THE ENIGMA OF HITLER: A Glimpse into the Extraordinarily Unique Mind, Character and Insight of Adolf Hitler, by One Who Knew Him

Adolf Hitler was the most prominent figure of the 20th century, whose public character, however falsely portrayed, continues to be propelled into the 21st century. People of all ages and from all corners of the world, believe they know who he was, what he stood for and what his interests were, right down to daily routines and alleged habits… but how could anyone truly know anything about him, if they were not at least in observance of him?

Leon Degrelle, 1944, shadowJournalist, Belgian politician and later, SS-Obersturmbannführer of the 5th Walloon contingent, Leon Degrelle, was one such individual, who did indeed know Adolf Hitler and had spent much time to develop, what he described as, a “Thinking Bond” with the German Chancellor. (right: Leon Degrelle with Adolf Hitler, 1944)

This piece, The Enigma of Hitler, is from the second volume of Degrelle’s unfinished and provisionally titled, ‘The Hitler Century’ which is a series on Hitler’s life and legacy. It gives the reader a side of Adolf Hitler that most people don’t know of, covering; his history, his beginnings, interests and almost any other aspect one could ponder.

The Enigma of Hitler

By Leon Degrelle

“Hitler – you knew him – what was he like?” I have been asked that question a thousand
times since 1945, and nothing is more difficult to answer.
Approximately two hundred thousand books have dealt with the Second World War and with its central figure, Adolf Hitler. But has the real Hitler been discovered by any of them? “The enigma of Hitler is beyond all human comprehension,” the left-wing German weekly Die Zeit once put it.
Salvador Dali, art’s unique genius, sought to penetrate the mystery in one of his most intensely dramatic paintings. Towering mountain landscapes all but fill the canvas, leaving only a few luminous meters of seashore dotted with delicately miniaturized human figures: the last witness to a dying peace. A huge telephone receiver dripping tears of blood hangs from the branch of a dead tree; and here and there hang umbrellas and bats whose portent is visibly the same. As Dali tells it, “Chamberlain’s umbrella appeared in this painting in a sinister light, made evident by the bat, and it struck me when I painted it as a thing of enormous anguish.”
He then confided: “I felt this painting to be deeply prophetic. But I confess that I haven’t yet figured out the Hitler enigma either. He attracted me only as an object of my mad imaginings and because I saw him as a man uniquely capable of turning things completely upside down.”
What a lesson in humility for the braying critics who have rushed into print since 1945 with their thousands of “definitive” books, most of them scornful, about this man who so troubled the introspective Dali that forty years later he still felt anguished and uncertain in the presence of his own hallucinatory painting. Apart from Dali, who else has ever tried to present an objective portrayal of this extraordinary man whom Dali labeled the most explosive figure in human history?
The Enigma of Hitler, shadow

Salvador Dali – The Enigma of Hitler

Like Pavlov’s Bell

The mountains of Hitler books based on blind hatred and ignorance do little to describe or explain the most powerful man the world has ever seen. How, I ponder, do these thousands of disparate portraits of Hitler in any way resemble the man I knew? The Hitler seated beside me, standing up, talking, listening. It has become impossible to explain to people fed fantastic tales for decades that what they have read or heard on television just does not correspond to the truth.

People have come to accept fiction, repeated a thousand times over, as reality. Yet they have never seen Hitler, never spoken to him, never heard a word from his mouth. The very name of Hitler immediately conjures up a grimacing devil, the fount of all of one’s negative emotions. Like Pavlov’s bell, the mention of Hitler is meant to dispense with substance and reality. In time, however, history will demand more than these summary judgements.

Strangely Attractive

Hitler is always present before my eyes: as a man of peace in 1936, as a man of war in 1944. It is not possible to have been a personal witness to the life of such an extraordinary man without being marked by it forever. Not a day goes by but Hitler rises again in my memory, not as a man long dead, but as a real being who paces his office floor, seats himself in his chair, pokes the burning logs in the fireplace.
Adolf Blue EyesThe first thing anyone noticed when he came into view was his small mustache. Countless times he had been advised to shave it off, but he always refused: people were used to him the way he was. He was not tall – no more than was Napoleon or Alexander the Great. Hitler had deep blue eyes that many found bewitching, although I did not find them so. Nor did I detect the electric current his hands were said to give off. I gripped them quite a few times and was never struck by his lightning.

His face showed emotion or indifference according to the passion or apathy of the moment. At times he was as though benumbed, saying not a word, while his jaws moved in the meanwhile as if they were grinding an obstacle to smithereens in the void. Then he would come suddenly alive and launch into a speech directed at you alone, as though he were addressing a crowd of hundreds of thousands at Berlin’s Tempelhof airfield. Then he became as if transfigured. Even his complexion, otherwise dull, lit up as he spoke. And at such times, to be sure, Hitler was strangely attractive and as if possessed of magic powers.

Exceptional Vigor

Anything that might have seemed too solemn in his remarks, he quickly tempered with a touch of humor. The picturesque world, the biting phrase were at his command. In a flash he would paint a word-picture that brought a smile, or come up with an unexpected and disarming comparison. He could be harsh and even implacable in his judgments and yet almost at the same time be surprisingly conciliatory, sensitive and warm.
Hitler and girls, shadow
After 1945 Hitler was accused of every cruelty, but it was not in his nature to be cruel. He loved children. It was an entirely natural thing for him to stop his car and share his food with young cyclists along the road. Once he gave his raincoat to a derelict plodding in the rain. At midnight he would interrupt his work and prepare the food for his dog Blondi. He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living creature. He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed to provide his food. He would allow only eggs on his table, because egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed.

Hitler’s eating habits were a constant source of amazement to me. How could someone on such a rigorous schedule, who had taken part in tens of thousands of exhausting mass meetings from which he emerged bathed with sweat, often losing two to four pounds in the process; who slept only three to four hours a night; and who, from 1940 to 1945, carried the whole world on his shoulders while ruling over 380 million Europeans: how, I wondered, could he physically survive on just a boiled egg, a few tomatoes, two or three pancakes, and a plate of noodles? But he actually gained weight!

Hitler and stray dog, shadowHe drank only water. He did not smoke and would not tolerate smoking in his presence. At one or two o’clock in the morning he would still be talking, untroubled, close to his fireplace, lively, often amusing. He never showed any sign of weariness. Dead tired his audience might be, but not Hitler.

He was depicted as a tired old man. Nothing was further from the truth. In September 1944, when he was reported to be fairly doddering, I spent a week with him. His mental and physical vigor were still exceptional. The attempt made on his life on July 20th had, if anything, recharged him. He took tea in his quarters as tranquilly as if we had been in his small private apartment at the chancellery before the war, or enjoying the view of snow and bright blue sky through his great bay window at Berchtesgaden.

Iron Self-Control

At the very end of his life, to be sure, his back had become bent, but his mind remained as clear as a flash of lightening. The testament he dictated with extraordinary composure on the eve of his death, at three in the morning of April 29, 1945, provides us a lasting testimony. Napoleon at Fontainebleau was not without his moments of panic before his abdication. Hitler simply shook hands with his associates in silence, breakfasted as on any other day, then went to his death as if he were going on a stroll. When has history ever witnessed so enormous a tragedy brought to its end with such iron self-control?
Hitler’s most notable characteristic was ever his simplicity. The most complex of problems resolved itself in his mind into a few basic principles. His actions were geared to ideas and decisions that could be understood by anyone. The laborer from Essen, the isolated farmer, the Ruhr industrialist, and the university professor could all easily follow his line of thought. The very clarity of his reasoning made everything obvious.

His behavior and his lifestyle never changed even when he became the ruler of Germany. He dressed and lived frugally. During his early days in Munich, he spent no more than a mark per day for food. At no stage in his life did he spend anything on himself. Throughout his thirteen years in the chancellery he never carried a wallet or ever had money of his own.

Intellectual Curiosity

Hitler reading, shadowHitler was self-taught and made no attempt to hide the fact. The smug conceit of intellectuals, their shiny ideas packaged like so many flashlight batteries, irritated him at times. His own knowledge he had acquired through selective and unremitting study, and he knew far more than thousands of diploma-decorated academics.
I don’t think anyone ever read as much as he did. He normally read one book every day, always first reading the conclusion and the index in order to gauge the work’s interest for him. He had the power to extract the essence of each book and then store it in his computer-like mind. I have heard him talk about complicated scientific books with faultless precision, even at the height of the war.
His intellectual curiosity was limitless. He was readily familiar with the writings of the most diverse authors, and nothing was too complex for his comprehension. He had a deep knowledge and understanding of Buddha, Confucius and Jesus Christ, as well as Luther, Calvin, and Savonarola; of literary giants such as Dante, Schiller, Shakespeare and Goethe; and of analytical writers such as Renan and Gobineau, Chamberlain and Sorel.
He had trained himself in philosophy by studying Aristotle and Plato. He could quote entire paragraphs of Schopenhauer from memory, and for a long time carried a pocket edition of Schopenhauer with him. Nietzsche taught him much about the willpower.
His thirst for knowledge was unquenchable. He spent hundreds of hours studying the works of Tacitus and Mommsen, military strategists such as Clausewitz, and empire builders such as Bismarck. Nothing escaped him: world history or the history of civilizations, the study of the Bible and the Talmud, Thomistic philosophy and all the master-pieces of Homer, Sophocles, Horace, Ovid, Titus Livius and Cicero. He knew Julian the Apostate as if he had been his contemporary.
His knowledge also extended to mechanics. He knew how engines worked; he understood the ballistics of various weapons; and he astonished the best medical scientists with his knowledge of medicine and biology.

Hitler volkswagenThe universality of Hitler’s knowledge may surprise or displease those unaware of it, but it is nonetheless a historical fact: Hitler was one of the most cultivated men of this century. Many times more so than Churchill, an intellectual mediocrity; or than Pierre Laval, with his mere cursory knowledge of history; or than Roosevelt; or Eisenhower, who never got beyond detective novels.

Artist and Architect

Fortress Utopia

Fortress Utopia – A. Hitler, 1904

Even during his earliest years, Hitler was different than other children. He had an inner strength and was guided by his spirit and his instincts.

He could draw skillfully when he was only eleven years old. His sketches made at that age show a remarkable firmness and liveliness.
His first paintings and watercolors, created at age 15, are full of poetry and sensitivity. One of his most striking early works, “Fortress Utopia,” also shows him to have been an artist of rare imagination. His artistic orientation took many forms. He wrote poetry from the time he was a lad. He dictated a complete play to his sister Paula who was amazed at his presumption. At the age of 16, in Vienna, he launched into the creation of an opera. He even designed the stage settings, as well as all the costumes; and, of cours e, the characters were Wagnerian heroes.
More than just an artist, Hitler was above all an architect. Hundreds of his works were notable as much for the architecture as for the painting. From memory alone he could reproduce in every detail the onion dome of a church or the intricate curves of wrought iron. Indeed, it was to fulfill his dream of becoming an architect that Hitler went to Vienna at the beginning of the century.

ArhitectureWhen one sees the hundreds of paintings, sketches and drawings he created at the time, which reveal his mastery of three dimensional figures, it is astounding that his examiners at the Fine Arts Academy failed him in two successive examinations. German historian Werner Maser, no friend of Hitler, castigated these examiners: “All of his works revealed extraordinary architectural gifts and knowledge. The builder of the Third Reich gives the former Fine Arts Academy of Vienna cause for shame.”

Hitlers architectual art

Humble Origins

Stone Escutcheon

The Swastika displayed at the Benedictine Monastery where Hitler was an Alter Boy.

Impressed by the beauty of the church in a Benedictine monastery where he was part of the choir and served as an altar boy, Hitler dreamt fleetingly of becoming a Benedictine monk. And it was at that time, too, interestingly enough, that whenever he attended mass, he always had to pass beneath the first swastika he had ever seen: it was graven in the stone escutcheon of the abbey portal.

Hitler’s father, a customs officer, hoped the boy would follow in his footsteps and become a civil servant. His tutor encouraged him to become a monk. Instead the young Hitler went, or rather he fled, to Vienna. And there, thwarted in his artistic aspirations by the bureaucratic mediocraties of academia, he turned to isolation and meditation. Lost in the great capital of Austria-Hungary, he searched for his destiny.

Hitlers MotherDuring the first thirty years of Hitler’s life, the date April 20, 1889, meant nothing to anyone. He was born on that day in Branau, a small town in the Inn valley. During his exile in Vienna, he often thought of his modest home, and particularly of his mother. When she fell ill, he returned home from Vienna to look after her. For weeks he nursed her, did all the household chores, and supported her as the most loving of sons. When she finally died, on Christmas eve, his pain was immense. Wracked with grief, he buried his mother in the little country cemetery: “I have never seen anyone so prostrate with grief,” said his mother’s doctor, who happened to be Jewish.

In his room, Hitler always displayed an old photograph of his mother. The memory of the mother he loved was with him until the day he died. Before leaving this earth, on April 30, 1945, he placed his mother’s photograph in front of him. She had blue eyes like his and a similar face. Her maternal intuition told her that her son was different from other children. She acted almost as if she knew her son’s destiny. When she died, she felt anguished by the immense mystery surrounding her son.

Corporal HitlerThroughout the years of his youth, Hitler lived the life of a virtual recluse. His greatest wish was to withdraw from the world. At heart a loner, he wandered about, ate meager meals, but devoured the books of three public libraries. He abstained from conversations and had few friends. It is almost impossible to imagine another such destiny where a man started with so little and reached such heights. Alexander the Great was the son of a king. Napoleon, from a well-to-do family, was a general at twenty-four. Fifteen years after Vienna, Hitler would still be an unknown corporal. Thousands of others had a thousand times more opportunity to leave their mark on the world.

Young HitlerHitler was not much concerned with his private life. In Vienna he had lived in shabby, cramped lodgings. But for all that he rented a piano that took up half his room, and concentrated on composing his opera. He lived on bread, milk, and vegetable soup. His poverty was real. He did not even own an over-coat. He shoveled streets on snowy days. He carried luggage at the railway station. He spent many weeks in shelters for the homeless. But he never stopped painting or reading.

Despite his dire poverty, Hitler somehow managed to maintain a clean appearance. Landlords and landladies in Vienna and Munich all remembered him for his civility and pleasant disposition. His behavior was impeccable. His room was always spotless, his meager belongings meticulously arranged, and his clothes neatly hung or folded. He washed and ironed his own clothes, something which in those days few men did. He needed almost nothing to survive, and money from the sale of a few paintings was sufficient to provide for all his needs.

Summing Things Up

Hitler had not yet focused on politics, but without his rightly knowing, that was the career to which he was most strongly called. Politics would ultimately blend with his passion for art. People, the masses, would be the clay the sculptor shapes into an immortal form. The human clay would become for him a beautiful work of art like one of Myron’s marble sculptures, a Hans Makart painting, or Wagner’s Ring Trilogy.
His love of music, art and architecture had not removed him from the political life and social concerns of Vienna. In order to survive, he worked as a common laborer side by side with other workers. He was a silent spectator, but nothing escaped him: not the vanity and egoism of the bourgeoisie, not the moral and material misery of the people, nor yet the hundreds of thousands of workers who surged down the wide avenues of Vienna with anger in their hearts.
He had also been taken aback by the growing presence in Vienna of bearded Jews wearing caftans, a sight unknown in Linz. “How can they be Germans?” he asked himself. He read the statistics: in 1860 there were sixty-nine Jewish families in Vienna; forty years later there were two hundred thousand. They were everywhere. He observed their invasion of the universities and the legal and medical professions, and their takeover of the newspapers.
Hitler was exposed to the passionate reactions of the workers to this influx, but the workers were not alone in their unhappiness. There were many prominent persons in Austria and Hungary who did not hide their resentment at what they believed was an alien invasion of their country. The mayor of Vienna, a Christian-Democrat and a powerful orator, was eagerly listened to by Hitler.
Hitler was also concerned with the fate of the eight million Austrian Germans kept apart from Germany, and thus deprived of their rightful German nationhood. He saw Emperor Franz Josef as a bitter and petty old man unable to cope with the problems of the day and the aspirations of the future.
Quietly, the young Hitler was summing things up in his mind.
First: Austrians were part of Germany, the common fatherland.
Second: The Jews were aliens within the German community.
Third: Patriotism was only valid if it was shared by all classes. The common people with whom Hitler had shared grief and humiliation were just as much a part of the fatherland as the millionaires of high society.
Fourth: Class war would sooner or later condemn both workers and bosses to ruin in any
country. No country could survive class war; only cooperation between workers and bosses can benefit the country. Workers must be respected and live with decency and honor. Creativity must never be stifled.

When Hitler later said that he had formed his social and political doctrine in Vienna, he told the truth. Ten years later his observations made in Vienna would become the order of the day. Thus Hitler was to live for several years in the crowded city of Vienna as a virtual outcast, yet quietly observing everything around him. His strength came from within. He did not rely on anyone to do his thinking for him. Exceptional human beings always feel lonely amid the vast human throng. Hitler saw his solitude as a wonderful opportunity to meditate and not to be submerged in a mindless sea. In order not to be lost in the wastes of a sterile desert, a strong soul seeks refuge within himself. Hitler was such a soul.


Lightning and the Word

The lightning in Hitler’s life would come from the Word.
All his artistic talent would be channeled into his mastery of communication and eloquence. Hitler would never conceive of popular conquests without the power of the Word. He would enchant and be enchanted by it. He would find total fulfillment when the magic of his words inspired the hearts and minds of the masses with whom he communed. He would feel reborn each time he conveyed with mystical beauty the knowledge he had acquired in his lifetime.

Hitler’s incantory eloquence will remain, for a very long time, a vast field of study for the psychoanalyst. The power of Hitler’s word is the key. Without it, there would never have been a Hitler era.

Transcendent Faith

Hitler and the ChurchDid Hitler believe in God? He believed deeply in God. He called God the Almighty, master of all that is known and unknown. Propagandists portrayed Hitler as an atheist. He was not. He had contempt for hypocritical and materialistic clerics, but he was not alone in that. He believed in the necessity of standards and theological dogmas, without which, he repeatedly said, the great institution of the Christian church would collapse. These dogmas clashed with his intelligence, but he also recognized that it was hard for the human mind to encompass all the problems of creation, its limitless scope and breathtaking beauty. He acknowledged that every human being has spiritual needs. The song of the nightingale, the pattern and color of a flower, continually brought him back to the great problems of creation. No one in the world has spoken to me so eloquently about the existence of God. He held this view not because he was brought up as a Christian, but because his analytical mind bound him to the concept of God. Hitler’s faith transcended formulas and contingencies. God was for him the basis of everything, the ordainer of all things, of his destiny and that of all others.

popular hitler

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

N. Jones is a Writer, Researcher, Historian and Literary Critic

1938 News Report: Financial War on “Anti-Semitic States” for “Persecuting Jewish FINANCIERS” not Civilian Jews

The Worker, the official organ of the Australian Labour Party in Queensland and regular periodical for various amalgamated Labour Unions throughout Australia (see here), reported to the world on January 4, 1938, that “International Jewry” was orchestrating a heavily funded financial war, in addition to their previous Declaration of War‘ – being the continuance of the 1933 world-wide Economic Boycott against Germany.

financiers_shadow-copyINTERNATIONAL JEWRY – Financial War Planned Against Anti-Semitic States – £500,000,000 Fund to be Raised

‘Jewry, faced with persecution in Poland, Rumania, Germany, Austria, and elsewhere, intends to hit back,’ says the ‘Sunday Chronicle,’ according to a cable dated London, January 2.

‘The battle will be fought on the world’s stock exchanges. Most of the anti-Semitic States are burdened with debts, and they may find their very existence threatened.

‘The leaders of international Jewry will meet in a village near Geneva this week to plan a fund of £500,000,000 with which to fight the persecutors of Jewish financiers in all parts of the world.

‘No difficulty is expected in raising such a fund, which, combined with a trade boycott, will enable the launching a counter-offensive, in which the Jewish persecutors may be defeated.”

Source: National Library of Australia 

For over eight decades, the world has been led to believe that from the outset of 1933, the Germans “Persecuted” everyday German-Jews for simply being Jewish, even though German-Jews of the time, denounced this international propaganda. By International Jewry’s own admission, it was the self proclaimed “Jewish FINANCIERS” who – incidentally had their parasitic usurious positions outlawed by Germany’s Economic Reform –  were the ones being singled out and they did in fact feel the need to differentiate themselves from everyday Jews with this claim, as to who was supposedly being persecuted.
The targeting of “Jewish Financiers” was a well founded claim, as NSDAP policies and reform saw the cleansing of Communists in governmental positions and immoral financial and trading practices removed from the Reich – it just so happened that around 98% of these Communists and unscrupulous Speculators, were in fact Jewish. If these communist elements within Germany were Spanish or Chinese, their resulting fate would have been the same and it would have been due to their corrupt practices which greatly effected German society, not their ethnicity – as the other 2% of non-Jewish communists who also lost their positions, attests to.
However, whether being forbidden to continue economic rape against a nation and its people, could be considered “Persecution” is another question. Perhaps the reader may want to consider what life is like as the impoverished, starving and economically raped people, opposed to those minority tycoons who had their astronomical revenues through economic debt slavery reduced, in order to identify who was actually being persecuted?


judea-declares-war_shadowThis same ‘International Jewry’ Declared War on Germany in 1933, with the same ‘Jewish Persecution’ propaganda as the excuse… but what had actually occurred at this point in 1933? The German-Jews denounced the international Persecution Propaganda in defense of the honour of Germany, the Nuremberg Laws weren’t enacted until late 1935, even many German-Jews who lived under two flags at that later time, saw them as reasonable and did not suffer any deprivations with a new National status and, the Krystallnacht False-Flag – which resulted in the internment of many German-Jews – did not occur until November 1938 (10 months after the aforementioned half a billion Jewish financial war plan)… so what prompted ‘International Jewry’ to Declare War on Germany in 1933?

The duly elected Adolf Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933 and less than two months later, Judea Declared Economic Warfare on Germany, March 24, 1933 – coincidentally, only one day after Hitler received Plenary Power, via the passing of the Enabling Act – the Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich (“Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich”). The Law to Remedy Distress, resulted in communist non-effect in the Reichstag, the abolition of over 30 useless, divide and conflicting parties that had destroyed Germany for the previous 14 years. The fact that it was International Jewry who responded to the abolition of communist power within Germany, by economic warfare, also attests to who the communists were/are.
(Hitler’s Reichstag speech, March 23, 1933)
International Jewry’s Declaration of Economic Warfare on Germany, was no idle threat upon a suffering people, who were reliant on their export in order for the people just to eat. The NSDAP came into possession of an impoverished nation and starving people, had virtually no army, the country was broke, enslaved by impossible WWI reparations and more than 30% of the people were suffering unemployment… all while a privileged few were living the high life at the expense of the starving and poverty stricken majority.
Germany had nothing in its hands to be a threat to anyone (except communist and financier positions) and with the monumental national problems within the country, the priorities of what deserved attention to revive the German Nation, did not revolve around putting yellow star stickers on less than one half of 1% of the population, as some inane attempt at national remedy.
However, what the NSDAP did possess, was a well prepared plan for economic reform and a 25 Point Program for the revival of the Nation, a program which was pivotal on the embodiment of the National Socialists Economic Reform. A program that would have been hindered if the communist votes were allowed to remain in the Reichstag.

The NSDAP’s Economic Reform for the Abolition of Enslavement to Interest on Money, was widely known in economist circles from 1919 and the 25 Point Program was publicly announced on February 24, 1920… It was this well considered and developed plan, which the NSDAP absolutely intended to implement, is what the self proclaimed “Jewish” Financiers anticipated and knew to be a threat to their corrupt, yet powerful positions. These international financial Tycoons and war profiteers, obviously felt a pre-emptive Counter-Offensive was in order!
A look at a few of the 25 Points will highlight who would benefit from them and who would detest these economic principles, claiming the abolition of their national theft as Persecution;

6. The right to vote on the State’s government and legislation shall be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, in the states or in the smaller localities, shall be held by none but citizens.

11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.

The Breaking of the Slavery of Interest

12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *

18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

Point 6: Opposed to being considered pro-German, shockingly enough in Germany itself, it has been ridiculed as discriminatory toward Jews; but in Western Nations, is it not Constitutional that Prime Ministers and Presidents be citizens of the nations they purport to lead, in attempt to guarantee national loyalties? Further, for example, would it be considered a moral political principle for U.S. citizens to flood Chinese Parliamentary positions, to dictate how the Chinese people will be administered in their own land, by American ideological legislative enactments? Would it be ethical to allow an ethnicity of less than 0.5% of any population, to decide how another ethnicity of +99% will be administered in their own land? Is that not contradictory to the Universal Right of Self-Determination, where Peoples have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and political policies, without interference?


Point 18
may seem excessively harsh to those who are absent of understanding in exactly how injurious the unscrupulous practices of usury and speculator profiteering is to the people… Usury, or rather issuing debt (via IOU) with attached interest, is not the exchange or loan of money… it is the demand of payment from one party (the Creditor) – for which they gave or forfeited absolutely nothing – from another party (the Debtor), who is required to extract affluence to service the greater interest first, before even reducing the principle, which is only based on an inequivalent, minimal fraction of a reserved asset (Fractional Reserve Lending). When this is done on a large scale, on a national scale, in the Millions and Billions, it is nothing but economic rape and enslavement of a nations people, who are ordered to exchange their time, their effort, their labour, their creativity, ingenuity, productivity and their time away from family, to give all the fruit of their efforts to economic racketeers, to self-licensed loan sharks, who gave them nothing in the first instance except an accounting entry of debt – a flick of a pen… this is precisely what Point 11 of the NSDAP’s program is referring to- “The abolition of incomes unearned by work.”
This infinite debt system, of interest on interest (demand for everything in exchange for nothing) is the ONLY CAUSE of endless inflation; and the worlds so-called Leaders, who contract these International Financiers, through promise to service their demand, do not produce anything. So where do the worlds so-called Leaders (middle-men) extract payment from to serve the International Financiers? Of course the people, the producers, who are the only source of affluence from which it can be extracted and, as the effect of interest on interest continually increases the debt demand, newly invented and increased taxes, fees, levy’s, tolls, fines, schemes and the general increase in the cost of everything, is the only way the Leaders can create increasing revenue to meet the International Financiers interest-debt demands… thus, continually reducing the value of the currency.
Is it fair or ethical to get something for nothing, through legalised theft demand? What about getting everything for nothing? Who in their right mind would think anyone who has risked nothing and given nothing, has the right to demand from another almost all the benefits of everything they’ve produced and created? What could benefit the people if all the fruits of their efforts were reinvested back into the peoples interests (by the billions), opposed to continually flowing into the pockets of the debt creators, the self-licensed loan sharks, who offered nothing?
This is a crime, a theft, so massive, so incomprehensible against all people, depriving them of the reward of their efforts and in most cases, depriving them of their most basic needs to live…
This is a crime against humanity!
So is Point 18 excessively harsh considering the scale of theft, deprivation, poverty imposition and enslavement? Is it Persecution to be denied the legal ability to continue wide-spread economic enslavement and theft, from the many to the few? Is it Persecution to out-law individuals from being able to conduct crimes against humanity under the threat of punishment? This writer thinks not! The reader can come to their own conclusion.

Anti-Semitic States…?

The Worker reports that “Anti-Semitic States” [are burdened with debt], colloquially suggesting that a national, political institution (a ‘State’), holds a racial ideological bias, on behalf of all individuals under that political system, which would include Jews themselves? Whether today’s Jews of European origin are in fact Semites, is for a different discussion. In any event, the clarification of what pertains to an ‘Anti-Semitic State’ by the self-proclaimed Jewish Financiers, continues to be pursuant to economic policies and who has control over a nations policies.

Through the vote of the German people, Hitler won against the Communists in Germany, he threw out the Bankers and their fraudulent credit systems from the nation, created a new carefully controlled currency tied directly to labour (not speculative gold), developed immense public works programs for employment and installed tight controls on prices and wages – income for the German people which he increased by 10.9%. Stock markets were also controlled to keep prices from being manipulated by international market speculators; as such, Germany’s Reichsmark could not be speculated against on the international markets and Germany’s sovereign currency was not part of the Jewish financiers international usury debt system.
Mussolini’s Italy worked similarly with its own economic system, including expropriatory tax on war profits and large scale public works, thus, was also considered an ‘Anti-Semitic State’ with Japan later following a close third.

As a ‘State’ in the political spectrum, is generally applied to policies which implementations are mostly related to economics; and as the self described Jewish Financiers claim it was they who were being Persecuted by said State, it would appear, by their own definition, that an “Anti-Semitic State” is one which does not give the Jewish Financiers free reign over their nations people and productivity, nor legislative capacity for their economic debt slavery systems.
A nation not enslaved by usurious debt to the International Jewish Financiers, thus not under its control, is somehow Anti-Semitic?

Burdened with debt…?

great-gold-heist_1933_shadowWas it not all nations who were involved in WWI that were burdened with [war] debt? Was it not this war debt that spurred the manipulated Wall Street Stock Market Crash of 1929, which grew into the Great Depression of longevity through to the late 1930’s? Who benefited from this great suffering of peoples from all nations around the world, buying up everything for a penny on the pound? Who used this manipulated scenario to steal all the Americans gold, with the excuse it needed to be confiscated to the private shareholders of the Federal Reserve in order to revive from the Great Depression – facilitated by FDR’s Executive Order 6102, better-known as the Great Gold Heist of 1933? Who were the War Profiteers, Market Speculators and International Financiers that could have foreseen and benefited from such a war and resulting international economic catastrophe? The reader can perhaps speculate themselves to find that answer?

It was many of the western nations which were also still laden with WWI debt and could not pay it at the time (and thanks to interest on interest, are still paying for it today). But unlike Jewish Bolshevik Russia, following the so-called Russian Revolution (rather, Jewish usurpation of Russia) – conveniently, a mid-WWI coup d’etat – National Socialist Germany did not abandon the WWI debt and was making good on the payments. The Jewish Bolshevik USSR – for some reason(?) – wasn’t subjected to a credit recall like other nations? Special nepotistic favouritism by the creditors perhaps? However, Germany did not have gold reserves, they were stolen by the All-lies during WWI, but somehow, after total blame for WWI, accompanied by the astronomical reparation payments (“Tribute Madness” as Hitler referred), civil war, the Great Depression which the entire world was suffering and the greatest hyperinflation a nation has ever been subjected to in history, began to thrive economically and prosper above all other nations; and unemployment was near eradicated from over 30.1% in 1932 to 2.1% by the end of 1935, regardless of the WWI debt.
Was this just some economic accident, a miracle, perhaps an unexplainable ‘Economic Miracle’ as the victor economists would have us believe? Or was it simply ‘Economic Logic’ facilitated by a well considered and planned Economic Reform?

With the differing national economic formats, it might beg the question also; why couldn’t the Allies make good on their WWI payments? Who was it they were actually indebted to – therefore controlled by? Were these industrious nations not able to manage their own currencies and productivity, to find a way to feed their people? Despite the invisible debt, did they not have vast resources and the physical capacity to at least grow food, thereby creating work to produce it?
Of course, if external entities control a nations currency, control the gold reserves (or confiscated it), therefore controlling the value of currency based on the fractional gold standard (which in-turn makes it a commodity of speculation in itself), then these entities which have issued the debt (IOU imposition) dictate where any revenue or surplus – if any – will be directed… Obviously the International financiers, in the interests of humanity and good will, did not (and will not) find it in their hearts to forego this debt created from a flick of a pen, to direct future revenue back to the people. The debtors, being beholden to the currency creators, the creditors, the self-licensed loan sharks, then offer the nations public assets to service the unpaid debt (credit recall), thus making the International Financiers the owners of those countries National productivity, manufacturing, infrastructure and utilities etc. (commonly disguised as Privatisation) who in-turn, ultimately charge the people for the use of their own public services they built… Unfortunately, post-privatisation, the people no longer receive the affluence generated from their own collective productivity, as the former public services become private businesses for profit. Further, the International Financiers still demand the interest on interest be paid! But where would that revenue come from once the people lose the benefits of their privatised public services and works? Inflation and an endless creation of new and increased taxes. This is total theft and wealth extraction out of all nations who submit to the demands of the International Financiers, who are nothing but large scale Counterfeiters = Criminals!
I refer to Point 18 of the NSDAP Program.

So who would these external elements of fiat currency (debt) issuance be? Could it be the same self-described Jewish Financiers? Why would these Jewish Financiers, if not International Financiers, be interested in foreign states who have taken steps to implement their own sovereign economic systems, having to describe them as “Anti-Semitic States”?
In reflection of the economically crippled world of the day, the majority of nations had the suffering yolk of international war debt and results of commodity speculation around their necks, thus controlled and owned… but the few nations that broke free from this economic enslavement system, giving back to their own people, whilst still paying the debt, were the ones the world was told, were an evil threat to humanity, had war declared upon them and were labelled Anti-Semitic.
“Anti-Semitic States burdened with debt”? No, States not under Jewish Financier control!

“In the exchange of telegrams from the 1939 -1940 period,
the British were ready to negotiate peace, if
Germany returned to the Gold Standard.”
∼ Captain J. Creagh-Scott, 1947


Jewry faced with persecution in Poland, Rumania, Austria…?

The Persecution narrative which had been peddled throughout the world in regard to European Jews, was not only a repetitive escalation of propaganda since the 1933 Jewish Declaration of War against Germany, but common propaganda prior to the Third Reich and beyond; even claiming Jewish Persecution under the Jewish coup government that usurped Empirical Russia (aka Russian Revolution), persecuted by their co-religionists, even though under U.S.S.R. law Anti-Semitism was punishable by death?
So is there any logical claim that Jewry was subject to persecution by Rumania as an Anti-Semitic State? Rumania was not allied with Germany or any other state at this time, it sought to maintain neutrality and cordial international relations. Poland had its own inner ethnic turmoil, social and employment problems, but was not allied with Germany either. However, with the cordial and progressive efforts Hitler had made toward diplomatic relations, the late First Marshall of Poland, Jozef Pilzudski and Adolf Hitler did sign a German-Polish non Aggression Pact in 1934, agreeing to forego military conflict for a period of 10 years and Germany recognising Polands borders… Unfortunately, Marshall Pilzudski died in 1935. Poland had historically been used by Allied states to incite war and border conflict – a cordial relationship with Germany would not have been pleasing to the International Financiers and war mongers, therefore, must have been an Anti-Semitic State.
Hitler speaks on German-Polish Peace here.


Despite Rumania’s 1921 Little Entente alliance in defense of potential Hungarian territorial ambitions, an agreement to supposedly safeguard against any restoration by the Habsburgs in response the Versailles Treaty and, the previous 1926 military pact with France, via the 1921 Act, King Carol II was caught in a sphere of power struggles and desired to stay neutral as much as possible. However, it too had communist political party conflict, internal ethnic turmoil from sizable ethnic minorities, border disputes, along with its much sought after natural resources, especially oil. Germany’s contract with Royal Dutch Shell, via its pro-Nationalist CEO, Henri Deterding, who had contracts with Rumanian oil too, saw the commodity speculators not impressed with the growing German-Rumanian diplomatic relations that were unfolding, especially after the Little Entente’s complete disbandment in 1938 – therefore, must have been an Anti-Semitic State. King Carol’s Rumania became ripe for social turmoil and movements, to keep Romania with state weakening internal strife, so as to not side with, or trade with Germany.

Austria? Since the end of WWI, the Austrian people who had arbitrarily been subject to the dissection of the German/Austro-Hungarian Empire, via the Versailles dictat and the Treaty of Saint Germain, had desired to re-join the German Reich and even more eagerly, since Germany began to prosper under National Socialism, while they themselves suffered in debt and poverty. But in defiance of the peoples right to self-determination, the merger was forbidden by the WWI All-lies! Austrian Leader Engelbert Dollfuss also vehemently opposed it, especially after Hitler became Chancellor in 1933. Austria too was in political, social and economic turmoil, with revolutionary movements and even civil war in 1934. Dollfuss eventually dissolved parliament and made himself dictator, outlawing movements against him. He was a conservative, anti-Communist and attempted to model himself and his government on Mussolini’s Fascism. He was assassinated during a 1934 attempted coup d’etat, the July Putsch and his successor, Kurt Schuschnigg, followed closely in his format. The growing national feeling to unite once again with Germany, would have been an anxious anticipation for the Jewish Financiers. So to excite international condemnation of Austria, by defamatory accusations of an Anti-Semitic State, served as a strategic psychological precursor for international support for war, whether it be military or economic warfare. Unlike in Italy and Germany, the Rothschilds were still conducting their usurious financial business in Austria, but only 3 months after the above financial war plan was announced, 99.71% of the people turned out and 99.73% of the those Austrian people voted to rejoin the Reich in an April 10, 1938 Referendum. On the same day, another Referendum was held in Germany to ask the volk if they wished to rejoin Austria too. Of the 99.5% of the people who turned out, 99.8% of the German people agreed to unite again with their Austrian brothers and sisters… The Rothschild bank in Vienna was closed that same week, with all of its assets seized by the Reich government… the act of an apparent Anti-Semitic State against corrupt Financiers

Adolf Hitler Speaks At Heldenplatz In Vienna 15 March 1938
in the unification of Germany and Austria.

They may find their very existence threatened…?

The self-described Jewish Financiers and Leaders of International Jewry, felt that strongly about their systems and economic positions of extreme power being potentially replaced, that not only did they declare a world-wide economic boycott on Germany in 1933 – which had no long term effect once Germany took control of its own economy – but 5 years later wanted to target nations who might establish their own sovereign currencies and trade practices along with Germany too. They stated this financial war would “be fought on the worlds stock exchanges,” but as we have already established above, Germany’s Reichsmark was not part of the Jewish Financiers usury system and therefore could not be speculated against on international markets and the German stock markets were also tightly controlled to keep prices from being manipulated by international market speculators. So whose very existence were they now threatening? The Polish? The Rumanians? The Austrians?
As we’ve witnessed over many generations, when these international economic players impose Blockades, Boycotts and Sanctions (same effect – different titles) against various nations people, their very existence is actually threatened and ultimately millions upon millions of civilian people have starved to death, or by disease and illness due to not having access to sanitary and medical supplies. This is the inhumane extent that International Jewry are prepared to go to, in order to keep their financial power over nations and peoples.

However, was this £500,000,000 (an estimated $52.6 Trillion USD today) actually going to be used purely on the world stock exchanges? Considering that the New York Stock Exchange in 2011 alone, measured Market Capitalisation (USD Billions) at 14,242; and Trade Value (USD Billions) at 20,161; then one could speculate where this finance would be directed.
Another aspect to consider is the Stock Market Crash of 1929 had reduced the value in all capital just 9 years earlier…

The £500,000,000 was clearly an extremely excessive amount of wealth in the day, to be held by one group or organisation, as the Worker reported that; ‘The leaders of international Jewry [who met in a village near Geneva] expected no trouble in raising such a fund – which to fight the persecutors of Jewish financiers and obviously this kind of excessive economic power would not be relinquished with honour, or without a fight. The owners (or confiscators) of gold did actually do very well from the 1929 crash, as the price of a single ounce of gold rose from just $291 an ounce in 1929, to $539 in 1939… how speculatively lucky for those who held confiscated the gold?

Coincidentally, a year later, the Cairns Post reported on July 8, 1939 (3 months before the outbreak of war – allegedly a surprise invasion by Germany), that the Governors of the Bank of England had planned for a secret gold vault to store, yes, quite the coincidence, £500,000,000 worth of gold, for war securities.

SECRET VAULT FOR £500,000,000

Governors of the Bank of England have drawn up plans for transporting £500,000,000 – of the nations’s gold reserve to a secret vault in the country in the event of war.
This vault is hundreds of miles from London, and comprises a bomb-proof safe deposit. The convoy, will be escorted by an armed guard of both police and soldiers
The gold represents Britain’s staying power-the basis on which war loans might be raised, and the purchasing power which will ensure supplies of food and raw materials from overseas.

Where was this funding spent? Was anything actually spent?

Let’s use one nation for an example… The American mobilisation for WWII at the end of 1941, had moved approximately ten million people out of the civilian labour force and into the war. Government-financed capital spending accounted for only 5% of the annual U.S. investment in industrial capital in 1940; but by 1943, it had increased to 67% of all U.S. investment.

Bernard Baruch was yet another Jewish financier, stock investor and political consultant. As a partner in A.A. Housman & Company, his earnings and commissions enabled him to buy a seat on the New York Stock Exchange. There he amassed a fortune before the age of 30 by profiting from speculation in the market. By 1910, he had become one of Wall Street’s best-known financiers. In a treasonous display of conflict of interest, he was appointed Chief Advisor to both war-time U.S. Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt on all economic matters; and during WWII Baruch controlled 351 of the most important branches of American heavy industry. He was on the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense and, in 1918, he was the chairman of his new War Industries Board, which managed the US’ economic mobilisation during WWI. He also served as a staff-member at the Versailles conference in France.
For his work in WWI, Baruch was awarded the Army Distinguished Service Medal which cited, in part; Baruch, a United States Civilian, for exceptionally meritorious and distinguished services to the Government of the United States, in a duty of great responsibility during World War I, in the organization and administration of the War Industries Board and in the coordination of allied purchases in the United States. By establishing a broad and comprehensive policy for the supervision and control of the raw materials, manufacturing facilities, and distribution of the products of industry, he stimulated the production of war supplies, coordinated the needs of the military service and the civilian population, and contributed alike to the completeness and speed of the mobilization and equipment of the military forces and the continuity of their supply.”


Winston Churchill and Bernard Baruch

When the United States entered WWII, President Roosevelt appointed Baruch a Special Adviser to the director of the Office of War Mobilization. He supported what was known as a “Work or Fight” bill. Baruch advocated the creation of a permanent Super-agency similar to his old Industries Board of WWI. His theory ‘elevated the role of Civilian Businessmen and Industrialists in determining what was needed and who would produce it.’ But did the U.S. have surplus to be able to afford all this war time spending to these Civilian Businessmen, especially after the Great Depression? If not, where was the vast finance for it sourced from? Which Civilian Businessmen and Industrialists profiteered from this great war-time expenditure and investment in war production? And on top of that, who would the war debt, with interest on interest be paid to at the end of the war? Has it even been paid off today?

In yet another economic coincidence on the international stage of profiteering and war debt, on February 12, 1949, the Townsville Daily Bulletin reported, that foreign borrowers had defaulted on their payments and interest, to the tune of… you guessed it… £500,000,000.

£500,000,000 DEFAULT

LONDON, Feb. 11. – Foreign borrowers who have defaulted in their payments of capital and interest, now owe British investors nearly £500 million.
The Council of Foreign Bondholders says this in its annual report.
The council protects the interests of holders of foreign government, State or municipal obligations issued in Britain.


Considering that we know Germany’s currency could hardly be effected by international market speculators in 1938, and due to the self sufficiency of the 4 Year Plan having succeeded exponentially, we learn that it is the people with money to spend, is what in fact creates national economic growth. Only the public demand for produce and manufacturing (resulting in more paid employment for further spending and demand), can stimulate national economies… which is the effect of compounding affluence, opposed to compounding interest-debt/extraction – it is the very difference between a positive affluence based currency, opposed to a negative debt based currency. Demand cannot be created by a poor people without money and no employment in manufacturing or production can be developed, unless there is people wanting the goods and can actually buy it. No manufacturer or producer will grow or make more than what is in demand, thus, will not need further employees.
This type of economic growth can never be achieved with a debt based currency system, as all the affluence is continually flowing from the many people, to the few loan-sharks. Such is the format of Jewish usury systems all over the world… the economic enslavement of all people, never to rise above negative debt, to positive affluence.

The mechanics of the Third Reich’s economic system, saw the nation come from being the most impoverished and starving during the world-wide Great Depression, to soaring in prosperity above all others, almost instantaneously. Jewish economists and publishers wouldn’t dare explain the simplicity of these economic reforms to the rest of the worlds nations, thus claimed them to be a miracle, an “Economic Miracle” – No such miracle exists!

The self-described International Jewish Financiers, describe states with such economies as “Anti-Semitic States” given their policy to not facilitate Jewish usury practices or, economic control and enslavement over their nation and people. These Jewish El-ites absolutely did consider these policies as a threat to their existence (perhaps even Persecution), an existence based on parasiticism, even a war on their parasiticism – and they did indeed respond in kind.
If the economic systems of the so-called “Anti-Semitic States” had been adopted by other nations – which it certainly would have in time, if they were left alone – then their parasitic existence would have disintigrated, all their hoards of useless inanimate gold wouldn’t have helped them and they may have even had to work to support themselves. Such could not be tolerated and the answer to this was not to leave them alone, but… Total War! Declared twice by the self styled International Jewry, well before 1939.

However, they not only destroyed nations and people they couldn’t initially control, but prospered further with even more economic enslavement of those who fought their war for them. Was it really £500,000,000 to be played on the stock market, against nations whose economies could not be effected by it? Or was it the basis for so-called war loans?
The Worker did state that their “very existence might be threatened,” but it was rather by imposing debt currency onto various peoples Governments, to build war machines for their actual physical destruction.
Not only did the the future generations have this war-debt enslavement put around their necks before they were even born, but this expenditure resulted in Civilian Businessmen and Industrialists (who decided who would produce it), thrive in the biggest manufacturing boom in history, as well as thriving in the rebuilding and construction of the destroyed countries post-war.
Moreover, they not only achieved great speculative profit, great debt revenue, great business in manufacturing and construction, destruction of millions of people and families all over the world, destruction of ancient historical and irreplaceable architecture; but to top it all off, they got to keep all the gold too… not that anyone saw this half a billion pounds worth of gold that the debt currency was supposedly created on – we’ll just have to take their word for it that they had it… in any event, they didn’t lend gold out, or give any away, just created debt on its purported existence, so they risked and gave NOTHING!

We are led to believe that gold is a real asset to regulate a consistent value in money, but how does that work in reality in a debt-based currency system?
The International Jewish Financiers [allegedly] held half a billion pounds worth of gold, to which they gave to no one (risked and forfeited nothing). A half a billion pounds worth of debt was issued to various Governments based on its [alleged] existence. The Governments transferred/spent this debt-credit on armaments in the businesses of Civilian Industrialists, debt which then transformed into being half a billion pounds worth of revenue for the recipients – who are likely the same international financiers and stock investors, such as Bernard Baruch. These stock investors then received great commissions and wealth through the increased value of their shares, due to the rapid sales and manufacturing in their industrial businesses.

To summarise; They gave nothing away, they imposed half a billion pounds worth of debt, they received half a billion pounds worth of revenue from it on top of the gold they [allegedly] held, their businesses boomed and stock shares grew in value (great speculation)… and they end up demanding that they are still owed another half a billion pounds worth of revenue, due to Government default on debt payment… This is more than tripling their net worth, as well as injecting more debt-based currency into the entire currency pool – reducing the currency’s value thereby.
Remember, this does not even include the infinite interest (usury) on half a billion pounds.

Risked Nothing – Gave Nothing – Took Everything


N. Jones is a Writer, Researcher, Historian and Literary Critic.

Living in Hitlers Germany – An Eyewitness Account of a Glorious Era

You asked for someone who had lived in Hitler’s Germany to give an account on what it was like. Permit me, someone who lived under the Swastika flag from 1935, when the Saar was reunited with Germany, to 1945, to give a short answer.

Living in Hitler’s Germany
By Carl Schmidt (Hitler Youth)

“To be a boy or girl at that time was wonderful. In the Hitler Youth the differences between Christian denominations or the different German states didn’t count. We all truly felt that we were members of one body of people – one nation. Youth hostels were opened all over the Reich, enabling us to hike from one beautiful town to another seeing our fatherland. Every effort was made to strengthen our minds and bodies. Contrary to what is said today, we were encouraged to become free in spirit, and not to succumb to peer (or authority) pressure. In peacetime, NO military training was allowed by the Hitler Youth leadership; scouting yes. Incidentally, to “snitch on our parents” was frowned upon.

At the very time when America’s allies, the Soviets, destroyed most of the Christian churches in Russia and Ukraine, about 2500 new churches were built in Germany – NOT ONE Christian church was closed. It was the law that school and church had priority over service in the Hitler Youth. As late as the fall of 1944, the Waffen SS barracks in Breslau, supplied two buses to take youth to either the nearest Catholic or Protestant church every Sunday. To be a registered member of a Christian church did not prevent advancement in the National-Socialist Party.

Germany was National-Socialist, but free enterprise flourished during the entire Hitler years. No company was nationalised. No small businessman was stopped from opening up his own store. I myself worked during the war for a company that can only be called part of international capitalism. If you owned shares, nobody confiscated them, like the allies did in 1945. The accomplishments of the ‘Nazis’ were incredible. Starting without money and with six million unemployed (a third of the workforce), they constructed the entire German Autobahn road network in a short span of 6 years – almost without corruption – while seeing to it that the new road system did not unnecessarily destroy either the German landscape, or wildlife habitats and forests. Two years after the NS were elected to power, conditions were so improved that workers had to be hired in nearby friendly countries to help alleviate the worker’s shortage in Germany.

Germany was booming while Britain, France and the US were in the depths of depression. To help the workers get cheap transportation, the VW was designed and a factory was being built for their manufacture when the war started. Also, for the common people, villages of small single family homes were erected. The monthly payments were set so low that almost anyone could afford his own house. In Hitler’s Germany there were no homeless; no beggars. Crime was almost non existent because habitual criminals were in concentration camps. All this was reported in the newspapers and was known by everybody. The German press during the Third Reich had fewer taboos than the American press today. The only taboo I can think of evolved around Hitler, and, during the war, there was a law that prohibited “defeatism”. This was because of the negative role the German press played in the German defeat of 1918. It bears remembering that the ‘European Economic Community” was first coined by the Third Reich government. I remember many articles, both pro and con about this subject. One should also not forget that during the war at least seven million foreign nationals (nearly 10% of the population) worked in Germany, either as voluntary workers (Dutch, Danes, French, Poles, Ukrainians come to mind), or as forced laborers or as prisoners. I know of no instance where foreigners were attacked or molested (much less killed) because they were foreigners.

Speaking of the press, I have an article from 1943 in my possession that spells out how necessary friendship is between the German and Russian peoples.

Between 1933 and 1945 there was a tremendous emphasis on culture: theatres flourished; the German movie industry produced about 100 feature films per year (of which not one was anti-American. Only 50 of them can be considered pure propaganda movies). Some of the best classical recordings still extant were made in Hitler’s Germany. Actors from all over Europe, but mainly from France, Sweden and Italy were stars in German movies..Germany always loved sports, and there was no lack of opportunities to partake in any sport one liked. The 1936 Berlin Olympics was merely a showcase of what transpired all over the Reich. In a book on these Olympics issued by the Hitler Youth that is still in my possession, Jesse Owens is shown several times and mentioned favorably. During the Schmeling boxing fights, we kids all knew of Joe Louis, the brown bomber. Nowhere did I ever read derogatory remarks about other races. Certainly the accomplishments of Germany and the Germans were given prominence, similar to ‘the ad nauseum’ statements of today that the U.S. is the land of the free, etc. In my ten years in the Hitler Youth (actually 8, since I obviously couldn’t attend while a soldier), the Jews were never mentioned.


Other sports that gripped our attention were flying (there was Hitler Youth flying training with their own sail planes), car races (British and Italian drivers dominated) and riding.

Frequently I am asked about gun control during the Hitler era. Claims are made that Hitler could take power because he disarmed the German people. That is nonsense. In Germany gun ownership was never as prevalent as it is in America. I would say that for hundreds of years one needed a gun license in order to keep a weapon. On the other hand, my father owned an old pistol clandestinely (about which we children knew), and there were gun clubs all over the Reich. Furthermore, Germany was always a country with many excellent gunsmiths. It is doubtful that they could stay in business if the laws were too stringent. I would surmise that while Germany was Germany (before it was ‘liberated’ by the allies) gun ownership probably was far more widespread than is acknowledged today. Laws on the books were mainly to give the police a handle to arrest criminals with guns, not the ordinary citizen. Incidentally, just as Hitler had forbidden so-called ‘punishment exercises’ in the army (the brutal methods still employed in the American army), so had he forbidden the use of clubs by the police. He considered it demeaning to the German people.

nazi crowds of people greeting hitler at bueckeberg 1935

Finally this: I don’t believe I’ll ever see again a people as happy and content as were the great majority of Germans under Hitler, especially in peacetime.


Certainly some minorities suffered:
Former parliamentary politicians – because they couldn’t play their political games;
The Jews – because they lost their power over Germany;
The gypsies – because during the war they were required to work;
and crooked union bosses – because they lost their parasitical positions.

To this day I believe that the happiness of the majority of a people is more important than the well-being of a few spoiled minorities. In school there should be emphasis on promoting the best and the intelligent, as was done in Germany during the Hitler years – a fact that contributed after the war to the rapid German reconstruction. That Hitler was loved by his people, there can be no question. Even a few week’s before the war’s end and his death, he was able to drive to the front and mingle among the combat soldiers with only minimum security. None of the soldiers had to unload their weapons before meeting with the Fuhrer (as was required when President Bush met with American soldiers during the Gulf War).

Germany under Hitler was quite different from what the media would have you believe.”
∼ Carl Schmidt



N. Jones is a Writer, Researcher, Historian and Literary Critic.


France and Britain intentionally had Poland destroyed – to initiate WWII and have Europe Conquered by Communists

Despite all of Poland’s bravado and war cries to antagonise and instigate hostilities with Germany (see here), Poland Officials understood very clearly that they had no chance against Germany alone.

The French Military Command had in fact promised the Polish Military Ministry on May 19, 1939, that in the event of military aggression against Poland by another European power, France would come to its defense “no later than fifteen days after mobilisation”. This promise was sealed in a Military treaty signed between Poland and France… the Kasprzycki-Gamelin Convention.
It was named after the Polish Minister of War Affairs, General Tadeusz Kasprzycki and the Commander of the French Army, Maurice Gamelin, who both signed it. HOWEVER, it was only a military (army-to-army, not state-to-state) convention, making it arbitrary Martial Law if utilised, which was not authorised by any political enactment at all, as it was dependent on signing and ratification of Political Convention, for it to hold any international power.
The Treaty only became ratified on September 4, 1939, a day AFTER ‘France Declared War on Germany’… thus, no authoritative treaty was in place at the time of the French Declaration of War, or when Germany crossed the new-Polish border. The September 4 ratification was an illegal retroactive insertion, in attempt to justify the French Declaration of War and ultimate invasion of Germany. France had not been subject to any threat or attack from Germany whatsoever and, had in fact mobilised its military on August 26 – therefore France was the aggressor state and Germany had all right under both international and military law, to launch a defensive attack against France.

The Polish-British Common Defense Pact also contained promises of military assistance in the event that either country was attacked by any other “European Country.” This built upon the previous agreement (March 1939) between the two countries (which included only third party and verbal assurances from non-ratified France), by specifically committing to military assistance in the event of an invasion...

As intended, when Germany crossed the new-Polish border to liberate the German people from the bestial Guerilla attacks, Poland was completely betrayed by its so-called democratic friends. Britain and France did in fact Declare War on Germany, on September 3, 1939… but did either come to assist their provocative war-bait, Poland? France invaded Germany in the west on September 7 – the so-called Saar Offensive  (whose mobilisation began on August 26 – 6 days before Germany entered new-Poland) – advancing 8km’s in before stopping at German resistance and after the farcical Saar Offensive purposely fizzled, an almost 9 month Mexican Stand-off pursued – the Phony War.
The significance in this is that Hitler had concentrated most of the German military forces in the east at the time and France, having one of the strongest armies in the world, went nowhere near Poland and for the second time since the 1919 Versailles Treaty, breached German borders and militarily occupied foreign territory, in defiance of the Treaty.

Given such inaction by both France and Britain in regards to Polish defense assistance – as promised by Poland’s diplomatic friends – Hitler was able to take complete control over eastern Poland to liberate the German minority in less than 3 weeks… and then after the Allies ignored further Peace Proposals by Hitler, the Wehrmacht was mobilised west and the following year pushed both British and French forces back to their prospective territories – signing an Armistice with France and even allowing the British 2 unhindered days to evacuate 330,000 soldiers of the their cornered army, across the Channel from Dunkirk to England.

“I asked Joe  Kennedy
(US Ambassador in London, father of future US President, John F. Kennedy) about his talks with Roosevelt and Chamberlain in 1938. He said it had been Chamberlain’s belief in 1939 that Great Britain had nothing in its hands to fight and therefore wouldn’t dare go to war against Hitler… Neither the French nor the English would have made Poland a motivation for war, if they hadn’t been continually spurred on by Washington… America and the World-Jewry have driven England to war.”

∼ US Defence Minister, James Forrestal, 27/12/1945 in his diary (The Forrestal Diaries, New York, 1951, S 121 ff)

With the Polish army dealing with Germany in the west, Stalin cleverly decides to break the Soviet-Polish Non Aggression Pact of 1932. Poland is stabbed in the back by more diplomatic friends as Soviet forces pour in from the east too. The advancing Red Bolsheviks occupy the East, take prisoners and carry out massacres… the most famous being the Katyn Forest Massacre of an estimated 15,000 – 22,000 Polish officers, dignitaries and other intellectuals… blamed on Germans, of course!
Seven innocent German men hung for this Jewish Bolshevik crime and another three were sentenced to twenty years in the Jewish Gulag death camp system, never to be seen again – yet another result of Nuremberg’s Show Trial of purported justice.
(see: Katyn Massacre – Committed by Jewish Communists or Germans?)


Poland appeals to Britain for help, citing the Poland-British Defense Pact signed only a few weeks earlier! The Polish ambassador in London contacts the British Foreign Office pursuing clause 1(b) of the agreement, which concerned an “aggression by a European power” on Poland, stating it should apply to the Jewish-Bolshevik invasion also. The UK Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, responded with hostility stating that it was “Britain’s decision whether to declare war on the Soviet Union!”

The British and French betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest, it was military stupidity of truly monumental proportions on Poland’s behalf, as they had plenty of warning in their negotiations and nothing clarified leading up to the 1st of September, in fact the clarity lessened the more time that went past. From Poland’s perspective, more betrayals would follow… Contrary to their assurances to the Poles, Britain and France agreed to allow the Bolshevik Soviets to occupy and keep eastern Poland which was taken over by the Red Army invasion on September 17, 1939, a non-provocative invasion – in breach of the 1932 Pact. The only purported compensation that Poland would claim, would be the ethnic cleansing of all Germans from lands that had been historically German for over 1000 years, creating at the end of the war, one of, if not the biggest humanitarian catastrophe’s known to the world… or perhaps mostly unknown?

A crowning humiliation of the Poles was the refusal of their British “friends” to allow the Free Polish Army to march in the victory parade at the end of the war, for fear of offending the Jewish-Bolshevik puppet government in Lublin.

During World War II, Poland suffered through one of the worst Soviet occupations in history, as well as civil war, Polish Nationalists fighting for sovereignty, Communist Partisans fighting against the Nationalists and the Germans, the Ghetto wars mixed with both, the NKVD liquidating ethnic Polish leaders by the thousands and many elements trying to reclaim the stolen German land again. After the war it had to suffer 45 years as a colony of the Communist Soviet Union as a result of the agreement signed by its friends, Britain and also America.


Great Britain and Poland

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain stated in the House of Commons on March 31, 1939.

“As the House is aware, certain consultations are now proceeding with other Governments. In order to make perfectly clear the position of His Majesty’s Government in the meantime before those consultations are concluded, I now have to inform the House that during that period, in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty’s Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power.  They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect. I may add that the French Government have authorized me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter as do His Majesty’s Government.”

Having seemingly secured a guarantee, the Poles now took steps toward coordinating their defensive preparations with the British. On April 4, 1939, Poland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Józef Beck, visited London for talks with Prime Minister Chamberlain and Lord Halifax, the Foreign Secretary. The content of these talks was described in an official communiqué sent from London to Warsaw on April 6th:

“The conversations with M. Beck have covered a wide field and shown that the two Governments are in complete agreement upon certain general principles.  It was agreed that the two countries were prepared to enter into an agreement of a permanent and reciprocal character to replace the present temporary and unilateral assurance given by His Majesty’s Government to the Polish Government. Pending the completion of the permanent agreement, M. Beck gave His Majesty’s Government an assurance that the Polish Government would consider themselves under an obligation to render assistance to His Majesty’s Government under the same conditions as those contained in the temporary assurance already given by His Majesty’s Government to Poland.”

Shortly thereafter, a formal agreement between Poland and Britain was signed which clearly stated “If Germany attacks Poland His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom will at once come to the help of Poland.” This guarantee was also extended to Greece and Romania on April 13, 1939.


“In April, 1939 (four months before the outbreak of war), Ambassador William C, Bullitt, whom I had known for twenty years, called me to the American Embassy in Paris. The American Ambassador told me that war had been decided upon. He did not say, nor did I ask, by whom. He let me infer it… When I said that in the end Germany would be driven into the arms of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, the Ambassador replied: “What of it? There will not be enough Germans left when the war is over worth Bolshevising.”

Karl Von Wiegand, April 23rd, 1944, Chicago Herald American.

France and Poland

Whereas Britain’s supposed support of Poland was a relatively recent diplomatic development, Poland’s alliance with the French had a longer history. The first French efforts to buttress Poland against Germany went back to 1921, after dissecting German territory to Poland from the Versailles annexation in 1919. In that year, Raymond Poincaré, soon to become president of the French Republic, had stated “Everything orders us to support Poland: The [Versailles] Treaty, the plebiscite, loyalty, the present and the future interest of France, and the permanence of peace.” (See: Versailles: The Peace to End All Peace – Pt 4)

Eighteen years later and after Germany was rising from the depths of economic, geographic and the political oppression of Versailles – along with the worst hyperinflation ever imposed on a nation – the political agitators felt the time was ripe to begin putting their strategies in place. France apparently decided to build upon the vague defensive alliance it had formed with Poland in the wake of World War I. In mid-May of 1939, Poland’s Minister of War, General Tadeusz Kasprzycki, visited Paris for a series of talks. At issue for Kasprzycki, was clarifying the terms under which France would actually assist Poland militarily. These talks resulted in the Franco-Polish Military Convention which, according to historian Richard Watt, stated that “on the outbreak of war between Germany and Poland, the French would immediately undertake action against Germany, which would involve a major military offensive of the full French army to take place no later than fifteen days after mobilization.” However, as we have already ascertained above, this was never ratified before the French mobilisation, or the September 4 Declaration of War.

Polish historian Paweł Wieczorkiewicz interpreted that: “Polish leaders were not aware of the fact that England and France were not ready for war. They needed time to catch up with the Third Reich, and were determined to gain the time at any price.”
Publicist Stanisław Mackiewicz stated in the late 1940s: “To accept London’s guarantees was one of the most tragic dates in the history of Poland. It was a mental aberration and madness”.
On the same day when Britain pledged her support of Poland, Lord Halifax stated: “We do not think this guarantee will be binding.”
Another British diplomat, Alexander Cadogan wrote in his diary: “Naturally, our guarantee does not give any help to Poland. It can be said that it was cruel to Poland, even cynical.”

Polish-British military negotiations carried out in London, ended up in a fiasco. After lengthy talks, the British reluctantly pledged to bomb German military installations if the Germans carried out the same in Poland. Polish military leaders failed to obtain any more promises. At the same time, the Polish side tried again to negotiatie a military loan. Polish ambassador to Britain, Edward Raczyński, called these negotiations “a never-ending nightmare.”
Józef Beck in his memoirs wrote: “The negotiations, carried out in London by Colonel Adam Koc, immediately turned into theoretical discussion about our financial system. It was clear that Sir John Simon and Frederick Leith-Ross did not realize the gravity of the situation. They negotiated in purely financial terms, without consideration for the rules of the wartime alliance. As a result, the English offer gave us no grounds for quick reinforcement of our army.”

Finally, on August 2, 1939, almost 5 months after the initial assurances, Britain eventually agreed to grant Poland a military loan of £9 million, which was less than Turkey received at the same time. Poland had asked for a loan of £60 million back in May, when there was still a timely manner for preparations.


Polish Expectations, British and French Promises

Understandably, throughout the spring and summer of 1939, officials in Warsaw drew much gusto from the numerous assurances made by France and Great Britain, that Poland would not stand alone against Germany. For its part, the Polish military was under no illusion that it could not defend against a German assault for any more than a few weeks.  Although Poland could field one of the largest armies on the European continent, its troops were only lightly armed in comparison to their German counterparts. In terms of modern weaponry, Poland was also severely lacking in armored vehicles and tanks, and its air force was hopelessly outmatched by the German Luftwaffe.
Strategically speaking, Polish Generals envisioned fighting the Germans at the frontier and then slowly retreating toward the south-eastern corner of the country, where an escape route into neighboring Rumania existed. The Poles thus fully expected the Germans to advance deeply into their country, but the western region of historically German land inhabited by German people, was the only interest to Germany initially. The sole hope of the Polish forces was that they could hold on long enough for French troops and British air power to attack Germany, along with a western border offensive to draw off enough German divisions, to allow a Polish counterattack. After all, France had promised in May to launch an all-out major offensive within two weeks of any German military activity.

french-liesUltimately, the half-hearted Saar Offensive by the French, which mobilised on August 26 and invaded September 7, was halted after France occupied the Warndt Forest, 7.8 km2 of extensively-mined German territory. The French army failed to reach the Siegfried line.
The attack did not result in any diversion of German troops. The assured 40-division all-out assault never materialised. By the 12th of September, the Anglo French Supreme War Council gathered for the first time at Abbeville, in France. It was decided that all offensive actions were to be halted immediately! General Maurice Gamelin ordered his troops to stop “not closer than 1 kilometre” from the German positions along the Siegfried Line and of course, Poland was not notified of this decision. Instead, Gamelin informed the Polish Marshal Edward Rydz-Śmigły, that half of his divisions were engaging the German western divisions, and that the French advances had forced the Wehrmacht to withdraw at least six divisions from Poland… this was not true.

The following day, the commander of the French Military Mission to Poland, General Louis Faury, informed the Polish chief of staff, General Wacław Stachiewicz, that the planned major offensive on the western front had to be postponed from September 17 to 20. No clear reason was given at the time for this postponement, but it was, coincidently, the very same day the the Bolshevik Red Army invaded Poland from the east.

Expectations of swift Allied action were also repeatedly reinforced by the British. For example, during Anglo-Polish General Staff talks held in Warsaw at the end of May, the Poles stressed the need for British aerial assaults on Germany should Poland provoke war. The British responded with assurances that the Royal Air Force would attack industrial, civilian and military targets. General Sir Edmund Ironside then repeated this promise during an official visit to Warsaw in July. The Poles were reassured that Britain would carry out bombing raids on Germany once hostilities began.

The Reality: English and French Duplicity

At the same time that Allied politicians and military officers were promising to help Poland fight a war against Germany, events going on behind the scenes revealed that the British and French seriously doubted their ability to effectively aid the Poles and moreso, their intended reluctance of acting on their lip-service. Take for example discussions held by the British and French Chiefs of Staff between March 31 and April 4, 1939. A report issued at the conclusion of these talks entitled ‘The Military Implications of an Anglo-French Guarantee of Poland and Rumania’ stated:

“If Germany undertook a major offensive in the East there is little doubt that she could occupy Rumania, Polish Silesia and the Polish Corridor. If she were to continue the offensive against Poland, it would only be a matter of time before Poland was eliminated from the war. Though lack of adequate communications and difficult country would reduce the chances of an early decision. … No spectacular success against the Siegfried Line can be anticipated, but having regard to the internal situation in Germany, the dispersal of her effort and the strain of her rearmament programme, we should be able to reduce the period of Germany’s resistance and we could regard the ultimate issue with confidence.”

In short, while the Western Allies as a collective, planned on the eventual destruction of Germany and admit Germany would be fighting in ‘Resistance’ against the Allies in the west (aka – Defense), they also believed that Germany would crush Poland before turning her forces to the Allies western assault… in other words, they wanted a public excuse for a prolonged international war and, Poland would be the bait to produce it and to weaken the German defenses.

This situation of intended reluctance did not change substantially in the months leading up with the increasing provocations for hostilities, despite considerable information that western intelligence received concerning German military activity. Robert Coulondre, the French ambassador to Germany, sent a telegram to Paris regarding German troop movements. For example, on July 13, 1939, Coulondre wrote Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister, that “This Embassy has recently reported to the Ministry numerous signs of abnormal activity in the German army and of Germany’s obvious preparations for the possibility of an impending war.”

Given what we now know about the months leading up to World War II, one cannot help but agree with the conclusion of Polish scholar, Anita Prazmowska:

“After granting the guarantee to defend Poland, the British (one might add the French — WFF) failed to develop a concept of an eastern front. The result was that the guarantee to Poland remained a political bluff devoid of any strategic consequence.”


By August 1939, with the attacks on the German minority in the stolen territory increasing, along with German refugees flooding out of Poland across the border and the Allies knowing all too well, that Hitler had exhausted almost all diplomatic avenues to resolve the issue (even though he was still attempting to negotiate in these final days, while Poland mobilised), as they had purposely ignored all his previous sincere attempts to resolve it peacefully; Allied preparations for war remained minimal at best. Britain, in particular, appeared to be paralysed by an inability to prepare for anything. Not surprisingly, the British had developed no coherent plan for offensive operations in the west, either in the air or on the ground. Add to that, they also refused requests from Paris to devote any air power to support the allegedly anticipated French all-out offensive into Germany’s west. And as far as aerial attacks on Germany were concerned, British military planners had actually retreated from their earlier promise to the Poles. By the end of August, thus on the very eve of Polish mobilisation and Germany crossing the border, the Chiefs of Staff in London had decided not to attack a wide array of targets in Germany. Rather they would limit aerial bombardment to “military installations and units which were clearly that, to the exclusion of industrial stores and military industrial capacity.” Of course, the Poles were not informed of this alteration in Britain’s approach to strategic bombing either.

Still, the Western Allies continued to put on the charade of their diplomatic efforts. Considering the relative lack of military preparations, these efforts were nothing but farcical. For example, on August 15, Robert Coulondre cabled Paris concerning a meeting he’d had with Ernst von Weizsäcker, the State Secretary in the Foreign Ministry in Berlin.  During this one-hour conversation Coulondre told von Weizsäcker, “if any of the three Allies, France, England, and Poland, were attacked, the other two would automatically be at her side.” Furthermore, Coulondre then told Paris, “To guard as far as possible against this danger which appears to me formidable and imminent, I consider it essential:

(1) To maintain absolute firmness, an entire and unbroken unity of front, as any weakening, or even any semblance of yielding will open the way to war; and to insist every time the opportunity occurs on the automatic operation of military assistance.

(2) To maintain the military forces of the Allies, and in particular our own, on an equality with those of Germany, which are being continuously increased. It is essential that we should at the very least retain the previously existing ratio between our forces and those of the Reich, that we should not give the erroneous impression that we are ‘giving ground’.”

Again, Coulondre’s call for proper military preparations by France were in vain. Historian Anna Cienciala writes that General Maurice Gamelin, the commander of the French army, “had no intention to implement the French commitments made in the Military Convention [signed in May 1939].”
Even though Anna is correct in her analysis, Gamelin, instead, actually took steps to ensure that the Poles would in fact proceed to fight Germany, while not further committing French troops to action. In late August, Gamelin sent General Louis Faury to Warsaw as the head of the French Military Mission there. Prior to departing, Faury “was told that no date could be given [to the Poles] for a French offensive, that the French Army was in no state to attack, and that Poland would have to hold out as best she could.  His mission was to see that the Poles would fight.” … as General Ironside had commented in July, “the French have lied to the Poles in saying they are going to attack. There is no idea of it.”

The British too, had no thought of attacking Germany, although they would continue the political charade that they would. The Royal Air Force (RAF) would not be deployed against German units in support of a French offensive and aerial bombardment in Germany would be limited only to clearly marked military installations (an unworkable proposition, both then and now, even with advanced technology). Yet London continued to issue its own false assurances to Warsaw by signing a formal Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland, on August 25, 1939, that committed Britain to, ‘Declare War on Germany’ should she invade Poland… coincidentally again, the very same day, the ‘Kings Speech’ was drafted to declare war, supposedly spoken in light of a German surprise invasion (which had not occurred at that time the speech was drafted)… A Declaration, which of course is just a formal verbal activity, not physical military activity.
Still, even if any of the promises and assurances by France or Britain were followed through with, none of them were to help the Poles in Poland!

Finally, in the latter days of August, London and Paris advised Warsaw to only partially mobilise her armed forces, as it was suggested that a lesser force would provoke the Germans less? Reportedly, the Polish Officials did as they were asked in regard to the military mobilisation, however the apparently less provocative Guerilla attacks on the German minority not only continued, but increased! Consequently, when the German advancement came, this made it much easier for the Wehrmacht to split Polish defenses and drive deep behind Polish lines.


From the evidence presented here, it is clear that neither France, nor Great Britain, had the slightest intention of actually coming to the assistance of their Polish war-bait puppet… and worse still, were encouraging Poland to not only provoke Germany, but to fight alone against an army it had no chance of defeating – some might explain it as, being thrown under the bus. Thus, by September 1, 1939, all the political and propaganda pieces were in place for the beginning of a general European war. It would be a war for which Great Britain and France were egregiously unprepared for, but knew in the future their powerful network within the Soviet Union and United States, would utilise their forces to bring the melee to its apex, both militarily and financially.

However, France and Great Britain did indeed honor one of their signatures and both ‘Declared War on Germany’ September 3, 1939. Nevertheless, this of course proved to be a hollow declaration that provided absolutely no help to Poland. It was only to serve as an international psychological precursor, to evoke the nations from around the world to send millions of their sons to unknown graves in Europe, so the continent could be handed to Communism on a red platter, soaked in blood.

What transpired is by now well known. The RAF did not even attempt to bomb German military installations because, as the Air Staff concluded on September 20:

“Since the immutable aim of the Allies is the ultimate defeat of Germany, without which the fate of Poland is permanently sealed, it would obviously be militarily unsound and to the disadvantage of all, including Poland, to undertake at any given moment operations … unlikely to achieve effective results, merely for the sake of maintaining a gesture.”

The Chiefs of Staff agreed, informing 10 Downing Street that “nothing we can do in the air in the Western Theatre would have any effect of relieving pressure on Poland.” And so the RAF decided instead to drop propaganda leaflets, to stir up excitement for a world war.

If Hitler and the coined ‘German War Machine’ were in fact on a quest for World Domination – as peddled by the fear provoking propaganda disseminated in these early days, or even as early as March and April 1939, as the many Officials discussed and alluded to the public – then the opportunity to prepare for and, to fight a brief, localised war against the German Army, to defeat it before its rearmament expanded any further, was therefore lost in September 1939… and the world has since been led to believe that the international network of Allied Military Strategists, as a collective, had not even discussed or contemplated this approach and simply overlooked the opportunity, especially when the interests of world security and peace was supposedly at stake?
By the same token, if the German World Domination agenda were true, they would have taken out France and Great Britain before giving them time for armament expansion during the Phoney War period, instead of later defensive actions against the Allies, ultimately signing an Armistace with France and giving the entire British Army safe travel home from Dunkirk.
Of course, what was actually lost, was millions of lives, which the noble Officials had poetically seduced the ears and hearts of the worlds peoples, as the very oxymoronic reason a world war must be fought for in the first place… Instead, what became was the intentional conditions to enable a communist take-over of Europe, which led to decades of Soviet occupation and the Cold War – hostile to the west – with the help OF the west.

As many Officials seemingly believed the German World Domination narrative, General Ironside commented in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins, “Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute he invaded Poland. … We did not … And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves.”


“Berlin gave me the blues. We have destroyed what could have been a good race and we are about to replace them with Mongolian savages. And all of Europe will be Communist. It’s said that for the first week after they took it (Berlin), all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it (instead of the Red Army) had I been allowed.”

∼ General George Patton, July 21, 1945, The Patton Papers (a letter to his wife)

A brief and abrupt assault on a military threat before they build up arms, would be the strategy of any genuine Military tactic, in order to defeat a genuine threat… as any trained and experienced Military Commander would know. General George Patton was one such experienced Veteran, who sought to do just that in 1945 while the U.S. military was still unchallengeable. He ultimately saw the truth to the reasons for the war, what was unfolding in Europe and especially Berlin… that the Communists were taking over and he sought the permission to take Berlin and the Red army while there was still the chance – the permission never came. Instead, he was ordered to hold the U.S. Army back and wait to allow the ‘Gallant Red Army’ to occupy German, Czech, Rumanian, Hungarian and Yugoslavian territories.

“I understand the situation. Their (the Red Army) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in any serious action such as I can put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof – that’s their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let’s not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then… we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!”
∼ General George Patton, May 7, 1945.


The reasons for the various parties involvement in military hostilities, are wide and varied pertaining to their individual locations, pressures, impositions and manipulations. But when viewing any military action, Defense can look a lot like Attack, depending on who’s telling the story.
For Germany’s part, World Domination would have to be the most inane ‘Hollywood’ of excuses to incite people to travel to other lands to kill strangers. Germany fought in defense of heritage, home and its people. Initially for those Germans being terrorised in stolen land and ultimately in defense of all Europe, against the Conquering Communists who slaughtered millions of Europeans in the most callous and sadistic ways.

Finally, knowing that the powerful financiers of International-Jewry had their political network so stringently placed in Washington, London, Moscow and Paris, being the predominant ‘Advisors’ and ‘Think Tanks’ for the representatives of political decisions… why would they not ‘Advise’ against the total annihilation of the one nation state (besides Jewish-Bolshevik Russia) who had the largest Jewish population in Europe? Unless of course the suffering and persecution served an ulterior purpose? The answer to this can be found here

In the commentary on the Anglo-Polish Alliance, Polish publicist Stanisław Mackiewicz wrote in his 1964 book, Polityka Becka:

“England does not need the existence of Poland, it has never needed it. Sometimes the British push us to fight against Russia, sometimes against Germany, as happened in 1939, when they managed to keep Hitler away from them for some time. After their so-called guarantees of March 1939, England was not interested in our army, it did not help us financially in our war preparations, and did not have the slightest intention to aid us during Hitler’s invasion of Poland (…) The guarantee of Poland’s independence, provided by England, was not a guarantee at all. On the contrary, it was a speculation, whose purpose was the fastest possible liquidation of the Polish state. England wanted Poland to fight Germany first, and to lose that war as quickly as possible, so that Germany would finally face Russia.”


Let us give Adolf Hitler the final say

Excerpt from his July 19, 1940 speech in the Reichstag:

“…Men of letters set out to portray decent men who desired peace as weaklings and traitors, to denounce opposition parties as a “fifth column,” in order to eliminate internal resistance to their criminal policy of war. Jews and Freemasons, armament industrialists and war profiteers, international traders and stockjobbers, found political blackguards: desperados and glory seekers who represented war as something to be yearned for and hence wished for.

It is to be ascribed to these criminal elements, that the Polish State was incited to assume a posture which stood in no relation to the German demands and even less to the consequences that resulted.

The German Reich, in particular with regard to Poland, has shown restraint ever since the National Socialist rise to power. One of the basest and stupidest provisions of the Versailles Diktat, namely the tearing away of an old German province from the Reich, already cried for a revision in and of itself.

But what was it that I demanded at the time? I must in this context refer to my own person. No other statesman could have afforded to propose a solution to the German nation in the way I did. It comprised merely the return of Danzig – that is to say of an ancient, purely German city  -to the Reich as well as the creation of a connection of the Reich to its severed province. And this only pursuant to plebiscites conducted, in turn, under the auspices of an international forum. If Mr. Churchill or any other warmongers had but a fraction of the sense of responsibility I felt toward Europe, they could not have played so perfidious a game. For it need be ascribed solely to these vested interests in war, both within Europe and beyond, that Poland rejected the proposals, which neither compromised its existence nor its honor, and instead resorted to terror and arms. And it was truly superhuman restraint, without precedent, which for months led us, in spite of persistent assassination attempts on ethnic Germans – yes, indeed, in spite of the slaughter of tens of thousands of German Volksgenossen, to continue to search for a path toward peaceful understanding. For what was the situation like? One of the creations of the Diktat of Versailles, the most divorced from reality, a bogy, inflated militarily and politically, insulted a state for many months, threatening to beat it, to fight battles before Berlin, to smash the German Army to pieces, to transfer the border to the Oder or the Elbe; it went on and on. And this other state, Germany, watches the goingson patiently for months, although one sweeping gesture would have sufficed to wipe this bubble – inflated by stupidity and arrogance – off the face of the earth.

[Again] On September 2, this struggle could yet have been avoided. Mussolini made a proposal to put an immediate end to the hostilities and to negotiate peacefully. Though Germany saw its armies advancing victoriously, I accepted this nonetheless. But the Anglo-French warmongers needed war, not peace.

And they needed a long war, as Mr. Chamberlain put the matter at the time. It was to last for at least three years, since they had in the meantime invested their capital in the armament industry, bought the necessary machinery, and now needed the precondition of time for the thriving of their business and for the amortization of their investments. And besides: what are Poles, Czechs, or other such nationalities to these citizens of the world?….”

Full speech here

N. Jones is a Writer, Researcher, Historian and Literary Critic.

After 20 Years of Versailles and Economic Oppression – Who Really Wanted an International War?

WARNING! The following contains graphic imagery – parental discretion advised

Hitler attempts to resolve the unrest within Danzig and the stolen ‘Polish Corridor

The 1939 August 28 headline of the New York Times, confirmed that Hitler sought to avoid war, it read; “BERLIN THINKS DOOR IS LEFT OPEN TO PEACEFUL SOLUTION”
Hitler’s supposed ludicrous suggestion to resolve the issue, was to hold a Referendum, for the people to decide their own status.

Berlin seeks peace

Danzig was formerly part of Germany before the so-called ‘Peace Treaty’ of Versailles annexed it to Polands’ ownership as a purported ‘Free City’ under the League of Nations.
Along with its surrounding German area of East Prussia, Danzig was also isolated from the German mainland by the harsh post-World War I Treaty. The new territory that now belonged to Poland, cut right through the Prussian/Pomeranian region of Germany, to the Baltic Sea. Over night, through no choice of their own, millions of Germans were converted to a disarmed ethnic minority in the new-Poland, at the behest of several political ‘Diplomats’ in an obscure Train-Car far away in France.

Danzig Polish Corridor

Hitler proposes that the people living in Danzig and the “Corridor” be permitted to vote in a referendum to decide whether they would return to being German citizens again, or remain a disarmed German minority forced to be part of Poland, where they had been continually attacked since the 1919 ‘Peace Treaty’ – that is, those who had not been expelled from their homes that same year.
Hitler proposed, that if the region was returned to German sovereignty, Poland would be given a 1 mile wide access path to the Baltic Sea, so that it would not be landlocked.

Referendum for Danzig

Poland apparently considered Hitler’s solution, however, with the ongoing political manipulations, Poland is urged by Franklin.D Roosevelt to not make any deals with Germany. Germans stranded in the stolen ‘corridor’ and the “free city” of Danzig were abused and denied their right of self-determination. There, they were continually being subjected to beatings, imprisonment (for as little as speaking German) and bestial attacks by Jewish Partisans, Polish Officers and Bolshevik NKVD Operatives.

August 23, 1939, one full week before Germany crosses the border, German refugees from the annexed German territory of new-Poland, tell of their personal experiences after escaping to safety in the camps on the German side of the border. It was reported in this German weekly news-reel (original in German with English subtitles).

When it became apparent to Hitler that Poland would not permit a referendum for the people, he then proposes another solution… International control of the former German regions.
This sensible offer was also ignored and the internationalists continued to use foolish Poland as the provocative bait to ignite an international bloodbath, now known as World War II… or what the profiteers like to call, “The Good War.”

August 25, 1939, Britain and Poland agree to a Military Alliance

The ‘Polish-British Common Defense Pact’ contained promises of military assistance in the event that either country was attacked by any other “European Country.” This built upon a previous agreement (March 1939) between the two countries and also France, by specifically committing to military assistance in the event of an invasion… although the French commitment was never ratified prior to the regional conflict, only AFTER ‘France Declared War on Germany’ (a retroactive enactment), making France the aggressor state when it invaded Germany. (see here)

With this agreement in place, the powerful Zionist-Internationalist forces within the UK, had now trapped the reluctant Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, as well as the willing (and illegal) France and Poland into military action, or at least international ‘Declarations of War’. All that was left to do was for Polish-Jewish border Guerilla’s to continue deliberately provoking Germany into action to get the ball rolling… However, assisting Poland was never their intention. (see here)

Also on that same day, August 25 1939, a draft is written for a reactionary ‘Declaration of War’ for HRH King George VI to address the world.

On the 3rd of September 1939, King George VI read the famous ‘Kings Speech’ addressing the British nation and the world. The speech that began with, “In this grave hour, perhaps the most fateful in our history …” was to inform the world that Germany had allegedly invaded a sovereign nation, that the world was at war due to this military attack and the Allies of the world should unite steadfastly against this purportedly – Surprise Aggression – of a common enemy to all peaceful peoples… However, the draft of this speech is dated the 25th of August, 1939 – a week before Germany entered the Corridor to liberate the German people and 9 days before the King delivered the speech. This indicates that Britain had plans to ‘Declare War on Germany’ before the Wehrmacht entered new-Poland to liberate the German people… thus, Britain’s ‘Declaration’ was not a reactionary response to a surprise invasion. Further, the typed document, which was actually the second draft of the speech, was retained by civil servant Harold Vale Rhodes, who had previously written a first attempt (date unknown). In a penciled note in the left-hand margin, Mr Rhodes criticised the length of some of the sentences in the second draft and hinted that his should be used.
It would appear his advice was followed – the final speech read to the nation by the King on September 3 contained shorter, more concise sentences.
The early draft accused Germany of being a bully who wanted to dominate the world by brute force and stressed that, we are fighting for the principles of freedom and justice“Brute Force of a Bully” – if it could be considered such – had not even occurred at the time the speech was drafted.

First Page

HRH King George VI delivers the final draft of the speech


One of the tens of  thousands of Ethnic German victims of Jewish Partisan attacks
The “Brute Force of Bullies” the Empire turned a blind eye to.

August 30, 1939 – Poland Mobilises

Poland mobilises her army strategically for the German frontier. According to International Law, any mobilisation of a country’s army, is equal to a ‘Declaration of War’ on a neighboring country especially without consultation. The Official Declaration came midnight that same date. [See: the German White Book]

August 31, 1939. The Gleiwitz (and other) Border Attacks – Jewish-Polish Guerilla’s attack German Radio Station

Underestimating German strength, but naively believing that France and the UK would now be forced to back them, Polish-Jewish terrorists cross the border and attack a German radio station in Silesia, Germany. It was only the latest in a string of deliberate border instigations against Germany.

The “Poles” then broadcast a message (in Polish) urging others to take up arms and start attacking Germans. German police quickly arrived and retake the station, killing one of the Red terrorists. Jewish Red terrorists, their Polish government protectors and their Globalist-Zionist masters, have picked a fight with Germany!

Modern ‘Court Historians’ claim that the Gleiwitz incident was staged by Germans dressed as Polish terrorists. A theory that ignores the outrageous and repeated pattern of provocations directed at Hitler’s Germany ever since 1933, the numerous border incidents, the attacks on the Volksdeutsche since 1919 and also Hitler’s repeated sincere attempts to negotiate a fair resolution to the Corridor and Danzig atrocities.

Witnesses who lived on the border attested to the repeated attacks by Polish Jews since 1919

A German Customs Official said it was so bad on the border, they were armed and also had grenades in their office ready for the frequent attacks.
Farmers confirm their live-stock were often stolen by Polish terrorists.
Another told of his niece being raped by a Polish Jew who crossed the border. He said they had caught the man and still held a copy of the death order signed by Heydrich, in which he ordered the man put to death.

These are only a very small few of many, many stories told by German civilians, who witnessed these border incursions just like had happened between 1919-1928.
One thing many people fail to recognise is that Poland openly attacked Germany right after World War I (during Germany’s Civil War, between alien Communist elements and German Nationals), which led to multiple border battles.

Once Hitler started pressing Poland to work out a solution to the corridor, the attacks increased again… And one thing that should be clear, is that Germany did not fabricate these attacks.

Several quotes of related importance:

Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to.”
∼ Polish Marshal Rydz-Smigly, as reported in the Daily Mail, August 6th, 1939.

“It will be the Polish army that will invade Germany on the first day of war.”
∼ Juliusz Łukasiewicz, Polish Ambassador in Paris, August 15,1939.

On September 2nd 1939 a delegate of the Labour Party met with the British Foreign Minister Halifax in the lobby of Parliament.
Do you still have hope?” he asked. “If you mean hope for war,” answered Halifax, “then your hope will be fulfilled tomorrow.” – “God be thanked!” replied the representative of the British Labour Party.
(Professor Michael Freund)

In April, 1939, (four months before the outbreak of war) Ambassador William C. Bullitt, whom I had known for twenty years, called me to the American Embassy in Paris. The American Ambassador told me that war had been decided upon. He did not say, nor did I ask, by whom. He let me infer it. … When I said that in the end Germany would be driven into the arms of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, the Ambassador replied: “What of it? There will not be enough Germans left when the war is over to be worth Bolshevising.”
(Karl von Wiegand, April, 23rd, 1944, Chicago Herald American)

samuel-untermeyerI emphasized that the defeat of Germany and Japan and their elimination from world trade would give Britain a tremendous opportunity to swell her foreign commerce in both volume and profit.”
∼ Samuel Untermeyer, The Public Years, p.347.

Germany is too strong. We must destroy her.” ∼  Winston Churchill, Nov. 1936

The war was not just a matter of the elimination of Fascism in Germany, but rather of obtaining German sales markets.”
∼  Winston Churchill. March, 1946.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told US Ambassador to Britain, Joseph P. Kennedy (father of future US President John F. Kennedy), that “it was America and world Jews who had forced Britain into war against Hitler.”

I asked Joe Kennedy (US Ambassador in London) about his talks with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain in 1938. He said it had been Chamberlains belief in 1939 that Great Britain has nothing in its hands to fight and therefore wouldn’t dare to go to war against Hitler… Neither the French nor the English would have made Poland a motive for war if they hadn’t been continuously spurred on by Washington… America and the World-Jewry have driven England to war.”
~ US defence minister J. Forrestal 27.12.1945 in his diary (The Forrestal Diaries, New York, 1951, S. 121 ff)

When the National Socialists and their friends cry or whisper that this [the war] is brought about by Jews, they are perfectly right.
(The Jewish magazine ‘Sentinel of Chicago’, October 8, 1940)

chaim-weizmann“We are not denying and are not afraid to confess that this war is our war and that ‘it is waged’ for Jewry… Stronger than all fronts together is our front, that of Jewry. We are not only giving this war our financial support on which the entire war production is based, we are not only providing our full propaganda power which is the moral energy that keeps this war going. The guarantee of victory is predominantly based on weakening the enemy forces, on destroying them in their own country, within the resistance. And we are the Trojan horses in the enemy’s fortress.”

~ Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Jewish Congress, Head of the Jewish Agency and later, 1st President of Israel, in a Speech on December 3, 1942, in New York.

Britain was taking advantage of the situation to go to war against Germany because the Reich had become too strong and had upset the European balance.”
(Ralph F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics)

“The millions of Jews living in America, England, France, North Africa and South, not forgetting Palestine, have decided to carry on the war in Germany to the very end. It is to be a war of extermination.”
~ ‘The Jewish newspaper, ‘Central Blad Voor Israeliten’ in Nederlands (13 September 1939)


In no country has the historical blackout been more intense and effective than in Great Britain. Here it has been ingeniously christened The Iron Curtain of Discreet Silence. Virtually nothing has been written to reveal the truth about British responsibility for the Second World War and its disastrous results.”
∼Harry Elmer Barnes. American Historian

The last thing Hitler wanted was to produce another great war.” ∼ Sir. Basil Liddell Hart

“Hitler doesn’t want war but he will be forced to it, and in fact soon. England has the final say like in 1914.”
~ Zionist Emil Ludwig Cohn, “Annalen”
“Although Hitler may want to prevent this war, which can devour him, in the last moment, he will be forced to war anyway.”
~ Emil Ludwig Cohn (1938)


“In this hour I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense in Great Britain as much as elsewhere. I consider myself in a position to make this appeal, since I am not the vanquished, begging favors, but the victor speaking in the name of reason. I can see no reason why this war must go on. I am grieved to think of the sacrifices which it will claim. I would like to avert them

∼ Adolf Hitler, July, 1940 – ‘Last Appeal to Reason’

We entered the war of our own free will, without ourselves being directly assaulted.”
∼ Winston Churchill, Guild Hall Speech, July 1943.


I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the ‘Americans’ around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler’s pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realize that Hitler was right.”
– Attorney General, Sir. Hartley Shawcross, March,16th, 1984

(Who were the so-called ‘Americans’ around Roosevelt? See here)

Hitler has to make a choice

Knowing that with the ‘British-Polish Common Defense Pact’ (built upon a previous agreement with France) in place; and that no one in any of the international institutions sought to do anything about the atrocities continually committed against ethnic Germans in the Corridor and, he had exhausted all other diplomatic avenues, that any German mobilisation in the corridor, would be technically subject to aggression from Britain and France – although not necessary and definitely not legally where France was concerned.

The increasing attacks on Germans in new-Poland, saw large waves of refugees flocking across the border to escape. Trains were being loaded to full capacity day and night, while others loaded what they could onto carts and walked… however, the attacks continued –  some made it, some did not.
If Hitler mobilised the Wehrmacht (German Army), the attacks might increase, with the possibility of a British-French aggression as well… but if he did nothing, the attacks would continue until the potential toward ultimate extinction of the German minority within the Corridor, would result… The barbarous massacres had to be stopped!

His intended approach was to make the rescue of the German minority hard and brief, to have the problem over within the shortest time frame possible, in attempt to avoid any prolonged hostilities.

Hitler has taken all he could from Poland against the Volksdeutsche in the ‘Corridor’ and German Forces advance eastward

September 1st, the Polish Army, Red Terrorist Partisans and NKVD retreat from the German-New Poland border.

September 3rd, the attacks against Germans in Poland continue. Over national radio it was repeatedly announced, “Carry out order no. 55 – Carry out order no. 55” (in Polish).
In the town of Bromberg on one day alone, 5,500 German Men, Women and Children were hunted down the streets, in their homes and were shot, tortured, beaten, raped, women had their breasts cut off, men were castrated, eviscerated, crucified, bludgeoned, hacked, mutilated and those who could not flee, were scorched in their burning homes… or both.

September 3rd, the world press shrieks in horror over German aggression; and Britain together with France [officially] ‘Declare War on Germany’… the massacre of ethnic Germans was conveniently ignored.

We will not forget them – “Never Forget” – May they be at peace


Psalm 137:9
“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rocks”

Castrated Bromberg

The castration of uncircumcised men, was common practice
by Jewish Terrorists right across Europe, especially in
Jewish Bolshevik Russia and in their Gulag Death Camps



Three of the Jewish Partisan Terrorists, who were Sentenced for the Bestial Slaughter
against the innocent Danzig German Minority, within the stolen new-Polish Corridor

 Jewish Partisan neighbours were all over Europe, who did not take prisoners
or spare civilians. Many of these Jewish Bolshevik Militia’s were killed in battle
or summarily executed after capture, not because they were Jewish, but because
they were savage and murderous, non-uniformed, combatant, Red Guerilla Terrorists.
These summary executions were legal and warranted within the articles of the
Geneva Conventions’ Laws of War
which Germany was signatory to.

Hitler speaks of the atrocities committed against Germans in the annexed territory

September 17, 1939 – The Jewish Soviets invade Poland from the East… Allies and Western Media remain silent

With the Polish army being routed by the advancing Germans in the west, Stalin cleverly decides to break the Soviet-Polish Non Aggression Pact of 1932. Poland is stabbed in the back as Soviet forces pour in from the east. The advancing Red Bolsheviks, occupy the East, take prisoners and carry out massacres… the most famous being the Katyn Forest Massacre of an estimated 15,000 – 22,000 Polish officers, dignitaries and other intellectuals… blamed on Germans, of course.
Seven German men hung for this Jewish Bolshevik crime and another three were sentenced to twenty years in the Jewish Gulag death camp system, never to be seen again – yet another result of Nuremberg’s Show Trial of purported justice.

One of the mass graves of Ethnic Poles found in the
Katyn Forrest, committed by Jewish Bolshevik NKVD

Other than the pre-Versailles German areas which Germany would reclaim, the Jewish Soviets took all of Poland. In a shocking double-standard, the anti-German Jewish press, FDR, France & the UK remain, not surprisingly, silent about this brutal Soviet aggression against Poland, despite the military assistance Britain and France had assured Poland of, in the event of an invasion by a European Country.

Poland appeals to Britain for help, citing the Poland-British Defense Pact signed only a few weeks earlier! The Polish ambassador in London contacts the British Foreign Office pursuing clause 1(b) of the agreement, which concerned an “aggression by a European power” on Poland, stating it should apply to the Soviet invasion also. The UK Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, responds with hostility stating that it was “Britain’s decision whether to declare war on the Soviet Union!”

It was apparent that the Allies did not care about Poland or to honour any contractual agreement. They only used its foolish ultra-nationalist leader to instigate Hitler, so that they could have their war to destroy Germany and ultimately, all of Europe. The horror that Poland would suffer under Soviet occupation was apparently Poland’s problem, not Britain’s.

September 19, 1939, Germany has defeated Poland – Germany and Western Prussia are reunited with Germany again

Within a few weeks, the German-Polish Regional Conflict is already over. Hitler receives a hero’s welcome upon his arrival in liberated Danzig. Hitler addresses the Danzig crowd;

“No power on earth would have borne this condition as long as Germany. I do not know what England would have said about a similar peace solution (Versailles) at its expense or how America or France would have accepted it?
I attempted to find a tolerable solution – even for this problem. I submitted this attempt to the Polish rulers in the form of verbal proposals… You know these proposals. They were more than moderate. I do not know what mental condition the Polish Government was in when it refused these proposals.
As an answer, Poland gave the order for the first mobilization. Thereupon wild terror was initiated, and my request to the Polish Foreign Minister to visit me in Berlin once more to discuss these questions was refused. Instead of going to Berlin, he went to London.”

danzig-greets-hitlerHitler is greeted with open arms in liberated Danzig

October 1939 – May 1940… Hitler pleads for peace with France and Britain

The German-Polish ‘Regional Conflict’ had ended quickly, in fact, within less than 3 weeks, as Hitler had hoped. There was nothing to which the All-lies could do to help their Polish puppet. The conflict was over, the German minority within the Corridor were liberated from the atrocities and no further action was sought by Germany – except for the offer to repair the various damage done to the region during the conflict. The French actually invaded Germany on September 7th, advancing 8 km before stopping (apparently the Defence Pact to protect Poland could be achieved by invading Germany, when the Wehrmacht were in new-Poland?), while the Bolsheviks had positioned themselves in the east. The quiet period between the end of the German-Polish regional conflict until May 1940, was dubbed by a US Senator as…
“The Phony War.”

During this time, Hitler pleads for the Allies to withdraw their war declarations. Towards France he declares:

“I have always expressed to France my desire to bury forever our ancient enmity and bring together these two nations, both of which have such glorious pasts.”

To the British, Hitler says:

“I have devoted no less effort to the achievement of Anglo-German friendship. At no time and in no place have I ever acted contrary to British interests….Why should this war in the West be fought?”

Hitler’s pleas for peace are ignored as the Glorious Allies amass 600,000 troops in Northern France. Plans are openly discussed to advance eastward upon Germany, via Belgium and Holland, as well as establishing operations in Norway and Denmark, with or without their consent… their “Declarations of Neutrality” meant nothing to the war mongers.

The British response to Hitlers olive branch, was mockery and ignorance to any thought of peace… While Hitler dropped Leaflets, Churchill dropped bombs.


 With all of Poland’s bravado and threatening war cries to instigate hostilities for an international blood-bath, where did that leave Poland?
In the end … Poland, for whose liberty the West had supposedly gone to war for, ended up with none at all. On the contrary, she was destroyed, with her Polish leaders slaughtered and the entire nation handed over to Stalin, along with the whole of Eastern Europe, including a part of Germany.
Even so, there are some people in the West who continue to believe that the West won the Second World War. Stalin and Jewish Bolshevism became the absolute conquerors of a vast empire hostile to the West, which had been created with the help OF the West. For all that, Stalin especially, was able to preserve his reputation as naive and trusting in helping the Western actions, while Hitler went down in history as the ultimate aggressor…
Nothing could be further from the truth!

Ridz Smigly

Excerpt from Hitler’s Danzig speech:

“…I do not intend to speak about the injustices of Versailles. Perhaps the worst thing in the lives of the nations is not so much the injustice, but the senselessness, the folly, and the utter stupidity with which in those days a peace was imposed upon the world, that completely disregarded all historical, economic, national and political facts. Regulations were arrived at which actually force one to doubt whether the men who perpetrated them were really in their right mind. Devoid of all knowledge of the historical development of these districts, devoid even of all economic understanding, these people juggled about with Europe, tore States apart, divided up countries, suppressed and handed over nations, destroyed culture.

This land, too, was a victim of that madness and the Polish State itself a product of this folly. What Germany had to sacrifice for this Polish State the world probably does not know. One thing only I should like to declare here: The development of all the territories which were at that time incorporated into Poland is entirely due to German energy, German industry, and German creative work. They owe their cultural importance exclusively to the German nation.

At that time the pretext for rending more than a whole province from the Reich and for allocating it to this new Polish State was that it was a matter of racial necessity. Actually the plebiscite held at a later date showed in every case that nobody really had any desire to be incorporated in this Polish State. This same Poland which owes its existence to the supreme sacrifice of countless German regiments, expanded, without regard for reason or economic considerations, at the expense of territory in which Germans had settled centuries ago…”

Hitler’s full Speech at Danzig

Hate and murder toward Germans had been taught to Poles for centuries

Katyn Forest Massacre – a “Who done it?” Jews or Germans? from the US National Archives.

‘Polish Atrocities Against the German Minority in Poland’ Published by Order of the Foreign Office, Berlin 1940 – Based on Documented Evidence – 299 pg Report (Warning: Graphic)

Further reading from Justice4Germans


Source and abridgement from excerpts of The Bad War – by M. S. King

N. Jones is a Writer, Researcher, Historian and Literary Critic.

Versailles: The Peace to End All Peace – Pt 4


The Armistice of 11 November, 1918, made it impossible for the German Reich to start any battle (or rather defend itself) and was tantamount to an unconditional surrender. In terms of international law it was questionable, since it contained conditions of a political nature – the annulment of the Eastern Peace Treaties – and because it permitted the continuation of the British blockade until the so-called peace was finally concluded. Since a blockade constituted a ‘Combat Operation’, it should have been suspended as soon as the Armistice began. In addition, the Allies continued their stance of refusing peace talks with their enemies, even after 11 November.
They negotiated the peace treaty only among themselves. The main features were defined during a British-French-Italian pre-Conference that took place in London, in December 1918. They also decided to put Emperor Wilhelm II on trial.
President Wilson was purportedly unhappy with the result of the pre-Conference and told his delegation that he demanded a Just Peace. He threatened that if Lloyd George and Clemenceau were not to ease up on their demands, he would depart and conclude a separate peace with Germany. However, he did not follow through with this threat, apparently because he feared for the League of Nations that he endorsed.

Peace Conference

British Prime Minister David Lloyd George (1963 – 1945, left), French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau (1841 – 1929, centre) and American President Woodrow Wilson (1856 – 1924, right) on their way to the Versailles’Peace Conference’

During the Peace Conference, formally opened in Paris on 18 January, 1919, consultations on all important issues were conducted within the close circle made up of the leading politicians from the US, Great Britain, France, Italy, and initially, also Japan. There were numerous commissions, but due to a lack of time or more likely, reluctance, the politicians were not able to thoroughly deliberate upon their submissions. Due to Clemenceau’s hard line, talks were temporarily very controversial. Lloyd George realised that Clemenceau strove to attain excessive goals. In a comprehensive memorandum issued in late March, he urged that the conditions imposed on Germany be more moderate so that the Peace Treaty should not be a cause for embitterment.

Clemenceau rejected this memorandum outright and successfully insisted on his hard-line approach.



Hall of Mirrors – 1919 Signing of the ‘Peace Treaty’

When the German delegation arrived in Versailles on 29 April, the treaty was not yet concluded. So they were detained in hotels for the time being. On the morning of 7 May, only a few hours before the hand-over, it was finally ready in printed form; up to that moment, no-one had been able to read and evaluate it in its entirety. The German delegation considered it unacceptable and developed several counter-propositions by the end of May, but nearly all of them were rejected. The German government then recommended that the National Assembly in Weimar accept the treaty, which it did on 22 June, with the exception of Articles 227 – 231. These Articles were concerned about bringing the German Emperor to trial and convicting war criminals. Article 231 – better-known as the ‘War Guilt Clause’ – made Germany and its allies liable for all the loss and damage that had been caused by this war upon Europe.
The victorious powers did not accept this. Instead they gave an ultimatum to sign the treaty and the National Assembly complied. The formal signing took place on 28 June in the Hall or Mirrors of Versailles Castle, where King Wilhelm I of Prussia, had accepted the German Emperorship, on 18 January 1871.


For the two German delegates, this act was demeaning. The young British diplomat Harold Nicolson, found it abominable. On the day of the second vote in the National Assembly, on 23 June, Quartermaster General Groener said in the Supreme Army Command, that not to accept it would result in bringing on a war of total annihilation by France against Germany. In that case, the Allies would have restarted their advance – so Weimar knew from American sources – and separated Southern Germany from the North, given separate Peace Treaties to the southern states and also detached the Rhineland from Germany. Clemenceau wanted to form an independent state on the left banks of the Rhine which was to constitute an economic and military system together with Belgium, Luxemburg and France.

Protests in Danzig against the
Versailles Treaty

The Treaty of Versailles was very tough. Germany lost nearly one seventh of its territory and one tenth of its [60 million] population. Half the iron ore and one quarter of the coal production, as well as one seventh of agricultural production were taken from her. German colonies and all foreign possessions of the Reich were lost. Most of the commercial fleet had to be handed over and long-term economic discrimination accepted. The army and navy had to decrease their size quite considerably. The Rhineland was de-militarised, split in three zones and occupied by Allied forces for five to fifteen years. The Saarland was put under the mandate of the League of Nations. The coal mines went to France and Gdansk (Gdansk-Polish, Danzig-German) with its surrounding area was turned into a Free City of Poland with special rights. The independence of Austria, whose National Assembly had voted to accept the connection to the German Reich, was to be guaranteed in perpetuity. The amount of reparations was to be determined at a later time. The sum to be compiled would be very high, and paying it would take several decades, was without doubt. In the line of European Peace Treaties concluded since the 17th century, the Treaty of Versailles was nearly unique in that there was no negotiation with the conquered party. Only one Peace Treaty was ever comparable – the Treaty Napoleon imposed upon Prussia in Tilsit in 1807.

Protests in Breslau against the Treaty

Before the signing of the treaty, President Wilson said that if he were a German, he would not sign it. His foreign minister Lansing, considered the conditions imposed on Germany as unutterably hard and abasing, many of them impossible to comply with. His adviser, Mandell House wrote in his diary on 29 June, that the treaty was bad and should never have been concluded; its execution would bring no end of difficulties over Europe. And Delcassé, who had done a great deal for the onset of war and who, in 1914, wanted to shatter Bismarck’s achievements, voted against the treaty’s ratification in the French chamber. He told a journalist that one could not urge a nation of 60 million people to pay a toll to another for 44 years. This would be like forcing this nation to start a new war. As a matter of fact, regulating the issue of reparations had fatal consequences indeed. In early 1921, the total amount claimed from Germany was determined to be 226 billion gold Marks, a few months later, after Germany had protested, this was reduced to 132 billion. France used a small arear in the delivering of commodities that Germany had to come up with to occupy the Ruhr, Germany’s most important industrial district. In doing so, France hoped to be able to sever the Rhineland from Germany and to be able to moreover loosen the cohesion of the Reich.

Mass_demonstration_in_front_of_the_Reichstag_against_the_Treaty_of_VersaillesProtests in front of the Reichstag against the Versailles Treaty


Dortmund, Letzte Franzosen verlassen die StadtThe occupation of the Ruhr constituted a clear breach of the Treaty of Versailles. In Germany, it caused strong national emotions, but it also caused Great Britain to step out of the restraint it so far had shown towards France and get it to the negotiation table. Thus came about the Dawes plan in 1924, which set up an interim regulation regarding the reparations, a guarantee of the German-French border in 1925, and the admission of Germany into the League of Nations in 1926. The final fixing of the reparation burden was brought about by the Hague Conference in January 1930, whose main content had become known as early as mid- 1929.

Cologne 1933 – Protests against the
Versailles Treaty, continue

According to this so-called Young Plan, the Reich would have to pay a total of 116 billion Marks over 58 years, until 1988. The first annual rate amounted to 1.8 billion Marks, which constituted 26% of the national budget of the Reich in 1928, an extremely high amount. A petition initiated by the German National People’s Party, by “Stahlhelm, Bund der Frontsoldaten” [literally: “steel helmet, alliance of front-line soldiers”] and by the National Socialists, made a referendum possible. This was not successful, but the NSDAP unremittingly continued its fight against what it called the “tribute madness” receiving very widespread positive reactions. At the Reichstag election in May 1928, it had only been a splinter party getting a mere 2.6% of valid votes, but during the new elections in September 1930 it received 18.3% of the votes; it thus increased its result seven times. The party leadership attributed this acceptance by 6.5 million voters, to a very large part to their decisive stance against the Young Plan. With this successful election, the Party had laid a solid base for its further growth. That the party leader, Adolf Hitler, would finally be empowered to the position of Reich Chancellor, was also connected to the Treaty of Versailles.

young-hitlerIn order to be able to have access to the National Socialist storm troops, in the event of violent actions by Poland against the Eastern parts of Germany, which had been occurring against the German minority in the new-Poland since 1919, and thus, to be able to strengthen the all too weak Reichswehr, Reich President Hindenburg wanted to shift further to the right, and had Papen promise the NSDAP his agreement on new general elections, in return for tolerating the new government (yet another) he had just appointed. These elections in late July of 1932 brought in 37.4% of the votes for the NSDAP. Within only a few months, this resulted in the situation which saw Hitler become Reich Chancellor on 30 January 1933. Six years later, the issue of Danzig/Gdanzk and the so called ‘Polish Corridor’ which, pursuant to the Treaty of Versailles, separated East Prussia from the rest of Germany, constituted the starting point of the German-Polish regional conflict which was the Allies excuse to start the Second World War. Thus came true what Lloyd George had cautioned back in March 1919, namely that accommodating Poland too much and towing Clemenceau’s hard line, would sooner or later result in another war in Eastern Europe.

As mentioned in the introductory passage, Swiss citizen Ernst Sauerbeck, accused the Entente in 1919 of having unleashed the war without need, of without need having prolonged it, and of again without need having ended it by means of a calamitous “Peace.” This judgement proved to be correct. If, at the turn of the year 1917/18, the Allied forces had agreed on the German Peace Offer, or if they had accepted, like the German Reich, the mediation offer by Woodrow Wilson, the war would surely have been ended by a treaty that both sides would have been able to live with. And if in 1919, the statesmen of the two Anglo-Saxon powers had prevented that a Clemenceau peace was imposed upon Germany, Europe would also have been spared much harm… However, it seems, for the sake of the German people, their culture and geographical history that had been established for centuries, this is not what the Entente wanted.


<- Back – Part 3

Appreciation to Hans Fenske, Professor of Contemporary History, at Freiburg University (1977-2001) for all his scholarly compiled research.
Author of:
Der Anfang vom Ende des alten Europa (The Beginning of the End of Old Europe; The Allied Refusal of Peace Talks 1914-1919.)

N. Jones is  a Writer, Researcher, Historian and Literary Critic.

WWI: Early German Peace Proposals – Pt 2

Prolonging the War

h_h_asquith-4Right away, the war was ideologically charged by the Allies. During a tour of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Asquith (in Edinburgh, in September) called the war a crusade against the arrogance of a single power trying to dominate the development of Europe. In Dublin, he declared the need to prevent small nations being annihilated by an overbearing power and claimed that the war was about the final abolition of militarism as the ruling factor in the relationships between states. In London, on 9 November, he spoke on the necessary abolition of Prussian militarism, and his fellow party member Lloyd George wanted to see the German people liberated from the hell of the military caste. The speech from the throne of 11 November, held that England would continue for as long as it could dictate the peace. All this was accompanied by sharp anti-German propaganda in the media. This even went so far that Germany was frequently called “Barbaria.” The British government was later not to leave their position, briefly detailed below.

germanstateIn France too, there were demands to break up Prussian militarism. In October 1944, Foreign Minister Delcassé, told the Russian ambassador that the aim of France was to annihilate the German Reich and to weaken Prussia’s military and political power as much as possible. In a similar vein, in a September memorandum for the French government, Sazonov spoke about the destruction of German power and the German arrogance to be predominant in Europe.

mapOn 5 September, the three Entente nations contractually committed themselves not to agree on a separate peace and to talk about their war goals in public only after having consulted each other. Several treaties were entered into regarding these goals, even with countries like Italy, which only joined the Allies later in the course of the war. The plans were about weakening Germany, destroying the Danube Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire, the latter which had joined the war in the autumn of 1914, on the side of the Central Powers.

After the important initial successes of the German army in the West, it could not be excluded that there soon would have to be talks about peace with the opponents. That’s why Chancellor of the German Empire, Bethmann-Hollweg, who stayed in the headquarters at the time, had a catalogue of possible goals compiled – which he expressly declared provisional – which he sent to the state secretaries of the exterior and the interior for revision on 9 September. The proposals required France to commit itself to reparations for the duration of 15 to 20 years, to be calculated so that she would not be capable of spending much on armament, but without calling for territorial sacrifices, except for the Briey ore basin. Moreover, she should be closely linked to Germany by means of a trade agreement. A different section talked about a Central European economic association under German leadership. Bethmann-Hollweg could most identify with this, but this paper did not present a firm agenda. With the Marne battle, the German offensive came to a halt, static warfare began, and hopes for the war ending soon had to be given up.

In mid-November, the Prussian War Minister, General von Falkenhayn, who now led the operations in the West, told the Chancellor that it was impossible to reach a decent peace as long as Russia, France and England stuck together. So they would have to break Russia away from the Entente coalition. Their thinking was that France probably would give in once Russia made peace. Russia should have to pay sufficient war reparations, but remain territorially intact, apart from slight corrections along the border. France should also have to pay reparations, yet receive an honourable peace, since Germany and France would have to amicably coexist again after the war… Bethmann-Hollweg fully agreed with these considerations. If Russia could not be prised away from the opposing coalition, the war might take a disastrous turn for Germany. If this didn’t happen, the prospect of the war ending only because of a general mutual weariness, without any decisive defeat of one party or the other, became likely. Bethmann-Hollweg kept to this opinion thereafter. Now, his aim in war was Germany’s self-assertion. He wanted to get guarantees for its safety, but he explained this only in general terms. However, Belgium and Poland were not to become the ground for preparing military action against Germany, ever again.

Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg

Shortly after the conversation of von Falkenhayn and Bethmann-Hollweg, the Danish King Christian X. offered (via the Danish ship owner and state councillor Hans Niels Andersen and the German ship owner Albert Ballin, a friend of Emperor Wilhelm II) his services in mediating a peace in London and St. Petersburg. Bethmann-Hollweg wanted to delay an answer so as to be able to improve the military position in the East, but von Falkenhayn and the Emperor considered an understanding with Russia to be urgent and gave Andersen a positive answer. During his visit to Petrograd, as the Russian capital was now called, in 1915, Andersen was told by Nicholas II, that he would never leave his Allies in the lurch, and that he was decidedly against a separate peace. The British and French ambassadors, who had come to know about Andersen’s visit, also tried to influence Sazonov in this sense.

When, following Bethmann-Hollweg’s request, Andersen went to Petrograd again in June and in August, he got the same answer. In November of 1914, the Ministry of State also tried to enter into talks with Japan, which had declared war on the German Empire in August and had annexed the German leased territory Kiautschou in the Chinese province of Shantung. The state secretary Jagow, thought that England could not have any interest in further strengthening Japan. This would offer the German Empire the opportunity to get into closer contact with Japan, provided Germany would accept the loss of Kiautschou.

Then, Japan could mediate with Russia. But this contact effort failed completely. In December 1914, the Japanese ambassador in Stockholm, Uchida, made it known to his German colleague via Swedish intermediaries, that Japan was not interested in communicating with Germany. In this decision, he acted not on orders by his government, but of his own initiative… so these contacts were fruitless. When in early 1916, Uchida first met with the German ambassador in person, he had to declare that, according to the London agreement of September 1914, there would be no separate peace and that the German Empire would have to succumb to the peace conditions imposed by the Entente.

woodrow wilson

Bethmann-Hollweg publicly declared several times that the Reich would be ready to enter into talks provided the offers were appropriate. When talking to Col. Edward Mandel House, a confidant of President Wilson, he declared his sympathy for a step towards peace made by the U.S. As the year went on, there were three more statements in the same vein. In October, he came to an understanding with the Austrian-Hungarian Foreign Minister, Count Stephan Burián, towards a joint step towards peace. This should happen at a point in time when it could not be construed as a sign of weakness. This was the case after the conquest of Romania. On 12 December, the Central Powers submitted the proposal, via neutral countries, to soon enter into peace talks. They would submit proposals to form an appropriate foundation for an enduring peace. They stated this publicly, Bethmann- Hollweg for instance, in the German Reichstag. The Allies brusquely refused and declared that Germany and its Allies would have to atone for everything they had committed, as well as providing reparations and security collateral.

They even refused the mediation offer Wilson made on 16 December. They said that currently it was impossible to enter into a peace reflecting their ideas. They wanted the restitution of Belgium, Serbia and Montenegro, the handing back of Alsace-Lorraine to France, the cession of all regions with Polish settlements to Russia and the breaking up of the Danube Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire. Also, they did not want to allow the Central Powers to take part in peace negotiations on equal terms.

In late January 1917, Wilson again offered the German ambassador his services for reaching a reconciliation between the warring opponents and asked to be informed about the German conceptions. He was told that Germany wanted to win a frontier protecting Germany and Poland against Russia in the future (as the Central Powers had recently proclaimed the ‘Kingdom of Poland’), an agreement about colonial matters, certain corrections concerning the border to France; and an economic and financial compensation between the warring opponents.

karl 1 in 1913

Following the death of Emperor Franz Joseph in November 1916, his great-nephew Karl stepped up to the top of the Habsburg Empire. After the failed peace offer of December 1916, Karl I was looking for peace options on private routes. In the spring of 1917, his brother-in-law Prince Sixtus of Bourbon-Parma, a Belgian officer, conducted several talks in Switzerland, Paris and London, which, however, did not achieve any results.

Meanwhile, on the battlefields, in between the trenches, in ‘No Mans Land’ – Soldiers negotiated their own peace quite easily and successfully, among themselves… The Germans in this instance too, initiated the peace talks – all it took was a little singing to each other. However, the Allied soldiers were receptive to this initiative and called a Truce, with the only negotiation being; “We won’t fire if you won’t fire.” If only they knew that they actually held all the power and it was the ‘Chain of Command’ that was their biggest threat…
See here: A Christmas Truce – 1914

Appreciation to Hans Fenske, Professor of Contemporary History, at Freiburg University (1977-2001) for all his scholarly compiled research.
Author of:

Der Anfang vom Ende des alten Europa (The Beginning of the End of Old Europe; The Allied Refusal of Peace Talks 1914-1919.

     <- Back – Part 1                     Next – Part 3 – >

N. Jones is a Writer, Researcher, Historian and Literary Critic.

WWI: The War Germany Did Not Want… Blamed For Entirely – Part 1

WWI – A War Germany did not want


When handing over the peace treaty to the German delegation on 7 May 1919, French Prime Minister Clemenceau stated, very coarsely, that the most horrible war had been foisted on the Allies, and that now the time of reckoning had come. There would be no spoken negotiations, only remarks concerning the Treaty in its entirety would be accepted – if submitted in writing within two weeks. In his answer, German Foreign Minister, Brockdorff-Rantzau, rejected the accusation of exclusive responsibility and demanded that an impartial commission investigate the amount of guilt of all parties concerned.

The victorious Allied powers were not prepared to concede forming an impartial commission to look at the facts, but there were a number of neutral scholars who in their academic work, reached a view appropriate to the facts.
As early as 1914, the renowned American Professor of Law, John William Burgess, declared (after having studied the Blue Books presented by the warring parties), that the Entente held a far greater share of responsibility for the war than Germany and the Danube Monarchy (of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire). The Swiss scholar Ernst Sauerbeck, confirmed this view in 1919. According to his findings, the Entente had unleashed the war without need and turned it into what it became… the tomb of entire nations. He also accused the victorious powers of having, by means of the Versailles Peace Treaty, allowed the 1914-1918 war, to grow into the direst doom that has possibly ever threatened the world – that is, the War that began in 1939/1940 – better known as, World War Two.

In addition, experts from Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland, who in 1927, presented their expertise in a volume published by a Norwegian committee, investigating the issue of war guilt, assessed the share of guilt of the Central Powers as low. According to Hermann Aall, the committee’s secretary, Russia had provoked the war and Great Britain played a decisive role in its outbreak. Axel Drolsum, of the University of Oslo, stated that Germany in 1914, had been the only nation to have tried everything it could to keep the peace, but that it failed due to the will of the other powers to make war.

Moreover, we can make one reference to a voice from a victorious country. In 1924, the French journalist and former political diplomat, Alcide Ebray, recommended a thorough revision of the Treaty of Versailles. He claimed that the Czarist Regime held the decisive share of war guilt, while Germany acted in favour of a conciliatory position in Vienna and St. Petersburg, in 1914.


As it happened

balkans-map-copy2In Serbia, the ‘Radical Party’ of the appointed government, had been the decisive power since the ‘Bloody Officers’ Putsch’ back in 1903, more commonly called the ‘May Coup’ which saw the murder of the Royal Obrenovic couple, King Alexander I and his wife, Queen Draga – who was rumoured to be pregnant. The pair were dismembered, eviscerated and thrown out the window onto garden waste for public view. This saw the extinction of the ‘House of Obrenovic’ –  this coup d’etat, saw the Serbian throne gifted to the new ‘House of Karadordevic.’ The coup resulted and caused significant changes in Serbia’s relations with other European powers – the House of Obrenovic, was mostly allied with Austria-Hungary, while the new Karadordevic rulers had close ties with both Russian and French elements, receiving financial support from their powerful foreign sponsors.
The newly appointed radical government, ardently pursued a decidedly anti-Austrian foreign policy, which demanded that all Serbs be united within one state. The problem here was the fact that there were about as many Serbs living outside the country as there were within, particularly in the two provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Although they nominally still belonged to the Ottoman Empire, they had been under Austrian-Hungarian administration since the Congress of Vienna in 1878.
When the Habsburg Empire annexed them in 1908, following an arrangement with Russia, there was a severe international crisis. When this was settled in March 1909, Serbia had to sign a treaty pledging to again maintain good neighbourly relations with the Danube Monarchy. But this did nothing to change Belgrade’s keen antagonism towards Vienna.
Firstly, however, Serbian activities were directed towards the South. The war against the Ottoman Empire (Italo-Turkish War), started by Italy in 1911 to conquer Libya, triggered Serbian talks with Bulgaria about whether to join arms against the Turks. After entering into an alliance (the Balkan League), the two states started the campaign in the autumn of 1912. Together with Montenegro and Greece, they took away from the Ottoman Empire, nearly its entire possessions on the Balkan during the First Balkan War.

This took place with the full assent of Russia, which wanted to get the Bosporus and the Dardanelles under its control and therefore, had a strong interest in effecting changes on the Balkans. Serbia enlarged its territory considerably towards the south. In November 1912, shortly after the beginning of the war, the French ambassador in Belgrade reported to Paris, that Serbia was set on bringing down Austria at its first possible chance. King Peter I (of Serbia) asked the Russian ambassador whether to enact the downfall of the Habsburg Empire then, or whether to wait. The Russian ambassador relayed this question to St. Petersburg, from where in February 1913 came the answer, that Russia (which was enduring its own attempted coup’s and political agitations) was not yet ready for a war against the Austrian-Hungarian Empire (the largest European empire, second only to Russia). Serbia should content itself with the present increase in territory for now, so that it could later, once the time was ripe, lance the Austrian-Hungarian abscess. Later, more statements of this kind were issued from St. Petersburg: Serbia would find its ‘Promised Land’ in Austria-Hungary and should prepare itself for the inevitable battle.

In the summer of 1913, Serbia (together with Greece and Rumania) turned against Bulgaria in a struggle over the recently conquered land. Russia backed Serbia, which was clearly a satellite of Russia, both having the same political elements within, for the same purposes.

At the beginning of 1914, the leadership in St. Petersburg saw Russia far better prepared for a war than the previous year. During a council of war, a decision was taken to use the upcoming war for occupying Constantinople and the Straits. The Russian military gazette, expressly declared the Czarist Regime’s readiness for war and in late March, the head of the military academy declared in front of Officers, that a war with the Triple Alliance was inevitable and would probably break out in the summer. The Belgian Ambassador in St. Petersburg reported to Brussels at the beginning of June, that it was to be expected that Russia would soon put its war tools to use. At the same time, Foreign Minister Sazonov exerted pressure in London, to quickly conclude the Marine Convention where negotiations had been going on for some time. Soon after, he travelled to Rumania together with the Czar. There, he asked the Prime Minister how Rumania would react should Russia see itself compelled by the events to start hostile actions.

saz-3St. Petersburg was well aware that in the case of a big European conflict, Russia would be firmly backed by France and Great Britain, as a Russian-French alliance had been in effect since 1894. The British-French understanding (Entente Cordiale) about Egypt and Morocco of 1904, was amended from 1905, by firm military agreements made by the General Staffs, where the Belgian military was kept informed. During his visit to England in September 1912, Sazonov (left) was assured by the British Foreign Minister, Edward Grey, (Signatory to the Secret Sykes-Picot Agreement), that in the case of a German-French war, Great Britain would support France by sea and by land and, try to deliver as destructive a blow as possible to German predominance. For Grey, Germany’s strong economic growth presented a grave threat, thus its weakening was a definite necessity for him.

FranzFerdinandWhen the Serbian secret society ‘Unification or Death’ (later, the ‘Black Hand’) planned the murder of Austrian heir, Duke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg in 1914, the head of the Serbian intelligence service, Dragutin Dimitrijevic, leader of the Putsch of 1903 (which slaughtered King Alexander I and Queen Draga of Serbia), asked the Russian military attaché, whether this plan was convenient. St. Petersburg sent its consent, obviously being aware that the Danube monarchy would have no choice but to react harshly to the murder of their heir to the throne… being bait for war. Clearly, Russian political elements thought the moment had arrived to lance the Austrian-Hungarian abscess.

Ww1-military_alliances_1914The assassination on June 28 1914, took place in Sarajevo, Bosnia, the very south-eastern corner of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, bordering Serbia. The Royal couple were riding in an open top car, when another vehicle travelling in their entourage was hit by a grenade. Later that same day the couple were cornered and shot in the street.

Duke and Duchess Ferdinand riding in the open top car, the day of their assassination

In mid-June, German Reich Chancellor, Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, asked the German ambassador in London to talk with Edward Grey about securing European peace. If another crisis was to erupt in the Balkans, Russia might react more decisively than before due to its now comprehensive rearmament. Whether this would result in a European clash, would depend entirely on Great Britain and Germany. He understood that if both states were to act as guarantors of peace, then war might be prevented. If not, any arbitrary marginal difference might light the war torch between Russia and Austria-Hungary. Grey’s response to the ambassador was placatory, but of course he did not tell him the truth.

After the Sarajevo murder on 28 June, Austrian Foreign Minister, Leopold Berchtold and General Chief of Staff, Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, argued for an immediate strike against Serbia. The Hungarian Prime Minister prevented this. They agreed to demand of Serbia absolute clarification about the crime, but to hand over the respective note, only after the end of the impending French state visit to Russia. They were sure about German allegiance to Austria in case of complications, as a high-level public servant had been given this assurance when visiting Berlin on 5 and 6 July. The relevant German decision makers agreed that Russia would not intervene, so that the conflict could remain localised. That was a gross misjudgement.

During their stay in St. Petersburg on 20th through to the 23rd July, the French guests, President Poincaré and Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, René Viviani, repeated the assurance of absolute French solidarity in a war against Germany, which had been repeatedly given before. The British Ambassador, George Buchanan, had advised the guests to propose to Sazonov to, undertake “direct conversations” between Austria and Russia, as this was considered by Grey and others, to be the best possible solution. Poincare summarily vetoed the proposal, as he purportedly considered it “very dangerous” and the proposal was conveniently forgotten about – until later – as an intermediator, the German Ambassador, Friedrich Pourtales, arranged for the “direct conversations” between the two Empires.
Sazonov and Viviani agreed on 23 July, that everything must be done to counter the Austrian demand, as well as any request which might be construed as meddling with Serbian independence. During the July Crisis, the Austrian note to Serbia, called for an unequivocal condemnation of propaganda directed against the Danube Monarchy, and lodged claims as to how this should occur. It also asked for the participation of Austrian delegates in suppressing any subversive efforts directed against the Habsburg Empire, as well as in investigating the murder of the Duke and Duchess. An answer was expected within 48 hours – by the evening of 25 July.
On the same day of the 25th, German Ambassador Pourtales, meets Sazonov at the Railway Station at Krasnoe Selo and they both entered the train-car to St. Petersburg together. He advised of the benefit of “direct conversations” which led to a lengthy and useful interview between Austria-Hungary Ambssador to Russia, Frigyes Szapary and Sazonov, which was a result only due to the German Ambassadors’ initiative. July 27, Buchanan notes to Grey, “Sazonov does not wish reference to be made to the fact that it was at the suggestion of the German Ambassador that he proposed direct conversation with Austria.”

At first, the Serbian council of ministers showed a strong penchant to accommodate this request, and maybe it might have been even more pronounced, had Vienna made reference in its note, to the fact that after the murder of Serbian ruler, Prince Michael Obrenovic, in 1868, a Serbian prosecutor was permitted to conduct examinations in the Danube Monarchy. A call back to St. Petersburg was answered with the admonition to remain firm, which caused a change in opinion. Thus, Serbia mobilised its forces on the afternoon of 23 July and handed over a rather conciliatory and antagonistic answer three hours later – that the Austrian involvement in suppressing the subversive efforts and in investigating the murder of their Heir’ was denied. At once, the Danube Monarchy cancelled its diplomatic relations with Serbia. On the same day, Austrian Foreign Minister Berchthold, had it stated in St. Petersburg, that should a battle with Serbia be foisted on Austria, that it would not be about territorial gain, but about defence, and that Serbian sovereignty would not be touched.

nicky3-1914Czar Nicholas II, had already authorised informal mobilisation directly after the departure of the French guests on 24 July – these respective measures did not go unnoticed by German observers. The British navy was made ready for war on 26 July, and France called back all vacationers to their respective units. Under the terms of the Russian-French Alliance of 1894, joint assaults were obligated within 14 days of mobilisation and under International Law, mobilisation of a country’s forces, without consultation to neighbouring countries or those concerned, with or without formal Declaration, is classified as a ‘Declaration of War’. Formal Russian mobilisation against Austria-Hungary was ordered and declared on 29 July, 5 days after the informal mobilisation. The German Empire tried to mediate until the last minute. On 28 July, the day of the Austrian declaration of war against Serbia, Kaiser Wilhelm II, advised Vienna to stop in Belgrade, and even on 31 July, he urgently asked the Czar to avert the doom now facing the entire civilised world. Peace in Europe might still be kept if Russia stopped military actions threatening Germany and Austria-Hungary. Since Nicholas II did not cancel the mobilisation order, the German Empire informed Russia on the evening of 1 August, that it regarded the state of war to have occurred. After many unsuccessful attempts to receive recognition of a ‘Declaration of Neutrality’ from France, on 3 August, Germany also declared war on France.

1 Kaizers hands

This was intended as a defensive pre-emptive measure. France could not be left to choose the moment for attack, after all, German plans for a war on two fronts envisaged first turning west, it could not defend both east and west frontiers at the same time. The breach of Belgian neutrality by Germany, which at that point in time was only nominal, gave Grey the welcome opportunity and excuse to lead Great Britain into war, on 4 August. Up to that point, public opinion had predominantly been in favour of steering clear of the strife on the continent. During the crisis, Grey had been very insincere about his intentions towards German diplomats, misleading most of his cabinet colleagues, the House of Commons and the general public.


Appreciation to Hans Fenske, Professor of Contemporary History, at Freiburg University (1977-2001) for all his scholarly compiled research.
Author of:
Der Anfang vom Ende des alten Europa (The Beginning of the End of Old Europe; The Allied Refusal of Peace Talks 1914-1919.)


N. Jones is a Writer, Researcher, Historian and Literary Critic

Next – Part 2 ->