Author Topic: * A FEW MINUTES BEFORE MIDNIGHT  (Read 735 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
« on: November 12, 2010, 07:58:28 PM »

By Dr. Harrell Rhome



Exchange Of Communications Between The President Of The United States And The Chancellor Of The German Reich, April 1939, New York: German Library Of Information, Consulate General, May 1939 (With Roosevelt telegram, map of 1939 Germany, and Wilson`s Fourteen Points).

Most often, the speech (approximately 20,000 words) is omitted from most WWII chronologies compiled by `scholars`.  The text of the address was published by a somewhat obscure agency, and the original booklet is rather hard to find, if one can be located at all.  Only a small part of the material quoted in my paper appears in the rather brief partial translation from the Yale Law School Avalon Project, which seems to be the only thing available.  But significant large sections are omitted.  It is my understanding that certain American nationalist groups circulated a copy or partial copy in the mid 20th century, but probably even fewer of those are still around than of the original.  Hence, without having the booklet with the entire English translation, this crucial material is virtually unavailable to students and researchers of WWII.  In 2008, almost 70 years after the speech, one of the 1939 booklets curiously and unexpectedly came into my hands, so now this has changed.


In April 1939, there was an exchange of documents and dialogue between Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler, as well as between the Polish and German governments.  On 15 April, FDR sent a telegram to the Chancellor.  It made certain claims about Germany as an antagonist, demanding assurances of non-aggression.  Apparently, the Reichskanzler saw this as a last-minute chance to keep away from open hostilities in Central Europe, thus avoiding a horrible global conflagration.  Of course, he was right, and he used his opportunity to openly and honestly address all the nations, but especially those most directly involved. 

On 28 April he called a special session of the Reichstag, and through German radio and relayed broadcasts, was heard over much of the world.  We assume that translations of the speech were distributed (as in the USA) by German Consulates.  Yet this major address, an honest and sincere effort to avoid war, is today ignored and secluded.  Hopefully, my paper represents a return to consciousness, a `recovered memory`, if you will.  As you read the selections, you will see why the Powers That Be chose to isolate and pay no heed to this document.  Indeed, you may see some parallels with current events.


Adolf Hitler took a last minute opportunity to speak, not only to the USA, but to the whole world, just as dark war clouds were surely and certainly on the horizon.  He not only addressed the topics in FDR`s wire transmission, but spoke clearly on other problematic key issues of the day such as the Versailles debacle, the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, the Munich Agreements, etc.  He told the truth about what had been and what was going on in Europe, exhaustively responding to each point raised by the American leader.  After a thorough reading, what did I conclude?  For one thing, it is quite evident that Germany invited continuing dialogue, not war.  Even the casual reader can see this. While the Chancellor speaks strongly and straightforwardly, there are no threats, no aggressive language or provocations. 

Interestingly, and contradicting the popular image of the `anti-Semitic Jew baiter`, he says little other than to assign them much of the blame for the financial failures of the postwar era and for the rise of Bolshevism; and this in just a few sentences.  His talk logically progresses into a longer, more detailed examination of how the opportunities following WWI were squandered, hijacked and sabotaged.  He asked that Woodrow Wilson`s Fourteen Points be fully and equally implemented for all the nations, including Germany.  And, he fully recognized Poland`s right to the sea, but maintaining Danzig as a German ethnic area.  Several sections recount the various efforts to secure fair and lasting agreements with Poland, but all were summarily rejected by the oppressive and recalcitrant military dictatorship that ruled the newly emerged state.  And, there is more, but explore the selections below.         

This fascinating manuscript is quietly suppressed by simply ignoring it.  As said, the very limited partial translation does not do it justice, revealing very little of the real content of this timely foreign policy address by a major world leader.    We cover sections which readers may, hopefully, find educational and enlightening.  As said, almost all of the quotations herein seem to be unavailable anywhere else.  The introductory headings are from those appearing in the margins of the booklet pages.  Since the ill-fated Versailles Treaty was central to many of Europe`s problems, we begin with that.

`Peace hopes of millions disappointed. Versailles Treaty ignored history.`

`But the millions were cheated of this peace; for not only did the German people or the other peoples fighting on our side suffer through the peace treaties, but these treaties had a devastating effect on the victor countries as well.`

`That politics should be controlled by men who had not fought in the war was recognized for the first time as a misfortune.  Hatred was unknown to the soldiers, but not to those elderly politicians who had carefully preserved their own precious lives from the horrors of war, and who now descended upon humanity as in the guise of insane spirits of revenge.`

`Hatred, malice and unreason were the intellectual forebears of the Treaty of Versailles.  Territories and states with a history going back a thousand years were arbitrarily broken up and dissolved.  Men who had belonged together since time immemorial were torn asunder`¦.`

`No one knows this [the burdens of Versailles] better than the German people.  For the Peace Treaty`¦ imposed burdens on the German people, which could not have been paid off in a hundred years, although it has been proved conclusively by American teachers of constitutional law, historians and professors of history that Germany was no more to blame for the outbreak of the war than any other nation.` It is hard to imagine a clearer and more concise summary of the massive errors at the end of the war, setting the stage for the next one.`

As readers may know, world Jewry made the first aggressive move in the world press, just after the National Socialists were freely elected.  See the headline in a British newspaper 24 March 1933 declaring a boycott of German goods.

`Sufferings and despair of Germany under the republic.  Jewish and Bolshevik subversion.`

`The resultant misery and continuous want [after the war] began to bring our nation to political despair.  The decent and industrious people of Central Europe thought they could see the possibility of deliverance in the complete destruction of the old order, which to them represented a curse.`

`Jewish parasites, on the other hand, plundered the nation ruthlessly, and on the other hand, incited the people, reduced as it was to misery.  As the misfortune of our nation became the only aim and object of this race, it was possible to breed among the growing army of unemployed suitable elements suitable elements for the Bolshevik revolution.  The decay of political order and the confusion of public opinion by the irresponsible Jewish press led to ever stronger shocks to economic life and consequently to increasing misery and to greater readiness to absorb subversive Bolshevik ideas.  The army of the Jewish world revolution as the army of the unemployed were called, finally rose to almost seven million.  Germany had never known this state of affairs before.  `¦

As a matter of fact, these democratic peace dictators destroyed the whole world economy with their Versailles madness.`

`Lies regarding German motives [in Spain].`

`They [Western powers] declared at the time that Germany intended to establish herself in Spain, taking Spanish colonies`¦.  In a few weeks from now, the victorious hero of Nationalist Spain [Generalissimo Franco] will celebrate his festive entry into the capital of his country.  The Spanish people will acclaim him as their deliverer from unspeakable horrors as the liberator from bands of incendiaries, of whom it is estimated that they have more than 775,000 human lives on their conscience, by executions and murders alone.  The inhabitants of whole villages and towns were literally butchered, while their benevolent patrons, the humanitarian apostles of Western European and American democracy, remained silent.`

Apparently all of this was too big a dose of the truth.  Like most of the passages herein, this and the one before it are not found in the minimal translations available.  He told the truth, not only about subversive Illuminati Judaics in Germany, but also about Spain, where the forces of National Revolution won a resounding victory of freedom and truth over the Dark Forces of Judeo-Bolshevist terrorism.

`Problems settled without force.`

`Mr. Roosevelt declared that he had already appealed to me on a former occasion for a peaceful settlement of political, economic and social problems without force of arms.

Answer: I myself have always been an exponent of this view, and as history proves, have settled necessary political, economic and social problems without force of arms `“ without even resorting to arms.`

`Unfortunately, however, this peaceful settlement has been made more difficult by the agitation of politicians, statesmen and newspaper representatives who were neither directly concerned nor even effected by the problems in question.`

Does this sound like an unstable, power-mad dictator, ready to launch his legions on the world?  Or, is this the voice of a reasonable world leader, still ready to negotiate for real and lasting peace?  Read on and decide for yourself.

`Motives of the warmongers [at 1938 Munich Conference].

This is a clear and eerie parallel with the warmongers and ongoing wars of our own day.  Similar tactics and protocols are now in process.  Just change the names and the places.

`If the cry of `˜Never another Munich` is raised in the world today, this simply confirms the fact that the peaceful solution of the problem appeared to be the most awkward thing that ever happened in the eyes of those warmongers.  They are sorry no blood was shed `“ not their blood, to be sure `“ for those agitators are, of course, never to be found where shots are being fired, but only where money is being made.  No, it is the blood of many nameless soldiers!`

`They hate us Germans and would prefer to eradicate us completely.  What do the Czechs mean to them?  They are nothing but a means to an end.  And what do they care for the fate of a small and valiant nation?  Why should they worry about the lives of hundreds of thousands of brave soldiers who would have been sacrificed for their policy?  These Western Peacemongers were not concerned to work for peace but to cause bloodshed, so in this way to set the nations against one another and to thus cause still more blood to flow.  For this reason, they invented the story of German mobilization`¦.`

`Moreover, there would have been no necessity for the Munich Conference, for that conference was only made possibly by the fact that the countries which had at first incited those concerned to resist at all costs, were compelled later on, when the situation pressed for a solution on one way of another, to try to secure for themselves a more or less respectable retreat; for without Munich `“ that is to say, without the interference of the countries of Western Europe `“ a solution of the entire problem `“ if it had grown so acute at all `“ would likely have been the easiest thing in the world.`

`1918, not the present time, marked losses of independence.`

Here, the Chancellor presents FDR with a needed history lecture.

`Mr. Roosevelt declared finally that three nations in Europe and one in Africa have seen their existence terminated.

Answer: I do not know which three nations in Europe are meant.  Should it be a question of the provinces reincorporated in the German Reich, I must draw the attention of Mr. Roosevelt to a mistake of history on his part.

It was not now that these nations sacrificed their independent existence in Europe, but rather in 1918.  At that time, in violation of solemn promises, their logical ties were torn asunder and they were made into nations they never wished to be `“ and never had been.  They were forced into an independence which was no independence but at most could only mean dependence upon an international foreign world which they detested.

Moreover, as to the allegation that one nation in Africa has lost its freedom `“ that, too, is erroneous.  On the contrary, practically all the original inhabitants of this continent have lost their freedom through being made subject to the sovereignty of other nations by bloodshed and force.  Moroccans, Berbers, Arabs, Negroes, and the rest have all fallen victim to the swords of foreign might, which however, were not marked `˜Made In Germany` but `˜Made by Democracies`.`

`Ireland charges English, not German oppression.  Palestine is occupied by English, not German troops.  Arabs appeal against English, not German methods.`

FDR makes a sweeping, somewhat grandiose demand.  It is clear that the Middle East, as it does today, occupied a crucial position.

`Are you willing to give assurance that your armed forces will not attack or invade the territory or possessions of the following independent nations: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain and Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Russia, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Iraq, the Arabias, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Iran.`

The history lessons continue.  Listen for parallels with current events.  The same tactics are used today in Occupied Palestine.

`But I must also draw Mr. Roosevelt`s attention to one or two mistakes in history.  He mentions Ireland, for instance, and asks for a statement to the effect that we will not attack Ireland.  Now, I have just read a speech by Mr. de Valera, the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister), in which he does not charge Germany with oppressing Ireland, but reproaches England with subjecting Ireland to continuous aggression.

With all due respect to Mr. Roosevelt`s insight into the needs and cares of other countries, it may nevertheless be assumed that the Irish Taoiseach would be more familiar with the dangers which threaten his country than would the President of the United States.`

`Similarly the fact has obviously escaped Mr. Roosevelt`s notice that Palestine is at present occupied not by German troops but by the English; and that the country is undergoing restriction of its liberty by the most brutal resort to force, is being robbed of its independence and is suffering the cruelest maltreatment for the benefit of Jewish interlopers.`

`The Arabs living in that country would therefore certainly not have complained to Mr. Roosevelt of German aggression, but they are voicing a constant appeal to the world, deploring the barbarous methods with which England is attempting to suppress a people which loves its freedom and is merely defending it.`

`This, too, is perhaps a problem which in the American President`s view should be solved at the conference table, that is, before a just judge, and not by physical force or military methods, by mass executions, burning down villages, blowing up houses and so on.

For one fact is surely certain.  In this case England is not defending herself against a threatened Arab attack, but as an uninvited interloper [think again of Occupied Palestine, aka Israel, today], is endeavoring to establish her power in a foreign territory which does not belong to her.`

And, the Chancellor reminds America that it should not fear Germany.  As we know, she did not have intentions or motives.  Besides, she did not have the natural or military resources to wage a world war across the Atlantic.  Only the USA had the wherewithal to do that.

`And, I here solemnly declare all assertions which have in any way been circulated concerning an impending German attack or invasion on or in American territory are rank frauds and gross untruths, quite apart from the fact that such assertions, as far as military possibilities are concerned, could only be the product of the silliest imagination.`

`Friendship and respect for the British Empire must be mutual.`

`During the whole of my political activity I have always propounded the idea of a close friendship and collaboration between German and England.  In my movement I found others of like mind.  Perhaps they joined me because of my attitude in this regard.  This desire for Anglo-German friendship and cooperations conforms not merely to sentiments based on the racial origins of our two peoples but also to my realization of the importance of the existence of the British Empire for the whole of mankind.`

`I have never left room for any doubt of my belief that they existence of this empire is an inestimable factor of value for the whole of human culture and economic life.  By whatever means Great Britain has acquired her colonial territories `“ and I know that they were those of force and often brutality `“ I know full well that no other empire has ever come into being in any other way, and that, in the final analysis, it is not so much the methods that are taken  into account in history as success, and not the success of the methods as such, but rather the general good which those methods produce.`

`Now, there is no doubt that the Anglo-Saxon people have accomplished immense colonizing work in the world.  For this work, I have sincere admiration.`

`I regard it as impossible to achieve a lasting friendship between the German and the Anglo-Saxon peoples if the other side does not recognize that there are German as well as British interests, that just as the preservation of the British Empire is the object and life-purpose of Britons, so also the freedom and preservation of the German Reich is the life-purpose of Germans.`

`A genuine lasting friendship between these two nations is only conceivable on a basis of mutual regard.  The English people rule a great empire.  They built up this empire at a time when the German people were internally weak.`

`Germany once had been a great empire.  At one time she ruled the Occident.  In bloody struggles and religious dissensions, and as a result of internal political disintegration, this empire declined in power and greatness and finally fell into a great sleep.  But as this old empire appeared to have reached its end, the seeds of its rebirth were springing up.  From Brandenburg and Prussia there arose a new Germany, the Second Reich, and out of it has finally grown the Reich of the German people.`

`And I hope that all the English people understand that we do not possess the slightest feeling of inferiority to Britons.  The part we have played in history is far too important for that.`

Then, he insisted on naval parity, renegotiating the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, and return of all German colonies.  It seems clear that Britain could have come to terms with the Reich, thus retaining her naval strength, her army and air power, and her colonies, therefore avoiding whatever hostilities there might have been on the continent.  Largely due to the provocations of Churchill and the war party, this option was never considered.  This is one of the great what-ifs of history.  Another little corner that events back in the day might have turned is to suppose that Edward VIII, who succeeded his father as King in January 1936, and who was openly a friend and admirer of Germany, never had his notorious love affair with the American divorcee, and remained as monarch.  Alas, other roads were taken.

`A `˜Monroe Doctrine` for Europe?`

This makes a lot of sense, but unfortunately, was ignored.

`If, however, President Roosevelt that he is entitled to address [the problems of Europe], in particular to Germany or Italy, because America is so far removed from Europe, we on our side might by the same right, address to the President of the American Republic the question as to what aim American foreign policy in turn has in view, and on what intentions this policy is based `“ in the case of Central and South American states, for instance.  In this event Mr. Roosevelt would, I must admit, every right to refer to the Monroe Doctrine and to decline to reply to such a request to interfere in the internal affairs of the American continent.`

`We Germans support a similar doctrine for Europe `“ and above all, for the territory and interests of the Greater German Reich.`

`Moreover, I would obviously never presume to address such a request to the President of the United States of America, because I assume he would probably rightly consider such a tactless presumption.`

`U.S. history was not made at the conference table.`

A little later in the speech, more history lessons are taught, especially about the violent history of the USA, which remains with us in today`s news and the actions of `our` government in the Middle Eastern countries we have invaded.

`For not statesmen, including those of the United States, especially her greatest, made the outstanding part of their countries` history at the conference table.  The freedom of the United States was not achieved at the conference table any more than the conflict between the North and the South was decided there.  I will not mention the innumerable struggles which finally led to the subjugation of the North American continent as a whole.  I recite all this only in order to show that your view, Mr. Roosevelt, undoubtedly deserving of all respect, is not confirmed by the history either of your own country or of the rest of the world.`

`Deliverance of the German people [and] reconstruction.`

Very proudly and openly, the Leader of his people declares his purposes and deeper allegiances.

`I took the leadership of a state which was faced by complete ruin thanks to the promises of the outside world and the evil of its democratic regime.  `¦  Billions of German savings accumulated in gold or foreign exchange during many years of peace were extorted from us.  We lost our colonies.  In 1933 I had in my country 7,000,000 unemployed, a few million part-time workers, millions of impoverished peasants, trade destroyed, commerce ruined; in short, general chaos.`

`Since then, Mr. Roosevelt, I have only been able to fulfill one single task.  I cannot feel myself responsible for a world, for this world took no interest in the pitiful fate of my people.  I have regarded myself as called upon by Providence to serve my own people alone and to deliver them from their frightful misery.  Thus, for the past six and one half years, I have lived day and night for the single task of awakening the powers of my people in face of our desertion by the rest of the world, and of developing these powers to the utmost and for utilizing them for the salvation of our community.`

`I have conquered chaos in Germany, reestablished order, immediately increased production of all branches of our national economy, by strenuous efforts produced substitutes for numerous materials which we lack, prepared the way for new inventions, developed transportation, caused magnificent roads to be built and canals to be dug, created gigantic new factories.  I have striven no less to translate into practice the ideal behind the thought `˜community`, and to promote the education and culture of my people.`

`To protect them against the threats of the outside world, I have not only united the German people politically, but also rearmed them, I have likewise endeavoured to rid them of that [Versailles] treaty page by page, which in its 448 articles contains the vilest oppression which has ever been inflicted on men and nations.`

`I have brought back to the Reich its provinces stolen from us in 1919; I have led back to their country millions of Germans who were torn away from us and were in abject misery; I have reunited the territories that have been German throughout a thousand years of history `“ and, Mr. Roosevelt, I have endeavoured to accomplish this without bloodshed and without bringing to my people and so to others, the misery of war.`

[The Reichskanzler concludes his speech.]

`For my world, Mr. President, is the one which Providence has assigned me and for which it is my duty to work. Its area is much smaller. It comprises my people alone. But I believe I can thus best serve that which is in the hearts of all of us `“ justice, well being, progress and peace for the whole community of mankind.`


It is clear that rational freethinkers, without a lot of prejudice and bias in their minds, might decide this was a remarkably open and honest address, a courageous gesture and last try for peace before the war gods made their ride.  One might even conclude that the speaker was essentially a statesman and man of peace, but one who knew the evils and realities of war.  And, he did not just have idle opinions, but backed them up with concrete plans based on an incredibly successful record as head of government for six years.  Of course, throughout the whole address, the Chancellor`s dedication and devotion to his people is admirably clear and concisely expressed.

Oh my goodness, we seem to have a problem here!  Or at least, for the Powers That Be.  Open-minded folk might eventually conclude, as has much of the world outside politically correct Europe and America, that this historical figure had important and meaningful things to say at one of the most crucial times in world history.  Could the demonic Hitler image change?  Could Adolf undergo a major media makeover?  Why not?  Stranger things have happened.  It did take 500 years, but think about the story of Joan of Arc.  But without sidetracking, this is precisely why documents and events such as this speech are ignored and suppressed.  In spite of this, now it lives again.  Please help me launch a truth-seeking missile.  Send it out to the world once more.  Show people today what really happened just a few short months before the world foolishly leaped again into the hell pit of war, a war which forever changed the destiny of our peoples.

The parallels of seven decades ago with today are striking and too apparent to overlook.  As we know, those who do not learn the lessons of history are most often doomed to repeat them.  We approach a similar juncture.  Strange and challenging times are upon us.  However, we are far less prepared than those comrades of yesteryear.  Nonetheless, the signs seem right, and the times are changing, even as you read these words.

Some of you write and tell me you like my compositions, but don`t like some of my grim conclusions, yet here I am, doing it again.  So, help me answer some questions so I might move on and write about more pleasant things.  Here goes.  Why do our people stand so ill-equipped and unsuspecting as we face similar or perhaps essentially the same threats as back in the `˜20s and `˜30s? Can we do better this time?  Are the Dark Forces and their barbarian hordes at the gates again?  Already inside, you say?  Who let them in?  What are we to do?  Where are our leaders?  Does anyone have plans?  Preparations?  Or, will the pernicious perfidious plots and Protocols progress and proceed, as they almost always seem to do?  Alas, so many questions, but so few answers.  Only time will tell, but, we may not have to wait all that long.


More often than not, historical trends and movements repeat themselves and reappear. 
Is the cosmic clock, yet once again, just a few minutes short of midnight? 
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2010, 07:59:35 PM »
President Roosevelt to the Chancellor of Germany (Hitler) [40], [Telegram], 14 April 1939

THE WHITE HOUSE, April 14, 1939.

You realize I am sure that throughout the world hundreds of millions of human beings are living today in constant fear of a new war or even a series of wars.

The existence of this fear-and the possibility of such a conflict-is of definite concern to the people of the United States for whom I speak, as it must also be to the peoples of the other nations of the entire Western Hemisphere. All of them know that any major war, even if it were to be confined to other continents, must bear heavily on them during its continuance and also for generations to come.

Because of the fact that after the acute tension in which the world has been living during the past few weeks there would seem to be at least a momentary relaxation-because no troops are at this moment on the march-this may be an opportune moment for me to send you this message.

On a previous occasion I have addressed you in behalf of the settlement of political, economic, and social problems by peaceful methods and without resort to arms.

But the tide of events seems to have reverted to the threat of arms. If such threats continue, it seems inevitable that much of the world must become involved in common ruin. All the world, victor nations, vanquished nations, and neutral nations will suffer. I refuse to believe that the world is, of necessity, such a prisoner of destiny. On the contrary, it is clear that the leaders of great nations have it in their power to liberate their peoples from the disaster that impends.

It is equally clear that in their own minds and in their own hearts the peoples themselves desire that their fears be ended.

It is, however, unfortunately necessary to take cognizance of recent facts.

Three nations in Europe and one in Africa have seen their independent existence terminated. A vast territory in another independent nation of the Far East has been occupied by a neighboring state. Reports, which we trust are not true, insist that further acts of aggression are contemplated against still other independent nations. Plainly the world is moving toward the moment when this situation must end in catastrophe unless a more rational way of guiding events is found.

You have repeatedly asserted that you and the German people have no desire for war. If this is true there need be no war.

Nothing can persuade the peoples of the earth that any governing power has any right or need to inflict the consequences of war on its own or any other people save in the cause of self-evident home defense.

In making this statement we as Americans speak not through selfishness or fear or weakness. If we speak now it is with the voice of strength and with friendship for mankind. It is still clear to me that international problems can be solved at the council table.

It is therefore no answer to the plea for peaceful discussion for one side to plead that unless they receive assurances beforehand that the verdict will be theirs, they will not lay aside their arms. In conference rooms, as in courts, it is necessary that both sides enter upon the discussion in good faith, assuming that substantial justice will accrue to both; and it is customary and necessary that they leave their arms outside the room where they confer.

I am convinced that the cause of world peace would be greatly advanced if the nations of the world were to obtain a frank statement relating to the present and future policy of governments.

Because the United States, as one of the nations of the Western Hemisphere, is not involved in the immediate controversies which have arisen in Europe, I trust that you may be willing to make such a statement of policy to me as the head of a nation far removed from Europe in order that I, acting only with the responsibility and obligation of a friendly intermediary, may communicate such declaration to other nations now apprehensive as to the course which the policy of your Government may take.

Are you willing to give assurance that your armed forces will not attack or invade the territory or possessions of the following independent nations: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain and Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Russia, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Iraq, the Arabias, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Iran.

Such an assurance clearly must apply not only to the present day but also to a future sufficiently long to give every opportunity to work by peaceful methods for a more permanent peace. I therefore suggest that you construe the word "future" to apply to a minimum period of assured non-aggression-ten years at the least-a quarter of a century, if we dare look that far ahead.

If such assurance is given by your Government, I will immediately transmit it to the governments of the nations I have named and I will simultaneously inquire whether, as I am reasonably sure, each of the nations enumerated above will in turn give like assurance for transmission to you.

Reciprocal assurances such as I have outlined will bring to the world an immediate measure of relief.

I propose that if it is given, two essential problems shall promptly be discussed in the resulting peaceful surroundings, and in those discussions the Government of the United States will gladly take part.

The discussions which I have in mind relate to the most effective and immediate manner through which the peoples of the world can obtain progressive relief from the crushing burden of armament which is each day bringing them more closely to the brink of economic disaster. Simultaneously the Government of the United States would be prepared to take part in discussions looking towards the most practical manner of opening up avenues of international trade to the end that every nation of the earth may be enabled to buy and sell on equal terms in the world market as well as to possess assurance of obtaining the materials and products of peaceful economic life.

At the same time, those governments other than the United States which are directly interested could undertake such political discussions as they may consider necessary or desirable.

We recognize complex world problems which affect all humanity but we know that study and discussion of them must be held in an atmosphere of peace. Such an atmosphere of peace cannot exist if negotiations are overshadowed by the threat of force or by the fear of war.

I think you will not misunderstand the spirit of frankness in which I send you this message. Heads of great governments in this hour are literally responsible for the fate of humanity in the coming years. They cannot fail to hear the prayers of their peoples to be protected from the foreseeable chaos of war. History will hold them accountable for the lives and the happiness of all-even unto the least.

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

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

[40] The Secretary of State at the same time, at the President's direction, addressed an identical telegram to Premier Benito Mussolini, of Italy.

Source: U.S., Department of State, Publication 1983, Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy, 1931-1941 (Washington, D.C.: U.S., Government Printing Office, 1943, pp. 455-58
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2010, 08:04:01 PM »
From World War I Document Archive  ~  President Wilson's Fourteen Points

Delivered in Joint Session, January 8, 1918

Gentlemen of the Congress:

Once more, as repeatedly before, the spokesmen of the Central Empires have indicated their desire to discuss the objects of the war and the possible basis of a general peace. Parleys have been in progress at Brest-Litovsk between Russsian representatives and representatives of the Central Powers to which the attention of all the belligerents have been invited for the purpose of ascertaining whether it may be possible to extend these parleys into a general conference with regard to terms of peace and settlement.

The Russian representatives presented not only a perfectly definite statement of the principles upon which they would be willing to conclude peace but also an equally definite program of the concrete application of those principles. The representatives of the Central Powers, on their part, presented an outline of settlement which, if much less definite, seemed susceptible of liberal interpretation until their specific program of practical terms was added. That program proposed no concessions at all either to the sovereignty of Russia or to the preferences of the populations with whose fortunes it dealt, but meant, in a word, that the Central Empires were to keep every foot of territory their armed forces had occupied -- every province, every city, every point of vantage -- as a permanent addition to their territories and their power.

It is a reasonable conjecture that the general principles of settlement which they at first suggested originated with the more liberal statesmen of Germany and Austria, the men who have begun to feel the force of their own people's thought and purpose, while the concrete terms of actual settlement came from the military leaders who have no thought but to keep what they have got. The negotiations have been broken off. The Russian representatives were sincere and in earnest. They cannot entertain such proposals of conquest and domination.

The whole incident is full of significances. It is also full of perplexity. With whom are the Russian representatives dealing? For whom are the representatives of the Central Empires speaking? Are they speaking for the majorities of their respective parliaments or for the minority parties, that military and imperialistic minority which has so far dominated their whole policy and controlled the affairs of Turkey and of the Balkan states which have felt obliged to become their associates in this war?

The Russian representatives have insisted, very justly, very wisely, and in the true spirit of modern democracy, that the conferences they have been holding with the Teutonic and Turkish statesmen should be held within open, not closed, doors, and all the world has been audience, as was desired. To whom have we been listening, then? To those who speak the spirit and intention of the resolutions of the German Reichstag of the 9th of July last, the spirit and intention of the Liberal leaders and parties of Germany, or to those who resist and defy that spirit and intention and insist upon conquest and subjugation? Or are we listening, in fact, to both, unreconciled and in open and hopeless contradiction? These are very serious and pregnant questions. Upon the answer to them depends the peace of the world.

But, whatever the results of the parleys at Brest-Litovsk, whatever the confusions of counsel and of purpose in the utterances of the spokesmen of the Central Empires, they have again attempted to acquaint the world with their objects in the war and have again challenged their adversaries to say what their objects are and what sort of settlement they would deem just and satisfactory. There is no good reason why that challenge should not be responded to, and responded to with the utmost candor. We did not wait for it. Not once, but again and again, we have laid our whole thought and purpose before the world, not in general terms only, but each time with sufficient definition to make it clear what sort of definite terms of settlement must necessarily spring out of them. Within the last week Mr. Lloyd George has spoken with admirable candor and in admirable spirit for the people and Government of Great Britain.

There is no confusion of counsel among the adversaries of the Central Powers, no uncertainty of principle, no vagueness of detail. The only secrecy of counsel, the only lack of fearless frankness, the only failure to make definite statement of the objects of the war, lies with Germany and her allies. The issues of life and death hang upon these definitions. No statesman who has the least conception of his responsibility ought for a moment to permit himself to continue this tragical and appalling outpouring of blood and treasure unless he is sure beyond a peradventure that the objects of the vital sacrifice are part and parcel of the very life of Society and that the people for whom he speaks think them right and imperative as he does.

There is, moreover, a voice calling for these definitions of principle and of purpose which is, it seems to me, more thrilling and more compelling than any of the many moving voices with which the troubled air of the world is filled. It is the voice of the Russian people. They are prostrate and all but hopeless, it would seem, before the grim power of Germany, which has hitherto known no relenting and no pity. Their power, apparently, is shattered. And yet their soul is not subservient. They will not yield either in principle or in action. Their conception of what is right, of what is humane and honorable for them to accept, has been stated with a frankness, a largeness of view, a generosity of spirit, and a universal human sympathy which must challenge the admiration of every friend of mankind; and they have refused to compound their ideals or desert others that they themselves may be safe.

They call to us to say what it is that we desire, in what, if in anything, our purpose and our spirit differ from theirs; and I believe that the people of the United States would wish me to respond, with utter simplicity and frankness. Whether their present leaders believe it or not, it is our heartfelt desire and hope that some way may be opened whereby we may be privileged to assist the people of Russia to attain their utmost hope of liberty and ordered peace.

It will be our wish and purpose that the processes of peace, when they are begun, shall be absolutely open and that they shall involve and permit henceforth no secret understandings of any kind. The day of conquest and aggrandizement is gone by; so is also the day of secret covenants entered into in the interest of particular governments and likely at some unlooked-for moment to upset the peace of the world. It is this happy fact, now clear to the view of every public man whose thoughts do not still linger in an age that is dead and gone, which makes it possible for every nation whose purposes are consistent with justice and the peace of the world to avow nor or at any other time the objects it has in view.

We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which touched us to the quick and made the life of our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the world secure once for all against their recurrence. What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggression. All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us. The program of the world's peace, therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, as we see it, is this:

I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.

II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.

III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.

IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.

V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.

VIII. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.

IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.

X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development.

XI. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.

XII. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.

XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.

XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.

In regard to these essential rectifications of wrong and assertions of right we feel ourselves to be intimate partners of all the governments and peoples associated together against the Imperialists. We cannot be separated in interest or divided in purpose. We stand together until the end. For such arrangements and covenants we are willing to fight and to continue to fight until they are achieved; but only because we wish the right to prevail and desire a just and stable peace such as can be secured only by removing the chief provocations to war, which this program does remove. We have no jealousy of German greatness, and there is nothing in this program that impairs it. We grudge her no achievement or distinction of learning or of pacific enterprise such as have made her record very bright and very enviable. We do not wish to injure her or to block in any way her legitimate influence or power. We do not wish to fight her either with arms or with hostile arrangements of trade if she is willing to associate herself with us and the other peace- loving nations of the world in covenants of justice and law and fair dealing. We wish her only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world, -- the new world in which we now live, -- instead of a place of mastery.

Neither do we presume to suggest to her any alteration or modification of her institutions. But it is necessary, we must frankly say, and necessary as a preliminary to any intelligent dealings with her on our part, that we should know whom her spokesmen speak for when they speak to us, whether for the Reichstag majority or for the military party and the men whose creed is imperial domination.

We have spoken now, surely, in terms too concrete to admit of any further doubt or question. An evident principle runs through the whole program I have outlined. It is the principle of justice to all peoples and nationalities, and their right to live on equal terms of liberty and safety with one another, whether they be strong or weak.

Unless this principle be made its foundation no part of the structure of international justice can stand. The people of the United States could act upon no other principle; and to the vindication of this principle they are ready to devote their lives, their honor, and everything they possess. The moral climax of this the culminating and final war for human liberty has come, and they are ready to put their own strength, their own highest purpose, their own integrity and devotion to the test.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2010, 08:05:39 PM »
Extracts from the Reichstag address:
Extract from Herr Hitler's speech to the Reichstag on April 28, 1939.
No. 13  (Translation.)

There is little to be said as regards German-Polish relations. Here, too, the Peace Treaty of Versailles-of course intentionally-inflicted a most severe wound on Germany. The strange way in which the Corridor giving Poland access to the sea was marked out was meant, above all, to prevent for all time the establishment of an understanding between Poland and Germany. This problem is-as I have already stressed-perhaps the most painful of all problems for Germany. Nevertheless, I have never ceased to uphold the view that the necessity of a free access to the sea for the Polish State cannot be ignored, and that as a general principle, valid for this case, too, nations which Providence has destined or, if you like, condemned to live side by side would be well advised not to make life still harder for each other artificially and unnecessarily. The late Marshal Pilsudski, who was of the same opinion, was therefore prepared to go into the question of clarifying the atmosphere of German-Polish relations, and, finally, to conclude an agreement whereby Germany and Poland expressed their intention of renouncing war altogether as a means of settling the questions which concerned them both. This agreement contained one single exception which was in practice conceded to Poland. It was laid down that the pacts of mutual assistance already entered into by Poland-this applied to the pact with France- should not be affected by the agreement. But it was obvious that this could apply only to the pact of mutual assistance already concluded beforehand, and not to whatever new pacts might be concluded in the future. It is a fact that the German-Polish Agreement resulted in a remarkable lessening of the European tension. Nevertheless, there remained one open question between Germany and Poland, which sooner or later quite naturally had to be solved-the question of the German city of Danzig. Danzig is a German city and wishes to belong to Germany. On the other hand, this city has contracts with Poland, which were admittedly forced upon it by the dictators of the Peace of Versailles. But since, moreover, the League of Nations, formerly the greatest stirrer-up of trouble, is now represented by a High Commissioner-incidentally a man of extraordinary tact-the problem of Danzig must in any case come up for discussion, at the latest with the gradual extinction of this calamitous institution. I regarded the peaceful settlement of this problem as a further contribution to a final loosening of the European tension. For this loosening of the tension is assuredly not to be achieved through the agitations of insane warmongers, but through the removal of the real elements of danger. After the problem of Danzig had already been discussed several times some months ago, I made a concrete offer to the Polish Government. I now make this offer known to you, Gentlemen, and you yourselves will judge whether this offer did not represent the greatest imaginable concession in the interests of European peace. As I have already pointed out, I have always seen the necessity of an access to the sea for this country, and have consequently taken this necessity into consideration. I am no democratic statesman, but a National Socialist and a realist.

I considered it, however, necessary to make it clear to the Government in Warsaw that just as they desire access to the sea, so Germany needs access to her province in the east. Now these are all difficult problems. It is not Germany who is responsible for them, however, but rather the jugglers of Versailles, who either in their maliciousness or their thoughtlessness placed 100 powder barrels round about in Europe, all equipped with hardly extinguishable lighted fuses. These problems cannot be solved according to old-fashioned ideas; I think, rather, that we should adopt new methods. Poland's access to the sea by way of the Corridor, and, on the other hand, a German route through the Corridor have, for example, no kind of military importance whatsoever. Their importance is exclusively psychological and economic. To accord military importance to a traffic route of this kind, would be to show oneself completely ignorant of military affairs. Consequently, I have had the following proposal submitted to the Polish Government:-

(1) Danzig returns as a Free State into the framework of the German Reich.

(2) Germany receives a route through the Corridor and a railway line at her own disposal possessing the same extraterritorial status for Germany as the Corridor itself has for Poland.

In return, Germany is prepared:-

(1) To recognise all Polish economic rights in Danzig.

(2) To ensure for Poland a free harbour in Danzig of any size desired which would have completely free access to the sea.

(3) To accept at the same time the present boundaries between Germany and Poland and to regard them as ultimate.

(4) To conclude a twenty-five-year non-aggression treaty with Poland, a treaty therefore which would extend far beyond the duration of my own life.

(5) To guarantee the independence of the Slovak State by Germany, Poland and Hungary jointly-which means in practice the renunciation of any unilateral German hegemony in this territory.

The Polish Government have rejected my offer and have only declared that they are prepared (1) to negotiate concerning the question of a substitute for the Commissioner of the League of Nations and (2) to consider facilities for the transit traffic through the Corridor.

I have regretted greatly this incomprehensible attitude of the Polish Government, but that alone is not the decisive fact, the worst is that now Poland, like Czecho-Slovakia a year ago, believes, under the pressure of a lying international campaign, that it must call up troops, although Germany on her part has not called up a single man and had not thought of proceeding in any way against Poland. As I have said, this is in itself very regrettable and posterity will one day decide whether it was really right to refuse this suggestion made this once by me. This-as I have said-was an endeavour on my part to solve a question which intimately affects the German people by a truly unique compromise, and to solve it to the advantage of both countries. According to my conviction Poland was not a giving party in this solution at all but only a receiving party, because it should be beyond all doubt that Danzig will never become Polish. The intention to attack on the part of Germany, which was merely invented by the international press, led as you know to the so-called guarantee offer and to an obligation on the part of the Polish Government for mutual assistance, which would also, under certain circumstances, compel Poland to take military action against Germany in the event of a conflict between Germany and any other Power and in which England, in her turn, would be involved. This obligation is contradictory to the agreement which I made with Marshal Pilsudski some time ago, seeing that in this agreement reference is made exclusively to existing obligations, that is at that time, namely, to the obligations of Poland towards France of which we were aware. To extend these obligations subsequently is contrary to the terms of the German-Polish non-aggression pact. Under these circumstances I should not have entered into this pact at that time, because what sense can non-aggression pacts have if in practice leaves open an enormous number of one partner exceptions.

There is either collective security, that is collective insecurity and continuous danger of war, or clear agreements which, however, exclude fundamentally any use of arms between the contracting parties. I therefore look upon the agreement which Marshal Pilsudski and I at one time concluded as having been unilaterally infringed by Poland and thereby no longer in existence!

I have sent a communication to this effect to the Polish Government. However, I can only repeat at this point that my decision does not constitute a modification of my attitude in principle with regard to the problems mentioned above. Should the Polish Government wish to come to fresh contractual arrangements governing its relations with Germany, I can but welcome such an idea, provided, of course, that these arrangements are based on an absolutely clear obligation binding both parties in equal measure. Germany is perfectly willing at any time to undertake such obligations and also to fulfill them.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2010, 08:07:22 PM »
Another Extract from the Reichstag address:
No. 21.

Extract from speech by Herr Hitler to the Reichstag on April 28, 1939.

I believe that it is a good thing for millions and millions of people that I, thanks to the last-minute insight of responsible men on the other side, succeeded in averting such an explosion, and found a solution which I am convinced has finally abolished this problem of a source of danger in Central Europe.

The contention that this solution is contrary to the Munich Agreement can neither be supported nor confirmed. This agreement could, under no circumstances, be regarded as final, because it admitted that other problems required and remained to be solved. We cannot really be reproached for the fact that the parties concerned-and this is the deciding factor-did not turn to the four Powers, but only to Italy and Germany; nor yet for the fact that the State as such finally split up of its own accord, and there was, consequently, no longer any Czecho-Slovakia. It was, however, understandable that, long after the ethnographic principle had been made invalid, Germany should take under her protection her interests dating back a thousand years, which are not only of a political but also of an economic nature.

The future will show whether the solution which Germany has found is right or wrong. However, it is certain that the solution is not subject to English supervision or criticism. For Bohemia and Moravia, as the remnants of former Czecho-Slovakia, have nothing more whatever to do with the Munich Agreement. Just as English measures in, say, Northern Ireland, whether they be right or wrong, are not subject to German supervision or criticism, this is also the case with these old German electorates.

However, I entirely fail to understand how the agreement reached between Mr. Chamberlain and myself at Munich can refer to this case, for the case of Czecho-Slovakia was settled in the Munich protocol of the four Powers as far as it could be settled at all at that time. Apart from this, provision was merely made that if the interested parties should fail to come to an agreement they should be entitled to appeal to the four Powers, who had agreed in such a case to meet for further consultation after the expiration of three months. However, these interested parties did not appeal to the four Powers at all, but only to Germany and Italy.

That this was fully justified, moreover, is proved by the fact that neither England nor France have raised any objections thereto, but have themselves accepted the decision given by Germany and Italy. No, the agreement reached between Mr. Chamberlain and myself did not relate to this problem but exclusively to questions which refer to the mutual relationship between England and Germany. This is clearly shown by the fact that such questions are to be treated in future in the spirit of the Munich Agreement and of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, that is, in a friendly spirit by way of consultation. If, however, this agreement were to be applied to every future German activity of a political nature, England too should not take any step, whether in Palestine or elsewhere, without first consulting Germany. It is obvious that we do not expect this; likewise we refuse to gratify any similar expectation of us. Now, if Mr. Chamberlain concludes from this, that the Munich Agreement is for this reason annulled, as if we had broken it, then I shall take cognisance of the fact and proceed accordingly.

During the whole of my political activity I have always expounded the idea of a close friendship and collaboration between Germany and England. In my movement I found innumerable others of like mind. Perhaps they joined me because of my attitude in this matter. This desire for Anglo-German friendship and co-operation conforms not merely to sentiments which result from the racial origins of our two peoples, but also to my realisation of the importance for the whole of mankind of the existence of the British Empire. I have never left room for any doubt of my belief that the existence of this empire is an inestimable factor of value for the whole of human cultural and economic life. By whatever means Great Britain has acquired her colonial territories-and I know that they were those of force and often brutality-nevertheless, I know full well that no other empire has ever come into being in any other way, and that in the final resort it is not so much the methods that are taken into account in history as success, and not the success of the methods as such, but rather the general good which the methods yield. Now there is no doubt that the Anglo-Saxon people have accomplished immeasurable colonising work in the world. For this work I have a sincere admiration. The thought of destroying this labour appeared and still appears to me, seen from a higher human point of view, as nothing but the effluence of human wanton destructiveness.

However, this sincere respect of mine for this achievement does not mean forgoing the securing of the life of my own people. I regard it as impossible to achieve a lasting friendship between the German and Anglo-Saxon peoples if the other side does not recognise that there are German as well as British interests, that not only is the preservation of the British Empire the meaning and purpose of the lives of Britishers, but also that for Germans the freedom and preservation of the German Reich is their life purpose. A genuine, lasting friendship between these two nations is only conceivable on the basis of mutual regards. The English people rules a great empire. It built up this empire at a time when the German people was internally weak. Previously Germany had been a great empire. At one time she ruled the Occident In bloody struggles and religious dissensions, and as a result of internal political disintegration, this empire declined in power and greatness, and finally fell into a deep sleep. But as this old empire appeared to have reached its end, the seeds of its rebirth were springing up. From Brandenburg and Prussia there arose a new Germany, the second Reich, and out of it has grown at last the German People's Reich. And I hope that all English people understand that we do not possess the slightest feeling of inferiority to Britishers. Our historical past is far too tremendous for that!

England has given the world many great men and Germany no fewer. The severe struggle for the maintenance of the life of our people has in the course of three centuries cost a sacrifice in lives which far exceeds that which other peoples have had to make in asserting their existence.

If Germany, a country that was for ever being attacked, was not able to retain her possessions, but was compelled to sacrifice many of her provinces, this was due only to her political misdevelopment and her impotence as a result thereof! That condition has now keen overcome. Therefore, we Germans do not feel in the least inferior to the British nation. Our self-esteem is just as great as that of an Englishman for England. In the history of our people, now of approximately two thousand years' standing, there are occasions and actions enough to fill us with sincere pride.

Now, if England cannot understand our point of view, thinking perchance she may look upon Germany as a vassal State, then our love and friendly feelings have, indeed, been wasted on England. We shall not despair or lose heart on that account, but-relying on the consciousness of our own strength and on the strength of our friends-we shall then find ways and means to secure our independence without impairing our dignity.

I have heard the statement of the British Prime Minister to the effect that he is not able to put any trust in German assurances. Under the circumstances I consider it a matter of course that we no longer wish to expect him or the British people to bear the burden of a situation which is only conceivable in an atmosphere of mutual confidence. When Germany became National Socialist and thus paved the way for her national resurrection, in pursuance of my unswerving policy of friendship with England, of my own accord I made the proposal for a voluntary restriction of German naval armaments. That restriction was, however, based on one condition, namely, the will and the conviction that a war between England and Germany would never again be possible. This wish and this conviction is alive in me to-day.

I am, however, now compelled to state that the policy of England is both unofficially and officially leaving no doubt about the fact that such a conviction is no longer shared in London, and that, on the contrary, the opinion prevails there that no matter in what conflict Germany should some day be entangled, Great Britain would always have to take her stand against Germany. Thus a war against Germany is taken for granted in that country. I most profoundly regret such a development, for the only claim I have ever made, and shall continue to make, on England is that for a return of our colonies. But I always made it very clear that this would never become the cause of a military conflict. I have always held that the English, to whom those colonies are of no value, would one day understand the German situation and would then value German friendship higher than the possession of territories which, while yielding no real profit whatever to them, are of vital importance to Germany.

Apart from this, however, I have never advanced a claim which might in any way have interfered with British interests or have become a danger to the Empire and thus have meant any kind of damage to England. I have always kept within the limit of such demands as are intimately connected with Germany's living space and thus the eternal property of the German nation. Since England to-day, both by the press and officially, upholds the view that Germany should be opposed under all circumstances, and confirms this by the policy of encirclement known to us, the basis for the Naval Treaty has been removed. I have therefore resolved to send to-day a communication to this effect to the British Government. This is to us not a matter of practical material importance-for I still hope that we shall be able to avoid an armaments race with England-but an action of self-respect. Should the British Government, however, wish to enter once more into negotiations with Germany on this problem, no one would be happier than I at the prospect of still being able to come to a clear and straightforward understanding.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2010, 08:11:32 PM »
A Memo from Germany to Poland.
No. 14.

German Government Memorandum handed to the Polish Government on April 28, 1939.

THE German Government have taken note of the Polish-British declaration regarding the progress and aims of the negotiations recently conducted between Poland and Great Britain. According to this declaration there has been concluded between the Polish Government and the British Government a temporary understanding, to be replaced shortly by a permanent agreement which will provide for the giving of mutual assistance by Poland and Great Britain in the event of the independence of one of the two States being directly or indirectly threatened.

2. The German Government consider themselves obliged to communicate the following to the Polish Government:-

3. When in 1933 the National Socialist Government set about the reshaping of German policy, after Germany's departure from the League of Nations, their first object was to stabilise German-Polish relations on a new plane. The Chancellor of the German Reich and the late Marshal Pilsudski concurred in the decision to break with the political methods of the past and to enter, as regards the settlement of all questions affecting both States, on the path of direct understanding between them.

4. By means of the unconditional renunciation of the use of force, guarantees of peace were instituted in order to assist the two States in the difficult task of solving all political, economic and cultural problems by means of the just and equitable adjustment of mutual interests. These principles, contained in a binding form in the German-Polish Peace Declaration of the 26th January, 1934, had this aim in view [sic] and by their practical success were intended to introduce an entirely new phase of German Polish relations. The political history of the last five years shows that they proved efficacious in practice for both nations. As recently as the 26th January of this year, on the fifth anniversary of the signature of the declaration, both sides publicly confirmed this fact, while emphasising their united will to maintain in the future their adhesion to the principles established in 1934.

5. The agreement which has now been concluded by the Polish Government with the British Government is in such obvious contradiction to these solemn declarations of a few months ago that the German Government can take note only with surprise and astonishment of such violent reversal of Polish policy. Irrespective of the manner in which its final formulation may be determined by both parties, the new Polish-British Agreement is intended as a regular pact of alliance, which by reason of its general sense and of the present state of political relations is directed exclusively against Germany. From the obligation now accepted by the Polish Government it appears that Poland intends in certain circumstances to take an active part in any possible German-British conflict in the event of aggression against Germany, even should this conflict not affect Poland and her interests. This is a direct and open blow against the renunciation of all use of force contained in the 1934 declaration.

6. The contradiction between the German-Polish Declaration and the Polish-British Agreement is, however, even more far-reaching in its importance than that. The 1934 declaration was to constitute a basis for the regulation of all differences arising between the two countries, independently of international complications and combinations, by means of direct discussion between Berlin and Warsaw, to the exclusion of external influences. Naturally, such a basis must rest on the mutual confidence of both parties and on the political loyalty of the intentions of one party with regard to the other.

7. The Polish Government, however, by their recent decision to accede to an alliance directed against Germany, have given it to be understood that they prefer a promise of help by a third Power to the direct guarantee of peace by the German Government. In view of this the German Government are obliged to conclude that the Polish Government do not at present attach any importance to seeking a solution of German-Polish problems by means of direct friendly discussions with the German Government. The Polish Government have thus abandoned the path traced out in 1934 for the shaping of German-Polish relations.

8. The Polish Government cannot in this connexion appeal to the fact that the 1934 declaration was not to affect the obligations previously accepted by Poland and Germany in relation to third parties, and that the Treaty of Alliance between Poland and France maintained its value side by side with that declaration. The Polish-French Alliance already existed in 1934 when Poland and Germany proceeded to reorganise their relations. The German Government were able to accept this fact, since they were entitled to expect that the possible dangers of the Polish-French Alliance, dating from the period of the acutest German-Polish differences, would automatically lose more and more of their significance through the establishment of friendly relations between Germany and Poland. However, the entry of Poland into relations of alliance with Great Britain, which was effected five years after the publication of the declaration of 1934, can for this reason in no way be compared politically with the still valid Polish-French Alliance. By this new alliance the Polish Government have subordinated themselves to a policy inaugurated from another quarter aiming at the encirclement of Germany.

9. The German Government for their part have not given the least cause for such a change in Polish policy. Whenever opportunity offered, they have furnished the Polish Government, both publicly and in confidential conversations, with the most binding assurances that the friendly development of German-Polish relations is a fundamental aim of their foreign policy, and that, in their political decisions, they will always respect Poland's proper interests. Thus the action taken by Germany in March of this year with a view to the pacification of Central Europe did not, in the opinion of the Government of the Reich, disturb Polish interests in any way. This action led to the creation of a common Polish-Hungarian frontier, which had constantly been described on Poland's side as an important political objective. Moreover, the German Government gave unequivocal expression to their readiness to discuss with the Polish Government in a friendly manner all problems which, in the Polish Government's opinion, might arise out of the changed conditions in Central Europe.

10. In an equally friendly spirit the German Government tried to regulate yet another question outstanding between Germany and Poland, namely, that of Danzig. The fact that this question required settlement had long been emphasised on the German side, and was not denied on the Polish side. For a long time past the German Government have endeavoured to convince the Polish Government that a solution was certainly possible which would be equitable to the interests of both parties and that the removal of this last obstacle would open a path for a political collaboration of Germany and Poland with the most favourable prospects. In this connexion the German Government did not confine themselves to allusions of a general nature, but in March of this year proposed to the Polish Government in a friendly form a settlement of this question on the following basis:-

11. The return of Danzig to the Reich. An extra-territorial railway line and autostrada between East Prussia and the Reich. In exchange, the recognition by the Reich of the whole Polish Corridor and the whole of Poland's western frontier; the conclusion of a non-aggression pact for twenty-five years; the maintenance of Poland's economic interests in Danzig and the settlement of the remaining economic and communications problems arising for Poland out of the union of Danzig with the Reich. At the same time, the German Government expressed their readiness to respect Polish interests in ensuring the independence of Slovakia.

12. Nobody knowing conditions in Danzig and the Corridor and the problems connected therewith can deny, in judging the matter objectively, that this proposal constitutes the very minimum which must be demanded from the point of view of German interests, which cannot be renounced. The Polish Government, however, gave a reply which, although couched in the form of counter-proposals, showed in its essence an entire lack of comprehension for the German point of view and was equivalent merely to a rejection of the German proposals. The Polish Government proved that they did not consider their reply suitable for the initiation of friendly discussions by proceeding at the same time, in a manner as unexpected as it was drastic, to effect a partial mobilisation of the Polish army on a large scale. By these entirely unjustified measures, the Polish Government demonstrated the meaning and object of the negotiations which they immediately afterwards entered upon with the British Government. The German Government do not consider it necessary to reply to the partial Polish mobilisation by counter-measures of a military character. They cannot, however, disregard without a word the decisions recently taken by the Polish Government, and are forced, to their own regret, to declare as follows:-

(1) The Polish Government did not avail themselves of the opportunity offered to them by the German Government for a just settlement of the Danzig question, for the final safeguarding of Poland's frontiers with the Reich, and thereby for a permanent strengthening of the friendly neighbourly relations between the two countries. The Polish Government even rejected German proposals made with this object.

(2) At the same time the Polish Government accepted, with regard to another State, political obligations which are not compatible either with the spirit, the meaning or the text of the German-Polish Declaration of the 26th January, 1934. Thereby the Polish Government arbitrarily and unilaterally rendered this declaration null and void.

13. In spite of this necessary statement of fact, the Government of the Reich do not intend to alter their fundamental attitude towards the question of the future of German-Polish relations. Should the Polish Government attach importance to a new settlement of these relations by means of a treaty, the German Government are ready to do this, but on one condition, namely, that such a settlement would have to consist of a clear obligation binding on both parties.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2010, 08:19:39 PM »

The actual Time issue with the Man Of The Year article did not have a huge photo on the cover, as you might have thought.

Plus, see another magazine article about AH that caused controversy in 2008.

See the mag cover and the article below.  The more often-seen cover appears first.

A Madame Tussaud`s wax sculpture was beheaded in 2008.

Here is Time`s January 2, 1939 issue, featuring Adolph Hitler as `Man of the Year`, the cover portraying him as an evil satanic organ player, an image as per 1930s horror movies.

« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 08:34:06 PM by sushigirl »
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2010, 08:55:27 PM »
Flap Over 65 Year Old Magazine Story On Hitler


Who would imagine there would be an effort to suppress a 65 year old UK magazine article about Hitler's home in the mountains? Well, that's exactly what is going on. Back in 1938, the British magazine Homes and Gardens ran a rather fascinating feature on Adolf Hitler's mountain home... "A handsome Bavarian chalet 2000 feet up on the Obersalzburg amid pinewoods and cherry orchards... barely ten miles from Mozart's own medieval Salzburg."
The story was a major coup in those darkening days leading up to World War and gave Europe an almost unprecedented look into a small slice of Hitler's private home life. Apparently, there are some who do not want people to be able to read and study certain parts of human history and Simon was quickly ordered by Homes and Gardens to take the pictures of the magazine feature story down from his site...allegedly over 'UK copyright infringement'.
If it weren't for Simon Waldman's courteous nature, Homes and Gardens might not have even known of the posting of the pages from the ancient magazine. Simon kindly sent the following note to Isobel McKenzie-Price, current Homes and Gardens Editor, to share this unusual historical discovery with her...
From Simon's site:
Here is the e-mail I sent to her originally.

   Thought this might be of interest to you...a possibly lost bit from your archives.
A month or so ago, my father-in-law showed me a November 1938 edition of Homes and Gardens. He had kept it because it featured a four page photo story on a house that his father had designed.
He hadn't really looked at the rest of the magazine, but I took a flick through, and in the middle of it, I found this fantastic feature on 'Hitler's Mountain Home' - basically an 'At Home with Hitler' feature (with a guest appearance from Goering) [blocked]
I put it up on my personal website a month or so ago...and in the last few days, it's been linked from a few places and been looked at by tens of thousands of people from round the world.
I realise it's probably not going to go down as one of your magazines greatest moments...but hey, it's hardly your fault. Huge swathes of British society were pretty friendly towards Hitler at this time.
I wonder if you, or anyone there, knew this article had been published?
Do you have any copies yourself?
Anyway...just thought you'd be interested.
Simon Waldman

In reply, the editor Homes and Gardens, Isobel McKenzie-Price, asked me to take down the At Home with Hitler spread. She didn't even answer any of my questions...
Dear Mr Waldman

  Thank you for your email of 2nd September and for the link to your website. While I personally do appreciate the spirit in which you sent it to me, as a representative of IPC Media I am concerned to prevent the unauthorised reproduction of IPC's material, whenever it was originally published. This piece, text and photographs is still in copyright and any unauthorised reproduction is an infringement of copyright. In the circumstances I must request you to remove this article from your website. Sorry that I had to take this stance, but am sure you will appreciate the legal situation.
Yours Sincerely
Isobel McKenzie-Price

I've taken the scans down. But I think they need an official online home. Here's the mail I sent to Isobel McKenzie Price
Dear Isobel.
Many thanks for your note. Apologies for not replying sooner, I've been away for a long weekend.
I've taken the scans down this morning. I understand your issues and the principles of copyright, but I believe that as:
- I'm not making any money out of this
- I'm not depriving you of any money
- no-one can make any money from the scans (too poor quality), and
- no-one has said or inferred anything damaging about Homes and Gardens're being slightly over the top.

  These are interesting and important historical documents. As you are clearly aware. They should be widely available for as many people as possible to learn from them. That they can be, instantly, is one of the great beauties of the internet.
I'm afraid as well, that simply getting them taken off my site is unlikely to be the end of it. These are digital files. They have been seen by thousands of people. It is incredibly easy for people to copy them and put them up on their site anywhere in the world. As of now, I have no idea how many versions there might be on the web.
My suggestion to you is this: you should either find or provide an official online home for these scans, where they can be made available with all the copyright information made clear. If not your own site, there might be other online publishers interested.
I will be happy to provide you with a much clearer set of scans for you to use.
That way will satisfy both our requirements, namely: to keep them within the public view, and within the law.
You will also seem like a very benign and enlightened media owner. And there can be no harm in that.
I look forward to hearing from you.
The emails above, and much more, are on Simon's site here:
To read some of the feedback on Simon's UK site from people who
viewed the magazine pages there:

Not surprisingly, the magazine pages have spread all around the net
already and appear on a substantial number of sites.
The text is fascinating reading and provides a unique look at one
of the most reviled figures in human history...

Here is a mirror site in Israel...
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.