Der Stürmer

The official blog of the site "Der Stürmer" – http://der-stuermer.org

Category: Anti-Jewish Heroes

Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess – A Courageous Hero for Peace

Source: http://rudolfhess.net/

by Mark R. Elsis
August 17, 2012

My coming to England in this way is, as I realize, so unusual that nobody will easily understand it. I was confronted by a very hard decision. I do not think I could have arrived at my final choice unless I had continually kept before my eyes the vision of an endless line of children’s coffins with weeping mothers behind them, both English and German, and another line of coffins of mothers with mourning children.”

~ Rudolf Hess (June 10, 1941)

I do not propose to argue about charges that are concerned with the internal affairs of Germany, with which foreigners have no right to interfere. I make no complaints about statements, the aim of which is to discredit and dishonor myself and the entire German people. I regard such statements coming from enemies as confirmations of our honor. It has been my privilege to serve for many years under the greatest son to whom my people have given birth in its thousand years of history. Even if it were possible for me to do so, I would never wish to wipe this period of service out of my life. It fills me with happiness to know that I did my duty toward my people. I regret nothing. Whatever men may do to me, the day will come when I will stand before the judgment seat of the Eternal: to Him I will give an account of my actions, and I know that He will pronounce me innocent.”

~ Last statement by Rudolf Hess to the International Military Tribunal in Nüremberg (August 31, 1946)

Rudolf Walter Richard Hess, the eldest of four children, was born in Alexandria, Egypt on April 26, 1894. His father Fritz H. Hess, was from Wunsiedel in the Fichtelgebirge region of Germany and his mother Clara Hess, was of Greek origin. His father ran Hess & Co., a successful wholesaler and exporter. The Hess family lived quite well, in a big house with a beautiful garden on the Mediterranean coast. They also owned another home in Reicholdsgrün, in Bavaria, where they regularly spent their summer holidays. Rudolf Hess had an excellent education throughout these years in Egypt. In 1900, he was sent to the German school in Alexandria. This was enhanced with a couple of years of private tutoring. His Mother Clara taught him much about the ways of life and gave young Rudolf a love and wonderment for the constellations.

In 1908, the Hess family moved back to Germany. Rudolf now fourteen years old, is enrolled as a boarder at the Protestant School in Bad Godesberg. In 1911 under pressure from his father to carry on the family enterprise, Rudolf went to study business for a year at the Ecole Supérieure de Commerce, in Neuchâtel, Switzerland.

On July 28, 1914, World War I broke out in Europe. Soon after Rudolf enlisted in the 1st Bavarian Field Artillery Regiment. He become an infantryman, was wounded twice and was awarded the Iron Cross, second class. The severity of his second wound, a chest and lung wound, was enough to prevent his return to the front lines. So, Rudolf transferred and learned to fly at the Imperial Air Corps. He was a fighter pilot in 35th Jagdstaffel on the western front for the last couple months of the war. Rudolf Hess reached the rank of lieutenant.

In the summer of 1919 Hess first meets Professor Karl Ernst Haushofer and is impressed by him. That fall he enrolled in the University of Munich where he studied geopolitics, political science and history under Professor Haushofer. The Professor becomes both a mentor and good friend. The two families become close, with Rudolf and Haushofer’s son Albrecht developing a strong friendship.

In May of 1920, at a Munich rally, Rudolf Hess first hears Adolf Hitler give a speech. Hess is captivated right away with an admiration for Adolf Hitler that never leaves him. On July 1, 1920, Rudolf Hess became the sixteenth member that joined the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP).

Rudolf Hess spent much of his time and effort for the next several years organizing for the NSDAP locally in Bavaria. He introduced Hitler at many NSDAP rallies and functions. In the spring of 1921, he brought together Hitler and Professor Haushofer. Adolf Hitler found the geopolitical theories of Professor Haushofer intriguing and worthy. Hitler began interweaving more and more of his material into speeches. National Socialism started to grow quickly in Bavaria, and soon over all of Germany. On July 29, 1921, Adolf Hitler becomes leader of the NSDAP.

The Treaty of Versailles required Germany to accept responsibility for causing World War I. The total cost of the war reparations was assessed at 132 billion German Marks. In April 1921, England and France billed Germany for World War I. They demanded reparations of 33 Billion Dollars. Before the bill, 4 German Marks equaled 1 US Dollar.

In 1922, it was up to 400 Marks for 1 US Dollar. The German government pleaded for a deal. They asked for a reduction and postponement from the payments. It was refused. Germany decided to default on their payments. In 1923, it was 18,000 Marks for 1 US Dollar. In July 1923, it was 160,000, by August, 1,000,000. In September of 1923, the German government made the decision to resume making payments. It didn’t seem to matter, by November of 1923, it took 4,000,000,000 Marks for 1 US Dollar.

Most Germans lost all of their life savings. Their salaries were paid in a currency that soon became worthless. Prices were changing every day, soon it became every hour, and finally every minute. The daily grocery bill now cost billions of Marks. There was widespread hunger and riots broke out. In November of 1923, hyperinflation peaked. The time was surely ripe for a coup d’etat.

On September 26, 1923, Bavarian Prime Minister Eugen von Knilling declared a state of emergency. He appointed Gustav von Kahr the new state commissioner, with dictatorial governing powers. Together with Bavarian State Police head Colonel Hans Ritter von Seisser, and Reichswehr General Otto von Lossow, Kahr formed a triumvirate. Hitler announced that starting on September 27, 1923, he would be holding 14 mass meetings. One of Kahr’s first actions was to ban these meetings.

Adolf Hitler now knew that von Kahr sought to control him and was not ready to act against the government in Berlin. He found out that von Kahr was making a speech in front of about 3,000 people at Bürgerbräukeller, one of the largest beer halls in Munich. Hitler decided to take matters into his own hands. He felt the time was right for the NSDAP to make its move and take over Germany. He enlisted the help of World War I hero, General Erich Friedrich Wilhelm Ludendorf.

On November 8, 1923, the night of the Munich Putsch (also referred to as the Beer Hall Putsch), there were 55,000 members of the NSDAP. At 8:30 that evening, Rudolf Hess was with Hitler when they went into Bürgerbräukeller, which was already surrounded by a force of 600 Sturmabteilung (SA) under Hermann Göring. Hitler took the podium, interrupted the speech of von Kahr, and announced “The National Revolution has begun” “… The government of the November criminals and the Reich President are declared to be removed. A new national government will be named this very day in Munich. A new German National Army will be formed immediately. …The task of the provisional German National Government is to organize the march on that sinful Babel, Berlin, and save the German people! Tomorrow will find either a National Government in Germany or us dead”

I am going to fulfill the vow I made to myself five years ago when I was a blind cripple in the military hospital – to know neither rest nor peace until the November criminals had been overthrown, until on the ruins of the wretched Germany of today there should have arisen once more a Germany of power and greatness, of freedom and splendor.”

The crowd in the beer hall roared their approval and sang “Deutschland über Alles.” Hitler was excited. Was this turning into a night of conquest for him? Tomorrow he might actually be head of Germany. Hitler planned to use Munich as a base for a big march against Germany’s Weimar Republic government. But it was not to be.

In the early morning hours of November 9, 1923, Kahr and General Lossow broke their promise to Hitler and General Ludendorff. General Lossow ordered the Army into Munich to put down the uprising. Troops were rushed in and by dawn the War Ministry building containing Ernst Röhm and his SA troops were surrounded.

Hitler was up all night trying to decide what to do. General Ludendorff then gave him an idea. They would march into the middle of Munich and take it over. Because of his World War I fame, Ludendorff reasoned, no one would dare fire on him. He even assured Hitler the police and the Army would likely join them. Hitler went for the idea.

At 11am, a group of three thousand NSDAP, led by Hitler, Göring, Hess and Ludendorff marched toward the center of Munich. Carrying one of the flags was a young party member named Heinrich Himmler. They headed toward the War Ministry building but encountered a blockade of police. As they stood face to face with a hundred armed policemen, Hitler yelled out to them to surrender. They didn’t. Shots rang out. Both sides fired. It lasted about a minute. Sixteen NSDAP and three police were killed. Göring was hit in the groin. Hitler suffered a dislocated shoulder when the man he had locked arms with was shot and dragged Hitler down to the ground.

Adolf Hitler’s bodyguard from 1920 to 1923, Ulrich Graf, shielded Hitler with his body. He received several bullet wounds (he recovered), and possibly saved Hitler’s life. Hitler then got away into a waiting car. The rest of the NSDAP scattered or were arrested. General Ludendorff, true to his heroic form, walked right through the line of fire to the police, and was then arrested.

Hitler wound up at the home of his friends, the Hanfstaengls. He spent two nights in the attic. On the third night, police arrived and arrested him. He was taken to the prison at Landsberg where his spirits lifted somewhat after he was told he was going to get a public trial. With the monumental failure of the Munich Putsch, it now seemed certain that the political career of Adolf Hitler had come to an end.

Adolf Hitler was sentenced to five years, but yet somehow served only nine months. Rudolf Hess was sentenced to eighteen months, and served almost eight months. While they were together for seven months in Landsberg prison, Hess acted as Hitler’s private secretary. Most importantly, he transcribed and helped to edit Mein Kampf. Hess and Hitler were visited in prison at least eight times by Professor Haushofer, who always stayed with his pupil Rudolf the whole morning and afternoon. It was during this time Hitler told Hess it would take between seven and twelve years for the NSDAP to try again to form a new government for Germany. Adolf Hitler was correct; it would take just over eight years.

On January 2, 1925, Hess was released from prison (two weeks after Hitler). He then served for several years as the personal secretary for Hitler, without any official rank in the NSDAP. Rudolf Hess always kept flying after he became a pilot in World War I. He competed in many aerial races and helped the NSDAP when he flew banners and buzzed other rallies. After Charles Lindbergh completed the first solo nonstop flight across the Atlantic on May 20-21, 1927 (west to east), Hess wanted to be the first to solo across the Atlantic going from east to west. On December 20, 1927, Rudolf Hess married Ilse Pröhl, a 27-year-old from Hannover. They had one son, Wolf Rüdiger Hess (November 18, 1937 – October 24, 2001).

As a result of the failed Munich Putsch, the NSDAP and its affiliated organizations were banned in Bavaria. On January 4, 1925, in a meeting with Prime Minister of Bavaria, Heinrich Held, Hitler agreed to respect the authority of the state; he would only seek political power through the democratic process. The meeting paved the way for the ban on the NSDAP to be lifted. However, Hitler was barred from public speaking for two more years. Finally, in January of 1927, Saxony lifted this ban, and on March 5, 1927, the authorities in Bavaria conceded, and allowed Hitler to speak.

The continued success of Hilter’s book, Mein Kampf, helped the NSDAP once again grow and became a political force within Germany. Between September 1930 and March 1933 the NSDAP voting percentage went from 18.3% to 43.9%; total votes went from 6,409,600 to 17,277,180. Their Reichstag seats increased from 107 to 288.

In January 1932, as a reward for his now dozen years of loyal and dedicated service, Hitler appointed Hess: Chairman of the Central Political Commission of the NSDAP; and SS General. Rudolf Hess was given the prominence he most rightly deserved.

On January 30, 1933, after a 13-year struggle, Adolf Hitler was finally appointed as Chancellor of Germany. He soon transformed the Weimar Republic into the Third Reich. The world was in the middle of the Great Depression, including Germany, with an unemployment rate of almost 30%. On March 17, 1933, Hjalmar Schacht became president of the central bank, and in August 1934, became finance minister. Schacht kept interest rates at zero and government budget deficits high, with massive public works projects. Once unburdened of usury, the German economy started to take off (and not on the misconception of a war economy, that didn’t occur till the late 1930’s). Within three years the unemployment rate in German had fallen to under 5%, and the by the next year, 1937, there was a labor shortage. The German economic turnaround was soon the envy of the world. This kind of financial model could not be allowed.

… The elimination of unemployment in Germany during the Great Depression without inflation — and with initial reliance on essential civilian activities — was a signal accomplishment. It has rarely been praised and not much remarked. The notion that Hitler could do no good extends to his economics as it does, more plausibly, to all else.”

~ John Kenneth Galbrait

The International bankers, better than anyone, knew just how successful a system without usury would be. So, preemptively on March 24, 1933, they started World War II; with Judea Declares War on Germany – Jews of the World Unite in Action. Their aim was the total destruction of Germany. This barbaric strategy of annihilation was done as a lesson to any future government thinking of freeing its citizens of the evil usury.

The nation does not live for the sake of the economic system, and the economic system does not exist for the sake of capital. On the contrary, capital is the servant of the economic system and the economic system is the servant of the people.”

~ Adolf Hitler

The following is a short history of why every religion, but Judaism, was against usury. Central bank usury control caused the US Constitution (when we already had a much superior Articles of Confederation) to get their First Bank Of The United States in 1791. They were given a 20-year charter. When their 20-year charter was up in 1811, the Jeffersonian Democrats prevented its charter from being renewed. So the Rothschild bankers summoned their mercenaries (the British army and navy) to teach us a lesson, the War of 1812. We learned the lesson the hard way, and in 1816, they got their Second Bank Of The United States, again with a 20-year charter. When Andrew Jackson was elected in 1828, saying he would kill the bank, the bankers tried everything to stop him; they created the 1833 recession; had him censured in 1834; and a failed (both guns misfired) assassination attempt on January 30, 1835. It didn’t work, Jackson killed the bank in 1836, when their 20-year charter was not renewed. During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln created Greenbacks instead of the 24% to 36% usury the Wall Street bankers wanted to charge, and he was assassinated on Good Friday 1865. On December 23, 1913 the Rothschild bankers finally got their third central bank, the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 originally had a 20-year charter. But on February 25, 1927, the McFadden Pepper Act was signed into law. It made the Federal Reserve’s power over our monetary policy perpetual. Today, only an act of the US congress can dissolve the Federal Reserve Banks. On June 4, 1963, President John F. Kennedy created United States Treasury Notes, known as Silver Certificates, with Executive Order 11110, and he was assassinated on November 22, 1963. This assassination was 53 years to the day (November 22, 1910) of the meeting on Jekyll Island that created the Federal Reserve Bank. Jesus began his three and a half year ministry in Jerusalem by driving the corrupt moneychangers from the Temple. He also ended His ministry by attacking the same thieves. It was the only time that Jesus used force. Within a short while, Jesus Christ was nailed to a cross. So, when Adolf Hitler takes their banks, and created his own German currency, of course they declared war on him. They also created a worldwide boycott of all German goods. The goal was really quite simple; Germany had to be completely destroyed.

After visiting these two places (Berchtesgaden and the Eagle’s lair on Obersalzberg), you can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived. He had boundless ambitions for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him. He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.”

~ John F. Kennedy

On April 21, 1933, Adolf Hitler awards Deputy to the Führer to Rudolf Hess. This was a prestigious award; he was now officially one of a handful of leaders under Hitler. Rudolf was quite busy for the next eight years with his job as the Chairman of the Central Political Commission of the NSDAP. He was an intelligent and honorable ambassador who projected a wonderful image for both the Party and for Germany. With Germany having both the 1936 Winter Olympic Games in Garmisch-Partenkirchen and the 1936 Summer Olympic Games in Berlin (this is the last time the same country was host to both Olympics the same year), Hess became acquainted with many political leaders and royalty throughout Europe and the world. Those who worked for him (even those who were arrested after his flight for peace) thought he was thoroughly honest and represented Germany with courage, dignity and honor.

Rudolf Hess passionately introduces Hitler in, Triumph of the Will (Triumph des Willens); a film made by Leni Riefenstahl, released in 1935, and introduced many new cinematic achievements. It chronicles the September 5 to 10, 1934, NSDAP Congress in Nuremberg, which was attended by more than 700,000 supporters. The film contains parts of speeches by leaders, including Hitler, edited together with massed party members. Hitler commissioned the film and served as an executive producer; his name appears in the opening titles. The theme of the film is the return of Germany as a great power.

On June 18, 1935, The Anglo-German Naval Agreement (AGNA) allowed German tonnage to increase to 35% of that of the British navy. Hitler called the signing of the AGNA “the happiest day of his life”, as he believed the agreement marked the beginning of the Anglo-German alliance he had predicted in Mein Kampf. Peace with Britain.

On October 18, 1936, Hermann Göring was put in charge of the Four Year Plan. Göring had complete control over the economy, including the private sector. Hitler told Göring to have Germany prepared to defend herself within four years against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Hitler, who rarely ever wrote anything down, wrote the “Four-Year Plan Memorandum” personally. Doing this indicates that he had something exceptionally important to say. Hitler wrote: “Since the outbreak of the French Revolution, the world has been moving with ever increasing speed toward a new conflict, the most extreme solution of which is called Bolshevism, whose essence and aim, however, are solely the elimination of those strata of mankind which have hitherto provided the leadership and their replacement by worldwide Jewry. No state will be able to withdraw or even remain at a distance from this historical conflict. It is not the aim of this memorandum to prophesy the time when the untenable situation in Europe will become an open crisis. I only want, in these lines, to set down my conviction that this crisis cannot and will not fail to arrive and that it is Germany’s duty to secure her own existence by every means in face of this catastrophe, and to protect herself against it, and that from this compulsion there arises a series of conclusions relating to the most important tasks that our people have ever been set. For a victory of Bolshevism over Germany would not lead to a Versailles treaty, but to the final destruction, indeed the annihilation of the German people.” Adolf Hitler was prophetically correct with this analysis; it would later be called the Morgenthau plan.

On March 12, 1938, Hitler declared the unification (Anschluss) of Austria with Germany. Hundreds of thousands of Austrians turned out to welcome the Germans. Austria was still in the Depression, with very high unemployment. With help from Germany this problem was turned around, within two years there was full employment.

The Munich Agreement was signed in the early hours of September 30, 1938, (yet dated September 29). It allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland. Ethnic Germans mainly inhabited this area of Czechoslovakia. The agreement was negotiated at a conference in Munich, Germany, and signed by Germany, Britain, France and Italy.

Rudolf Hess stated that German intelligence had learned airfields were being built inside Czechoslovakia. These airfields were to be used by the USSR for their fighters and bombers against Germany. To end this, on March 15, 1939, German troops entered into Czechoslovakia. Later that same day, Hitler was in Prague with his troops.

Under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was forced to give up a few land areas to surrounding countries. One of these was Danzig, a port city on the Baltic Sea with a population of 408,000. The people of Danzig were overwhelmingly German, about 97%.

In 1937 Hitler asked Poland to give Germany a one-mile access to their province in East Prussia. Both parties agreed, then Poland suddenly broke off all negotiations. On October 6, 1938, the Hitler peace plan, based on a German victory in Poland, is rejected by Britain and France. On October 24, 1938, Germany started 10 months of peaceful negotiations with Poland, for the return of Danzig and a corridor for an Autobahn route and railroad, to go through western Poland to connect East Prussia with Germany.

“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)

Ten months of negotiations in good faith went nowhere. This is because pressure from Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill and his warmongers was applied to Poland. They were not to give in to any German negotiations for Danzig. On March 31, 1939, Britain initiated the Anglo-Polish military alliance (joined by France), which guaranteed Poland’s defense. They created their pretext to start World War II. Now all they had to do was make sure Hitler would react.

In the months leading up to September 1, 1939, in dozens of incidents, thousands of German Nationals in the Danzig corridor were brutally murdered. Some claim the Polish Bolsheviks killed 58,000 German Nationals in the Danzig corridor. Whatever the true numbers are, one thing is for certain, Germany was deliberately being provoked to enter Danzig. What country would let these atrocities happen to their own people?

On September 1, 1939, Adolf Hitler announces his successors, Hermann Göring and Rudolf Hess. Hess is now officially the number three person in the Third Reich. For Hess this must have been the most esteemed honor that could ever be bestowed upon him. That Adolf Hitler thought he was responsible and capable of leading Germany.

On September 1, 1939, Germany invades Poland to liberate Dazing.

On September 2, 1939, Germany annexed the Free City of Danzig. Adolf Hitler advised Britain and France that he would withdraw, if allowed to keep Danzig and the corridor.

On September 3, 1939, Hitler received his answer back. Britain and France declared war on Germany for invading Poland (Danzig and the corridor). I do find it quite noteworthy to state, that World War II was started on the pretext to protect and keep Poland free. Yet on September 17, 1939, the USSR entered Poland from the east and war is not declared on them by Britain, nor by France. And at the end of the war, a thoroughly ravaged Poland was given to the USSR. This contradiction plainly shows to the world just how disingenuous and hollow the pretext was to start World War II.

This war thrusts us years back in our constructive work. It is deplorable. I have not indeed become the Chancellor of the Greater German Reich in order to conduct war!”

~ Adolf Hitler (1940)

On May 10, 1940, Sir Winston Churchill became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. On May 11, 1940, Britain (Churchill) made a fateful decision in its approach to fighting World War II. That night, eighteen Whitley bombers attacked railway installations in the western German province of Westphalia, far from the war front. That forgotten bombing raid, which in itself was inconsequential, has been called “the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces” J. M. Spaight, who had been principal secretary of Britain’s Air Ministry, wrote later, in his book Bombing Vindicated (1944), that “it was we who started the strategic [i.e., civilian] bombing offensive” with the “splendid decision” of May 11, 1940. Churchill broke this fundamental rule that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces within 24 hours of becoming Prime Minister. He kept doing these illegal, immoral, savage, terrorist air strikes on German civilians. Part of the British barbaric bombing strategy was apparently to provoke German attacks on Britain in order to stimulate support for war against Germany. Hitler didn’t retaliate. He did try to tell the world of this new terrorism on civilians.

The Battle of Dunkirk (also known thanks to Churchill’s spin, as the Miracle of Dunkirk) occurred from May 26 to June 4, 1940. On May 24th Hitler ordered the army to stop for three days. These three days gave the Allies time to organize an evacuation and helped them to build a defensive line. Some 338,000 Allied troops that were surrounded by German forces escaped. This was indeed an enormous gesture from Hitler that Germany wanted peace with Britain. On February 26, 1945, Hitler lamented that Churchill was “quite unable to appreciate the sporting spirit” in which he had refrained from annihilating the BEF [British Expeditionary Force] at Dunkirk.

On August 1, 1940, Adolf Hitler issued No. 17 Directive: On the conduct of air war against Britain, Hitler, specifically prohibited the Luftwaffe from conducting terror raids on its own initiative. The war against Britain is to be restricted to destructive attacks against industry and air force targets that have weak defensive forces. The most thorough study of the target concerned, that is vital points of the target, is a pre-requisite for success. It is also stressed that every effort should be made to avoid unnecessary loss of life amongst the civilian population. Hitler is still taking the high road by doing this, while Churchill is still terrorizing German civilians with air strikes.

Both Hitler and Hess wanted peace between Germany and Britain. They talked about this subject on many occasions over their twenty years together. In 1940 Hess initiated a Hitler endorsed peace plan between Germany and Britain through royalty and diplomatic channels in neutral Switzerland. These peace efforts with Britain failed.

Rudolf Hess soon thought of another way to try and bring a peace between Germany and Britain. He asked his friend, Wilhelm Emil “Willy” Messerschmitt for a plane to fly. Messerschmitt gave him a new Me 110. Rudolf trained with this plane out of Augsburg, till he knew it well. On May 4, 1941, Hess and Hitler talked for 30 minutes and Hess asked Hitler if he still wanted peace with Britain, Hitler said he did (this is the last time they were ever together). Hess was finally ready to fly for peace. He asked Messerschmitt for extra fuel tanks and a few other improvements to be installed on his Me 110. He ordered daily weather reports for his flight. He waited to coincide with a large air strike to piggyback on their signal for guidance. He ordered an expensive German aviator suit. He even made one false flight, flying for two hours till the weather suddenly worsened and he had to return. Hess spent a long time writing two letters to Adolf Hitler, one short and one fourteen pages, about his flight for peace.

On May 10, 1941, Rudolf Hess knew this was going to be the day of his flight, so he lovingly played with his son (Wolf Rüdiger Hess) for hours. He got dressed and ready and took a car to Ausburg airfield. Everything was a go for the flight. His Me 110 was unarmed. Ever since Hess received his plane, he never had it armed. Hess was on a mission of peace. He lifted off at 5:40pm on route to Scotland. His courageous flight for peace was under way.

This is a part of the letter Hess left behind for his wife and son: “My dear ones, I firmly believe that I shall return from the flight I am about to make and that the flight will be crowned with success. Should I not return, however, the goal I set myself was worth the supreme effort. I am sure you all know me: you know I could not have acted any other way. Your Rudolf”

At 10:08pm Hess’s Me 110 was picked up on Edinburgh (Scotland) radar. He was trying to find a place to land. He was looking for the estate of the Duke of Hamilton, when the radar lost him at 11:07pm just south of Glasglow. Hess’s flight was approximately 900 miles, he went north till he reached the North Sea, then went west towards Scotland. He navigated to within miles of the Duke’s residence. Hess parachuted out at about 6,000 feet, and his plane crashed. He injured his ankle on landing and was soon discovered. When found Hess said: “I have an important message for the Duke of Hamilton.” Hess and the Duke had met during the 1936 Olympics Games in Berlin. The police inventory indicated that Rudolf Hess was carrying a letter to HM King George VI.

Was Hitler concerned about these peace negotiations? He didn’t want a war on two fronts, and he wanted to order Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the USSR) as early as possible, hopefully in mid May 1941. Operation Barbarossa did not commence until June 22, 1941. This five-week delay was a primary factor, along with the vastly underestimated USSR forces, which ultimately proved to be fatal. This was a tragic blunder for German Intelligence. On June 4, 1942, Hitler talks about this horrendous miscalculation, in the Hitler – Mannerheim conversation. The conversation was secretly recorded for 11 minutes. It is the only existing recording of Hitler in a normal voice.

On May 10, 1941, London received its heaviest German air attack (Blitzkrieg) ever. With 1,436 people killed and 12,000 made homeless. The Houses of Parliament was struck, The Commons debating chamber, the symbol of British democracy, was destroyed.

May 10, 1941, was also the day of the last major Blitzkrieg on Britain. The Hess flight for peace and the last major Blitzkrieg on Britain to occur on the same day is not a coincidence. Germany wanted peace with Britain.

The Hess flight for peace actually did bring peace. It brought peace from German air strikes on Britain, and soon thereafter Churchill inexplicably instructed Sir Charles Portal, Chief of the Air Staff, to greatly reduce the bombing attacks on Germany.

But when it came to Rudolf Hess, Winston Churchill had no qualms about illegally (he came to Britain in good will as an ambassador for peace, and / or for medical reasons) keeping him a prisoner of war in Britain for the next 53 months. “… I approved the War Office proposal to bring Hess to the Tower [of London] by tonight pending his place of confinement being prepared at Aldershot. His treatment will become less indulgent as time goes on. There need be no hurry about interviewing him, and I wish to be informed before any visitors are allowed. He is to be kept in the strictest seclusion, and those in charge of him should refrain from conversation. The public will not stand any pampering except for intelligence purposes with this notorious war criminal.” Prime Minister’s [Churchill] Personal Minute, May 16, 1941, Serial No. M550/1

On May 22, 1941, Churchill told the House of Commons that he was not yet in a position to make a statement regarding Rudolf Hess and was not even sure when he would be able to make a statement. This is Churchill being audacious, cunning and evading; and thoroughly getting away with it. Were all the British politicians cowards?

My coming to England in this way is, as I realize, so unusual that nobody will easily understand it. I was confronted by a very hard decision. I do not think I could have arrived at my final choice unless I had continually kept before my eyes the vision of an endless line of children’s coffins with weeping mothers behind them, both English and German, and another line of coffins of mothers with mourning children.”

~ Rudolf Hess (June 10, 1941)

I recommend a wonderful and free book on Hess during the war years of 1941 to 1945: Hess: The Missing Years by David Irving – Thank you David for making this book free.

In August of 1944, Treasury Secretary Henry R. Morgenthau Jr. (Jewish), submitted his malevolent plan, the Morgenthau plan, for post-war treatment of German leaders to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. He proposes shooting many leaders upon capture, using German POWs to rebuild Europe, and tearing down industry and remaking Germany as an agricultural society. During the Second Quebec Conference held from September 12 to 16, 1944, Roosevelt and Morgenthau persuaded an unenthusiastic Churchill to agree to the Morgenthau plan. Churchill held out until he got what he came for, another $6 billion from the Lend Lease agreement.

On November 6, 1944, Winston Churchill made a visit to Moscow, the capital of the USSR. Whilst at a State dinner at the Kremlin, Joseph Stalin raised his glass and proposed a toast to the ingenious British Intelligence Services, which he said had “inveigled Hess into coming to England.” Churchill immediately protested that he and the intelligence services knew nothing about the proposed visit. Stalin smiled and said “maybe the intelligence services failed to tell you about the operation.”

History is not ended. It will sooner or later take up the threads apparently broken off forever and knit them together in a new pattern.”

~ Rudolf Hess (June 18, 1945)

When World War II ended, Germany was in total ruin. But it was to get even worse. Within a few years 15,000,000+ Germans and ethnic German civilians were cleansed, with 9,000,000+ murdered by starvation and disease. This was deliberate allied policy. It was the evil Morgenthau plan of merciless retribution in action for all to see. This behavior is exactly what Adolf Hitler warned about in the autumn of 1936 when he wrote the Four-Year Plan Memorandum “… but to the final destruction, indeed the annihilation of the German people …” Three painfully insightful books on this are: Gruesome Harvest, Crimes and Mercies and Hellstorm: The Death Of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947. The unfortunate German soldiers, who had been captured, were killed by starvation, lack of medicine and the elements in concentration camps. Up to 1,700,000 German prisoners of war died while under United States supervision. These killings were supervised by the Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower. General Eisenhower prohibited German people from sharing their rations with detained German soldiers. [How did Eisenhower who was General Douglas MacArthur’s secretary, became the Supreme Allied Commander? Especially when General MacArthur felt Eisenhower was incompetent. How within 45 months did he bypass hundreds of officers with higher rank? Here are his unbelievable military promotions, with help from the warmonger Bernard Baruch (Jewish): March 11, 1941 – Colonel, October 3, 1941 – Brigadier General (1 Star), March 28, 1942 – Major General (2 Stars), July 9, 1942 – Lieutenant General (3 Stars), February 11, 1943 – General (4 Stars) and December 20, 1944 – General of the Army (5 Stars). Eisenhower was a 1915 West Point graduate, while there he was known as, The Terrible Swedish Jew. Ike sure did live up to his first nickname].

On October 8, 1945, Rudolf Hess left Britain for the last time. He was flown to the International Military Tribunal in Nüremberg. It was there that Hess, along with other 23 other top German leaders, would be tried. On October 18, 1945, the chief prosecutors of the International Military Tribunal read the indictments against 24 leading German officials. The initial trial was held from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946. His judges were from the USSR, Britain, France and the United States. It is worthy to note, that the majority of the lawyers and support staff at this Stalin like show trial, I mean International Military Tribunal, were Jewish. The main judge on this tribunal from the USSR, Major-General Iona Nikitchenko, also presided over many of the most notorious of Joseph Stalin’s show trials during the Great Purges of 1936 to 1938.

United States Senator Robert Taft condemned the postwar Nuremberg Trials as “victor’s justice” in which the people who won the war were the prosecutors, the judges and the alleged victims, all at the same time. Taft condemned the trials as a violation of the most basic principles of American justice and internationally accepted standards of justice. United States Senator John F. Kennedy in his best-selling book, Profiles in Courage, applauded Taft’s principled stand. Kennedy did this in the face of immense criticism.

The defense counsel for Hess requested that a psychiatrist from neutral Switzerland should examine him. The request was denied. Psychiatrists from all four victorious allied countries examined Hess. There were eight doctors; three from USSR, three from Britain, one French and one from the United States. Seven of the eight who examined Hess agreed he was fit to stand trial. The eighth, was none other than the personal doctor of Winston Churchill, Lord Moran, who claimed Hess was too ill to stand trial, and should be handed back to Britain. Why would Churchill order such a blatantly preposterous decision? Did he want Hess back in Britain so bad he did not care what it looked like? Why would you want to draw more attention to these trials that were already looked upon with much contempt throughout the world?

Jackson [Robert Jackson, the chief United States prosecutor at Nuremberg] is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg,” he wrote. ” … I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.”

~ US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone (Harlan Stone was the first Chief Justice not to have served in elected office before becoming Chief Justice.)

The following quote is the last statement by Rudolf Hess to the International Military Tribunal in Nüremberg on August 31, 1946:

I do not propose to argue about charges that are concerned with the internal affairs of Germany, with which foreigners have no right to interfere. I make no complaints about statements, the aim of which is to discredit and dishonor myself and the entire German people. I regard such statements coming from enemies as confirmations of our honor. It has been my privilege to serve for many years under the greatest son to whom my people have given birth in its thousand years of history. Even if it were possible for me to do so, I would never wish to wipe this period of service out of my life. It fills me with happiness to know that I did my duty toward my people. I regret nothing. Whatever men may do to me, the day will come when I will stand before the judgment seat of the Eternal: to Him I will give an account of my actions, and I know that He will pronounce me innocent.”

On September 30 and October 1, 1946, the sentences were pronounced. Hess was found guilty of crimes against peace and of conspiracy. He was found innocent of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The International Military Tribunal in Nüremberg compromised when they sentenced Hess to solitary confinement for life. The USSR judge and his alternate wanted him executed (hung). The American and British judges and the American and French alternates wanted a sentence of life, the French judge wanted a sentence of twenty years. The British alternate shamelessly abstained.

The appeals of the condemned for pardons, were rejected. The death sentences, by hanging, were carried out in the early hours of October 16, 1946. Hermann Göring committed suicide before his scheduled execution.

I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.”

~ Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

On July 18, 1947, Rudolf Hess and his six fellow prisoners, all former top German officials, were flown from Nuremberg to West Berlin, West Germany, and Spandau prison, under heavy security. For the next 40 years at Spandau, Hess was known and spoken to only as prisoner #7. In 1966 the last two prisoners, Baldur von Schirach and Albert Speer, were released after serving their 20-year sentences. Hess was alone. He spent the last 21 years all by himself, in Spandau, a prison built for 600 prisoners.

Keeping Hess in Spandau by himself cost the West German government approximately 850,000 Marks a year. All four of the allied powers had to provide an officer and 37 soldiers during their shifts, as well as a director and team of wardens throughout the entire year. The permanent maintenance staff of 22 included cooks, waitresses and cleaners. It took almost 200 people to keep in prison one man, a brave man who wanted peace. Over the decades it became more and more overtly obscene. This was torture; they were trying to dehumanize Hess with solitary confinement.

When his wife or son visited Rudolf, they were not allowed to touch each other. In 1950, a French chaplain, Pastor Casalis, complained, to the prison Directorate: “It can safely be said that Spandau has become a place of mental torture to an extent that does not permit the Christian conscience to remain silent …”

I am convinced that God will sometime really come to us, conquer Lucifer and bring peace to tortured humanity.”

~ Rudolf Hess (July 1947)

In this next quote, Churchill sure is reflecting, reflecting blame from himself “I am glad not to be responsible for the way in which Hess has been and is being treated” while demeaning the Hess peace plan “frantic deed of lunatic benevolence”. Churchill was the person responsible for keeping Hess, “quality of an envoy”, a prisoner in Britain for 53 months. If Hess was “a medical and not a criminal case” The International Red Cross should have demanded that Britain in accordance with the Geneva and Hague Conventions (which Britain should have done on their own) let Hess go back to Germany under medical conditions. Churchill told Stalin that Hess was mentally ill but this was to be kept secret otherwise under the terms of the Geneva Convention, he would have to be repatriated. Churchill has 3 lies, 1 demean, all in 1 quote.

Reflecting upon the whole of the story, I am glad not to be responsible for the way in which Hess has been and is being treated. Whatever may be the moral guilt of a German who stood near to Hitler, Hess had, in my view, atoned for this by his completely devoted and frantic deed of lunatic benevolence. He came to us of his own free will, and, though without authority, had something of the quality of an envoy. He was a medical and not a criminal case, and should be so regarded.”

~ Winston Churchill (1950)

[Churchill helped bring the United States into World War I with the false flag sinking of HMS Lusitania and was the head cheerleader in Britain / Europe to create World War II]

Lieutenant Colonel Eugene K. Bird was the US Commandant of the Spandau Allied Prison from 1964 to 1972. Hess met Bird and over the years, and after many hundreds of hours of discussion between the two men, they developed a friendship, and a book about the flight for peace began to develop. In March 1971, Bird’s superiors at the U.S. Mission in Berlin became aware of the manuscript and proposed book. Bird was interrogated, placed under house arrest, and eventually made to resign his position as Commandant of Spandau Prison. This episode also ended his long military career. Bird and his family relocated to Germany in order to complete his book about Hess. The Loneliest Man in the World, was published in 1974.

Rudolf Hess was the only one of the defendants from the International Military Tribunal in Nüremberg found guilty, to serve the full life term. Of the four powers that had won the war against Germany, three, the USSR, France and the United States, proposed that due to his age, Hess should be released on humanitarian grounds. The British government under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, said no. This callus and malicious decision to a man in his nineties, a man who spent 46 years, half his life in prison, leaves one bewildered. What was true motive that made Britain act like this?

On August 17, 1987, Rudolf Hess, 93 years of age, was murdered at Spandau Prison, West Berlin, West Germany. His son, Wolf Rüdiger Hess, investigated his Father’s murder for many years. The following are two of his quotes and one of Lieutenant Colonel Eugene K. Bird, Commandant of the Spandau Allied Prison from 1964 to 1972.

Rudolf Hess did not commit suicide on August 17, 1987, as the British government claims. The weight of evidence shows instead that British officials, acting on high-level orders, murdered my father.”

~ Wolf Rüdiger Hess

The same government, which tried to make him a scapegoat for its crimes, and which for almost half a century resolutely sought to suppress the truth of the Hess affair, finally did not shrink from murder to silence him. My father’s murder was not only a crime against a frail and elderly man, but a crime against historical truth. It was a logical final act of an official British conspiracy that began in 1941, at the outset of the Hess affair. But I can assure them, and you, that this conspiracy will not succeed. The murder of my father will not, as they hope, forever close the book on the Hess file. I am convinced that history and justice will absolve my father. His courage in risking his life for peace, the long injustice he endured, and his martyrdom, will not be forgotten. He will be vindicated, and his final words at the Nuremberg trial, “I regret nothing!,” will stand forever”

~ Wolf Rüdiger Hess

I was suspicious for several reasons… after all, Hess who had been held in Spandau for almost 40 years was by then 93-years-old and fragile. I doubted he had the strength to kill himself with a cord which was not attached at both ends to anything.”

~ Lieutenant Colonel Eugene K. Bird, on the death of Rudolf Hess

On July 20, 2011, the remains of Rudolf Hess were exhumed, cremated and strewn at sea, along with his wife and parents. His gravesite, which became a shrine for peace, is forever gone. His gravestone, which bore the epitaph “Ich hab’s gewagt” “I Dared”, was destroyed. So, this is what it has come down to, the warmongers realizing that Hess is the poster boy for peace, have made a concerted effort to make him disappear. Being done on July 20th, is on purpose and meant to send a clear message. On July 20, 1944, an attempt was made to assassinate Hitler, at Wolf’s Lair field headquarters.

The enemy of peace has laid its soul to bare by what it did to Rudolf Hess for the last 46 years of his life. Then, 24 years after his murder, they cunningly try to erase him from history, by having his remains exhumed, cremated and scattered at sea. This vengeful overreaching has lifted the veil and shown us the evil we are dealing with. Thank you Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess for having lived your life with honesty and dignity. By doing this, you made the parasitical warmongers show their demonic hand to us all. You are, and will remain throughout history, a courageous hero for peace.

Purity is Strenght

The Führer’s Proclamation to the German People and the Note of the German Foreign Office to the Soviet Government, together with appendices

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE TEXT IN PDF FORMAT

PDF – VERSION 2

The following 88-page booklet published by the government of the Third Reich contains Adolf Hitler’s speech to the German people concerning his decision to declare war against the Soviet Union, and the official diplomatic message sent to the Soviets, outlining in great detail their crimes and plots against Germany, which violated the terms of the mutual Non-Aggression Pact. These violations are documented and a number of secret intelligence reports provided to Hitler which formed the basis of his decision to declare war on Stalin are also included in this must-read booklet.

This document shows clearly the true, legal basis concerning the war against the USSR in 1941, which support and justify the actions of Adolf Hitler, who had obviously been deceived and betrayed by the treacherous, double-dealing war monger Stalin. Hitler adopted the only attitude and course of action which a responsible German leader and representative of European culture and civilization could take.

Hitler’s intentions, from the time he first came to power in 1933 had always been peaceful and his actions honorable. He had always worked towards these objectives in good faith and with great patience. It was the WWI western allies and their international financial masters who wanted war all along and who would settle for nothing less, and who preferred to back a well-known murderous beast, namely Joseph Stalin, and to have the bloody horrors of Bolshevism be poured out upon European soil, than to have peaceful coexistence with a strong, free, independent and prosperous Germany.

Hitler and his Axis nation partners realized in 1941 that they had to now face this very real threat to Western Europe head on, as Stalin had been planning to attack all along, when Germany had her hands full on the western front. Hitler’s declaration of war was legally and morally justified by any reasonable standard of international warfare and justice, and only a multi-national effort could hope to prevent the Bolshevik takeover of all of Europe.

If Hitler Had Won World War II We’d Have a Better, More Just World Today

Source: http://nationalvanguard.org/2017/01/if-hitler-won-world-war-ii-wed-have-a-better-more-just-world-today/

Legendary U.S. General George S. Patton realized late in the war that the United States fought the wrong country. Patton felt the U.S. should have sided with Germany to destroy Jewish Bolshevik/Communist USSR. This information comes from Patton’s diary entries, letters he wrote to his wife, and comments he made to military officers and staff.

World War II was incredibly complex. However, in the final analysis, WWII was essentially a war between two competing ideologies: Nationalism vs. Jewish internationalism/globalism. Adolf Hitler and his allies fought to preserve the concept of nationalism, not just for Germans but for all peoples the world over. Nationalism really just means the sovereignty of an ethnic people and the right of such ethnic people/nationalists — within their own bordered country — to self-determination. What is meant by self-determination? Self-determination just means an ethnic people preserving their unique culture and heritage and pursuing their collective goals as a unique people. This applies to any ethnic peoples: Nigerians, Germans, Swedes, Vietnamese, Mexicans, Tibetans, etc.

On the other side of WWII was Jewish (Bolshevik) internationalism (today we simply call this ‘globalism’). In the 1920’s, 1930’s, and of course during WWII, powerful Jewish internationalists were fervently advancing the Jewish worldview of eventually eliminating all nations… except for a Jewish homeland… (what was later to be — after WWII — the nation of Israel in 1948). Today we see that nothing has changed; Jewish internationalism/globalism still works toward gradually “merging” all peoples of the world (particularly in the Western World) into one globalist system with a global government, global laws, consistent global culture, global bank, global currency, etc. In short, Jewish globalism (i.e., the weakening and eventual elimination of all nations) is the exact opposite of nationalism (i.e., a world composed of nations … specifically, ethnically homogenous and bordered nations). The Allied powers of WWII (led by Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, et al) were tools of International Jewry and thus de facto fighting for the Jewish globalist worldview. After the (Jewish-run) Allies won WWII in 1945, international Jewish forces were then free to exercise a Jewish ‘Sphere of Influence’ over the greater Western World (and as we see today, increasingly over the rest of the world).

Alternatively, if Hitler had won World War II and then exercised a Nationalist ‘Sphere of Influence’ over the greater Western World, we’d have a more just, fair, and moral Western World today. The rest of the world would have similarly benefited had the Germans been victorious since German influence would have surely spread elsewhere (ideas such as non-usurious banking and strong family oriented culture would likely have spread globally).

Had Hitler won World War II, what would be different in the post-war world? Here are a few examples:

1 – No USSR (the Soviet government murdered millions of its own people during its 70 year reign — to study this topic read the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; Hitler would have liberated the USSR, though taking large parts of its Western region for lebensraum, “living space”)

2 – No cold war (because there would be no USSR)

3 – No Communist Eastern Europe/Iron Curtain (when WWII ended, Eastern Europe fell to Communism — this was part of Stalin’s spoils of war)

4 – No Red China and Mao’s subsequent killing of 40 – 60 million Chinese (the USSR created favorable conditions for Mao’s Communists which ultimately led to Mao’s victory over Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalists in 1949, thus if no USSR, no Mao victory)

5 – No Communist North Vietnam (both the Soviet Union and Red China aided Ho Chi Minh)

6 – No Communist Cambodia and Pol Pot’s slaughter of 2 million Cambodians (Red China aided Pol Pot)

7 – No dividing Korea into North Korea and South Korea (the Allies split Korea after WWII ended, with North Korea becoming Communist… another of Stalin’s spoils of war)

8 – No Communist Cuba (given the previous, what support would Castro have had in the 1950’s?)

9 – No Communism anywhere (Hitler was the world’s most fervent anti-Communist)

10 – Liberalism and multiculturalism wouldn’t dominate Western ethos (both are Jewish creations and both have always been heavily promoted/advanced by Jews; thus if no Jewish influence, then no liberalism and no multiculturalism… at least certainly nowhere near the degree we see today)

11 – No Cultural Marxism and no political correctness (these are social engineering “tools” which came out of the Jewish think tank known as the Frankfurt School)

12 – No third world immigration into Western nations (Jews wouldn’t be in power positions to craft and force through liberal immigration laws; Jews are responsible for each and every Western nation’s liberal immigration policy/laws, as all were orchestrated by a consortium consisting of the World Jewish Congress, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and B’nai B’rith)

13 – No depraved filth on TV, in movies, etc. (because Jews wouldn’t run Hollywood)

14 – No widespread pornography (Jewish lawyers and Jewish activists were the main challengers of anti-obscenity laws, under the guise of “Freedom of Speech”)

15 – There would still be prayer in public schools (Jewish lawyers were instrumental in banning prayer in public schools under the guise of so-called “separation of church and state,” something that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution)

16 – No man-hating radical feminist movement (Jews such as Betty Friedan, Sonia Pressman, and Gloria Steinem, among others, were the key drivers of radical feminism)

17 – No Israel and all the problems it has brought the USA and the immeasurable misery it has wrought on the Palestinians

18 – Jews would be living in Madagascar (perhaps) and would be carefully monitored (Madagascar was one place Hitler considered as a Jewish homeland)

Many reading this will ask, “But what about the Holocaust?” The Holocaust has been grossly exaggerated by organized Jewry in order to create sympathy for Jews worldwide and thus help advance the Jewish agenda (i.e., people seen as victims tend to get their way). It is also used as a political weapon to justify Israeli militarism against the Palestinians. Hitler’s Final Solution (rebranded in the early 1970’s as the “Holocaust”) was a plan to remove Jews from Europe, not to kill them. During WWII, just as the U.S. couldn’t trust Japanese Americans, thus causing FDR to round many of them up and place them in concentration camps, Hitler couldn’t trust Jews since many were partisans sympathetic to the USSR and hence they aided the USSR in various subversive, anti-German activities. Therefore, the National Socialists rounded up Jews and placed them in concentration camps.

Somewhere around one million Jews died during WWII (not six million) mostly due to disease and starvation in the final months of the war. Heavy Allied bombing of Germany and parts of German occupied Europe destroyed many roads, rail lines, and bridges making it impossible for Germany to adequately supply the camps with food and medicine. The result is that many Jews died of starvation and disease; and of course many non-Jews also died of starvation and disease (again, due to a massive Allied bombing campaign and its destruction of German transportation infrastructure). Lastly, there were no “gas chambers.” Much has been written about this. To study the “gas chamber” subject, read the research papers published by Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno (there are many others as well). To get a broad overview of the Holocaust, read my article, What Was The Holocaust… What Actually Happened?

It should also be noted that Hitler never wanted to “conquer the world.” He simply wanted to safeguard Europe and the greater Western World from all manner of nefarious Jewish influence and, more broadly, safeguard the world-at-large specifically from, 1) usurious Jewish banking and, 2) Jewish-driven cultural degradation.

As previously stated, the Allied heads-of-State (Roosevelt, Churchill, et al) were puppets of International Jewry; each sold his soul for power and prestige. Again, as earlier stated, World War II was a war between two competing ideologies: Nationalism -vs- Jewish Bolshevik internationalism/globalism — unfortunately International Jewry won.

Was World War II “the good war” as is often claimed? No, it was exactly the opposite. The Allied victory marked the beginning of the end of Western Civilization.

88 Seconds of Silence!

We invite you to join with National-Socialists around the world on Tuesday, 30 April, for 88 seconds of silence in solemn tribute to our immortal Leader at the exact hour when, 72 years ago in Berlin, he – fulfilled his earthly mission and offered up his life for all Aryan kind and for a better world to come.

HEIL HITLER!

Eastern European Time: 4:30 pm
Central Europe: 3:30 pm
Greenwich Mean Time: 2:30 pm
Eastern Daylight Time Zone: 9:30 am
Central Daylight Time Zone: 8:30 am
Mountain Daylight Time Zone: 7:30 am
Pacific Daylight Time Zone: 6:30 am

GUIDELINES FOR COMMEMORATION

  1. Those observing the 88 Seconds of Silence should stand at attention, where and when feasible.
  2. Where possible, observants should face a visible representation of the Führer (bust, photograph or painting) and/or a Swastika banner. Some may also wish to light a candle or candles.
  3. Those at work or school should excuse themselves and find a private location. If they require permission to leave, they should say that they need a few moments for private religious observance. (Note: The lavatory is NOT an appropriate place for observance, nor is the need to use the lavatory an appropriate excuse to leave the room or work area. In fact, false excuses in general are not appropriate.)
  4. Where necessary because of time-zone difference, those who would normally be asleep during this time should make arrangements to rise early for the Observance.

The 30th of April is a sacred occasion, when His faithful followers join in a spiritual bond transcending the physical barriers separating them. It should, accordingly, be commemorated with all the solemnity and respect befitting the occasion.

MUSICAL SELECTIONS:

WAGNER: Siegfried’s Funeral Music / Act III of Götterdämmerung (Wilhelm Furtwängler; Berlin Philharmonic) 9:21 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCE_aYJNfQo

BRUCKNER: 2nd Movement “Adagio” / Symphony No. 7 in E major (Wilhelm Furtwängler; Berlin Philharmonic) 9:14 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uxt7VAmfVLk

An Eagle Came

AN EAGLE CAME from the Sun –
Again the God Ase, Creator of the World,
sent a man to bring Truth and Righteousness.
Again the world rejected Him.
Work and concern alone –
not only for His own people,
but for all of Europe – was His life.
Then He shook the dust from His wings
and returned to whence He came.
The world knows not what it has lost.

EIN AAR KAM aus der Sonne –
Wieder sandte Gott Ase, der Schöpfer des Weltalls,
einen Menschen um Wahrheit und
Gerechtigkeit zu bringen.
Die Welt hat Ihn wieder verneint.
Nur Arbeit und Sorge –
nicht nur für das eigene Volk –
sondern für ganz Europa war sein Leben.
Dann schüttelte Er den Staub aus seinen Flügeln
und kehrte zurück woher Er kam.
Die Welt weiß nicht, was sie verloren hat.

– Norwegian Nobel laureate writer Knut Hamsun, May 1945

The New Germany desires Work and Peace

Speeches by Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler

the Leader of the New Germany


DOWNLOAD in fully digitized PDF Format

 

Adolf Hitler – speech before the Reichstag: A reply to U.S. president F. D. Roosevelt

Berlin, April 28, 1939

Deputies, Men of the Reichstag!

The President of the United States of America has addressed a telegram to me, whose peculiar contents you are aware of. Since, as the addressee of this document, I saw it only after the rest of the world had gained knowledge of it on the radio and in the press, and after countless commentators from international democratic institutions had kindly informed us that this telegram was a very adroit tactical paper which was to burden those states governed by the people with the responsibility for the aggression perpetrated by the plutocracies, I resolved to convene the German Reichstag to afford you, my Deputies, the opportunity–in your capacity as the elected representatives of the German nation-to be the first to hear my response which you may either confirm or reject. Beyond this, I thought it expedient to adopt the method employed by Herr President Roosevelt and, for my part, to proceed to inform the rest of the world of my answer by the means at our disposal. I should like equally to take advantage of this occasion to express those sentiments which have deeply moved me in light of the stunning historic events of the month of March of this year.

These, my deepest sentiments, compel me to turn to Providence in humble gratitude, to thank it for calling on me, an unknown soldier in the World War, to rise to the heights of Fuhrer of my dearly beloved Volk. Providence permitted me to find the appropriate path, one not smeared with blood, to free my Volk from misery and to lead it upward once again. Providence granted me the fulfillment of what I consider the mission of my life: to uplift the German Volk from its defeat; to free it from the shackles of this most shameful Diktat of all time!

I have not, as France did in the years 1870–71, referred to the cession of Alsace-Lorraine as intolerable in the future. No, I carefully differentiated between the Saar territory and the two other former Reichslander. And I have not revised my stance on the matter, nor will I revise it in the future. Not once have I allowed my views to be violated or questioned in the interior, either for the sake of publicity, or for any other reason. The return of the Saar has removed from the face of the earth all territorial disputes between France and Germany in Europe.

Nevertheless, I have always regretted that French statesmen take this, my stance, for granted. Things are not so simple. I have not preached this stance for fear of France. As a former soldier, I have no reason for such fear. Moreover, in the context of the Saar settlement, I have left no doubt that a refusal to return this territory to Germany was unacceptable to us. No, I have assumed this attitude towards France as an expression of my realization that it is necessary for Europe to find peace somehow, and that open, limitless demands for ever new [territorial] revisions would merely sow the seeds of lasting insecurity and tensions. If tensions have now arisen, Germany does not bear the responsibility for this. Instead, this is to be blamed on international elements intentionally promoting tensions to serve their capitalist interests.

I have extended binding assurances to a series of states. Not one of the states can lament so much as an insinuation by Germany of any demands in violation thereof. Not one Nordic statesman can claim, for instance, that either the German Reich Government or German public opinion forced on him an unreasonable request which was incompatible with the territorial integrity or the sovereignty of his state.

I was glad that a number of European states took advantage of the opportunity presented by the German Reich Government’s declaration to express, in turn, their unequivocal willingness to espouse a stand of unconditional neutrality and hereby to strengthen this avowal. This is true of Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, and so on. I have already mentioned France. I need not mention Italy, as it is tied to us by bonds of a friendship both close and profound. Neither need I speak of Hungary or Yugoslavia, neighbors with whom we are fortunate to enjoy a heartfelt friendship.

By the same token, from the first moment I actively involved myself in politics, I have left no doubt that there do exist certain states of affairs which represent so base and crude an infringement on our Volk’s right to selfdetermination, that we can never be expected to accept or tolerate these. I have not written a single line or a single speech in which I have ever expressed a stance contrary to the one indicated on the subject of the states mentioned before.

Neither does there exist a single line or a single speech concerning other instances in which the stand I espoused was not retroactively confirmed by the actions I later took.

First: Austria. This oldest Ostmark of the German Volk once shielded the Reich to its southeast, as the protective march of the German nation. The Germans who settled in these lands were recruited from among all German tribes, although it may well be true that the majority of them were Bavarians.

Later this Ostmark became the seat of dynastic power of a German empire which lasted half a millennium, while Vienna became the capital city of the German Reich. Already in gradual dissolution, this German Reich was finally shattered by the Corsican Napoleon. Still, it lived on in the framework of the German Union (Deutscher Bund). Although no longer sharing a common statehood, its people recently came together, in yearned-for volkisch unity, to fight and suffer side by side in the greatest war of all time, though not united in the form of a common statehood. I myself am the child of this Ostmark.

Not only did the criminals of Versailles hack this German Reich to pieces and dissolve Austria, what was worse they forbade the Germans to avow their allegiance to the one community to which Germans have belonged for more than one thousand years. To alter this state of affairs is a task I have always regarded as the most lofty and most hallowed of missions in my life. To proclaim this will is something I have never failed to do. I stand ready to realize this will at any time in my life; it is a thought that haunts me day and night.

I would have sinned against Providence’s calling, if I had become a traitor to this endeavor to return my homeland and my German Volk of the Ostmark to the Reich, and thereby to the German Volksgemeinschaft. I have erased the most shameful page of the Versailles Treaty. I have restored the right of selfdetermination to seven-and-a-half million Germans. I have put an end to the persistent democratic rape of these seven-and-a-half million people. They were forbidden to take their destiny into their own hands-I have rescinded this prohibition. I have conducted this plebiscite before the eyes of history. Its results confirmed my expectations.

Those democratic rapists of the peoples (Volkervergewaltiger) conferring at Versailles had apparently shared them. Why else would they have forbidden a referendum on the Anschluss?

When in the course of the migration of the peoples, German tribes for inexplicable reasons began to leave the area which today is Bohemia and Moravia, a foreign, Slavic people penetrated this area and drove a wedge between those Germans who had remained behind. Ever since, this people’s Lebensraum was embraced by the German Volkstum in the form of a horseshoe. In economic terms, an independent existence of this area is conceivable only in connection with the German Volk and the German economy.

Besides this, nearly four million Germans live in the Bohemian and Moravian area. Pressure by the Czech majority has brought a policy of annihilation to bear, especially apparent since the Diktat of Versailles, but which has also been in part due to the economic situation and an increasing poverty, which, in turn, has led to an exodus of the German elements from the area. The numbers of the remaining Germans there dropped to approximately 3.7 million.

While the fringes of this area are populated exclusively by Germans, there are several big islands of German speech in its interior.

The Czechs are a people alien to us, given their foreign heritage. Through a community formed over a thousand years, German influence has largely molded and fashioned their culture. Their economy is the result of affiliation with the greater German economy. At times, the capital of this area was a German Imperial city. It is home to the oldest German university. Numerous cathedrals, city halls, palaces of noblemen and burghers attest to Germany’s cultural influences. Throughout the centuries, the Czech people have fashioned their relations to the German Volk now the more closely, now the more distantly.

Closeness of relations leads to a bloom of both the German and the Czech peoples; separation to catastrophe.

The merit and value of the German Volk is known to us. The Czechs also deserve our respect for the sum of their skills and abilities, their enterprise and diligence, their love for their homeland and folklore. And, indeed, there were periods in which respect for each other’s national conditions was considered most natural.

The credit for assigning to the Czech people the special role of a satellite state that can be set against Germany goes to the democratic architects of peace (Friedensmacher) at Versailles. To this end, they arbitrarily appropriated the possessions of other peoples to this state, not viable in its Czech ethnic core (Volkssubstanz). This meant that it was allowed to rape other nationalities in order to secure a state-financed latent threat to the German nation in Central Europe. For this state, whose so-called state people (Staatsvolk) was in the minority, could survive only due to the brutal oppression of its ethnic majorities. This oppression, in turn, was unthinkable unless the European democracies granted this state protection and assistance. This assistance would only be granted, however, if this state was willing to assume and play the role assigned to it at birth. To play this role meant preventing the consolidation of Central Europe constituting a bridge for Bolshevist aggression into Europe, and, above all, to serve as a mercenary for the European democracies’ agitation against Germany. Everything else arose then of itself.

The more actively this state pursued its mission, the greater became the resistance of the ethnic minorities opposed to it. The greater the resistance, the greater the need for suppression. The resulting hardening of the inner antagonism led to an ever greater dependence on the democratic European founders of this state and its benefactors. For they alone were in a position to maintain economically the unnatural, artificial existence of this edifice.

Essentially, Germany primarily pursued only one interest, namely, to deliver the nearly four million Germans in this country from this unbearable situation, and to enable them to return to their homeland: the one-thousand year old Reich. Of course this problem brought up immediately the entire question of the remaining nationalities. That the removal of these nationalities would rob the remainder of this state of its viability was equally clear, as the founders of this state at Versailles had been only too aware. It was because of this that they decided on the suppression of the other minorities and their forced integration into this dilettantish state structure against their will.

Never have I left any doubt of this, my view and opinion. Certainly, as long as Germany itself was impotent and defenseless, this rape of nearly four million Germans could take place without the Reich being able to mount any resistance to it. However, only a political tot could seriously believe that the German nation would forever remain in the state of the year 1919.

It was only as long as those international traitors, who were financed abroad, held the leadership of the German State that a patient acceptance of this shameful state of affairs could be expected. Ever since the victory of National Socialism forced these traitors to take up residence in those countries from where they received their subsidies, the resolution of this problem has become merely a question of time. And it was a question exclusively of the concerned nationalities, not of Western Europe. It was only natural that Western Europe should take an interest in the artificial state structure created in its interest. That the nationalities surrounding this state should consider this interest decisive for them was perhaps a regrettable fallacy for some. Insofar as this interest exclusively concerned the financial foundations of this state, no objections to this would have been voiced by Germany, had not this financial interest in the end been subservient to the power politics and ambitions of the democracies.

Even the financial sponsorship of this state served one central idea: to create a state, militarily armed to the teeth, with the task of forming a bastion reaching far into the Reich. There was no doubt of its value and the promise it held, either as a base for military operations in the context of Western incursions into the Reich or simply as an air base. A comment by the French Minister of Aviation, Pierre Cot, left no doubt of what was expected of this state. Calmly he spoke his mind, saying that it would be the task of this state, in the event of conflict, to serve as a port for arrival and departure for bombers. From there it would be possible to destroy the most important industrial centers in Germany within hours. Hence, it was only natural that the German state leadership, for its part, resolved to destroy this port of departure for bombers. It arrived at this decision not because of hatred for the Czech people. On the contrary, in the thousand years they have lived together, the German and the Czech peoples have enjoyed centuries of close cooperation, interrupted by only short periods of tension.

Admittedly, in such times of tension, the passions of the men fighting on the front lines of such ethnic conflicts may well dim their sense of justice and thus lead to a false assessment of the overall situation. This is a trait characteristic of any war. However, in the great epochs of understanding coexistence, both peoples have always agreed that each of them had an inalienable right- mutually-to the esteem and respect of its Volkstum.

Even in these years of struggle, I approached the Czech people not only in my capacity as the protector of the biased interests of his Volk and Reich, but also as one who never failed to respect the Czech people itself. One thing is certain, however: had the democratic midwives of this state been allowed to realize their ultimate goal, the German Reich would not have been eliminated, although, undoubtedly, we would also have had to take some losses. Rather the Czech people would in all likelihood have had to bear far more horrendous consequences, as regards its size and position. Indeed, I am convinced these consequences would have been catastrophic.

I am happy that we were able to prevent this catastrophe in Central Europe, albeit to the great irritation of democratic interests, thanks to the restraint we exercised and the insight of the Czech people. For the National Socialist German Reich grants its citizens from the start what the best and most insightful Czechs have fought for throughout the decades. It is the right to one’s own Volkstum, the right to cultivate it and to enjoy it freely. National Socialist Germany has no intention whatever of renouncing the racial principles on which we pride ourselves. They will not only benefit the German, but also the Czech Volk. What we demand is respect for the historic necessity, for the economic predicament that confronts us all.

As I announced the solution of this problem on March 22, 1938 before the Reichstag, I was convinced that I was attending to a Central European necessity. In March 1938, I still believed that we could resolve the minorities question in this state by a slow evolution and that, sooner or later, we would be able to assure a common platform by means of contractual cooperation, which would benefit the interests of all of us not only politically, but also economically.

It was only when Herr Beneš, by then completely in the hands of his international democratic financiers, added a military aspect to the problem and unleashed a wave of repressions on the Germans and simultaneously attempted the well-known mobilization to deal the German state a defeat internationally and to damage its prestige, that I finally realized that a solution in this manner was no longer possible. For the lie about a German mobilization at the time had obviously been inspired by foreign powers and proposed to the Czechs in order to deal a blow to the prestige of the German Reich.

I do not need to repeat once again that Germany had not mobilized a single man in May of last year. By contrast, all of us had been of the opinion that the fate of Herr Schuschnigg would induce others to seek an understanding, by means of a more just treatment of their national minorities. For my person, I had been prepared to undertake patiently such a peaceful evolution, if necessary, over a number of years.

However, it was precisely these peaceful intentions which represented a thorn in the side of the fomenters in the democracies. They hate us Germans and would much prefer to wipe us out completely. And, what are the Czechs to them? A means to an end! What interest do they have in the fate of such a brave little people? What do they care for the lives of a few hundred thousand brave soldiers who unwittingly became the victims of their politics? These Western European fomenters of peace (Friedenshetzer) did not seek to promote peace, but to spill blood. And this bloodshed did enable them to rouse people yet again and thereby to let more blood flow. That is why the mobilization was made up and the public in Prague was told a pack of lies. These were intended to serve as arguments for a Czech mobilization. Above all, they were to furnish an excuse to exert highly welcome military pressure on the pending elections in the Sudetenland.

According to these men’s convictions, there remained only two possibilities for Germany: either it accepted the Czech mobilization and hence suffered a shameful defeat, or it openly confronted Czechoslovakia in a bloody war. This would have made it possible to mobilize the peoples of Western Europe, who had no real interest in this matter, to plunge them into the necessary frenzy of bloodlust and mankind into a new catastrophe. Some would have the honor to lose their lives in this war, while others would profit from it.

You are aware of the decision I made instantly at the time, my Deputies.

First: resolution of this question before the year 1938 ended, by October 2 at the latest. Second: preparations for a solution by all those means which would leave no doubt that any attempts at interference would be thwarted by the united strength of the nation.

At the time, I directed and gave orders for the expansion of our fortifications in the west. By September 25, 1938, they were already in such a condition as to surpass the power of resistance of the former Siegfried Line by thirty to forty times. Since then, they have essentially been completed. At present, the sections I later ordered to be added, running from Saarbrucken to Aix-la-Chapelle, are under construction. To a high degree, they are ready to assume their defensive role.

The state in which this mightiest fortification of all time finds itself today affords the German nation the reassuring knowledge that no power on earth shall ever be able to pierce this front.

When the first attempt at provocation by means of the Czech mobilization had not produced the desired results, a second phase set in. It revealed all the more the true nature of the interests involved in this affair which concerned Central Europe exclusively. And when today a cry rings out in the world, “Never again Munich,” this is ample evidence that these warmongers regard the peaceful solution of this problem as the most ruinous outcome that ever happened.

They regret that no blood was shed. Not their blood, of course, since these fomenters never stand where the shots are being fired, but where the money is being made. What is at stake is the blood of many nameless soldiers.

By the way, it was not even necessary for this Conference at Munich to convene. After all, it came about only because those states which agitated for resistance at all costs later on began to search for a more or less decent escape route, once the problem called for a solution in one way or another. For without Munich, i.e. without the Western European states’ intervention, the solution of this entire problem-had there ever been a like escalation of events- would have been child’s play.

The decision at Munich resulted in the following:

  1. Return of substantial parts of the German frontier areas in Bohemia and Moravia to the Reich.
  2. Preservation of options for a resolution of the other problems with this state, i.e. the return or the migration of the remaining Hungarian and Slovak minorities.
  3. Issue of a guarantee. From the start, as far as Germany and Italy were concerned, the guarantee of this state was made conditional on the consent of all interested parties bordering the state and, thus, depended on the actual resolution of those questions concerning the interested parties.

The following questions remained open:

  1. Return of the Magyar parts to Hungary;
  2. return of the Polish parts to Poland;
  3. resolution of the Slovak question; and
  4. resolution of the Ukrainian question.

As you are aware, barely had the negotiations between Hungary and Czechoslovakia begun, when the Czechoslovakian as well as the Hungarian negotiators approached Germany and Italy, standing at our side, with the request to undertake, as arbitrators, the drawing of the new borders between Slovakia, the Carpatho-Ukraine, and Hungary. In so doing, they themselves failed to exhaust the possibility of an appeal to the Four Powers, and, thus, waived this right, i.e. declined to take advantage of it.

And this was quite understandable. All those residing in this Lebensraum wished to preserve peace and quiet. Italy and Germany were ready to heed this call. Neither England nor France objected to this agreement, which in its nature had already bypassed the formalities of the Munich Agreement. After all, it would have been crazy if either London or Paris had protested against an act by Germany or Italy which had taken place on the request of those concerned.

As always in such cases, the award arbitrated by Italy and Germany could not completely satisfy both sides. Its major shortcoming was that both parties had to agree to submit to the arbitration voluntarily. Shortly after this award was settled, two states immediately mounted strong protests.

Hungary claimed the Carpatho-Ukraine based on its general interests and certain specific ones. Poland, on the other hand, demanded a direct link to Hungary. In view of these claims, the remainder of this state born at Versailles was destined to perish. In all likelihood, only one other state was interested in maintaining the status quo: Rumania. A competent authority personally informed me of how desirable he felt it was that Rumania should be granted a direct link to Germany through the Ukraine and Slovakia. I am citing this particular example to illustrate how threatened Rumania must have felt by Germany, as certain American clairvoyants would have had it.

It was clear, however, that it was neither Germany’s duty to oppose such a development in the long run, nor to fight for a state of affairs for which we could never have assumed responsibility.

Hence came the moment in which I resolved to declare, on behalf of the Reich Government, that we had no intention to continue to be bothered with the odium of opposing the Polish and Hungarian desire for a common border, just perhaps to secure a route of advance into Rumania. And since the Czech government resorted once more to its methods of old, and Slovakia revealed its desires for independence, there could be no talk of maintaining this state any longer. The Czechoslovakian state constructed at Versailles had outlived its purpose. It broke up not because Germany wished this. It broke up because it is not possible to construct and maintain at the conference table artificial states which are not viable in themselves.

Thus when, a few days before this state disintegrated, England and France inquired about a guarantee, Germany rejected this because the conditions stipulated at Munich no longer applied. To the contrary, when the German Reich Government finally resolved to intervene on its part-now that this whole structure was in the process of disintegration and, for all practical purposes, had already disintegrated-then this occurred in the fulfillment of a self-evident duty. In this context, the following ought to be noted: On the occasion of the Czech Foreign Minister Chvalkovsky’s first visit to Munich, the German Reich Government clearly expressed its views on the future of Czechoslovakia. At the time, I myself assured Herr Minister Chvalkovsky that, given a decent treatment of the large remaining German minorities in Czechia and a pacification of the whole state, Germany would assume a fair attitude. We did not wish to create difficulties for this state.

I left no doubt that, if Czechia undertook any steps reminiscent of the political tendencies of the retired Herr Dr. Beneš, Germany would not tolerate a development along this line. Such a development would be nipped in the bud.

At the time, I also pointed out that the maintenance of huge military arsenal in Central Europe without aim and object had to be regarded as a source of danger.

Later developments proved how right this warning of mine had been. A continually worsening whispering campaign as well as a lapse of the Czech newspapers into the old style made it clear to even the most simple-minded that a return to the old state of affairs was imminent.

The danger of a military confrontation was ever present in view of the possibility that some lunatics could seize the enormous stockpile of war material.

This involved a certain danger of explosions of incalculable consequences.

To prove this to you, my Deputies, I have no choice but to give you a general idea of the numerical proportions of the international arsenal of explosives in Central Europe, which strike me as downright gigantic.

Since this territory has been occupied, the following items were confiscated and secured:

  1. Air Force: 1,582 planes; 501 anti-aircraft guns;
  2. Army: 2,175 fieldguns (light and heavy); 785 mortars; 469 tanks; 43,876 machineguns; 114,000 pistols; 1,090,000 rifles;
  3. Ammunition: 1,000,000,000 shells (infantry); 3,000,000 shells (artillery and gas);
  4. Other weaponry of all types, such as devices for building bridges; listening devices; searchlights; measuring instruments; cars and special vehicles in great numbers.

I believe that it was fortunate for millions and millions of people that I was able to prevent this explosion, thanks to the insight which the responsible men on the other side had at the last minute. It is my conviction that we found a solution which has settled this dispute and has eliminated it as a source of danger for Central Europe.

The claim that this solution contradicts the Munich Agreement cannot be justified any more than it can be substantiated. Under no circumstances can the Munich settlement be regarded as a final one. After all, it makes concessions for the solution of additional questions and the need to resolve them. Truly, and this is decisive, it cannot be held against us that the concerned parties appealed to Italy and Germany, and not to the Four Powers. Nor can it be held against us that Czechoslovakia disintegrated on its own and, hence, ceased to exist. It is only natural that, once these ethnographic principles no longer applied, Germany again took charge of its one-thousand year old interests, which are not only of a political, but also of an economic nature. Time will tell whether the solution Germany found was the right one. One thing is sure, however: this solution should not be subject to English control or criticism. For the Lander of Bohemia and Moravia have nothing at all to do with the Munich Agreement since they constituted the final remnants of the former Czechoslovakian state.

As little right as we have to subject English measures, whether just or unjust, to German control and criticism, for instance in Northern Ireland, as little right does England possess to do this in the case of the old German electorates. I completely fail to understand how the personal understanding reached by Mr. Chamberlain and myself at Munich can be applied to this case. After all, the case of Czechoslovakia was dealt with in the Munich Agreement insofar as it was possible to deal with it at that point. Beyond this, it was only planned that, should the concerned parties be unable to arrive at a agreement themselves, they could appeal to the Four Powers. After a period of three months, the Four Powers would meet again for further consultations.

Now the concerned parties have not appealed to the Four Powers, but to Germany and Italy. Evidence for the legitimacy of this step lies in the fact that neither England nor France voiced any objections. Moreover, they have accepted without any further ado the award arbitrated by Germany and Italy.

No, the agreement Mr. Chamberlain and I entered into has nothing to do with the problem at hand. It applies exclusively to questions concerning the coexistence of England and Germany. This is equally evident in the statement that such questions, in the future, ought to be dealt with in the spirit of the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, which advocate friendly relations by means of mutual consultations. Should this agreement apply to any and all future German political activities, then England could not take any further steps, for instance, in Palestine or anywhere else for that matter, without consulting Germany before taking action. We certainly expect nothing of the kind and, in turn, we protest that this is expected of us. When Mr. Chamberlain now concludes that the Munich Agreement is null and void, because we abrogated it, I shall take note of his disposition as of today and I shall draw the proper conclusions.

Throughout my years of political activities, I have always advocated the idea of establishing close Anglo-German friendship and cooperation. I found countless congenial people in my Movement. Perhaps they even joined my Movement because of this conviction of mine. The desire for Anglo-German friendship and cooperation not only reflects my own proper sentiments on the topic, derived from the common heritage of our two peoples, but also my opinion that the existence of the British Empire is of importance to mankind and in its best interest. Never have I left any doubt about my conviction that the maintaining of this empire is an object of inestimable value to mankind’s culture and economy.

By whatever means Great Britain may have gained its colonial possessions- and I know this entailed the use of force, the use of the most brutal force in many instances-I nevertheless realize that no other empire has ever been created by different means. In the end, world history values not the method so much as the success; and this not in terms of the success of the method employed, but of the general utility derived from the method.

Undoubtedly the Anglo-Saxon people have accomplished a great colonizing work on this earth. I sincerely admire this achievement. From a higher humanitarian point of view, the thought of its destruction has always seemed to me, and seems to me today, the product of a wanton thirst for fame (Herostratentum). However, my sincere respect for this attainment does not mean I will refrain from assuring the life of my own Volk. I believe it is not possible to bring about a lasting friendship between the German and the Anglo-Saxon peoples if the other side fails to realize that next to British interests there are German ones also. As for the men of Britain the sustenance of the British Empire lends meaning and purpose to life, so the sustenance and liberty of the German Reich does for the men of Germany! A lasting friendship between these two nations is conceivable only in the framework of mutual respect.

The English rule a mighty empire. They built this empire in the days of the German Volk’s slackening. In former times, the German Reich also was a mighty empire. It once ruled the West. In bloody battles and religious confrontations, as well as because this state split up internally, this Reich lost its might and greatness and finally fell into a deep sleep. Still, as the old Reich was nearing its end, the seed for its ultimate rebirth began to germinate. A new Germany grew out of Brandenburg and Prussia: the Second Reich. And, in the final instance, this became the German Volksreich of today.

Perhaps now the English will understand that we have no reason to feel in the least inferior to them. For this, truly, our historic past is too colossal! England has given the world many a great man; Germany has done no less.

The difficult struggle for the survival of our Volk has demanded of us, in the course of three centuries, a blood sacrifice in the defense of the Reich far outstripping the sacrifices other peoples had to make to secure their existence. That, perpetually the victim of aggression, Germany was not able to maintain its assets, that it had to sacrifice many provinces, has been the result of the state’s undesirable development which caused its impotence.

We have now overcome this condition. We, as Germans, therefore do not feel inferior to the British. Our respect for our country is just as great as that of every Englishman for England. The history of our Volk throughout the past two thousand years affords us grounds enough and deeds to fill us with sincere pride.

Should England declare itself incapable of understanding this, our attitude, and should it instead perhaps regard Germany as a vassal state, then our offer of love and friendship for England will have been for naught. We shall neither despair nor lose heart because of this. Instead, we shall then set out on a path- conscious of our own strength and that of our friends-which shall secure our independence and not prejudice our dignity.

I am aware of the British Prime Minister’s declaration in which he maintains he cannot place any trust in assurances by Germany. Under the circumstances, I felt that we should no longer burden him or the English people with conditions, unthinkable without mutual trust. When Germany became National Socialist and thus initiated its resurrection, I made a proposal, for my part, in pursuit of my stalwart policy of friendship for England, to impose voluntary limits on German armament at sea. This implied the will and conviction that war should never again be possible between England and Germany. And this remains my will and my conviction even today.

However, I am now forced to concede that England’s official and unofficial policies leave no doubt that London no longer shares this conviction. Quite the contrary, it is my conviction that, irrespective of what type of conflict Germany might be drawn into, Britain will always oppose Germany. War with Germany is regarded as a matter of course.

I deeply regret this since my only demand of England today is, and will continue to be, the return of our colonies. However, I have always made it perfectly clear that this does not constitute grounds for a war. I remain true to my conviction that England, for whom the colonies have no value, would come to understand Germany’s position one day. Then it would undoubtedly realize that Germany’s friendship far outweighed these objects, which, while they are of no real use to England, are of vital importance to Germany.

Beyond this, I have never made any demands which affected British interests, posed a real danger to its world empire, or were detrimental to England in some other manner. I have restricted myself to demands in the framework of Germany’s Lebensraum, questions closely tied to the German nation’s eternal possessions. Now that journalists and officials in England publicly advocate opposition to Germany in any case, and this is confirmed by the well-known policy of encirclement, then the foundations on which the Anglo-German Naval Agreement rested have been destroyed.

Thus, I have resolved to inform the British Government of this today. This is not a question of a material affair-since I continue to cherish the hope that an arms race with England can be avoided-but a question of self-respect.

Should the British government reconsider and wish to negotiate this matter with Germany in order to reach a clear and definite understanding, then no one would be happier than I.

Beyond this, I know my Volk-I rely on it. We desire nothing that was not ours before. Never will we rob another state of its rightful possessions.

Alas, he who believes he can attack Germany will encounter such a power and such a resistance that those of the year 1914 will have been negligible in comparison.

I would like to discuss in this context a matter which those circles that earlier occasioned the mobilization of Czechoslovakia have taken up as a point of departure for a new campaign against the Reich. In the introduction to my speech, my Deputies, I already assured you that never in my political life, neither in the case of Austria nor in the case of Czechoslovakia, have I assumed an attitude which was incompatible with the measures now executed. On the question of the Memel Germans, I have always pointed out that, should Lithuania not resolve this problem in a refined and generous manner, Germany would have to appear on the scene one day.

You know that the Diktat of Versailles arbitrarily tore the Memel territory from the German Reich, and that in 1923, in the midst of peace, Lithuania occupied these areas and confiscated them more or less. The fate suffered by the Germans living there has become tantamount to martyrdom since then. In the framework of the reintegration of Bohemia and Moravia into the German Reich, I was able to reach an agreement with the Lithuanian government, which allowed for the return of these areas to Germany without any violent act or bloodshed. And here, too, I did not demand even one square mile more than what we originally had possessed and had been robbed of.

This means that only those areas torn from us by the insane dictators of peace at Versailles returned to the German Reich. I am convinced that this solution will have a favorable effect on the relations between Germany and Lithuania. Our behavior has clearly shown that Germany now has no interest in anything other than to live in peace and friendship also with this state. We seek to establish and cultivate economic ties with it.

And, in principle, I wish to explain the following here: the significance of economic agreements with Germany lies not only in its ability to produce nearly all industrial goods in demand, but also in its role as a gigantic consumer. As the buyer of numerous products Germany makes it possible for many other countries to participate in world trade in the first place. Hence, it is in our own best interest not only to preserve these markets, but to cultivate them as well.

For this is what the existence of our Volk is based on to a high degree. It is once more a sign of the greatness of the so-called democratic statesmen that they believe they have won an eminent political success when they manage to prevent a people from making sales, for example, by boycotting its markets, in order to starve them out, I presume. I need not tell you that, in accordance with my convictions, a people will not starve because of this, but it will be all the more willing to fight under such circumstances.

As far as Germany is concerned, it is determined not to allow certain markets which are of vital interest to the nation to be taken from it by terrorist interventions from abroad or by threats from there. This is not only in our interest, but also in the interest of our trading partners. In this case, as in any type of business, dependency is not unilateral but mutual.

We often have the pleasure to read dilettantish treatises in the democratic press which in all earnest maintain that, because Germany has close economic relations with a country, it is trying to make that country dependent on it. What truly hair-raising Jewish nonsense! For, if today the German Reich delivers machinery to an agricultural state and receives foodstuffs in return, then the Reich as a consumer of these foodstuffs is at least as dependent-if not more dependent-on this agricultural state as the agricultural state is on Germany from which it receives industrial products as payment.

Germany regards the Baltic States as its most important trading partners. It is hence in our own interest to see that these lead an independent, orderly national life of their own. In our eyes, this is a prerequisite for any economic development domestically, which in turn creates the prerequisites for our barter trade.

I therefore am happy that in the case of Lithuania, too, we have been able to remove the bone of contention between our two countries. Thus, we have cleared away the only obstacle in the way of a friendly policy. It does not consist of political compliments, but can and will hold its own, I am convinced, in practical work in the economic sphere.

The democratic world profoundly regrets that no blood was shed in this instance, too. It regrets that 175,000 Germans were able to return to their beloved German homeland without a few hundred thousand others being shot in the process! This truly pains the humane world apostles. It is not surprising in the least that they immediately set out to search for new means of once again upsetting the European atmosphere thoroughly. And this time, as in the case of Czechoslovakia, they again alleged that Germany had taken military measures, that is they claimed that a so-called German mobilization had taken place. And the object of this mobilization was Poland.

There is little to be said on the topic of Polish-German relations. In this instance as well, the Peace Treaty of Versailles has grievously and intentionally wounded the German Volk. Above all, the strange delimitation of the Corridor, granting Poland access to the sea, was to preclude a reconciliation between Poland and Germany for all time. And, as emphasized earlier, this problem is perhaps the most painful one for Germany to bear.

This notwithstanding, I remained steadfast in my conviction that the necessity of granting the Polish state free access to the sea cannot be ignored.

Moreover, in principle, I have always maintained that it would be expedient that people whom Providence has destined-or damned, for all I care-to live next to one another, did not needlessly and artificially poison their relations. The late Marshal Pilsudski, who adhered to this view also, was willing to review the issue of a decontamination of Polish-German relations and finally to arrive at an agreement, in which Germany and Poland pledged themselves to renounce war as a means of settling conflicts between them.

Poland was granted one exception from this agreement: the provision that pacts of assistance previously entered into by Poland would not be affected by this regulation. Reference here was solely to the Mutual Assistance Pact with France. It was accepted as a matter of course that this provision applied only to the pact already concluded and was not to be extended to pacts to be concluded in the future. It is a fact that this German-Polish Pact considerably contributed to a relaxation of tensions in Europe.

Nevertheless one question remained open, one issue which would naturally have to be resolved sooner or later: the question of the German city of Danzig. Danzig is a German city and it wishes to return to Germany. On the other hand, this city does have contractual obligations to Poland, although they were forced on it by the dictators of peace at Versailles. Now that the League of Nations-previously a great contributor to the unrest-has commissioned a most tactful High Commissioner to represent its interest, the question of Danzig was destined to land on the conference table once more, at the very latest when this ominous institution itself began to fade. I regard the peaceful resolution of this question as a further contribution to a final relaxation of tensions in Europe. This relaxation of tensions is assuredly not promoted by the smear campaign of warmongers gone crazy, but rather by the elimination of real sources of danger.

Since the problem of Danzig was discussed several times a few months ago, I forwarded to the Polish Government a concrete proposal. I will now inform you, my Deputies, of the contents of this proposal. You shall be able to judge for yourselves whether this proposal was not the most gigantic concession imaginable in the service of peace in Europe.

As emphasized previously, I have always recognized the necessity for this state to have access to the sea and I have taken account of this. I am not a democratic statesman; I am a realistic National Socialist. However, I held it equally necessary to point out to the government in Warsaw that, just as it desires access to the sea, Germany desires access to its province in the East. These are indeed difficult problems. Germany bears no responsibility for this. The ones to be blamed are the magicians of Versailles who either out of malice or thoughtlessness set up a hundred powder kegs all around Europe, each equipped with a fuse virtually impossible to extinguish.

You cannot solve these problems in the same old way. I hold it to be absolutely essential that new ways be found. After all, Poland’s access to the sea and Germany’s access to the Corridor are devoid of any military significance.

Their significance is of a psychological and economic nature exclusively. To assign military significance to this traffic route would mean succumbing to military naivety to an exceptional degree.

I have therefore made the following proposal to the Polish Government:

  1. Danzig is reintegrated into the framework of the German Reich as a Free State.
  2. A highway and a railroad line through the Corridor are placed at Germany’s disposal. They are accorded the same extraterritorial status which the Corridor now enjoys.

In return, Germany is willing:

  1. to recognize all economic rights of Poland in Danzig;
  2. to secure for Poland a free port of whatever size it desires in Danzig and to guarantee free access thereto;
  3. to regard and accept the borders between Germany and Poland as final;
  4. to enter into a twenty-five-year pact of non-aggression with Poland, a pact which would far outlive me, and
  5. to secure the independence of the Slovak state through cooperation between Germany, Poland, and Hungary, which is tantamount to a virtual renunciation of a one-sided German hegemony in this area.

The Polish Government has refused this proposal of mine and has declared itself willing:

  1. to discuss only the question of a potential replacement of the present League of Nations’ High Commissioner and
  2. to consider facilitating transit traffic through the Corridor.

I sincerely regret the attitude of the Polish government which I fail to understand. This alone is not decisive, however. What is far worse is that Poland, like Czechoslovakia a year ago, now apparently believes it has to call up troops, under pressure from a mendacious worldwide campaign of rabblerousing.

And this though Germany has conscripted not one man nor in any way intended to take action against Poland.

As stated earlier, all this is regrettable in itself. It will be up to posterity to decide whether it was wise to refuse the unique proposal which I had made. As stated earlier, this was an attempt to resolve a question which moves the entire German nation emotionally through a truly unique compromise, and to solve it to the advantage of both countries.

It is my conviction that Poland was not interested in the give and take of this solution-it sought exclusively to take. That Danzig could never again become Polish was completely beyond doubt. And the plans for an attack, falsely attributed to Germany by the international press, now led to the so-called offers of guarantee. It also led to a commitment by the Polish government to a pact of mutual assistance which would force Poland to oppose Germany militarily, in the event of war between Germany and another power-in which England would appear on the scene again. This commitment violates the agreement which, at the time, I had entered into with Marshal Pilsudski. For this agreement bore solely on commitments then already in existence, i.e. on Poland’s commitment to France, of which we knew. To expand on these commitments retroactively is inconsistent with the German-Polish Non- Aggression Pact. Under the circumstances, I would never have concluded this Pact. For what is the meaning of a non-aggression pact, when one party leaves open countless exceptions to the rules! Either collective security exists, that is collective insecurity and the perpetual threat of imminent war, or there are clear agreements, which, in principle, prevent the contracting parties from resorting to arms. Thus, I regard the agreement reached at the time with Marshal Pilsudski as unilaterally abrogated by Poland and therefore null and void. I have informed the Polish Government of this. I can only repeat once again that this does not signify a fundamental change in principle in my views of the stated problems.

Should the Polish Government consider it worth its while to arrive at a renewed contractual regulation of its relations to Germany, then I shall naturally welcome this with the one provision that such a regulation must contain clear commitments, which must be mutually binding for both parties.

Germany is gladly willing to undertake such obligations and to fulfill them as well.

When, for these reasons, new unrest took hold in Europe during the past weeks, the propaganda at the service of the international warmongers was responsible, a form of propaganda perpetrated by numerous organs in the democratic states. They seek to continuously exacerbate nervous tensions by fabricating persistent rumors; to make Europe ripe for a catastrophe; that catastrophe which they hope will achieve what has not been achieved by other means up to now: Bolshevism’s annihilation of European culture! The rabblerousers’ hatred is easily understood if one considers that in the meantime one of the crisis spots in Europe has been pacified, thanks to the heroism of one man and his people, and-if I may say so-thanks to the Italian and German volunteers. During these last weeks, Germany has joined in the experience and celebration of Spain’s victory with heartfelt sympathy.

When, at the time, I resolved to heed the request by General Franco for assistance by National Socialist Germany in his struggle against the international backing of the Bolshevist murderers and incendiaries (Mordbrenner), the same international warmongers misinterpreted and abused this step by Germany in the most shameful manner.

At the time, Germany was accused of seeking to gain a foothold in Spain; of coveting Spain’s colonies; there was the base lie of 20,000 men landing in Morocco. In brief, everything possible was done to discredit the idealism of our men and the Italian reinforcements and to provide new fodder for yet another campaign of warmongering.

In a few weeks, the victorious hero of Nationalist Spain will make his solemn entry into the capital of his country. The Spanish people will jubilantly cheer him as their savior from unspeakable horrors, as their liberator from gangs of murderers and incendiaries, on whose conscience are the execution and the murder of an estimated 775,000 human beings. Entire populations of villages and cities were literally slaughtered under the silent, gracious patronage of humanitarian world apostles from the democracies of Western Europe and North America. In this victory parade, side by side with their Italian comrades, the volunteers of our German Legion will march in the rows of valiant Spanish soldiers.

Shortly afterwards we hope to welcome them here in the homeland. The German Volk will then find out how, in this instance also, its valiant sons fought in the defense of the freedom of a most noble people and how, in the end, they contributed to the rescue of European civilization. For the victory of Bolshevist subhumanity (Untermenschentum) in Spain could only too easily have swept over Europe. Hence, the hatred felt by those who regret that Europe did not go up in flames. Now, they are all the more determined to make use of every opportunity to sow the seeds of distrust between nations and to whip up the enthusiasm for war, desirable from their point of view, somewhere else.

What these international warmongers have come up with, in the last weeks, in terms of mendacious statements and falsified reports, which were circulated in numerous newspapers, was partially as childish as it was spiteful. And its first success-insofar as it did not serve the domestic politics of the democratic governments exclusively-has been the spread of a type of nervous hysteria which in the land of unlimited possibilities has presently already led to people thinking that a landing by Martians is possible. However, the actual purpose is to prepare public opinion to accept the English policy of encirclement as necessary and, if worse comes to worse, to support this policy.

By contrast, the German Volk can calmly go about its daily work. The best army in Germany’s history defends its frontiers; a gigantic Luftwaffe protects its air space; its coasts have been made unassailable by any enemy power. In the West the mightiest bulwark of all time has been erected.

What is decisive, however, is the unity of the Volkskorper, the trust all Germans place in their Wehrmacht, and-I believe I can say this-the trust that all place in their leadership.

No less is the trust our leadership and our Volk place in our friends. At their fore stands the one state, which in its fateful solidarity is closest to us in all respects. And in this year also, Fascist Italy has shown the greatest possible understanding for Germany’s justified interests. No one should be surprised that, for our part, we reciprocate these sentiments for Italy’s vital necessities.

The alliance which binds the two peoples can never come apart! Any attempt to rock it is ludicrous in our eyes. In any event, a few days ago, one great democratic newspaper published an article which illustrates and elucidates this well. It maintained that one could no longer count on playing Italy and Germany against each other in order to destroy them separately later.

Thus, the German Reich Government has profound understanding for the lawfulness of the action of our Italian friend against Albania and has welcomed it. Yes, Fascism has not only the right but the duty to attend to the preservation of order in this Lebensraum, which nature and history have assigned to Italy. Only such an order can lay the foundations for the bloom of human civilization and its maintenance. And the rest of the world can no more doubt, in the end, the civilizing works of Fascism than it can doubt those of National Socialism. In both cases, undeniable facts speak against untenable fibs and unproven assertions by the other side.

It is the long-term goal of the German State leadership to bring about increasingly close relations between Germany, Italy, and Japan. We regard the continued existence and the preservation of the freedom and independence of these three world powers as a strong element in the maintenance of a truly human civilization, a practical civilization, as well as a more just world order for the future.

As I mentioned in my introduction earlier, the world was informed of the contents of a certain telegram on April 15, 1939. I did eventually see this telegram myself, though not until somewhat later. It is difficult to classify this document. It simply fits into no known category. Therefore, my Deputies of the German Reichstag, standing before you and hence before the German Volk, I will try to analyze the contents of this curious document. From there I will go on to give the necessary answers in your name and in the name of the German Volk.

  1. Mr. Roosevelt is of the opinion that I also ought to be aware that “throughout the world hundreds of millions of human beings are living today in constant fear of a new war or even a series of wars.” This was of definite concern to the United States, for whom he spoke, “as it must also be to the peoples of the other nations of the entire western hemisphere.”

Answer: To this I would like to say that the fear of war has undoubtedly haunted mankind throughout the ages, and rightly so. For example, from the conclusion of the Peace Treaty of Versailles in 1919 until 1938, fourteen wars alone have been waged, in none of which Germany has been involved. However, the same cannot be said of states of the “western hemisphere” in the name of which Mr. President Roosevelt claims to be speaking. To these wars one must add, within the same time period, twenty-six armed interventions and sanctions imposed by brute force, and resulting in bloodshed. And in this, too, Germany has not been involved in the least.

The United States has participated in six cases of armed intervention since the year 1918 alone Soviet Russia has been involved in ten wars and military actions since 1918 carried out by use of force and bloodshed. And in this, too, Germany has not been involved. Nor has it caused any of these incidents.

Hence, in my eyes, it would be a mistake to attribute the fear of war of the peoples of Europe and beyond right now to precisely those wars for which Germany could be held responsible.

Instead, the cause for this fear lies in an unbridled smear campaign in the press, as mendacious as it is vile, in the dissemination of nasty pamphlets to foreign heads of state, in the artificial scaremongering which has even made interventions from other planets seem possible, which, in turn, has led to dreadful scenes of utter confusion.

I believe that the minute the responsible governments exercise the necessary restraint themselves and demonstrate greater love of truth, and impose this criterion on their journalistic organs, with regard to international relations and the internal affairs of other people, then assuredly this constant fear of war will vanish immediately. And then, the peace we all desire will be forthcoming.

  1. Mr. Roosevelt professes the belief in his telegram that “any major war even if it were to be confined to other continents must bear heavily on everyone during its continuance and also for generations to come.”

Answer: No one knows this better than the German Volk. The Peace Treaty of Versailles placed so heavy a burden of debt on its shoulders that even a hundred years would not have sufficed to pay it off. And all this despite the fact that it was American specialists in constitutional law, historians, and professors of history who proved conclusively that Germany could not be blamed for the outbreak of the World War any more than any other nation.

Still, I do not believe that every struggle has catastrophic consequences for the environment, i.e. the entire earth, especially if it is not artificially drawn into this conflict by a system of impenetrable alliances. Since the world has experienced wars not only in the past centuries, but also frequently in more recent decades, as I have demonstrated in my earlier comments, then this would mean that, if Mr. Roosevelt’s views are correct, the sum of the consequences of these wars would bear heavily on mankind for millions of years to come.

  1. Mr. Roosevelt declared that already “on a previous occasion” he had addressed me “on behalf of the settlement of political, economic and social problems by peaceful methods and without resort to war.”

Answer: This is precisely the same opinion I have always advocated myself. Also as history proves, I have settled the necessary political, economic and social problems without resort to arms, without resort to war. Regrettably, a peaceful settlement has been rendered more difficult through the agitation by politicians, statesmen, and news reporters, who were neither concerned nor in the least affected by the issues in question.

  1. Mr. Roosevelt believes that “the tide of events seems to have reverted to the threat of arms. If such threats continue, it seems inevitable that much of the world must become involved in common ruin.”

Answer: As far as Germany is concerned, I am not aware of such threats to other nations. Nevertheless, each day in democratic newspapers I read lies concerning such threats. Daily I read about the mobilization of German troops, trooplandings, and blackmail. And all this is supposedly directed against states with whom we live in peace and enjoy the most friendly of relations.

  1. Mr. Roosevelt further believes that, in the event of war, “all the world, victor nations, vanquished nations, and neutral nations will suffer.”

Answer: This is a conviction I have expressed as a politician during twenty years in which, regrettably, the responsible statesmen in America could not bring themselves to see their involvement in the World War and the nature of its outcome in this light.

  1. Mr. Roosevelt believes that “it is clear that the leaders of great nations have it in their power to liberate their peoples from the disaster that impends.”

Answer: If this is indeed clear, then it must be truly criminal negligence-not to employ a less refined expression-by the leaders of these peoples if they prove incapable of curtailing, in view of the powers at their command, the excesses of their warmongering press and thereby of sparing the world the disaster which threatens in the case of armed confrontation.

Moreover, I fail to comprehend how the responsible leaders, instead of cultivating diplomatic relations internationally, can recall their ambassadors or take like actions to disrupt and render these relations more difficult without a good reason.

  1. Mr. Roosevelt declares that “three nations in Europe and one in Africa have seen their independent existence terminated.”

My answer: I do not understand which three nations in Europe are being referred to.

Should reference be made to the provinces which have been reintegrated in the German Reich, then I must bring a mistaken notion of history to the attention of the President. These nations have by no means lost their independence within Europe. Rather it was in the year 1918 when, through the breach of a solemn promise, they were torn from the communities they belonged to. The stamp of nationhood was imprinted on their brow, one they neither desired nor deserved.

Independence was likewise forced on those who gained no independence thereby, but who instead were forced into a dependency on foreign powers whom they despised.

As far as the nation in Africa is concerned which supposedly lost its freedom too, this is evidently yet another case of mistaken identity. Not one nation in Africa has lost its freedom. Rather nearly all former inhabitants of this continent have been subjected by brute force to the sovereignty of other peoples. This is how they lost their freedom. The people of Morocco, the Berbers, the Arabs, the Negroes, and so on, all of them became the victims of foreign powers, whose swords assuredly did not bear the inscription “Made in Germany,” but instead “Made by Democracies.”

  1. Mr. Roosevelt then says that reports, which he trusts are not true, “insist that further acts of aggression are contemplated against still other independent nations.”

Answer: I hold such rumors, devoid of any basis in reality, to constitute a violation of peace and quiet in the world. I perceive therein an attempt to frighten small nations or at least an attempt to make them increasingly nervous. Should Mr.

Roosevelt have concrete cases in mind, then I would request that he name the states threatened by an attack and the potential aggressors in question. Then it will be possible to eliminate from the face of this earth these outrageous and general accusations by short declarations.

  1. Mr. Roosevelt declares that “plainly the world is moving toward the moment when this situation must end in catastrophe unless a more rational way of guiding events is found.” He then goes on to declare that I have repeatedly asserted that I and the German people “have no desire for war. If this is true there need be no war.”

My answer: Once again, I would like to state that, first of all, I have not waged war.

And, second, I have lent expression to my distaste for war as well as for warmongering for many years. Third, I do not know why I should wage war. I would be greatly indebted to Mr. Roosevelt if he could explain all this to me.

  1. Mr. Roosevelt finally espouses the opinion that “nothing can persuade the peoples of the earth that any governing power has the right or need to inflict the consequences of war on its own or any other people save in the case of selfevident home defense.”

My answer: I hold this to be the attitude embraced by all reasonable men. Only it seems to me that in almost every war both parties tend to claim to be acting in self-evident home defense. Regrettably, the world does not possess any institution, including the person of Roosevelt, able to resolve this problem unequivocally. For example, there is no doubt that America did not enter into the World War in “self-evident home defense.” A commission appointed by Mr. Roosevelt himself to investigate the reasons for America’s entry into the World War arrived at the conclusion that this entry had been essentially for the realization of capitalist interests. Now, all there is left for us to do is to hope that the United States itself shall adhere to this noble principle in the future and will not make war on another people “save in the case of selfevident home defense.”

  1. Mr. Roosevelt further argues that he speaks “not through selfishness or fear of weakness, but with the voice of strength and with friendship for mankind.”

My answer: Had America raised its voice of strength and friendship for mankind in a more timely fashion and, above all, had this voice carried with it practical applications, then at least the treaty could have been prevented, which has become the source of the greatest disruption for mankind of all time, namely, the Diktat of Versailles.

  1. Mr. Roosevelt further declares that it is clear to him that “all international problems can be solved at the Council table.”

My answer: Theoretically that may well be possible, since one ought to think that, in many instances, reason would prevail in pointing to the justness of the demands on the one side, and to the necessity of making concessions on the other. For example, according to all laws of reason, logic, and the principles of an allencompassing higher justice, even according to the commandments of a divine will, all nations should equally partake in the goods of this world. It is not right that one nation should occupy so large a Lebensraum that not even fifteen inhabitants live on one square kilometer, while other nations are forced to sustain themselves with 140, 150, or even 200 inhabitants per square kilometer.

And, under no circumstances, could these fortunate nations then seek to restrict the existing Lebensraum of those already impoverished, for example, by taking away their colonies. Thus, I would be happy if these problems could actually be solved at the Council table.

My skepticism is based on the fact that it was America which lent expression itself to pronounced reservations regarding the effectiveness of conferences. Without doubt, the greatest council of all time was the League of Nations. It was the will of an American President which created this body. All nations of this world together were to solve the problems of mankind at its Council table. However, the first state to withdraw from this endeavor was the United States. And this was the case because President Wilson himself already had voiced severe misgivings about the possibility of solving truly decisive international problems at the Council table.

With all due respect to your opinion, Mr. Roosevelt, it is contradicted by the actual fact that, in the nearly twenty years of the League of Nations’ existence-this greatest permanent conference of the world-it did not manage to solve even one truly decisive international problem. Throughout many years, the Treaty of Versailles had selectively excluded Germany from active participation in this great international conference in breach of the promise given by President Wilson. In spite of the bitter experiences of the past, the German Government nevertheless did not believe it ought to follow the example of the United States, but instead chose to occupy its seat at the Council table at a later date. It was not until after many years of futile participation that I finally resolved to imitate the Americans and withdraw from this greatest conference in the world. And since then I have set out to solve the problems concerning my Volk, which regrettably were not solved at the Council table of the League of Nations like all the others, and, without exception, I solved them without resort to war! Beyond this, many problems were brought to the attention of international conferences in the past years, as emphasized earlier, without a solution of any kind being found. And, Mr. Roosevelt, if your view is correct that all problems can be solved at the Council table, then all nations, including the United States, must have been led either by blind men or criminals in the last seven or eight thousand years. For all of them, including some of the greatest statesmen in the United States, have made history not by sitting at Council tables, but by making use of the strength of their nation. America did not gain its independence at the Council table any more than the conflict between its northern and southern states was solved at the Council table. I am leaving out of consideration here that the same holds true for the countless wars in the course of the gradual conquest of the North American continent. I mention all this only to observe that, with all due respect to the assuredly noble nature of your views, Mr. President Roosevelt, they are not in the least confirmed by either the history of your own country or the history of the rest of the world.

  1. Mr. Roosevelt further asserts that “it is therefore no answer to the plea for peaceful discussion for one side to plead that unless they receive assurances beforehand that the verdict will be theirs they will not lay aside their arms.”

My answer: Truly, Mr. Roosevelt, you cannot believe that when the fate of the nation is at stake any government or leadership of the nation will lay down its weapons before a conference, or surrender them, simply in the blind hope that the intelligence or insight, or whatever, of the other participants in the conference will make the right decision in the end? Mr. Roosevelt, there has been only one people and one government in all of world history, which has adhered to the formula which you recommend: that of Germany. Acting on solemn promises by the American President Wilson and the endorsement of these assurances by the Allies, the German nation once trustingly laid down its arms. It approached the Council table unarmed. However, once it had laid down its arms, the German nation no longer was even invited to the conference. Instead, contrary to all assurances, the greatest breach of promise of all time was affected.

And then, one fine day, instead of resolving the greatest confusion of all time at the Council table, the most inhuman Diktat in the world brought about even more terrible confusion. The representatives of the German Volk, having laid down their arms and trusting in the solemn assurances of the American President, appeared unarmed to accept the Diktat of Versailles. They were received not as the representatives of a nation, which throughout four years had withstood the whole world with immense heroism in the struggle for its freedom and independence, but instead they were treated in a more degrading manner than could have been the case with Sioux Chiefs.

The German delegates were called names by the mob, stoned. They were dragged to the greatest Council table in the world no differently than prisoners to the tribunal of a victor. There, at gunpoint, they were forced to accept the most shameful subjugation and pillage of all time. Let me assure you, Mr. Roosevelt, that it is my own unshakeable will to see to it that not only now, but in the future as well, no German ever again shall step into a conference room defenseless. Instead, every representative of Germany shall perceive behind him the united force of the German nation, today and in the future, so help me God.

  1. Mr. Roosevelt believes that “in Conference rooms as in Courts it is necessary that both sides enter upon the discussion in good faith assuming that substantial justice will accrue to both.”

Answer: The representatives of Germany shall never again enter into a conference, which means nothing other than a tribunal for them. For who is to judge them? In a conference, there is neither a prosecution nor a judge, there are only two warring parties. And if the common sense of the concerned parties cannot find a solution or a settlement, then surely they will not submit themselves to a judge’s verdict by disinterested foreign powers. Besides, it was the United States which declined to step before the League of Nations for fear of becoming the unwitting victim of a court which could decide against the interest of individual parties, provided the necessary majority vote was attained.

Nevertheless, I would be greatly indebted to Mr. Roosevelt if he could explain to me how precisely this new world court is to be set up. Who are to be the judges? How shall they be selected? To whom shall they be held responsible? And, above all, for what shall they be held responsible?

  1. Mr. Roosevelt believes that “the cause of world peace would be greatly advanced if the nations of the world were to obtain a frank statement relating to the present and future policy of Governments.”

Answer: In countless public addresses, Mr. Roosevelt, I have already done this. And in today’s session, I have made such a frank statement before the forum of the Reichstag-insofar as this is possible within the span of two hours. I must decline, however, to make such statements to anyone but the Volk for whose existence and life I am responsible. It alone has the right to demand this of me.

I render account of German policy objectives in so public a manner that the whole world can hear it anyway. Alas, these clarifications are of no consequence to the rest of the world, as long as there is a press capable of distorting any explanation, making it suspect, placing it in question, and concealing it beneath new mendacious answers.

  1. Mr. Roosevelt believes that “the United States, as one of the nations of the western hemisphere, is not involved in the immediate controversies which have arisen in Europe.” Hence, he trusts that I should “be willing to make such a statement of policy to him as the head of a nation far removed from Europe.”

Answer: Apparently Mr. Roosevelt seriously believes it would render a service to the cause of peace worldwide if the nations of the world would make such frank statements relating to the present policy of governments.

Why does President Roosevelt burden the German head of state so selectively with the request to make such a statement without inviting other governments to make similar statements relating to their policies? I do not believe that it is permissible at all to demand that such statements be made to a foreign head of state. Instead, in accordance with President Wilson’s demand at the time for the abolition of secret negotiations, such statements should best be made to the entire world.

I have not only consistently been willing to do this, but-as mentioned before-I have also done so all too frequently. Regrettably, it was precisely the most important statements on the goals and intentions of the German policies which the press in many of the so-called democratic states either withheld from the people or misrepresented.

When, however, the American President Roosevelt feels called on to address such a request to Germany or Italy of all states simply because America is far removed from Europe, then, since the distance between Europe and America is equally great, our side also would have the right to question the President of the United States on the foreign policy goals pursued by America and the intentions on which this policy is based, for instance with regard to the states of Central and South America. In this case, Mr. Roosevelt surely would refer us to the Monroe Doctrine and decline this request as an uncalled-for interference in the internal affairs of the American continent. Now, we Germans advocate exactly the same doctrine with regard to Europe and, in any event, we insist on it insofar as this regards the domain and the interests of the Greater German Reich.

Besides this, of course, I would never allow myself to direct a similar request to the President of the United States of America, as I assume he would justly regard this as tactless.

  1. Mr. Roosevelt now declares further that he is willing to “communicate such declaration to other nations now apprehensive as to the course which the policy of your Government may take.”

Answer: By what means does Mr. Roosevelt determine which nations are apprehensive as to the course of the policy of Germany and which do not? Or is Mr. Roosevelt in a position, in spite of the surely enormously heavy load of work on his shoulders in his own country, to assess by himself the inner state and frame of mind of foreign peoples and their governments?

  1. Mr. Roosevelt demands finally that we “give assurance that your armed forces will not attack or invade the territory or possessions of the following independent nations: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain and Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Russia, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Iraq, the Arabias, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Iran.”

Answer: As a first step, I took pains to inquire from the cited states whether, first, they are apprehensive. Second, I asked whether Mr. Roosevelt’s inquiry on their behalf was initiated by them or whether, at least, he had secured their consent in this. The responses obtained were negative throughout, in part even marked by outright indignation. However, a number of the cited states could not forward their response to us because, like Syria for example, they are presently not in the possession of their liberty since their territories are occupied by the military forces of the democratic states which have robbed them of all their rights. Third, far beyond this, the states bordering Germany have all received many binding assurances, and many more binding proposals, than Mr. Roosevelt requested of me in his peculiar telegram.

Fourth, should there be a question as to the value of these general and specific statements which I have repeatedly made, then would not any additional statement of this nature , even if it was made to Mr. Roosevelt, be equally worthless? After all, what is decisive is not Mr. Roosevelt’s opinion of such statements, but the value assigned to them by the states in question.

Fifth, I must yet point out to Mr. Roosevelt a few additional mistaken notions of history. For instance, he mentions Ireland and requests a statement that Germany not attack Ireland. Now, I have just read a speech by the Irish Prime Minister De Valera, in which, contrary to the opinion of Mr. Roosevelt, he oddly enough does not accuse Germany of oppressing Ireland and instead reproaches England for the persistent aggressions under which his state suffers.

And, despite Roosevelt’s great insight into the needs and concerns of other states, it can safely be assumed that the Irish Prime Minister knows better what threatens his country than the President of the United States does.

Equally, it appears to have slipped Mr. Roosevelt’s mind that Palestine is not being occupied by German troops but by English ones. By brute force, England is curtailing Palestinian freedom and is robbing the Palestinians of their independence to the advantage of Jewish intruders for whose cause the Palestinians suffer the most cruel of abuses. The Arabs living in this territory assuredly have not complained to Roosevelt of German aggressions. Rather, in persistent appeals to international public opinion, the Arabs lament the barbaric methods by means of which England seeks to overpower a people who loves its freedom and fights only to defend it.

This may well be one of the problems Mr. Roosevelt would like to see solved at the Council table. It ought to be decided by an impartial judge and not by brute force, military means, mass executions, the torching of villages, the dynamiting of houses, and so on. One thing is certain: in this case, England cannot claim to be repulsing the threat of an Arab attack on England. Instead England is the invader, whom no one bade come, and who seeks to establish his reign by force in a country not belonging to him. A number of similarly mistaken historic notions of Mr. Roosevelt are to be noted; not to mention how difficult it would be for Germany to conduct military operations in states and countries some of which are at a distance of two to five thousand and more kilometers.

I wish to state the following in concluding: the German Government nonetheless is willing to extend an assurance of the type desired by Roosevelt to each and every one of the cited states, if this state desires it and approaches Germany with such a reasoned request. However, there is one prerequisite: this assurance must be absolutely mutual in nature. This will be superfluous in a number of the cases of the states cited by Roosevelt since we are either already allied to them or, at the very least, enjoy close and friendly relations with them.

And, beyond the duration of such an arrangement, Germany will gladly enter into agreements with each of these states, agreements of the nature desired by this state.

I would not like to let this opportunity pass without extending assurances to the President of the United States on the issues of territories of most immediate concern to him, namely, the United States itself and the other states of the American continent. And herewith, I solemnly declare that any and all allegations of a planned German attack on American territories or an intervention to be pure swindle and crude fabrication. Not to mention that, assessed from a military standpoint, such allegations can only be the products of an overwrought imagination.

  1. Mr. Roosevelt declares in this context that he considers of crucial importance the discussions that are to “relate to the most effective and immediate manner through which the peoples of the world can obtain progressive relief from the crushing burden of armament.”

Answer: Mr. Roosevelt apparently is not aware that this problem already was completely resolved as far as Germany was concerned. In the years 1919 to 1923, the German Reich completely disarmed, as explicitly confirmed by the allied commissions, to the extent enumerated below.

The following were destroyed in the Army: 59,000 fieldguns and barrels; 130,000 machineguns; 31,000 trench mortars and barrels; 6,007,000 rifles and carbines; 243,000 MG barrels; 28,000 gun carriages; 4,390 trench mortar carriages; 38,750,000 shells; 16,550,000 hand grenades and rifle grenades; 60,400,000 live fuses; 491,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition; 335,000 tons of shell cases; 23,515 tons of cartridge cases; 37,600 tons of gunpowder; 79,000 ammunition gauges; 212,000 telephone sets; 1,072 flamethrowers, and so on.

Further destroyed were: sledges, mobile workshops, flak vehicles, limbers, steel helmets, gas masks, machines of the former war industry, and rifle barrels.

Further destroyed in the air were: 15,714 fighter planes and bombers; 27,757 aircraft engines.

At sea, the following were destroyed: 26 heavy battleships; 4 coastal armored ships; 4 battlecruisers; 19 light cruisers, 21 training ships and special ships; 83 torpedo boats; 315 U-boats.

Also destroyed were motor vehicles of all types, gas bombs and, in part, anti-gas defense equipment, propellants, explosives, searchlights, sighting devices, range finders and sound rangers, optical instruments of all kinds, harnesses, and so on; all airplane and airship hangars, and so on.

In accordance with the solemn assurances, which were given to Germany and corroborated in the Peace Treaty of Versailles, this was to constitute merely an advance payment to enable the outside world for its part to disarm without danger. As in all the other cases, having placed its faith in the promises given, Germany was to be shamefully deceived once more. As you are aware, all subsequent attempts sadly failed, in spite of years of negotiation at the council table, to bring about a disarmament of other states, which would have constituted no less than an element of intelligence and justice and the fulfillment of commitments made. I myself have contributed to these discussions a series of practical suggestions, Mr. Roosevelt, and I sought to initiate debate to at least reduce armament as much as possible. I suggested a 200,000-man ceiling for standing armies, an abolition of all offensive weapons, bombers, gas warfare, and so on.

  1. Mr. Roosevelt finally asserts his preparedness to “take part in discussions looking towards the most practical manner of opening up avenues of international trade to the end that every nation of the earth may be enabled to buy and sell on equal terms in the world market as well as to possess assurance of obtaining the materials and products of peaceful economic life.”

Answer: I believe, Mr. Roosevelt, that it is not a matter of discussing these problems in theory. Instead, it is imperative to take concrete actions to remove actual impediments to the international economy. The greatest impediments lie within the respective states themselves. Previous experiences have shown that all great international conferences on trade failed simply because the respective states were not capable of keeping their domestic economies in order. Currency manipulation carried this insecurity to the international capital market. Above all, this resulted in constant fluctuations in the exchange rates.

It likewise places an intolerable burden on world trade relations if, because of ideological considerations, it is possible for certain countries to unleash a campaign of wild boycotts of other peoples and their goods, and thereby to practically exclude them from participation in the market. I believe you would render us a great service, Mr. Roosevelt, if you took advantage of your strong influence in the United States to eliminate these particular impediments to the conduct of truly free trade.

However, it did not prove possible to see through these proposals in the rest of the world, in spite of Germany’s complete disarmament. I therefore advanced proposals for a ceiling of 300,000 men to be put up for discussion. The result was equally negative. I thereupon continued to place a series of other detailed disarmament proposals before the forum of the German Reichstag and hence before the international public.

Nobody even thought of joining in these discussions. Instead, the rest of the world began to reinforce its existing vast armament. It was not until the year 1934 that I ordered a thorough German rearmament, after the last of my comprehensive proposals on behalf of Germany, regarding the 300,000-man army, had been rejected for good.

Still, Mr. Roosevelt, I should not like to stand in the way of the discussion of armament questions in which you intend to participate. I would only like to request that, before you turn to me and Germany, you contact the others. I can still see in my mind’s eye a sum of practical experiences and I am inclined to remain skeptical until reality sets me right.

For I simply cannot believe that, if the leaders of other peoples are not even capable of putting in order production in their own states and of eliminating the campaign of wild boycotts for ideological reasons which so detrimentally affect international economic relations there can be much hope of international accords bearing fruit in the improvement of economic relations. Only in this manner can we secure the right for all to buy and sell on equal terms in the world market.

Besides this, the German Volk has made concrete demands in this context. I would be delighted if you, Mr. President, as one of the successors to the late President Wilson, would speak up for finally redeeming the promise which once led Germany to lay down its arms and to surrender to the so-called victors. I am speaking, in this context, not so much of the countless billions of so-called reparation payments extorted from Germany, as of the return of the areas stolen from Germany. The German Volk has lost three million square kilometers of land both within and beyond Europe.

Moreover, unlike the colonies of other nations, the colonial possessions of the German Reich were not acquired by conquest but instead by treaties and purchase. President Wilson solemnly pledged his word that Germany’s claims to its territorial possessions, as well as all others, would undergo just scrutiny.

Instead, those nations, which have already secured for themselves the mightiest colonial empires of all time, have been awarded the German possessions. This causes our Volk great concern especially today, and will increasingly in the future as well. It would be a noble deed if President Franklin Roosevelt redeemed the promise made by President Woodrow Wilson. This would constitute a practical contribution to the moral consolidation of the world and the improvement of its economy.

  1. Mr. Roosevelt declared in conclusion that “Heads of great Governments in this hour are literally responsible for the fate of humanity in the coming years. They cannot fail to hear the prayers of their peoples to be protected from the foreseeable chaos of war.” I, too, would be held “accountable.”

Answer: Mr. President Roosevelt! Without any difficulty, I do understand that the greatness of your empire and the immense riches of your land allow you to feel responsible for the fate of the entire world and for the fate of all peoples.

However, Mr. Roosevelt, my situation is much more modest and limited. You have 135 million inhabitants living on nine-and-a-half million square kilometers. Your land is one of untold riches and vast natural resources. It is fertile enough to sustain half a billion human beings and to provide them with all necessities.

I once took over a state on the brink of ruin thanks to its ready trust in the assurances of the outside world and the feeble leadership of a democratic regime.

Unlike America, where not even fifteen persons live on one square kilometer, this state has 140 persons per square kilometer. The fertility of our soil does not equal yours. We lack the numerous natural resources which nature places at the disposal of your people. The billions of German savings, accumulated in the form of gold and currency during the years of peace, were extorted from us and taken away. We lost our colonies. In the year 1933, there were seven million unemployed in my country. Millions worked part-time only, millions of peasants were reduced to misery, commerce was nearly destroyed, trade was ruined; in short: chaos reigned.

I have been able to accomplish only one task in the years since, Mr. President Roosevelt. I could not possibly feel myself responsible for the fate of a world which showed no sympathy for the woeful plight of my own Volk. I saw myself as a man called on by Providence to serve this Volk and to deliver it from its terrible hardships. Within the six-and-a-half years now lying behind us, I lived day and night for the one thought: to awaken the inner forces dormant in this Volk forsaken by the outside world, to increase them to the utmost, and, finally, to use them in the salvation of our community.

I overcame chaos in Germany. I restored order, enormously raised production in all spheres of our national economy, labored to create substitutes for a number of the raw materials we lack, smoothed the way for new inventions, developed traffic, ordered the construction of gigantic roads. I had canals dug, colossal new factories brought to life. In all this, I strove to serve the development of the social community of my Volk, its education, and its culture. I succeeded in bringing those seven million unemployed, whose plight truly went to heart, back into a useful production process. Despite the difficulties faced, I managed to preserve his plot of soil for the German farmer, to rescue this for him. I brought about a bloom in German trade and fostered traffic.

To preclude threats from the outside world, I have not only united the German Volk politically, I have rearmed it militarily. Further, I have sought to tear to shreds page upon page of this Treaty, whose 448 articles represent the most dastardly outrage ever committed against a people and man. I have restored those provinces to the Reich which were stolen from it in 1919. I have led home to the Reich millions of despondent Germans torn from us. I have restored the one-thousand-year old, historic unity of the German Lebensraum. And I have labored to do so, Mr. President, without bloodshed and without bringing either upon my own Volk or other peoples the hardships of war. I have done this all by myself, Mr. President, although a mere twenty-one years ago, I was but an unknown laborer and soldier of my Volk. And, hence, before history, I can truly claim the right to be counted among those men who do the best that can reasonably and in all fairness be expected of them individually.

Your task is infinitely easier, Mr. President. In 1933, when I became Reich Chancellor, you became the President of the United States. From the start, you thereby placed yourself at the head of the largest and richest state in the world.

It is your good fortune to have to nourish barely fifteen human beings per square kilometer in your country. You have virtually never-ending natural resources at your disposal, more than anyone else in the world. The vastness of the terrain and the fertility of the soil are capable of providing each individual American with ten times the foodstuffs possible in Germany. Nature permits you to do this. While the inhabitants of your country number barely a third more than those of Greater Germany, they have fifteen times its Lebensraum at their disposal.

Thus, the vastness of your country allows you to have the time and leisure to attend to problems of a universal nature. You hence conceive of the world as so small a place that you can intervene beneficially and effectively wherever this might be required. In this sense, your concerns and suggestions can be far more sweeping than mine. For my world is the one in which Providence has put me, Mr. President Roosevelt, and for which I am responsible. It is a much smaller one. It contains only my Volk. But I do believe I am thereby in a better position to serve those ends closer to the hearts of all of us: justice, welfare, progress, and peace for the entire community of man!

In Hoc Signo Vinces

by George Lincoln Rockwell
(9.03.1918 – 25.08.1967)

 

Long lasting success in any human endeavor is never the result of blind luck. The achievement of a clearly defined goal, whether it be the act of walking from point „X“ to point „Y“, the building of a house, or the organization of a business, is always the product of three things:

  1. The intellectual ability to perceive the problem involved, the opposition which must be expected, and the best way to overcome that opposition to reach the goal.
  2. The will and determination to do whatever may be necessary to reach the desired goal, regardless of opposition.
  3. The physical means, strength, and courage to enforce and carry out the plan or fight conceived by the mind and determined by the will.

If any of these three elements be lacking on one’s purpose, failure is the inevitable, predictable result.

A man who is too stupid to understand the various factors involved in trying to walk from point „X“ to point „Y“, where the path between us is a jungle infested with snakes, dangerous carnivores and fever, and who fails to arm himself with weapons and maps, medicine and other equipment will never arrive at „Y“ no matter how dogged his determination or how mighty his muscles. Another man attempting the same journey, though he clearly perceives the dangers and prepares for them, and though he be mighty of muscle, will yet fail to reach „Y“ if he is so irresolute and weak of will that he does not persevere at the struggle and ruthlessly use whatever force might be necessary to crush and destroy the forces opposing him. And a third man who has the intellect to perceive the dangers and to prepare for them, and the will and determination to fight his way through even with the utmost heroism, but who is frail of body and so physically weak that he cannot carry out the commands of his mind and his will cannot but succumb to the stronger adversaries he will meet.

It is with civilizations as it is with the struggles of individual men. Dozens of great civilizations have perished because of failure in one or more of these three elements necessary in the struggle for survival.

Savage societies usually perish, not so much from lack of vigorous will or lack of physical strength, as from lack of ability to perceive the real situation. Drowning in superstition and stumbling in the darkness of ignorance, they are overwhelmed by the physical forces of violent natural occurrences, catastrophes and diseases which more civilized societies have learned to overcome.

On the other hand, civilizations, for all their intellectual achievements and sciences, perish most often because of failure of the will, the diminishing of the savage and ruthless drive for survival and dominance which originally created society. They become „humanitarian“, selfish, and soft. They become physically weak and dependent on paid armies and police to do their fighting. The fighting spirit of honor and self-sacrifice and heroism of their ancestors gives way to a growing love of ease and luxury and cowardice masquerading as „humanitarianism“.

When a civilization reaches this effete stage in its decay, only a very rare historical occurrence can halt the final collapse of the society as the decadence grows daily more apparent. Only when the dying society still has enough life-energy to produce a spiritual giant, a godlike throwback to the ancient heroism of its people who is able to shock and drive the civilization out of its natural historical night of sleep and death, in spite of the suicidal opposition of the dying peoples who long only for „peace“ and the slumber of death, can a society once again rise for a while.

Western, Aryan civilization passed the historical point of no return on its journey into limbo during the nineteenth century, as was duly noted by Spengler, Chamberlain, and others. Were it not for the unbelievable, miraculous arrival of Adolf Hitler at the last possible moment, the only bearable course for an intelligent, perceptive, and sensitive man surrounded by a disgusting and suicide-bent civilization would have been resigned enjoyment of such momentary pleasures as provided escape from the soul-crushing reality of a Judaized, cannibalized and boob-ized civilization rushing headlong back to the jungle in the name of „humanitarianism“.

But the appearance in history of Adolf Hitler is evidence that there still remains in White, Western civilization a sufficient spark of self-sacrificing, creative vigor to permit, perhaps, another thousand years or so of survival for the White man. This infinitely precious spark will remain just that, however, and quickly fade into darkness, so long as the tiny elite minority of humanity with the wit to see what Hitler did is too selfish, cowardly, and short-sighted to apply the lessons of history before it is too late forever, and fan the spark Hitler gave us into the roaring flame of creative civilization founded by our courageous ancestors.

So far, the fearful punishment meted out to Adolf Hitler’s fighting heroes of civilization by Jewish forces of decay and destruction has so unnerved and terrified the world that even those able to see and understand the peril to humanity, and the way to salvation as shown by Adolf Hitler, are so pitifully attached to their lives and liberties and comforts that they dare not pick up the sacred spark of White survival and fan it with their own life’s breath, which it must soon have-or go out forever.

Aryan, White humanity is on the precipice of darkness and oblivion. Strewn on the crags in the eternal blackness below are the bones of other know-it-all, pompous civilizations which were doubtless unable to imagine their own demise at the very time when they were surrounded by the outward power and magnificence of empire. They were unable to realize or face up to the TOTAL threat of a growing weakness and „humanitarianism“, unable to muster the TOTAL will necessary to reverse the historical march to death and oblivion. They were too lazy and selfish, greedy and cowardly to heed the tiny few who have been burned, crucified, stoned, fed to the lions or handed the cup of hemlock.

If there is any history a thousand years hence, and any people able to study it, they will marvel in disbelief most of all at the stubborn refusal of the White man to use his overwhelming strength, his knowledge and the providential gift of Adolf Hitler’s leadership to save himself from the most incredible and cringing slavery at the hands of a relatively tiny gang of disgusting, pathologically unbalanced, physically weak and cowardly, arrogant, tyrannical Jews.

Our problems today are not „American“ problems, „British“ problems, „French“, „German“ or „European“ or „African“ problems—they are problems of SURVIVAL FOR ALL WHITE MEN.

What, in the name of the most elementary reason, is the difference between whether Bartholomew Buckingham is born near the Thames, Hans Schmidt on the Rhine, Pierre Dubois on the Seine, Per Olafson in Stockholm, Eric Erasmus in Durban, Joe Doaks in Podunk, Ohio or John Smith in Auckland, New Zealand compared to the question of „Shall there BE any more Bartholomews, Hanses, Pierres, Pers, Erics, Joes or Johns?“

Our planet swarms with colored creatures who outnumber us by more than FOUR TO ONE—and in all of our nations these inferior beings, we are told, are our „equals“, able to vote away our money, our liberties, our lives and our honor. By the old-fashioned notions of nationalism and democracy I, Lincoln Rockwell, am supposed to treasure and care for and be loyal to some of the lowest spawn of the jungle, providing only that their Black dam gave them to the world in some American ditch or filthy crib—because then, of course, they are „Americans“, and aren’t we all out for „America“?

Or am I to be loyal and die for these miserable and pitiable half-animals, my „fellow Americans“, by slaughtering millions upon millions of the finest biological specimens of my own race, because a gang of Hollywood Jews teaches us that Americans must hate Germans?

Or again, is it a certain piece of geography to which I am to be loyal, and for which I must kill my own people and perhaps die myself? Does my loyalty to this hunk of geography stop at the Canadian border?

But perhaps it is „Americanism“ to which I am to be loyal and for which I must make war upon German men, women and children. When I examine what they tell me is „Americanism“, however, I find that it consists primarily in being willing to submit meekly to Jewish direction of my culture, government, religion, entertainment, and even my sex life.

No, all this is nonsense.

The only thing to which I can be loyal with any deep conviction — the only loyalty which makes any sense — is my RACIAL, and therefore cultural, brotherhood with my own people, no matter where they happen to have been born! When that loyalty is challenged, and my people are in danger, it is monstrous to pretend that we must be suspicious of each other just because we live across imaginary geographical lines, and that, upon proper preparation and agitation by a gang of international Jews, we White men must march forth to kill each other and bomb each other to ashes and everlastingly hate each other because we are „trade rivals“ or for „American democracy“ or the „British Empire“ or for anything else in the world.

I am a WHITE MAN, and a brother to all other White men, and I mean to stand with all of them and, if necessary, lead them in battle to survive against the unspeakable menace of the colored populations of the earth rising to slaughter and rapine against the White men — and led by the scheming Jew!

But like the first man in the analogy of the walk through the snake-infested jungle, too many of our White „leaders“ fail to perceive the cosmic proportions of the problem and imagine it is something which can be solved in „their“ country, and by half measures.

The tiny few who do see the dreadful and total urgency of the White man’s situation have, until our arrival on the scene, attempted to fight with less than the total weapons required in a total fight for survival. Most of the best leaders have imagined that small groups of beleaguered White men, gathered into little geographical huddles behind imaginary lines and waving different colored bits of cloth bravely in the breezes, can survive by themselves, and the hell with the other White men who have different bits of colored cloth.

The Jews have NEVER made the mistake of seriously dividing themselves into these phony geographical „teams“. On the contrary, the Jews — with their Bolshevism, Zionism, and mongrelism — are attacking ALL White men, EVERYWHERE and ALL THE TIME. They are sending their black armies into all of our nations in an all-out attack against the White elite of the world, with absolutely no considerations of „national“ boundaries or flags or languages or cultures. In the face of this total international threat of annihilation by RACE, millions of those who already see the danger are to be found babbling darkly of „Yankee imperialism“, „British Empire“, „dirty Catholics“, „immoral atheists“, „Republicans“, „Laborites“, „damned Yankees“, „Germany first“, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Like little boys besieged by a mob of kidnappers and murderers, they cannot resist squabbling about who has the most marbles in the face of deadly danger they temporarily forget. The battle of our times — if there is to be any battle — is for the SURVIVAL OF THE WHITE RACE!

And to survive, the White man will have to RE-CONQUER the earth once conquered and civilized at the cost of so much blood by his ancestors. Under the banners of international Jewry, the colored masses are threatening to return civilization to savagery. Under the Swastika banner of Adolf Hitler, White men around the world will master the planet to save civilization.

The Jewish war against civilization has actually been a world-wide, gigantic REVOLUTION, in the course of which they got millions of us to murder each other shouting „Democracy!“ „Gott mit uns!“, „Free the slaves!“, „Liberty, equality, fraternity!“ And now they are preparing for the final bloodbath during which we will shout „Capitalism!“ and „Communism!“ respectively, as the two teams of White men slaughter each other with Jew-financed H-bombs.

In the course of these fratricidal and suicidal wars, the Jews have not been afraid to sacrifice thousands of their brethren in their devilish cause, as they did in the last monstrous slaughter in the 1940s. The Jews realize what WE must realize: that they are playing for the highest stakes in the knowledge of mankind—mastery of the whole earth—and they do not shrink from the inescapable conclusions of strategy and tactics dictated by knowledge of such stakes. If we are to survive then we too must have the wit and the strength of mind to face up to the deadly facts of the situation and act RUTHLESSLY, RAPIDLY, and EFFECTIVELY.

The Jews have almost won the final step in their 4,000-year revolution—OPEN world power. They now have total secret power to manipulate and control all world activities, and lack only a little more brainwashing and breaking of the will of the masses to make their world domination an acknowledged and formal power. They have fought and won their way to this incredible power by unsurpassed determination and iron will over forty centuries, and only a miracle can prevent the final victory of such fanatical warriors, tragically and viciously wrong as such a victory would be for humanity.

Even the atheist Jews—which is most of them—have an inexplicable belief in the ancient Jewish prophecies that when „the law comes forth from the hills of Zion“ and Jerusalem, it will be the millennium for the Jews and they will own and rule the earth. THEY ARE IN JERUSALEM NOW, and lack only a few blocks of it for total possession! *[NB. – Commander Rockwell was writing before the 1967 war wherein the Jews seized the rest of the city. – WS]* They are experiencing a worldwide frenzy as they can already sense the total victory we are about to give them, and they are even now preparing their sacrificial orgy of victory in Tel Aviv!

In the face of this unspeakable threat, that the whole world and all of us will fall to the tyranny of a gang of criminal paranoiacs, the narrow chauvinism, conservatism, and regionalism of most right-wing leaders is the utmost stupidity! With the masters of mongrels, the Jews, leading MILLIONS of savages in a worldwide attack against the White-elite bearers of civilization, and with the end only moments away in terms of history, only the most short-sighted leaders can continue to keep our children divided and helpless into „teams“ of Americans, Dixiecrats, Catholics, Germans, Yankees, atheists, Dutchmen, conservatives, Irishmen, etc. down through the whole pitiful, heartbreaking list. The Jew may be all of these things—but FIRST HE IS A JEW!

It is the first task of him who would save civilization—which requires saving the White man—to make White men supremely and totally conscious of RACE above all other allegiances. Our people can be Democrats or Germans or Catholics or Englishmen if they want to and if it suits their purposes, but FIRST THEY MUST BE WHITE MEN! Otherwise, the Jew will keep us divided and helpless and unconscious of our racial unity and strength, while they fanatically fight as Jews, no matter where they are, until it is all over.

The world of TV, rockets and jet transportation has become too small to permit any group of White men anywhere to enjoy the suicidal luxury of fighting each other on behalf of the Jew ever again, no matter what the reason which may be advanced in the propaganda. We simply cannot afford to fight each other when we are under such overwhelming and deadly attack by such endless hordes led by such a fanatical and devilish enemy as the Marxist, Zionist Jew. The reason that the White man has been losing for so long in the first place is that he has failed or refused to see the enormity and the pressing urgency of his problem. He has permitted himself to be distracted into a million little squabbles over trifles, while his race has been driven almost to extinction.

Like the first man in the analogy, we haven’t understood the path, the nature of the obstacles and, worst of all, we haven’t even realized the goal we must win–or die. That goal is and must be MASTERY OF THE EARTH BY THE WHITE MAN, since civilization depends solely on such White mastery. Any lesser goal is utterly worthless, just as it would be worthless for a man scheduled to hang to take vitamins and attain perfect health.

And such a fantastically difficult and cosmic goal as world mastery cannot be won by luck, sneaking, half-measures, prayers, hopes, fine speeches, pamphlets, or sporadic violence. What we must aim at and achieve is a WORLD COUNTER REVOLUTION against the Jewish Marxist-Zionist revolution. And revolutions are never, never, NEVER the result of spontaneous and fortuitous uprisings, but ALWAYS the product of ruthless, scientific planning and fighting, based on the immutable laws of great social upheavals. Behind the pitchforks and the barricades there is always the story of the candle-lit conspiracies by the planners—otherwise the revolution would be over in a trice.

Not only have our handful of leaders so far failed to realize the unheard-of proportions of the goal at which we must aim, but they have singularly failed to face up to their terrifying responsibilities in planning. Time after time, would-be leaders have arisen and led us in pitiful efforts to nip the end of the tiger’s tail, only to waste our substance and blood and heroism in a fruitless struggle which always ends in being crushed by a single, smashing blow from the paw of the beast.

The Jewish world revolution can only be broken and beaten by a counter world revolution.

Any revolution must be planned with care and precision in accordance with the iron laws governing human conduct in the mass. A world revolution, in the face of the international and staggering power of Jewry, must be planned and executed with a brilliance and ruthlessness unmatched in the history of the world.

The most fundamental rule of such a cataclysmic social upheaval as a revolution is: „The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church!“ Perhaps it sounds cruel and brutal, but it is nevertheless true, that the greater the proportion of human upheaval aimed at, the greater quantity of blood and torrents of tears which must be poured out in vast quantities to gain the goal. The kind of unprecedented, colossal movement which can alone reverse the suicidal trend of the Western world, and usher in even another thousand years of survival for the White man, can never be launched–let alone won–in any safe, painless, or easy way. Even ordinary sufferings and martyrdom are too minscule for the kind of movement we must set aflame to survive. Everything about the current deadly battle for world mastery is and must be Olympian, and we cannot shrink from Olympian AGONIES if we are to hope to win.

Mighty movements always require millions of people to immolate themselves in a passion of self-sacrificing devotion to the cause. And these enormous masses of people can never be moved to fling themselves into the flames of revolution with shouts of „Favorable trade balance!“ or „States’ rights!“ etc. Only the FUNDAMENTAL drives from deep inside the human psyche can lift the slow-moving masses from their ignorant apathy to the wild pitch of emotion which carries them entirely away in the tidal wave of revolution. Nothing so affects these fundamental emotions of the masses as HEROISM, and only the utmost heroism can now save the White man from his lethargy and paralyzing fear of the Jews.

And there is no symbol other than the Swastika and no name other than Adolf Hitler which is so beautifully calculated to produce the persecution and consequent heroism which alone can unite and inflame the White man into an irresistable wave of anti-Jewish Marxist-Zionist revolution. Until the advent of Adolf Hitler, the White men of the world had nothing, absolutely NOTHING in the way of a common cause, common heroes, common martyrs, sacred shrines, names and symbols. But now, after millions of young German White men heroically flung their precious lives away in the first real fight in history for the White elite, we finally have the blood-soaked shrines, symbols, and martyrs which are the most elementary stuff of revolution.

Millions of equally precious young White men on the opposing side, fighting for the devilish Communist-Zionist Jews, will have lost their lives for absolutely nothing unless we accept this stupendous blood-sacrifice, and use it to ensure that never again will precious White blood be spilled fighting for Jews and negroes.

Nevertheless, and unbelievably, the lucky heirs of all this self-sacrifice and heroism—the recipients of these precious bloodstained banners and sacred names—reject their heritage as „impractical“.

„We can never win with open adherence to National Socialism and the Swastika,“ these gentlemen explain feebly. „The Jews have taught people to hate them too much,“ they add. „If we use the Swastika and praise Hitler too openly, they will throw us in prison or kill us!“ And did they not throw ALL makers of revolutions, including the Jew makers of the Red revolution, in jail—and even kill some of them? Are we National Socialists to be more fearful and cowardly than a gang of Jews? The very persecution and bloodshed such irresolute characters seek to avoid is the *sine qua non* of our victory!

These are not empty words. I have personally proved their truth here in America, the power center of world Jewry, by being beaten, by going to jail and the insane asylum, losing my dear family, and living like an animal. Twelve days from today, as I write this, I face jail again. These things are unpleasant and even heartbreaking—but they MUST BE!

I have risen in two years to a commanding position in the worldwide fight for the White man, starting as a penniless, unknown and unaided single individual like millions upon millions of others—simply and solely because I have gratefully and lovingly used the precious names and symbols which have been bathed and soaked in such oceans of blood and tears—the Swastika and the name of the Leader, Adolf Hitler.

Temporary and flashy political successes are always easy. It is always simpler and quicker to put pads in one’s jacket that to build the human muscles to fill the coat by months or years of work and sweat. For fifty years now, there has been a steady rise and fall of „right-wing“ or White movements built entirely of pads.

By endorsing motherhood and virtue and patriotism, etc., and by avoiding brutal statements of the real purpose of such organizations—which must necessarily be the extermination of the Communist-Zionist enemies of humanity—great flocks of skittish „patriots“, „conservatives“, and even a few „tough“ anti-Semites could be corraled. But these people are not attracted to such a movement because they are so inflamed with revolutionary zeal that they can hardly be restrained from attacking their tormentors in the streets. Rather they join the „patriot“ society to relieve their guilty consciences by pretending to fight the Jews and their treason and terror by what they call „clever underground methods“. They relieve themelves of their pent-up frustration at the tyranny of the Jews and negroes once a week at a „Rally“ (private, of course) and then hurry home happily for another week of profits, parties and TV.

Such Mighty Mouses are horrified when it is suggested that perhaps they should hand out pamphlets in the street, or picket some outrageous example of Jewish-Communist arrogance. And if one exposes not only the Jews for what they are, but also exposes these political loafers who siphon off the support and energy for a real battle, these heroes reply by howling that one is an agent provocateur working to get them all crucified as a bunch of Nazis–which, except for their disgusting cowardice, they might otherwise be.

It is not the task of the world anti-Jewish revolution to attract and organize these contemptible sneaks, but to drive them out of the way and out of business, where they will be unable to milk the Movement of the tiny bit of available support for useless „projects“, as they have been doing for years. Nothing accomplishes that task like the Swastika. The political drones, profiteers, prostitutes and cowards scoot with their tails between their legs from this hooked cross, as the devil does from holy water.

On the other hand, the Swastika has an irresistable attraction for the kind of daring, bold, devil-may-care fighting YOUNG men we need. In America, most of them are simply nigger-haters because of their pure White man’s instinct. When they learn the Jews’ part in the disgraceful negro situation they become Nazis in minutes. Then it is the work of only months until they also understand the deeper significnce, the idealism, and the true aims of the Movement.

But even more important than these advantages, the blood-soaked Swastika has a supernatural effect on Jews. It is after all only a few black lines—but it drives the Jews out of their usual sly and calculating frame of mind and makes them hysterical and foolish. To them, it is not just the lines, but the awful threat of ruthless exposure, swift justice, and terrible vengeance which their guilty consciences tell them they richly deserve. It is like a picture of the electric chair to a hunted murderer.

A calm, calculating Jew is the most dangerous beast on the face of the earth. By the exercise of his devilish, perverted but brilliant reason, the Jew has almost mastered all the rest of us. But a hysterical, screaming Jew, out of his mind with hate and fear of punishment for his crimes, is helpless putty in the hands of a calculating National Socialist.

We have proved this time and again—when Jewish councils have spent millions of dollars to spread the word among the Jews to ignore us. But the hordes of guilty little sinners can’t do it! When they see that Swastika and hear us praising Adolf Hitler and describing the gas chambers for traitors, they become screaming, wild ghetto Jews who have eternally blown up their victories at the last moment by their insane passions of hate and revenge.

The result is the lifeblood of a political movement: PUBLICITY! In spite of the Jewish domination of all the media of public information, the parading of Swastikas and National Socialists in public streets cannot be hidden or ignored without giving the game away. They can suppress the news, to be sure. But then too many people realize their press power and censorship. And when the young Movement is able to force publication of its existence on the giant national TV networks, in magazines, the press, etc.—it serves as a clarion call to the frustrated millions who are looking for such a movement. It is only thus that we have been able to contact thousands of people all over the world who have never before been in any „patriot“ outfit but couldn’t resist the American Nazi Party and the World Union of National Socialists.

The Swastika and Hitler, far from being millstones, are actually the answer to the eternal problem of the right wing—money! When you don’t have money for paper, meeting halls, etc.—as our side never does—you can go into the streets and march and distribute homemade handbills and picket—for nothing. The Jews go wild, attack—and you then have free use of millions of dollars worth of Jewish TV, newspapers, magazines, etc. Of course, you may get bloodied and have to sit in jail a while recuperating. But this is a small price to pay for the astonishing results.

In addition to the free publicity attendant on open operation as a Nazi, you also find that the very audacity of the thing will attract the young fighting men you need, even though they know nothing and care less about the politics of the business. They admire raw courage and daring. Later, when they have come to know the facts a little better, they will fight for ideals and the White man. But until then, these valuable protectors of your free speech will fight just for fun.

Above all, the Swastika will save you from the fundamental error of the right wing—that sweet reason will change the world and save us from the Jewish tyrants.

Reason is still an infant in human affairs, a precious and rare development found in the mutational brains of an infinitestimal minority of homo sapiens. And even the few geniuses able to exercise genuine, independent reason are almost entirely incapable of acting in accordance with the dictates of that reason—which is one of the reasons so many of them end up as failures in a world which does not appreciate them or their reason.

It is FORCE, POWER, STRENGTH which rules the world, from the ebb and flow of the tides to the decision of your neighbor to join the Rotary. Only a negligible fringe of oddball humans change their mind as a result of being convinced by a superior argument. The overwhelming masses, including the mass of today’s „intellectuals“, change their minds only in order to CONFORM. In other words, the minds of the vast majority ALWAYS bow to the strongest opinion—the opinion which brings rewards and avoids punishment.

The right wing examines its reasons and arguments and facts and finds them true and good—as they may be. They then become outraged which the slobs next door cannot see and appreciate this rightness and, very probably, throw them out of the house for preaching „hate.“ But this is only as things are. The slobs will hold whatever opinion seems to show the most strength and WILL TO POWER. They are completely, hopelessly female in their approach to reason and always, ALWAYS prefer strength to „rightness“.

When they say „no“ to our Swastika and National Socialism, they are only the eternal female saying „no“ but meaning, „If you accept my no, then you are a weakling and have no right to my favors. Let us see if you have the manhood and the strength to MAKE me say yes!“

They hate us now because we are weak and powerless. All the reason in the world will never make them love us or our ideas in ANY guise, no matter how we try to sugar-coat them, until we COMMAND THEIR RESPECT AND ADMIRATION FOR OUR WILL, our guts, our force! As stupid as they are, their instincts in smelling force and strength are still pure, and the attempt to SNEAK National Socialist ideas in the guise of „patriot leagues“ and other nice, safe groups very properly repulses them as being the actions of cowards and sneaks.

To HELL with the sneaky, safer approaches! They get us persecuted every bit as much as the direct, open approach, and they doom us to miserable, sneaking failure every time. If we are to be the last of the White men who conquered the world; if we are finally to be overwhelmed by a pack of rats, let us at least face the death of our race as our ancestors faced their death—like MEN. Let us not crawl down amongst the rats begging for mercy or trying to out-sneak them and pretend to be rats ourselves!

Let us stand on the scaffold of history—if hang we must—like the martyrs of Nuremberg, tall and proud! Is life so sweet, is comfort so precious and a job in a Jewish counting house so sacred that we are AFRAID to grasp the mighty hand of ADOLF HITLER reaching down to us our of our glorious past? Again, to HELL with sneaking and safety!

It is part of the Jews to be sneaky and sly. The genius of our people has ever been joyous strength, robust forcefulness, directness, manly courage, and flaming heroism. When the Jews, with their economic terrorism, jails, bullies and hangmen, scare the White man into laying down his cudgel and goad him into trying to out-sneak Jewish tyranny, the Jews have completely emasculated the once-strong White man, and doomed him to dishonor and defeat. The White man can NEVER win by sneaking!

In the dawn of Nordic civilization, lesser races used to cringe in their rude huts and pray, „Lord, save us from the fury of the men of the North!“ It was THAT kind of man who built Western civilization. If civilization is now to be saved from the swarms of degenerate Jews, their cannibal accomplices and their unspeakably depraved liberal friends, it will be THAT kind of man who saves it, NEVER sneaks!

WHITE MAN! The same iron blood of your mighty ancestors flows in your veins! The towering figure of ADOLF HITLER reaches out a giant hand to lift you up to world-conquering POWER! You have cringed long enough before pygmies! Now RISE! Defy the rats and vermin at your feet! Let them feel the toe and heel of your boot! Stamp them out!

You have been sleeping. When you rise and stand up, and the masses once more see what a man of FORCE looks like, they will love you as they now imagine they hate you. With the spark of National Socialism, struck by Adolf Hitler, burning in your breast, you are unconquerable! IN HOC SIGNO VINCES! In the sign of the Swastika, YOU will conquer!

Join hands with the heroes in America, Britain, Iceland, Denmark and other White countries who have raised the holy Swastika banner and defended it with their blood. It has risen from the ashes of Berlin, and never shall it be hauled down again. Stand with us before the altar of Adolf Hitler and the world-conquering White race, and pledge your life as we have, to bring the order and justice of Western, White civilization once more into the world. Let us teach the traitors and rats and pygmies once more to cringe in terror in their huts and pray, „Lord save us from the FURY OF THE MEN OF THE NORTH!“

-Lincoln Rockwell

Adolf Hitler – Speech to the Reichstag – 30.01.1937

der-fuhrer-spricht-1

Berlin, January 30, 1937

Men! Deputies of the German Reichstag!

The Reichstag has been convened today, on an important day for the German Volk. Four years have passed since that moment marking the beginning of the great inner cataclysm and reorganization Germany has experienced, four years which I requested from the German Volk as a period of probation and judgment. What would be more logical than to use this occasion to recount in detail all the success and progress these four years have bestowed upon the German Volk? Within the framework of such a short rally it is not even possible to mention all those things which might well be regarded as the remarkable results of this perhaps most astounding epoch in the life of our Volk! That is a task more fitting for the press and propaganda. Moreover, there will be an exhibition this year in the Reich Capital of Berlin in which the attempt will be made to give a comprehensive and more detailed impression of what has been created, achieved and begun than I could possibly be capable of giving in a two-hour speech. Therefore, I wish to make use of today’s historic meeting of the German Reichstag in order to point out, in a retrospective on the past four years, a few of the generally valid insights, experiences and consequences which are important not only for us to understand, but also for posterity.

I can say it with a certain amount of pride: this was perhaps the first modern revolution in which not so much as a window pane was shattered. Yet I do not want to be misunderstood: if the course of this revolution was bloodless, it was not because we were not men enough to stand the sight of blood. For four years, I was a soldier in the bloodiest war of all time. I never once lost my nerve throughout, no matter what the situation or what I was confronted with. This also applies to my fellow workers. But we perceived the task of the National Socialist Revolution not as destroying human life or property but instead as building up a new and better life. It is our greatest source of pride that we carried out this-undoubtedly greatest-cataclysm in our Volk with a minimum of casualties and losses.

Only where the murderous lust of Bolshevism believed itself capable, even after January 30, 1933, of preventing the triumph or the realization of the National Socialist idea by force have we naturally countered with force- and have done so with the speed of lightning. Then again there were other elements.

We recognized their lack of restraint, coupled with the gravest lack of political education, and these we merely took into preventive custody, only to restore to them their liberty after a very short time, generally speaking.

And then again there were those few whose political activities served only as a cover for a criminal attitude evidenced in numerous sentences to prison or penal servitude; these we prevented from continuing their devastating work of destruction by urging them to take up a useful occupation, probably for the first time in their lives.

In the space of a few weeks, both the political residues and societal biases of the past thousand years in Germany had been cleared away and eliminated.

Germany and the German Volk have overcome several great catastrophes.

Naturally, there always had to be certain men-I will be the first to admit-who took the necessary steps and who saw these measures through despite the eternal pessimists and know-it-alls. True, an assembly of parliamentary cowards is most ill-suited to lead the Volk forth-away from destitution and despair!

My Deputies! When the German economy seemingly ground to a complete halt in the years 1932 and 1933, the following became more clear to me than in the preceding years: the salvation of our Volk is not a financial problem; it is exclusively a problem of utilizing and employing the available work force on the one hand and exploiting available soil and mineral resources on the other.

The Volksgemeinschaft does not subsist on the fictitious value of money but on actual production, which gives money its value. This production is the primary cover for a currency, not a bank or a vault full of gold! And when I increase this production, I am actually increasing the income of my fellow citizens; if I decrease production, I decrease income, regardless of what salaries are being paid out. [-] This concerted resolution of economic issues finds its greatest expression in the Four-Year Plan. It assures that once great numbers of German workers are released by the armament industry and re-enter the labor force, these workers shall find secure employment within our economy. [-] It is quite clear that neither strikes nor lockouts can be tolerated in a sphere where such views prevail. The National Socialist State does not recognize an economic law of the jungle. The common interest of the nation-i.e. of our Volk-has priority over the interests of all its competing components. Therefore we cannot allow that any means suited for utilization in our Volk’s training and education be exempted from this shared obligation.

The education of youth, Jungvolk, Hitler Youth, Labor Service, Party, Wehrmacht: all of them are institutions for training and educating our Volk.

Books, newspapers, lectures, art, theater, film: all are means for the education of the Volk (Volkserziehung). What the National Socialist Revolution has accomplished in these areas is astonishing and colossal. One need only think of the following: Today, our entire German system of education-including the press, theater, film, and literature-is run and organized exclusively by German Volksgenossen. How often were we told before that removing the Judentum from these institutions must result in their collapse or deterioration? And what has happened now? In all of these areas we are witnessing a tremendous flourishing of cultural and artistic life. Our films are better than ever before; the performances on the stages of our first-rate theaters are in a world class all their own. Our press has become a powerful instrument serving the selfassertion of our Volk and does its part in fortifying the nation. German science is doing successful work, and tremendous proofs of our creative architectural will shall one day bear witness to this new epoch! An incredible immunization of the German Volk has been achieved to all the infiltrating tendencies from which a different world is made to suffer. We now already take for granted several of our institutions that were not yet understood even a few years ago: Jungvolk, Hitler Youth, BDM, Frauenschaft, Labor Service, SA, SS, NSKK-and above all the Labor Front with its tremendous organization-are bricks in the proud structure of our Third Reich. This safeguarding of the internal life of our German Volk needed to be complemented by an external safeguard. And I believe that it is here, my Deputies and men of the German Reichstag, that the National Socialist uprising has achieved the most marvelous of its accomplishments! When, four years ago, I was entrusted with the chancellorship and with it the leadership of the nation, I assumed the bitter obligation to lead back to honor a people who had been compelled to live the life of an outcast among the other nations for fifteen years. The internal order of the German Volk provided me with the requirements for reestablishing the German Army, and these two circumstances likewise made it possible to throw off those shackles which had been felt to be the deepest mark of disgrace ever branded on a people.

In concluding this process today, I have but a few statements to make.

First: the restoration of German equality of rights was a process that concerned and involved Germany alone. In its course we neither deprived any other people of anything nor did harm to any other people.

Second: I hereby proclaim to you that, within the context of the restoration of German equality of rights, I shall divest the German Reichsbahn and the German Reichsbank of their prior character and place them completely under the sovereign control of the Government of the German Reich.

Third: I hereby declare that, by virtue thereof, the part of the Treaty of Versailles which deprived our Volk of equality of rights and degraded it to an inferior Volk has now been settled in the natural course of things.

Fourth: above all, I herewith most solemnly withdraw the German signature from that declaration extracted under duress at that time from a weak government against its own better judgment, that Germany was to blame for the war! My Deputies, Men of the German Reichstag! This restoration of the honor of our Volk-most clearly evidenced in an external sense in the introduction of conscription, in the institution of a new Luftwaffe, in the re-establishment of a German Navy, in the reoccupation of the Rhineland by our troops-was the most difficult and most daring task and accomplishment of my life.

Today I must bow down in thanks to Providence, whose mercy has enabled me, once an unknown soldier in the World War, to thus help our Volk to win the battle for the restoration of its honor and uprightness! Unfortunately, not all the necessary measures in this context could be accomplished by way of negotiations. Be that as it may: a Volk cannot attain its honor by negotiating; it must seize its honor-just as its honor cannot be negotiated away, but only taken away!

That I took the required action without consulting our former opponents on each point or even informing them, was also due to the knowledge that I had thus made it easier for the other side to accept our decisions, as they would have had to at any rate. Allow me also to add yet another statement, namely, that the period of so-called surprises has now come to an end. As a state with equal rights, conscious of its role in Europe, Germany will cooperate loyally in the future to settle the problems which are a cause for concern to us and to the other nations.

When I now proceed to take a stand on all these basic questions of the present, it is perhaps most feasible to do so along the lines of the remarks Mr. Eden made recently in the English House of Commons.

In essence, they contain all there is to say on the relationship between Germany and France. Here I would like to express my genuine thanks for the opportunity of replying which was offered to me in the both frank and remarkable comments of the honorable British Foreign Secretary.

I have read these comments carefully and, I believe, correctly. Naturally I do not wish to become absorbed in details; instead I would like to try to extract the major points from Mr. Eden’s speech and, for my part, clarify and respond to them.

Initially, I will attempt to put right what appears to me to be a quite regrettable error. Namely, the error that Germany has any intention whatsoever of isolating itself, of passing over the events in the rest of the world with indifference, or that Germany had no desire to show any consideration for general exigencies.

What grounds are there for the view that Germany is adhering to a policy of isolation? If the assumption as to Germany’s isolation is concluded from what are alleged to be Germany’s intentions, I would like to note the following: I do not believe that a state could ever intend to consciously take a politically disinterested stand on events in the rest of the world. Particularly not if this world is as small as modern-day Europe. I believe that, if a state is in fact forced to take refuge in such an attitude, then only by virtue of being compelled to do so by an alien will imposed upon it. I would like to assure Foreign Secretary Eden here that we Germans do not in the least want to be isolated and by no means feel isolated.

In the past few years, there have been quite a few political ties which Germany has entered into, re-established, improved and, in the case of a number of states I might even say it has set up close and amicable relations. From our perspective, our relations in Europe are normal to most states, and very friendly to quite a few. At the top of this list I might cite the excellent relations binding us with all those states which have, as a result of hardship similar to our own, arrived at similar conclusions.

By virtue of a series of treaties, we have resolved former tensions and thereby made a substantial contribution to improving European conditions.

You will recall for example our agreement with Poland which proved advantageous for both states; our agreement with Austria; our excellent and close relations with Italy; our amicable relations with Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc.-and last but not least, our no less friendly relations with quite a number of states outside of Europe.

The agreement Germany concluded with Japan for the purpose of combating the Comintern Movement is graphic proof of how little interest the German Government has in isolating itself and how little it thus does in fact feel isolated.

Moreover, I have expressed more than once the desire and the hope of being able to arrive at equally good and friendly terms with all our neighbors.

Germany-and I solemnly reiterate this here and now-has repeatedly declared that there can be no humanly conceivable contentious issues whatsoever between itself and France, to cite an example. The German Government has moreover assured Belgium and Holland that it is prepared to recognize and guarantee these states at any time as inviolable neutral territories.

In the light of all the declarations formerly given by us and the actual state of affairs, I am somewhat at a loss to comprehend why Germany should feel itself isolated or even adhere to a policy of isolation.

I do, however, fear that I must interpret Mr. Eden’s words as meaning that he regards the implementation of the German Four-Year Plan as one element of Germany’s refusal to partake in international relations. Therefore, I wish to leave no doubt whatsoever that the decision to implement this Plan is not subject to any review. The reasons which led us to arrive at this decision were cogent ones. And I have been unable to detect any recent development which might have moved us to refrain in any way from implementing this decision.

Germany has a tremendous number of people who wish not only to work, but also to eat. In other respects as well, our Volk has a high standard of living.

I cannot build the future of the German nation on the promises a foreign statesman gives of providing some kind of international aid; I can build it only on the real foundation of a functioning industry whose products I must sell either at home or abroad! And this is perhaps where I, in my mistrust, differ from the optimistic remarks of the British Foreign Secretary.

If in fact Europe does not awaken from the fever of its Bolshevist infections, I fear that, despite the good intentions of individual statesmen, international trade will not increase, but ultimately decrease. That is because this trade is built not only upon the uninterrupted and thus secured production on the part of one specific nation, but on the production of all nations. Initially, however, one thing is certain: every single Bolshevist disruption will of necessity lead to a more or less lengthy disruption in orderly production. Therefore, I am not able to view the economic future of Europe as optimistically as Mr. Eden apparently believes he can. I am the responsible leader of the German Volk and must look after its interests in this world to the best of my knowledge and belief. Hence I am also under an obligation to assess the situation in accordance with what I believe I can perceive with my own eyes.

The history of my Volk would never acquit me were I to omit-for any reason whatsoever-doing something which is imperative for the preservation of this Volk. I am glad, as are we all, of any increase in our foreign trade. However, in view of the unresolved political situation, I shall not fail to do anything which might serve to guarantee to the German Volk its existence even after other states have succumbed to the Bolshevist infection. Furthermore, I must object when this view is dismissed as being but the product of a feeble imagination. For right now there is no doubt about the following: the honorable British Foreign Secretary is showing us theoretical perspectives on life, while in reality, for one, completely different events are taking place. The revolutionizing of Spain, for example, drove fifteen thousand Germans out of that country and did severe damage to our trade.

If the revolutionizing of Spain were to spread to other European states, the damage would increase, not decrease. If, however-this I must also investigate-the reason behind the opinion that Germany is adhering to a policy of isolation might lie in our withdrawal from the League of Nations, I would like to point out that the Geneva League was never truly a league of all the nations; a number of major nations either never belonged to it in the first place or had withdrawn even before we did, whereas no one claimed they were adhering to a policy of isolation. Therefore I believe Mr. Eden has evidently misunderstood German intentions and our own views on this issue.

For nothing is further from our minds than severing either our political or our economic relations with the other world or even to diminish them. On the contrary, the opposite is more to the point.

I have so often attempted to make a contribution to understanding in Europe, and have quite often assured particularly the English people and its government how very much we desire to cooperate and be on sincere and friendly terms with them. And I mean all of us, the entire German Volk, and last but not least myself! Yet I do admit there does exist a real and, as I see it, unbridgeable difference between the views of the British Foreign Secretary and our own on one issue. Mr. Eden emphasizes that under no circumstances does the British Government wish to see Europe torn in two halves. It is unfortunate that this desire was not expressed and heard earlier. Today this desire is nothing but an illusion.

For sadly the fracture not only of Europe, but of the entire world into two halves is now an accomplished fact. It is regrettable that the British Government did not take the position it does today-that the fracturing of Europe needs to be avoided under all circumstances-at an earlier point, for then the Treaty of Versailles never would have come about. It was in fact that Treaty which introduced the first fracture to Europe, namely, the division into victorious nations on the one hand and vanquished nations, without rights, on the other.

No one suffered from this fracturing of Europe more than the German people. That this rupture was repaired, at least as far as concerns Germany, is essentially the achievement of the National Socialist Revolution in Germany and thus, to a certain extent, probably mine as well! The second fracture arose as a result of the proclamation of the Bolshevist doctrine, one of whose integral components is that it does not confine itself to a single people but aims to be forced upon all peoples.

At issue here is not a special form of life indigenous to, let us say, the Russian people; rather, it is the Bolshevist goal of world revolution. The fact that the honorable Foreign Secretary Eden refuses to see Bolshevism as we see it is perhaps related to Great Britain’s location, perhaps to other experiences of which we have no knowledge. I do, however, hold that, because we speak of these things not as theoreticians, one cannot accuse us of being insincere in our conviction.

For Mr. Eden, Bolshevism is perhaps something sitting in Moscow; for us, however, Bolshevism is a plague against which we have been forced to defend ourselves in a bloody fight; a plague that has attempted to make of our country the same desert it has made of Spain, that had begun the same shooting of hostages we are now witnessing in Spain! National Socialism did not seek contact with Bolshevism in Russia; rather, the Jewish international Muscovite Bolshevism attempted to penetrate Germany! And it is still attempting to do so today! And we have fought a difficult battle against this attempt, upholding and thus defending not only the culture of our Volk, but perhaps that of Europe as a whole in the process.

If in those days in January and February 1933 Germany had lost the last decisive battle against this barbarity, and if the Bolshevist expanse of rubble and corpses had spread to encompass Central Europe, perhaps one might have reached other conclusions on the Thames as regards the character of this, the most horrendous menace to mankind.

Since England must be defended at the Rhine in any case,28 it would now already be in the closest proximity to that harmless democratic Muscovite world whose innocuousness is so constantly and ardently hammered home to us.

Thus I would like once more to formally state the following: Bolshevism is a doctrine of world revolution, i.e. of world destruction. To adopt this doctrine, to accord it equal rights as a factor in European life, is tantamount to placing Europe at its mercy. If other peoples choose to expose themselves to contact with this menace, Germany has nothing to say on the matter.

However, as far as Germany itself is concerned, I would like to leave no doubt that we 1. perceive in Bolshevism an intolerable world menace; and 2. that we are using every means at our disposal to keep this menace away from our Volk; 3. that we are thus endeavoring to make the German Volk as immune to this infection as possible.

This also entails that we avoid any close contact with the carriers of these poisonous germs and that we are specifically not prepared to dull the German Volk’s sense of perception for this menace by ourselves establishing connections more extensive than the requisite diplomatic or economic relations.

I hold the Bolshevist doctrine to be the worst poison which can be administered to a people. I therefore do not want my own people to come into contact with this doctrine in any way. And as a citizen of this Volk myself, I will not do anything I would be forced to condemn in my fellow citizens. I demand from every German worker that he refrain from having any relations or dealings with these international pests, and for his part he will never see me quaffing or carousing with them. In other respects, every additional German contractual tie with the present Bolshevist Russia would be completely useless to us. It would be equally inconceivable for National Socialist German soldiers to ever need fulfill a helpmate function in protecting Bolshevism; nor would we on our side accept any aid from a Bolshevist state. For I fear that every Volk which reaches out for such aid will find it to be its own demise.

I must also take a stand here against the view that the League of Nations might lend its support as such if needed and actually save the individual member states by virtue of its assistance. No, I cannot believe that. Foreign Secretary Eden stated recently that actions speak louder than words. I would, however, like to point out that the outstanding feature of the League of Nations to date has been not actions, but words-with the exception of a single case in which it perhaps would have been better to have been content with words only.29 Moreover, in that one instance-as could be expected-the actions were not able to achieve the desired effect.

Mr. Eden holds that, in the future, every state should possess only those arms which are necessary for its defense. I do not know whether and in what form Moscow has been approached with respect to putting this interesting thought into practice, and to what extent promises have already been made from that quarter.

There is, however, one thing I must say: there is no doubt that the amount of the arms required for defense depends upon the amount of the dangers which threaten a country. This is something which each Volk-and each Volk alone- is competent to judge. Thus if Great Britain establishes the limits of its arms today, everyone in Germany will understand this; the only way we can see it is that London alone is competent to decide on the proportions of the protection required by the British Empire. At the same time, however, I would also like to stress that the proportions of the protection and hence defensive arms required by our Volk comprise a matter which falls under our own competence and thus is to be decided exclusively in Berlin.

The attempt has been made to construe a connection between German sympathy for national Spain and some sort of colonial designs. Germany has no colonial claims against countries which have not taken colonies from it. In addition, Germany has suffered so greatly from the Bolshevist plight that it will not exploit this plight and rob another unhappy people in its hour of need or extract from it some future gain by force.

The German Volk once built up a colonial empire without robbing anyone and without violating any treaties. And it did so without waging war. That colonial empire has been taken away from us. The reasons being brought forth today to rationalize that action are not tenable.

First: “The natives do not want to belong to Germany.” Who asked them if they wanted to belong to someone else; and when have colonized peoples ever been asked whether they harbored good will and affection for their former colonial masters? Second: “The German colonies were not even properly administered by the Germans.” Germany had only gained these colonies a few decades before. Great sacrifices went into their expansion, and they were in the midst of an evolution which would have led to completely different results today than, for instance, in 1914. Yet we had nonetheless developed the colonies to such an extent that others considered them worth waging bloody battles with us to wrench them from our possession.

Third, it is claimed, “Those colonies had no real value.” Were this the case, this lack of value would also apply to other states, and hence it makes no sense that they are depriving us of them at all. Moreover, Germany has never demanded colonies for military purposes, but exclusively for economic ones.

It is obvious that the value of a certain territory may decrease in times of general prosperity; it is, however, just as obvious that such an assessment will undergo an immediate revision in times of distress. And today Germany is living in times of a difficult struggle for foodstuffs and raw materials. Sufficient imports are only conceivable given a steady and continuous increase in our exports. Thus the demand for colonies in a country as densely populated as our own will naturally be put forward again and again.

In concluding these remarks, I would like to take a stand on a document the British Government sent to the German Government on the occasion of the occupation of the Rhineland.

At the outset I would like to establish that we hold and are convinced that the English Government did everything in its power at that time to avoid an escalation of the European crisis, and that the document in question owes its existence to the desire to make a contribution toward untangling the situation at the time. It was nonetheless impossible for the German Government to provide an answer to these questions for reasons the Government of Great Britain will certainly appreciate.

We have chosen instead to settle some of these questions the most natural way of all in the practical handling of our relations with our neighboring states, and now that full German sovereignty and equality of rights have been restored, I would like to state conclusively that Germany will never again sign a treaty which is in any way irreconcilable with its honor, with the honor of the nation and the government representing it, or which is otherwise irreconcilable with Germany’s vital interests and thus cannot be upheld for any length of time.33 I do believe that this declaration will be easily comprehended by everyone.

The great tasks which have been commenced beyond this [the Four-Year Plan] shall be continued. Their goal will be to make the German Volk healthier and its life more comfortable. As external evidence of this great epoch of the resurrection of our Volk shall now stand the methodical expansion of several of the Reich’s major cities. Enhancing Berlin to become a true and genuine capital of the German Reich is the first priority. Therefore today-just as this is done for our road-building-I have appointed a General Building Inspector for Berlin who will be responsible for the structural enhancement of the Reich Capital and shall ensure that, despite the chaos of Berlin’s constructional development, the strong lines will be retained which do justice to the spirit of the National Socialist Movement and the individuality of the German Reich Capital. A period of twenty years has been allotted for the implementation of this plan.

May the Almighty God grant us the peace to be able to accomplish this tremendous task. Parallel to it there will be a large-scale enhancement of the Capital of the Movement, the City of the Reich Party Congresses and the City of Hamburg.

This, however, shall serve merely as a model for the general cultural evolution to which we aspire as the crowning glory of the internal and external freedom of the German Volk.

And finally, it shall be a task of the future to guarantee, in a constitution, for all time to come the true life of our Volk as it has now taken shape in the form of a state, and thus to elevate that life to become the immortal basic law for all Germans.

When I look back upon the great work of the four years lying behind us, you will understand that my initial feeling can be none other than that of gratitude to our Almighty God who allowed us to accomplish this work.

He blessed our work and enabled our Volk to stride unscathed and confident through all the perils lining its path.

I have had three unusual friends in my life: in my youth Poverty was my companion for many years. When the Great War came to a close, it was the deepest Regret at the collapse of our Volk that overcame me and prescribed my path. Since that January 30 four years ago I have met my third friend, Concern. Concern for the Volk and Reich entrusted to my leadership. It has never left me since, and will probably accompany me now until I am no more.

Yet how could a man be capable of bearing up under the weight of this concern if he did not, faithfully trusting in his mission, have the consent of Him who stands above us all? It is Fate with special tasks that so often compels men to he alone and forlorn. I also wish to thank Providence here and now that it enabled me to find a company of the most loyal fellow fighters who have linked their lives to mine and who have been at my side ever since, fighting with me for the resurrection of our Volk. I am so happy that I need not stride through the German Volk as a lonely man, but that beside me there are men comprising a guard whose name will live on in German history.

At this time I would like to thank my old comrades in arms who stood by me untiringly throughout these long, long years, and who are now giving me their help, either as Ministers, as Reichsstatthalters, as Gauleiters, or in other positions within the Party and the State. At present, there are fateful events taking place in Moscow which really reveal to us how highly that loyalty which binds leading men deserves to be valued.35 I would further like to extend my sincere thanks to those who, although they have not issued from the ranks of the Party, have come in the course of these years to constitute true helpers and companions in the leadership of the Reich Government and in the rest of the Volk. Today they all belong to us, though this very minute they may not yet have the symbol of our community.

I would like to thank the men and women who built up our Party organization and have so successfully headed it. Yet above all I must take this opportunity to thank the leaders of our Wehrmacht. They have made it possible to present the National Socialist weapon to the National Socialist State without any disturbance. Thus today the Party and the Wehrmacht constitute the two eternally-sworn guarantors of the assertion of our Volk’s life. We are also aware that all our deeds would have been in vain had not hundreds of thousands of Political Leaders, countless civil servants of the Reich and innumerable soldiers and officers stood by us loyally in the spirit of our uprising. And beyond that-had not the broad front of the entire German Volk stood behind us.

On this historic day, I must once again mention those millions of nameless German people who, from every walk of life, from every profession and factory and from every farm, have given of their heart and their love and their sacrifices for the new Reich. And we, too, Men and Deputies of the Reichstag, wish to join together to thank above all the German women, the millions of our mothers who have given the Third Reich their children. For what would be the sense in all our work, what would be the sense in the uprising of the German nation without our German youth? Every mother who has given our Volk a child in these four years has contributed, by her pain and her happiness, to the happiness of the entire nation. When I think of our Volk’s healthy youth, my faith in our future becomes transformed into joyful certainty. And I sense with heartfelt fervency the significance of that single word Ulrich von Hutten wrote before he set aside his quill for the last time:

Deutschland!

“Der Stürmer” wishes you a successful Year of Struggle – 129 (2017)!

HEIL HITLER!

harte-zeitenharte-pflichtenharte-herzen