mislead and tell untruths if it will help win the war." The search for the leaker of Rainbow Five offers more than a few clues that point to FDR as the master of the gambit.

. . . Finally, there is strong evidence that Rainbow Five played a part in Hitler's declaration of war on the United States.

IV.

While his military advisors were digesting Rainbow Five, the German dictator wrestled with an immense political decision.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor surprised him as much as it staggered Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Tripartite Pact had never been implemented by specific agreements about coordinating Germany, Italy, and Japan's war aims. The German foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, had promised Hiroshi Oshima, the Japanese ambassador to the Third Reich, that Germany would support Japan if it became embroiled with the United States. Other Germans had quoted Hitler as offering similar assurances and the Führer had promised Japanese foreign minister, Yosuke Matsuoka, Germany's assistance when he visited Berlin in April 1941.

But no guarantees existed on paper and Matsuoka had been ousted from his job when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union without bothering to inform Japan in advance. The two allies soon acquired additional doubts about each other's reliability. The Nazis groused about Japan's failure to attack Russia, which would have forced Stalin into a two-front war. Germany had repeatedly urged the Japanese to attack Singapore and the rest of Great Britain's Far East Empire, to no effect. The Japanese cooly informed Berlin that they preferred to wait until 1946 to go after Singapore. That was the year that the Phillippines would be granted its independence and the American army and navy would withdraw from the islands. (Here, it might be added, was additional evidence of Japan's reluctance to challenge the United States.) The Japanese had smugly lectured the Germans about the original goal of the Tripartite Pact: to keep America from declaring war on Germany. In the summer of 1941, before the undeclared oil embargo began, Tokyo insisted that negotiating with the Americans was the best way "to bring about [their] domestic disintegration rather than to excite and unify them."

In Berlin, after Pearl Harbor, Ambassador Oshima urged Ribbentrop to make good on his promise to join the war against the United States. The German foreign minister replied with cool generalities and urged Hitler to let the Japanese and the Americans fight it out, while Germany mopped up the Russians and the British. There were good reasons, aside from Germany's disappointment with their inscrutable ally, to pursue this course. Hitler viewed the Japanese as an inferior race -- far below Germany's supermen -- and he never had any compunction about breaking his promises, as his attack on his ally, Josef Stalin, made clear. Moreover, the Germans had assumed that Japan's war with America would begin with an American attack to prevent the Japanese from seizing Singapore, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies. If Germany joined that version of the war, it would look like the decision of an honourable ally. Japan's ferocious assault on Pearl Harbor now made a German declaration of war on America look like the tail, not the head of the Axis kite.

Even after Roosevelt had issued orders to American warships to "shoot on sight" at German submarines on October 8, 1941, Hitler had ordered Grand Admiral Raeder, the German navy's commander in chief, to avoid incidents that Roosevelt might use to bring America into this struggle. After the war Colonel General Alfred Jodl, Hitler's chief planner, said that the Nazi leader had wanted Japan to attack Great Britain and the USSR in the Far East but not the United States. He though there was a very good chance that Roosevelt would not be able to persuade the Americans to go to war to defend Britain's Asian colonies. Hitler had wanted "a strong new ally without a strong new enemy."

On December 8, 1941, President Roosevelt seemed to confirm the wisdom of Hitler's policy in his speech to Congress, calling for a declaration of war against Japan. Condemning the attack on Pearl Harbor as a "date which shall live in infamy," FDR did not so much as mention Germany. Hitler's policy of keeping incidents between America and the Reich to a minimum seemed to have succeeded.

On December 6, just before Japan launched its attack, Admiral Raeder became a major player in the Führer's global decision. Hie submitted to Hitler a report prepared by his staff that pointed with particular urgency to the most important revelation contained in Rainbow Five: the fact tht the United States would not be ready to launch a military offensive against Germany until July 1943.

Raeder argued that this necessitated an immediate reevaluation of Germany's current strategy. He recommended an all-out offensive on land and sea against Britain and its Empire to knock them out of the war before this crucial date. He envisaged further incidents between American naval vessels and German submarines in the North Atlantic and admitted that this could lead to war with the United States. But he argued that Rainbow Five made it clear that America was already a "nonbelligerent" ally of Great Britain and the Soviet Union and that a declaration of war was no longer something Germany should seek to avoid by restraining her U-boats. Moreover, Raeder concluded that Roosevelt had made a serious miscalculation "in counting upon Japanese weakness and fear of the United States" to keep Nippon at bay. The president was now confronted with a Japanese war two or three years before the completion of a two-ocean navy.

Hitler concurred with Raeder on launching the U-boat offensive. On December 9, he let the German navy suspend its prohibition against attacking American ships. But this was not a declaration of war. On the contrary, it could be justified by the asusmption that American voters, having failed to respond to previous unauthorised attacks, would still ignore them.

On December 9 Hitler returned to Berlin from the Russian front and plunged into two days of conferences with Raeder, Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, the chief of staff of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (usually referred to as the OKW, the army general staff), and Reich Marshall Hermann Goering, the commander of the German air force. The three advisors stressed Rainbow Five's determination to defeat Germany. They pointed out that the war plan discussed the probability of a Russian collapse and even a British surrender, whereupon the United States would undertake to carry on the war against Germany alone. By and large they leaned toward Admiral Raeder's view that an air and U-boat offensive against both British and American ships might be risky, but America was unquestionably already an enemy.

V.

On December 9, 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt made a radio address to the nation that is seldom mentioned in the history books. It accused Hitler of urging Japan to attack the United States. "We know that Germany and Japan are conducting their military and naval operations with a joint plan," Roosevelt declared. "Germany and Italy consider themselves at war with the United States without even bothering about a formal declaration." This was anything but the case, and Roosevelt knew it. He was trying to bait Hitler into declaring war, or, failing that, persuade the American people to support an American declaration of war on the two European fascist powers.

FDR added to this accusation of German complicity a string of uncomplimentary remarks about Hitler and Nazism: "Powerful and resourceful gangsters have banded together to make war upon the whole human race," he declared. "Their challenge has now been flung at the United States of America." He saw a pattern of aggression by Japan, Italy, and Germany, beginning as far back as 1931. "Modern warfare, as conducted in the Nazi manner is dirty business," the president said. "Your government knows that Germany has been telling Japan that if Japan would attack the United States Japan would share the spoils when peace came. She was promised by Germany that if she came in she would receive the whole of the Pacific area and that means not only the Far East but all the islands of the Pacific and also a stranglehold on the west coast of North and Central and South America. We know also that Germany and Japan are conducting their naval operations in accordance with a joint plan."

There was little truth in any of this rhetoric. Germany and Japan di not have a joint naval plan before Pearl Harbor and never concocted one for the rest of the war. Japan never had any ambition or plan to attack the west coast of North, Central, or South America. Her goal was to create a new order in the Far East, with Japan running things instead of the British. Germany did not "promise" Japan anything in the Far East. The Third Reich's power in the region was negligable.

On December 10, when Hitler resumed his confernece with Raeder, Keitel, and Goering, the Führer's mind was made up. He said that Roosevelt's speech confirmed everything in the Tribune story. He considered the speech a de facto declaration of war, and he accepted Raeder's contention that an unwanted war with Japan made it impossible for the Americans to follow the grand strategy of defeating Germany first that had been laid down in Rainbow Five.

On December 11 Hitler went before the Reichstag and announced that Germany and Italy had been provoked "by circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt" to declare war on the United States. His final decision, Hitler said, had been forced on him by American newspapers, which a week before had revealed "a plan prepared by President Roosevelt . . . according to which his intention was to attack Germany in 1943 with all the resources of the United States. Thus our patience has come to a breaking point." The yes-men in the Reichstag cheered wildly, Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop grandly approved his leader's decision. "A great power does not allow itself to be declared war upon," he intoned. "It declares war on others."

With a little extra prodding from the White House, the big leak had handed Roosevelt the gift that he desperately needed to proceed with the program outlined in Rainbow Five. Contrary to Raeder's expectations, neither America's military leaders nor the president altered the Europe-first cornerstone of the Victory Program. "That's because it was sound strategy," General Wedemeyer avered in 1986. He went on to plan Operation Bolero, which eventually became Overlord, between known as D day.

VI.

For a few more weeks the big leak developed yet a third life in Germany. Berlin greeted Rainbow Five's revelations as "the most profound intelligence value conceivable, enabling [the German High Command] to adapt arrangements to the American program." The offensive against Moscow and Leningrad was faltering in the freezing Russian winter. The general seized on the Roosevelt war plan to reinforce a suggestion they had already made to Hitler: to pull back to carefully selected defensive positions that would give them time to regroup and reinforce their decimated divisions.

In a postwar memoir, General Walter Warlimont, the deputy chief of the general staff, revealed how little information the generals had on the United States, which made Rainbow Five all the more important to them. Warlimont told of receiving a phone call from Jodl in Berlin on December 11, 1941:

"You have heard that the Führer has just declared war on America?" Jodl asked.

"Yes and we couldn't be more surprised," Warlimont replied.

"The staff must now examine where the United States is most likely to employ the bulk of her forces initially, the Far East or Europe. We cannot take further decisions until that has been clarified."

"Agreed," Warlimont said. "But so far we have never even considered a war against the United States and so have no data on which to base this examination."

"See what you can do," Jodl said. "When we get back tommorrow we will talk about this in more detail." The OKW staff soon submitted to Hitler a study of the "Anglo-Saxon war plans which became known through publication in the Washington [i]Times-Herald." The analysts concluded that to frustrate the Allies' objectives, Germany should choose a "favourable defensive position" and terminate the Russian campaign. Next Hitler should integrate the Iberian Peninsula, Sweden, and France within the "European Fortress" and begin building an "Atlantic wall" of impregnable defences along the European coast. The "objective of greatest value" should be the "clearing of all British and allied forces out of the Mediterranean and Axis occupation of the whole of the northern coast of Africa and the Suez Canal."

Admiral Raeder and Reich Marshal Goering joined in this recommendation in the most emphatic fashion. They told Hitler in 1942 Germany and Italy would have "their last opportunity to seize and hold control of the whole Mediterranean area and of the Near and Middle East." It was an opportunity that "will probably never come again." To everyone's delight Hitler agreed to these proposals.

A few days later, the Nazi leader returned to the Russian front, where he was astonished and enraged to find his armies reeling back under assaults from Soviet armies whose existence his intelligence officers had failed to detect. The Führer flew into a rage and summoned Col. Gen. Franz Halder, the chief of staff of the Germany army, and Field Marshal Walther von Brauchitsch, the commander in the chief. Berating them hysterically, Hitler declared that "a general withdrawal is out of the question." Whereupon he fire Brauchitsch and took over command of the army. A dismayed General Halder filled his diary with lamentations about Hitler's "fanatical rage against the idea of withdrawing to a winter line."

If Hitler had stuck with his original decision and acted to frustrate the objectives of Rainbow Five, he could have freed a hundred divisions from the eastern front for a Mediterranean offensive. Against this force the Allies, including the Americans, could not have mustered more than twenty divisions. Germany's best general, Erwin Rommel, was already in Egypt, demonstrating with a mere nine divisions (three German, six Italian) what he could accomplish against the British and Australians.

There is little doubt that Hitler could have turned the Mediterranean into a German lake and nullified the Allied plan to seize North Africa and attack Europe from the south. The catastrophic German defeat at Stalingrad would never have occurred, and the Allied attempt to invade Europe at any point, particularly across the English Channel, would have been much more costly. This grim possibility explains why men trained to think strategically, like Albert Wedemeyer, were horrified by the leak of Rainbow Five. The Allies were rescued from the worst consequences of Roosevelt's gamble by the emotional instability of another amateur strategist, Adolf Hitler."

Thomas Fleming, The New Dealers' War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and The War Within World War II (New York: Basic Books, 2001), pp.25-39

Excellent summary, Brother Wintermute.

Frankfurter's was probably the greatest influence in pushing the crippled cretin into the duplicitous devising of Greater Judean entry. FF and FDR exchanged several hundred letters during the decade leading up thereto, the most incriminating of which they later discarded by mutual agreement. The substance of this embarassing detritus is known to have been to the effect of the old Bolshevik whispering into the ear of the elevated stooge that Hitler's was a "criminal" regime that must be resisted. The stooge evidently adjusted his opinion of Germany accordingly.
That's very interesting. I was just looking in a book that I remembered had an opinion about who were the 2 of FDR's associates who had the most iinfluence on him, and it names Frankfurter and Baruch. It's a book by Curtis B. Dall, called FDR, my exploited father-in-law.

Dall describes ;) an extremely unpleasant cab ride with Frankfurter from Hyde Park to Grand Central Station in late 1932, in which Dall unsuspectingly made a comment about an old classmate to the effect that "some of his politicalviews. . .are a bit far to the left. .. ." Frankfurter became furious and glared at him, and that was the end of the conversation. Here's a short bit:

"The Professor," later Justice Frankfurter, soon blossomed to become the second most powerful political operator in this country.

In my opinion, Bernard Baruch held that No. 1 position even though such a conclusion might be a very close one. Mr. Baruch, as top man, raised most of the campaign and expense money; Mr. Frankfurter approved, directly or obliquely, most of the important governmental appointments. They were, without doubt, the "Gold Dust Twins".

His observations and operations, I understand, often gave FDR mental indigestion.
;)
-----------------------------------------

The Allies were rescued from the worst consequences of Roosevelt's gamble by the emotional instability of another amateur strategist, Adolf Hitler."


So it was.

General Warlimont remembered the day the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was reported because Hitler ordered champagne and uncharacteristically took two glasses himself, 'indicative of his emotional excitement at the attack.'

Interrogations, Richard Overy
Page 106

The only time I'd heard of Hitler drinking since he was a youth.