by Dr. William L. Pierce
In various Free Speech articles I’ve spoken about our problems with Blacks, with Asian immigrants, with mestizos, and of course, with Jews – especially about our problems with Jews, in deference to their demand always to be at the head of the line. Now, I’d like to talk about our problems with ourselves, with European-Americans: about what’s wrong with White people.
Actually, this is such a huge subject that I can deal with only a tiny part of it. In the organization which I head, the National Alliance, I’ve been talking with members about two aspects of the White problem: White cowardice and White selfishness. Here are some of our thoughts.
If most White people weren’t such terrible cowards, we wouldn’t have problems with Blacks, mestizos, Jews, or anyone else today. We would have solved all of those problems long ago. There are plenty of people who agree with us about the type of society we want, the type of future we want for our people. There are many people who are disgusted with the rotten politicians and the rotten political system we have in Washington, people who are angry about what non-White minorities have done to our schools and our cities, people who are sick and tired of seeing television and the other mass media promote everything which is sick, perverse, and destructive. Many people don’t feel guilty when the media tell them to feel guilty. There are plenty of people who want a clean, decent, White society for their children to grow up in. But these people are afraid to say or do anything. Many are terrified even to have other people know what they are thinking. Why is that? What are White people afraid of?
I understand the difference between prudence or reasonable caution on the one hand and cowardice or unreasoning fear on the other hand. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice is. Imagine, for example, that you work in an office under a Jewish supervisor. You are close to retirement, and you can’t afford to lose your employment. Your Jewish boss is a big supporter of Clinton, affirmative action, “diversity,” homosexuality, feminism, racial mixing, and every other thing which is bad for our people. And the boss always is pushing these things, is making favorable comments about these things, around you and your fellow employees. He’s always saying that Bill Clinton is a wonderful man and that all of the people who are attacking him are just a bunch of bigots who hate him because he has been so good to Israel. Every time your Jewish boss says something like that you bite your tongue and keep your mouth shut, even though you want to tell him what you really think. You consider the consequences to yourself and to your family if you speak out, and you decide that it’s not worth it. So you grit your teeth and remain silent. What does that make you? Well, certainly you are no hero, but under the circumstances I don’t think it would be fair to call you a coward either. You are just a prudent person.
The times we are living in tend to make cowards of us all. We are pressed to make moral compromises every day, and it becomes a habit. Certainly, if a man today tried to act honorably in all things according to the standards for honorable behavior 100 years ago he would very likely find himself in prison in short order. For all practical purposes we are living like a conquered people under an enemy occupation government. We adjust our behavior in order to get by without a lot of trouble. We do not act heroically, because heroism is out of fashion. We try to do what is prudent rather than what is heroic.
But some people go too far in this direction, and they must be judged as cowards even by today’s lax standards. There are people, for example, who whisper to me that they agree with everything I say, and ask me for information about the National Alliance. I will offer to mail the information to them, and they will turn pale and tell me that I must not do that: the postman or a neighbor might see their mail. “So what?” I respond, and they will just look frightened and scurry away. There are other people who are afraid to talk with me on the telephone, because they are certain that the FBI is recording all of my calls.
I won’t bore you with all of the details, but over a period of years I have been made aware repeatedly of the fact that there are many people in America – White adults of reasonably sound mind – who are so afraid of the government in Washington that their fear controls them; it dominates them. They are afraid that the government will find out if they send a letter to anyone who is critical of the government, such as me. They are terrified of being on the mailing list of a Politically Incorrect organization. They are terrified of having their telephone records show that they have made calls to or received calls from anyone who is on the government’s blacklist. And these are people who themselves hate the government! But they are terribly afraid that the government will find out what they feel, what they think. There are, I am sorry to say, millions of such people in this country.
When I have spoken with some of these people in an effort to find out just what it is they are afraid of, what they believe will happen to them if the government discovers that they are thinking Politically Incorrect thoughts, I usually get a defensive reaction. Most of them don’t have any precise idea of how the government might punish them. Some of them will express vague fears about economic retaliation – an IRS audit or the loss of a pension – and others worry that all constitutional rights will be suspended under some Presidential declaration of a national emergency, and all dissidents will be rounded up and put in concentration camps. In most cases their fear is irrational.
I think it likely that there always have been people who were dominated by irrational fears, people who were afraid of their own shadow, but I am sure that there are many more of them today than there were in the past. I believe that the type of life-style we have today is partly responsible for this prevalence of unreasonable fear. Men who have been sheltered from danger all their lives, who have grown up in a welfare state, and who have never faced physical danger or seen another man die a violent death may not be able to cope with the idea of risk or be able to overcome even the minor fears which beset all of us every day of our lives.
Another part of the reason for this fear is that the controlled mass media encourage it and exacerbate it. The media bosses all will tell you that they support the First Amendment, that they believe in free speech and the rest of the Bill of Rights, but they don’t. They want the same sort of laws in this country they have lobbied for and gotten in other countries, such as Canada, France, Switzerland, Germany, and a dozen others, where one can be imprisoned for Politically Incorrect speech. It’s what they like to call “hate speech,” and they’ve been lobbying quietly for laws against it for years.
Part of their campaign has involved persuading the more impressionable elements of the public that it’s already illegal to say anything which is “racist” or “anti-Semitic.” I’m sure that all of you have seen newspaper stories to the effect that someone was arrested for distributing “racist” leaflets, or that the police found “anti-Semitic” literature in the home of someone who was charged with a “hate crime.” The way these things are reported they create the impression in the public’s mind that distributing Politically Incorrect leaflets or having Politically Incorrect books in one’s home is illegal in itself. And they report things that way deliberately. They deliberately deceive us. They want people who read these news reports to believe that having the wrong type of reading material on one’s bookshelf – or the wrong type of ideas in one’s head – can get one into trouble. They want the people who think Politically Incorrect thoughts to be fearful.
They are masters of psychological manipulation. I reported to you about the nine schoolchildren in Florida who were thrown into jail for producing a Politically Incorrect pamphlet which lampooned a Black principal at their school. The children had done nothing illegal. The purpose of putting them in jail and making a big thing of it in the newspapers was to intimidate the children – and everyone who read about what happened to them. And unfortunately, this sort of intimidation all too often works. It works because many of our people already are too timid, too cowed, to fight back.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn is one of my favorite authors. In one of his books, the first volume of Gulag Archipelago, he wrote about how the communists in Russia, who consisted of only the Jews and a tiny minority of Russian criminals, amoral opportunists, and welfare rabble – the sort of people who support Bill Clinton in America today – were able to maintain their grip on all of Russia by keeping the Russian majority, which hated them, too frightened to resist.
Solzhenitsyn writes of the period in 1934 and 1935, when the Jewish commissar Genrikh Yagoda headed the Soviet secret police, and Yagoda’s black vans went out every night in St. Petersburg, known then as Leningrad, to round up “class enemies”: former members of the aristocracy, former civil servants, former businessmen, former teachers, professors, and professional people, any Russian – any real Russian – who had graduated from a university. A quarter of the population of the city was arrested and liquidated by Yagoda during this two-year period.
Solzhenitsyn laments that the citizens of St. Petersburg cowered behind their doors when the black vans pulled up at their apartment houses night after night to arrest their neighbors. If only the decent Russians had fought back, Solzhenitsyn says, if only they had ambushed some of these secret police thugs in the hallways of their apartments with knives, pickaxes, or hammers, if only they had spiked the tires of the police vans while the thugs were in the apartments dragging out their victims, they could easily have overwhelmed Yagoda’s forces and forced an end to the mass arrests. But they didn’t fight back, and the arrests and liquidations continued. And so, Solzhenitsyn concludes, because of their cowardice and their selfishness the Russians deserved what the communists did to them. Do we deserve better?
The other problem White people have that I want to talk about is selfishness or individualism. Every week I receive letters accusing me of being a “collectivist.” The people who write the letters are indignant because I suggest that all of us have a responsibility for the future of our race, that we should put the welfare and security of our people, of our race, ahead of personal considerations. What happens to our people is more important than what happens to any individual.
This kind of talk irritates the individualist, and he tells me that although he agrees with my criticisms of the government, he doesn’t agree with my racism. Racism is a form of collectivism, which in his mind is akin to communism, and so I am just as bad as the communists. His only concern is for himself, and he believes that everyone else should feel the same. He resents being told that he has a responsibility to his race. He tells me that he knows some Blacks, Jews, or Asians who make better neighbors or better employees than some White people, and he is just as resentful of White welfare bums as he is of Black welfare bums, and so he rejects my call for him to think of himself as a White person or as a European-American. He makes all of his decisions on the basis of what is good for him, and he thinks everyone else should do the same.
The individualist responds to my warnings about the overwhelming Jewish influence in the mass media by saying, “So what? The Jews are smart businessmen. That’s why they control the media. If you don’t like it, buy yourself a television station and compete with them.”
If I complain about the media promoting interracial sex or homosexuality, the individualist doesn’t understand what I’m concerned about. To him the choice of a sexual orientation or the race of one’s sexual partner is strictly an individual matter, and no one has any right to say that one type of relationship is inherently better than another. If a White person wants to marry a Black and have mixed-race children, that’s okay with the individualist. The more extreme individualists also believe that the government has no business making laws against abused drugs. He believes that it should be up to the individual to decide whether or not he wants to use drugs, and he doesn’t care about the consequences to society of the widespread use of harmful drugs. That’s not his responsibility.
You know, if we were living in a White world I wouldn’t worry much about individualists. I still would deplore their selfishness and their refusal to accept responsibility for anyone or anything but themselves, but I wouldn’t consider them a major threat. As it is, with our people under assault by organized minorities on every front, I consider individualists to be worse than communists. Their way of thinking is really a mental illness: an illness which can infect others. And like cowardice it has been deliberately encouraged by the controlled media, because it weakens our people, it destroys our solidarity and makes it easier for the media bosses and their allies to keep us under control.
I doubt that there’s anything we can do to make a man out of a coward. However, at least some individualists may overcome their illness and change their ways as our social and political situation continues to deteriorate.
Perhaps some of them will read Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, and they will understand that the reason the Russian people fell victim to the tiny communist minority was not just their cowardice but also their unwillingness to take responsibility for the welfare of their people and to stand together as decent Russians against the Jews and the rabble. And perhaps they will see the parallel between what happened in Russia in the 1930s and what is happening in America now.
Perhaps some of them will come to understand that the reason our race is in peril now is because we are the only race which has tolerated individualism. The Jews certainly have not achieved their position of dominance by being individualists: they have achieved it by supporting each other against the rest of the world, by putting the welfare of their race first. Any Jew who collaborated openly with non-Jews against Jewish interests – the way White politicians habitually collaborate with minorities against White interests – would be ostracized and condemned by his fellow Jews. He would become an outcast.
Blacks have achieved their own measure of political power because they think and act as a group: they think of themselves as Blacks first, and they use their organized strength to demand special treatment and special favors from the government.
Perhaps some of our individualists will realize that their own lives can have no lasting value or meaning, no matter how rich or famous they become, unless they are part of something larger and more enduring than themselves. Perhaps some of them will realize that the limb they’ve been sawing off by supporting Jewish policies at the expense of their own people is the limb they’re sitting on. Perhaps when they contemplate the extinction of their own race they will realize that, despite all of its faults, it’s all they have. Perhaps we can help them realize that.
* * *
The research, carried out by UK-based German historian Karina Urbach, delved into the historical archives of 30 nations, including Germany, Spain and Russia, revealing the fascist sympathies of many European aristocrats.
Writing for The Conversation website ahead of the release of her new book, Go-Betweens for Hitler, Urbach said Edward VIII, who abdicated the throne in 1936 and became the Duke of Windsor, “has always been known for his pro-Nazi sympathies.”
She added: “However, the extent of his betrayal could never be fully verified due to the secrecy of the Royal Archives.”
“The Royal Archives have always ensured that letters from German relatives of the royal family in the run up to World War II remain closed.
“Naturally, such censorship has led to endless conspiracy theories.”
However, over nearly a decade of painstaking research in European archives, Urbach turned up vital evidence into the secret political lives of pro-fascist aristocrats.
“I have accumulated damning evidence by sifting through 30 archives all over the world that are open,” Urbach wrote.
“Intelligence reports and German, Spanish and Russian documents show members of the British royal family were indeed far closer to Nazi Germany than has previously been recognized.”
A key portion of the research deals with the relationship between the Duke of Windsor and a trusted German relative, Charles Edward Duke of Coburg – a bitterly anti-Semitic minor German aristocrat who acted as a messenger, it is claimed, between privileged fascists around Europe.
Meetings between Coburg and British royals are even listed in the Court Circular, a record of the British monarchy’s meetings and appointments.
Further evidence was found in the Spanish archives.
“In June 1940 Don Javier Bermejillo, a Spanish diplomat and old friend of Windsor – he had known him since the 1920s – reported a conversation he had had with the Duke to his superiors,” Urbach said.
The diplomat says he had heard the embittered duke blame “the Jews, the Reds and the Foreign Office” for the approaching war, long before it began.
Windsor wanted to put politicians, including Anthony Eden, “up against a wall,” Urbach claims.
Perhaps most troublingly, the records hint at a possible correlation between the Duke’s fascist leanings and the start of the German bombing campaign against Britain.
“In another conversation on June 25, 1940,” Urbach writes, “Bermejillo reported that Windsor stressed if one bombed England effectively this could bring peace.
“Bermejillo concluded that the Duke of Windsor seemed very much to hope that this would occur: ‘He wants peace at any price.’”
The report found its way into the hands of Spain’s own fascist dictator, General Franco, according to Urbach. It was “then passed on to the Germans.”
“The bombing of Britain started on 10 July,” she added.
Stalin’s Secret War by Nikolai Tolstoy. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1981, 463pp, $18.50, ISBN 0-03-047266-0.
Pawns of Yalta: Soviet Refugees and America’s Role in Their Repatriation by Mark R. Elliott. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1982, 287pp, $17.95, ISBN 0-252-00897-9.
Our „present“ has to a large degree been shaped by the events of 1939-45. The outcome of the contest between Stalin and Hitler, as „relevant“ to so many of our contemporaries as those earlier struggles between Persia and Greece or Carthage and Rome, does cast its shadow over our lives. Count Nikolai Tolstoy, in his latest book, sets out „to interpret Soviet policy, internal and external, during the crucial years 1938 to 1945. Above all, I have tried to lay bare how Stalin himself saw events and reacted to them.“ The author draws on much new material, as well as on evidence long before available but often „over-looked“ in previous publications of other writers, to support his conclusions in what is a significant contribution to our knowledge of the Second World War on the Eastern Front.
It is Tolstoy’s contention that Stalin was haunted by the fear that the Communist state was essentially a house of cards that could easily collapse. His overriding concern was to shore up the position of the regime, largely through a policy of terrorizing the various peoples who inhabited the USSR.
The first four chapters review Stalin’s pre-war management of the Soviet Union. The „New Society“ so admired by many Western intellectuals was an unrestricted police state, run by perhaps the foulest collection of congenital criminals ever assembled (thus far). Its economy rested upon the output of 15-20 million slaves, laboring in Siberia and mines in the Arctic Circle, where the annual death rate of 50-70% far surpassed that of any previous slave society. Stalin’s Russia was a land with three categories of citizens: prisoners, former prisoners, and future prisoners. There was scarcely a family that had not been touched by the secret state police (NKVD). For the overwhelming majority living in the USSR, conditions were far worse than they had ever been under the Romanovs. In Tolstoy’s view, „Stalin’s great achievement was to place the entire population of nearly two hundred million people wholly in the power of the police, whilst himself retaining in turn absolute power over the police.“
The author explains that Stalin was consumed by the fear that, given an opportunity, his hapless subjects would rise up against the Communist dictatorship. After spending a year in the Soviet Union, an American diplomat concluded that „Not very much leadership would be required to start a counter-Stalinist revolution… Many people have come to believe if Germany turned eastward she could find enough people in Russia who were fed up with present rulers to welcome any outside aid, even from the Germans.“
Part Two, the major portion of the book, deals with Stalin’s diplomatic maneuverings and wartime direction of internal security and military affairs. In August 1939, while Western diplomats were engaged in negotiations with the Soviets, Stalin signed non-aggression and trade agreements with Hitler. These benefited both parties: Germany, for the time being, was able to concentrate her slender military resources against a recalcitrant Poland and Britain and France, and also received food, oil, and other supplies from the USSR. In exchange, the USSR obtained technical aid and freedom to enlarge her sphere of influence at the expense of Poland, Rumania, the Baltic states, and Finland. In the newly absorbed areas most vestiges of Western culture were extinguished. The author describes what happened when the Russians invaded Poland in September 1939:
As the Red Army edged nervously up to the demarcation line, terrified lest the Wehrmacht change its mind and roll onwards, thousands of NKVD troops spread over the defenseless countryside behind. The Red Army confined itself to rape (old women were the principal victims, owing to a belief that the rapist would live to the age of his victim: as a result ninety-year-old women were frequently raped over and over again), and pillage. Even the pillage was occasionally restricted by the invaders’ blank terror when faced with astonishing devices like electric irons… It was the NKVD, however, which struck real fear in the Poles. Arriving a few days after the „regular“ troops, they set up headquarters in every town, working by preference at night-time.
The NKVD had categories of citizens subject to immediate arrest, from aristocrats and priests to Red Cross officials and even stamp collectors. Men were separated from their wives and children and those who were not executed upon arrest were shipped off to the slave-camps of GULAG. where they were litterally worked to death. The pattern was the same in the Baltic states. Tolstoy reveals that about one-tenth of the population of the newly occupied countries was deported. A Jewish Zionist who had looked with favor upon the USSR „as a great social experiment“ only to end up in the GULAG camps himself for four years, declared after his release:
Russia is indeed divided into two parts, the „free“ Russia [and] the other Russia – the second Russia, behind barbed wire – is the thousands, endless thousands of camps, places of compulsory labor, where millions of people are interned… Since they came into being, the Soviet camps have swallowed more people, have exacted more victims, than all other camps – Hitler’s and the others – together. and this lethal machine continues to operate full-blast… An entire generation of Zionists has died in Soviet prisons, camps, and exile.
Tolstoy remarks that „History is accordingly presented with the extraordinary fact that Jews resorted to bribery and other desperate measures in efforts to escape from Soviet territory to the tender mercies of the Nazis.“
Stalin still moved with caution in 1939-40. He feared that Germany, which served as a buffer from the Arctic Ocean to the Balkans, might be defeated by France and Britain, thus jeopardizing his own conquests. It seems that he breathed a sigh of relief once France capitulated in June 1940.
Hitler, who had made a career out of opposition to Bolshevism, decided to launch a pre-emptive attack on the USSR following Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov’s visit to Berlin in November 1940. Molotov presented a long list of Soviet territorial „interests,“ which included the Petsamo nickel deposits in Finland, the Baltic Sea up to the sound between Norway and Denmark, Rumania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Turkey. Later that month, at a meeting with German Ambassador Count von der Schulenburg, Molotov added other regions to the list. Hitler, long uncomfortable with the Soviet pact, had come under increasing criticism from Mussolini for seeming to abandon the anti-Communist struggle.[*] Stalin’s new territorial demands decided the matter, as Hitler concluded that „they were thoroughly untrustworthy allies, who would seize the first opportunity of profiting by a German reverse to move forward into Europe. This is what he had always known and prophesied.“ On 18 December 1940, Hitler released War Directive No. 21, Operation Barbarossa, which ordered the invasion of Russia the following Spring. Tolstoy notes that Stalin, who had enjoyed a number of diplomatic successes up to that time, had over-reached himself: „The Soviet tactic (well-nigh universally employed) of demanding twice what they wanted and being content with half, had for once gone seriously astray. Hitler had no intention of conceding anything to an ally whom he rated many degrees lower than Mussolini, and was angered by what he saw as an emerging Soviet threat.“
As has long been known, Stalin received numerous warnings about an impending German attack, including those from his master spy in Japan Richard Sorge. (On this point see General Charles A. Willoughby, Shanghai Conspiracy: The Sorge Spy Ring, E.P. Dutton, 1952.) Even after Germany and her anti-Comintern allies Rumania, Hungary, Finland, and Slovakia launched their invasion of Russia in June 1941, Stalin’s primary fear was not of his foreign enemies but of the Russian people themselves. During the first weeks of the attack „the country seemed to be disintegrating precisely in the manner his worst nightmares had foretold.“
The „secret war“ Tolstoy goes on to vividly describe was the fierce campaign Stalin waged against the Russian population – a struggle which often took priority over pressing military problems. For example, Stalin tied up much of the rail network in western Russia with slave trains of captives from the Baltic states, instead of devoting all rolling stock to the reinforcement of the frontlines. At L’Vov, where the Soviet 4th Army was fighting desperately to prevent its surrender, Stalin’s major concern was that the NKVD finish liquidating potential Ukrainian opponents of the regime rather than order the local security forces to join in the battle against advancing Axis units. While Stalin pleaded with the British to rush more aid and take further action, the NKVD labor camp guards were doubled in number from 500,000 to one million heavily armed men.
Standard treatments of this period always claim that the Soviet Union lost over 20 million people during the Second World War. Tolstoy makes a convincing case that the actual total is probably closer to 30 million, maybe even more – with about a third of these deaths attributable to Axis actions. The blame for as many as 23 million deaths is placed with Stalin and his NKVD henchmen.
Casualty figures for the Eastern Front have been estimated as follows: two and a half million German soldiers died in the East. It is believed that three Red Army men died for every German soldier killed. Of those 7,500,000 military deaths, approximately three million Russians died as POWs.
Tolstoy’s analysis of these statistics does much to revise our understanding of the war on the Eastern Front, as he demonstrates that these high Russian military casualties were largely due to the Soviets’ crude methods of waging war. ‘Penal battalions“ composed of „enemies of the people“ (i.e., inmates of prisons and camps, and luckless peasants, including women and children) were hurled in waves against German defensive positions. Frequently unarmed and at times deprived of camouflaged uniforms to better draw enemy fire, they were often used to clear minefields. With NKVD machine-gunners poised behind them, they were forced across minefields until a path was cleared. The wounded were killed off by the NKVD. General Ratov, chief of the Soviet Military Mission to Britain, actually declined an offer of British mine-detectors, remarking that „in the Soviet Union we use people.“ SMERSH (from the initials „Death to Spies“), the NKVD’s special murder arm made famous by Ian Fleming in his James Bond thrillers, was created in 1942 as an additional guard on Soviet front-line troops. The NKVD placed large heavily armed formations at the rear of Soviet units to discourage withdrawals and to pick off „stragglers“ and „cowards.“ In a number of instances, NKVD units fought pitched battles with Red Army detachments trying to retreat in the face of superior enemy forces. Stalin continued to purge his armed forces even as the Axis advanced. It is likely that hundreds of thousands of Russians were killed in such actions.
As for the POWs who died in German captivity, Tolstoy reminds the reader that the Soviet government refused to sign the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War, refused to cooperate with the International Red Cross (the Nazis allowed the Red Cross to visit concentration camps), and rebuffed German feelers forwarded through neutralist concerning compliance with the Hague Convention. A 1941 directive ordered Red Army men to commit suicide instead of surrender and Soviet law regarded Russian POWs as traitors. Besides their own „penal battalions,“ the Russians occasionally used POWs to clear minefields.
German attitudes toward the Russians were further colored by evidence of NKVD massacres encountered at such places as L’Vov, Vinnitsa, and Katyn. They found not just piles of corpses, but apparently mass-produced torture instruments, including devices for squeezing the skull, another for the testicles, and tools used to skin prisoners alive. Ice picks, broken bottles, or whatever else was handy or preferred were also used. Tolstoy observes that „Soviet cruelty far outstripped that of National Socialism… Torture in the USSR was (and is) employed on a mass scale as an important punitive means of overawing a resentful population.“ He goes on to explain that these ghastly scenes of state-sanctioned depravity „confirmed the German view that Bolshevik Russia was irredeemably savage and backward.“ Considering how civilians and POWs were treated by the Communists, the Germans felt no obligation to show much consideration for Russian POWs. According to the author, there was a purpose behind all of this cruelty:
Stalin went out of his way to invite Nazi ill-treatment and later extermination of Russian prisoners-of-war… It is quite clear, therefore, that the deaths of over three million Russians in German custody was a piece of deliberate Soviet policy, the aim of which was to cause the liquidation of men regarded automatically as political traitors, whilst directing the anger of the Soviet people against the perpetrators of the crime… It should not be forgotten, either, that Soviet cruelty greatly prolonged the conflict, costing all belligerent nations millions of lives… This evidence of how the Soviets treated their own people, coupled with the harsh treatment they visited on prisoners-of-war, was the major cause of Germany’s obstinate determination to fight on to the end, long after it had become clear her cause was doomed.
Having accounted for the 7½ million military casualties, Tolstoy states that four million Russian civilians were killed by the Germans (although this includes those involved in anti-Partisan operations, military sieges of such cities as Leningrad, and 750,000 Jews). This leaves 18-20 million additional Russians killed in the course of Stalin’s „secret war“ against his own subjects. In his study Tolstoy sheds additional light on the British role in the immediate post-war forced repatriation of Russian POWs and refugees back to the USSR, a topic dealt with at length in his earlier book, The Secret Betrayal.[**] Nikolai Krasnov, one of the few „returnees“ who survived ten years in the GULAG and was then allowed to leave Russia in 1955, is quoted as having been told by Beria’s deputy Vsevolod Merkulov:
But the fact that you [and the other Cossacks] trusted the English – that was real stupidity! Now they are history’s shop keepers! They will cheerfully sell anything or anyone and never bat an eyelid. Their politics are those of the prostitute. Their Foreign Office is a brothel… They trade in foreigners’ lives and in their own conscience.
In Chapter 16, „Western Attitudes,“ Tolstoy attempts to reach an understanding of why so many in the West, especially „intellectuals,“ avidly supported the Soviet Union. He notes that there has long been a fascination with totalitarian solutions among the Left and that Soviet Marxism appealed to certain intellectuals’ desire to rule society. Simple greed and envy are other factors. Tolstoy refutes the oft-made claim that the excesses of Communism must be weighed against the need to fight Fascism: „As Communism formed the prior totalitarian threat, this argument is surely more exculpatory of Fascism and Nazism than the reverse“[***].
Stalin’s Secret War successfully counters such treatments of this period as Harrison Salisbury’s The Unknown War and Alexander Werth’s Russia At War, 1941-1945. It deserves to be considered a standard reference work about Stalin and his role in World War II.
The issue of American involvement in the forced repatriation of Russians at the end of World War II, touched upon by Tolstoy in Stalin’s Secret War, is the topic of Mark Elliott’s recent study Pawns of Yalta. It is an expansion of the author’s 1974 University of Kentucky Ph.D. dissertation, and takes into consideration additional material declassified in the 1970s and now available at the National Archives in Washington – such as the „Operation Keelhaul“ papers.
When the war in Europe ended, there were several million POWs and refugees in the Western occupational zones. Among them were „Soviet citizens“ whom the United States and Britain had pledged at the February 1945 Yalta conference to return to Soviet authorities. These included Red Army POWs, some of the estimated five to six million civilians who had been press-ganged by agents of Hitler’s Plenipotentiary-General for Labor Mobilization Fritz Sauckel to work as laborers in the Reich’s factories and farms, thousands of pre-war emigres who had fled Russia during the turbulent years 1917-1922, as well as a portion of the one million Soviet soldiers who served in the Wehrmacht during the war.
It is still a surprise to many in the West when they learn that by 1944-45, up to 40% of some „German“ formations, and 10 to 15% of all units, were composed of Osttruppen (ex-Red Army men). In addition to the Hilfswillige scattered throughout the German armed forces, three divisions composed of Soviet racial minorities fought on the Eastern Front with the Axis: the Cossack Cavalry Division, the Turkish Division (made up of Moslems from Soviet Central Asia), and the Ukrainian Waffen SS Division „Galicia.“ And by November 1944, the first division of the proposed Russian Liberation Army, commanded by former Red Army General Andrei Vlasov, became operational. It did engage in some fighting against the Red Army in 1945, and from 6-8 May helped the Czechs liberate Prague from the Germans, before surrendering to the U.S. Third Army on 10 May. Elliott points out that these one million ex-Red Army soldiers who performed duties in German uniform „amounted to the largest military defection in history.“
Both the U.S. and Britain were signatories to the 1929 Geneva Convention dealing with the treatment of Prisoners of War. This obligated parties to treat POWs „on the basis of the uniforms worn at the time of capture.“ While the war continued, the U.S. complied with this bilateral agreement, not wishing to give the Germans cause to mistreat American POWs of German, Italian, or Japanese descent. After VE-Day, when there was no longer danger of Nazi reprisal, the U.S. (and Britain) quickly set about repatriating German POWs on the basis of their nationality, in flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention. A secret protocol of the Yalta agreement also provided for the forced return of Russian ex-concentration camp inmates and others who had managed to escape from Stalin’s slaughter house, thus obliterating, in the words of the author, „all trace of the proud Western tradition of political asylum.“
The British went a step further by handing over to the NKVD a number of former White Russian officers, some of whom had fought the Bolsheviks during the Second World War. All of them had been living outside of Russia since the end of the Russian Civil War and carried foreign passports or League of Nations stateless persons I.D.s. Alexander Solzhenitsyn has characterized this as „an act of double dealing consistent with the spirit of traditional English diplomacy.“
American servicemen, led by wartime pro-Soviet propaganda to believe that Stalin was kindly „Uncle Joe“ overseeing a noble human experiment in the USSR, were shocked at how most Russians in their charge reacted to the news that they were going to be repatriated to their Soviet homeland. This is illustrated by what took place at Dachau on 17 June 1946, after American authorities informed 400 Soviet refugees that they were going to be sent back to Russia:
The scene inside was one of human carnage. The crazed men were attempting to take their own lives by any means. Guards cut down some trying to hang themselves from the rafters; two others disembowled themselves; another man forced his head through a window and ran his throat over the glass fragments; others begged to be shot. Robert Murphy reported that „tear gas forced them out of the building into the snow where those who had cut and stabbed themselves fell exhausted and bleeding in the snow.“ Thirty-one men tried to take their own lives. Eleven succeeded,’ nine by hanging and two from knife wounds. Camp authorities managed to entrain the rematntng 368. Despite the presence of American guards and a Soviet liaison officer, six of these escaped en route to the Soviet occupation zone. More and more the repatriation of unwilling persons was coming to disturb battle-hardened troops.
The following month similar events took place at the Plattling camp in Bavaria. These were described by an eye-witness, U.S. Army translator William Sloane Coffin, Jr.:
Despite the fact that there were three GIs to every returning Russian, I saw several men commit suicide, Two rammed their beads through windows sawing their necks on the broken glass until they cut their jugular veins. Another took his leather boot-straps, tied a loop to the top of his triple-decker bunk, put his head through the noose and did a back flip over the edge which broke his neck… The memory is so painful that it’s almost impossible for me to write about it. My part in the Plattling operation left me a burden of guilt I am sure to carry the rest of my life.
Through suicide, several thousand Russians managed to escape the horrors that awaited returnees in the East.
Like Tolstoy, Elliott reviews the Stalinist attitude toward Russians who had spent time outside Soviet control during the course of the war. Soviet Decree #270 of 1942 labeled as deserters Red Army troopers who surrendered to the enemy. Forced laborers were also considered to be traitors. Relatives of POWs and dragooned workers were likewise treated as if they had personally committed acts of treason. Stalin’s government, as noted above, rejected attempts by the Germans and the International Red Cross to obtain Soviet compliance with the Hague Convention.
After the 1939-40 Winter War with Finland, returned Soviet POWs were either shot or sent to slave labor camps in the Far North or Siberia. This is also how the victims of forced repatriation were dealt with. According to Elliott, of the approximately 2,500,000 Russians repatriated by the Western Allies, some 300,000 were executed by the NKVD soon after their delivery to Soviet authorities. With a few exceptions, the rest were condemned to the lingering doom of 10 to 25 year sentences in labor camps, from which ordeal few survived. Elliott also points out that the USSR never released 1.5 to 2 million German POWs, 200,000 to 300,000 Japanese POWs, and did not repatriate those few ex-Axis soldiers who did manage to survive the rigors of GULAG until 1956.
Elliott argues that the U.S. participated in this sordid business out of concern for the safety of 24,000 American servicemen who were in Soviet-controlled territory at the end of the war. However, he admits that U.S. cooperation with Soviet authorities was not reciprocated. And even after the last G.I. returned in July 1945, the U.S. continued the forced repatriation of luckless Russian POWs, refugees, and Vlasovites. (The last documented cases of forced repatriation took place in May and June 1947, Operations „Keelhaul“ and „Eastwind“; Allied Forces Headquarters obtained Soviet assurances that they would accept corpses if the repatriation operation led to fatalities.)
Not everyone in higher circles approved of the repatriation policy; the author reveals instances where individual military officers and civilian government officials disobeyed or opposed the Yalta provisions. In June 1945, General Patton simply let 5000 Russian POWs go, and other commanders permitted lightly-guarded Russians to slip away. Secretary of War Henry Stimson was a vigorous opponent of forced repatriation, as were Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew and Attorney General Francis Biddle, who felt that „Even if these men should be technically traitors to their own government, I think the time-honored rule of asylum should be applied.“ In the opinion of R.W. Flournoy, the State Department’s legal advisor. „nothing in the [Geneva) Convention either requires or justifies this Government in sending the unfortunate Soviet nationals in question to Russia, where they will almost certainly be liquidated.“
This book serves as a companion volume to Count Tolstoy’s The Secret Betrayal which deals largely with the British role in forced repatriation. It is a grim chapter of our recent history – and one totally ignored in contemporary textbooks and most treatments of the Second World War and its aftermath.
[*] In a long letter to Hitler dated 3 January 1940, Mussolini warned Hitler of the danger of pursuing a war with the Western powers without taking into account the threat posed by the Soviet Union. Criticizing Hitler for the August 1939 pact with the USSR and accusing him of abandoning anti-Communism, the Italian Duce wrote:
You cannot permanently sacrifice the principles of your Revolution to the tactical exigencies of a certain political moment. I feel that you cannot abandon the anti-Semetic and anti-Bolshevik banner which you have been flying for twenty years and for which so many of your comrades have died; you cannot renounce your gospel… Permit me to believe that this will not happen. The solution of your Lebensraum problem is in Russia and nowhere else…. Germany’s task is this; to defend Europe from Asia. That is not only Spengler’s thesis. Until four months ago Russia was world enemy number one; she cannot have become, and is not, friend number one… The day when we shall have demolished Bolshevism we shall have kept faith with our two Revolutions. It will then be the turn of the big democracies, which cannot survive the cancer which is gnawing at them and which manifests itself in the demographic, political and moral fields.
Department of State, Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918-1945, Series D, Volume VII, pp. 604-609. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
[**] Reviewed by this writer in Journal of Historical Review Vol. 1, No.4 (Winter 1980), pp. 371-76.
[***] In his book An End to Silence (Norton, 1982), Stephen Cohen points out that „judged only by the number of victims, and leaving aside important differences between the two regimes, Stalinism created a holocaust greater than Hitler’s.“ Writing in the New Republic of 26 May 1982 (an article headlined on the cover as „Why Stalin Was Even Worse Than Hitler“), Richard Grenier further reflects this most interesting phenomenon of recent years – the semi-revision even among traditionalist liberals of attitudes toward Hitler, vis-a-vis Stalin:
It is no doubt a by-product of our having fought a great war against Nazi Germany, and not against the Soviet Union. that general notions of the Nazi’s system of government. history, and unspeakable crimes have entered into American folklore and popular parlance, while those of the Soviet Union have not … At the war’s close thousands of journalists and photographers, both civilian and military. climbed all over Nazi death camps. saw the dead and dying. As a result, Hitler’s lieutenants – Himmler, Goering, Goebbels – are still household names in America. Almost everyone knows of Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald, Treblinka. Fascism is still popularly taken to have no rival in political evil, which is not without irony since the Fascist states, in defense of private property and their own form of mixed economy, copied most of their techniques of government slavishly from the Bolshevik model.
But when it comes to the Soviet Union, how many Americans have heard of the assassination of Sergei Kirov? How many know the name of the dread Yezhov, onetime grand master of the NKVD, who sent many more people to their deaths than Himmler, and in less time? This with the additional idiosyncrasy that whereas Hinimler, quite hideously, was murdering mostly people he considered subhuman or members of a slave race, Yezhov, perversely as well as hideously was killing the very „workers and peasants“ in whose name Stalin ruled. Much honor is paid to Snlzhenitsyn, but how many remember the names of the Gulag’s great camps … where many more millions died than in the Nazis camps?
By Simon Sheppard
These memoirs derive from transcripts that were provided to Rudolf Aschenauer by Eichmann’s widow, Veronika Eichmann (1909-1997), and appeared in Ich, Adolf Eichmann: Ein Historischer Zeugenbericht (Druffel, 1980). The numbers in square brackets refer to pages of that book.
We at the Heretical Press and Historical Review Press believe that these memoirs are as close as it is possible to get to Eichmann’s true voice. They are Eichmann’s own words, considered and uncoerced. Even so, an important point should be made. Like all of us, he was fallible, and Aschenauer points to a number of errors. Early on Eichmann mentions Himmler’s death by suicide pill, which should caution the reader that he was influenced by post-war press reports (i.e. Allied propaganda). David Irving, who is familiar with this matter, says that Himmler was beaten to death, and even names his killer: Sergeant-Major Edwin Austin. Chester Wilmot buried the body at 3am that same night on Nuremberg Heath. All involved were required to sign the Official Secrets Act. So, this document, important as it is, is not the definitive source on World War Two. Though it is a significant contribution to a historical era which is fraught with difficulty.
There are two sets of memoirs from Argentina, the other one based on interviews Eichmann had with Willem Sassen. Alexander Jacob wrote:
When the Israeli prosecutor Gideon Hausner wished to have the full Sassen transcripts admitted into evidence during Eichmann’s trial in 1961, Eichmann opposed this claiming that this record was mere “pub talk” since he had been drinking red wine during the interview and Sassen had constantly encouraged him to embellish his accounts for journalistic sensation and had even falsely transcribed the interview.
Parts of the Sassen interviews were sold to Life magazine, which published them in 1960. Eichmann wrote more memoirs while in Israeli captivity. Hence our claim that the memoirs presented here are the most accurate and authentic of all. They have nothing to do with Sassen and were not written in Israeli captivity. Aschenauer had served as a defence lawyer during the Nuremberg Trials and, while he clearly struggled with the publication of Ich, Adolf Eichmann, it is most unlikely that he would have corrupted the material which had been entrusted to him by Eichmann’s widow.
Ich, Adolf Eichmann contains a great deal of commentary by Aschenauer, much of it redundant. Jacob translated the book in its entirety and approached HRP. Subsequently a publishing contract was struck for an English edition of the book, and Jacob’s translation was purchased. Thus this English translation, imperfect as it is, is the copyright property of HRP.
The contract with Druffel stipulated that the book must be published within two years. Realising the difficulties with the translation, that time expired. There are numerous problems with the book; all could have been overcome eventually, but the difficulties of a 166,000-word faulty translation have proved to be insurmountable. The translation is not awful, tending as it does to literal, but wrong words have obviously been chosen and it is not good enough to set in print or quote with confidence.
Capping off the saga we learned that Jacob sold his translation a second time, to another publisher, whom we were told had also given up on the project, for the same reason.
It seems that everyone who gets their hands on this material feels compelled to add their tuppence-worth. (This is mine.) By the end it had acquired nearly five hundred footnotes, added by Aschenauer and even Jacob. There were biographies of virtually everyone mentioned in the book, including Hitler and Eva Braun. Here practically worthless ancillary sources like Reitlinger and the Nuremberg Trial documents have all been discarded, unless Eichmann himself refers to them.
It may seem surprising, but I have not actually read this text. It has been processed, so I have noticed parts, but the object was that it remain fresh for the final edit. It is still a work in progress: yet to be done is a review of the footnotes to incorporate any which are directly pertinent. Underline denotes any kind of suspicion or query. Should a reader be kind enough to resolve any of these, that would be helpful. Ellipsis does not denote an omission, since the book assures the reader that hardly anything has been left out, rather these seem to be an affectation by Druffel, Aschenauer, or perhaps Eichmann himself. Similarly with the liberal use of dashes between sentences. The German version is as close to the book as has been possible to achieve, save for typographical corrections (e.g. wrongly oriented quotation marks). The few additions to Eichmann’s words which remain are in square brackets.
My husband Adolf Eichmann composed his memoirs in the years beginning in 1951 up to 1959. He dictated the memoirs continually on a tape-recorder, this was then transcribed by typists from the tape to paper. My husband later corrected the work himself in writing and made the corrections in black or partly in violet pencil.
My husband composed a part of the memoirs himself by hand, and from the writing then a typed clean copy was prepared.
The work was completed in 1959. Therewith a conclusion should have been reached. My husband explained: This work should be published after my death and indeed for the benefit of the German post-war generation.
At the beginning of 1980, I made this manuscript available to the Druffel Publishers in 8131 Leoni for publication and gave the work the title “I, Adolf Eichmann.”
Everything else that was published up to now as my husband’s memoirs does not correspond to the manuscript that I have presented to the publishers under the mentioned title. These present declarations I attest herewith under oath. They are authentic.
[signed] Veronika Eichmann, born Liebl
All chapters in both German and English at the link below.
Wenn der Deutsche einen alten Wald betritt, so ist es für ihn als wenn er in eine Kathedrale geht und er staunt über die Naturwunder. Wenn der Jude den Wald betritt, so überlegt er was die totale Abholzung für ein Geld bringt. Das ist der Unterschied zwischen uns.” H. Göring
(When a German enters into an ancient Forest, it is to him as when he goes into a Cathedral, astonished by the wonder of Nature. When a Jew enters into the forest, he thinks about how much money he can gain by its total deforestation. That’s the difference between us. -Herman Goering)
Before telling about the dark origins of the Jews, I would like to clarify a few concepts. Whenever I talk about Nature I refer to the Transcendental. Nature is transcendental because it creates Beauty and Beauty transcends morality and reason. Only through the contrast between shadows and lights can a beautiful picture arise.
I will go on and say that it is precisely our ability to hate and love, create and destroy, that makes us human, and everyone who in the name of “humanitarianism”proclaims to reject racism, violence, intolerance and “hate-speech” is in reality rejecting an essential part of what makes us human and he is incapable of feeling love toward humans for what they really are.
This becomes more obvious when we realize that all this “negative” attitudes are necessary for the creation of happiness, progress and beauty.
Racism: Had racism in Nature not existed, we wouldn’t have evolved into humans in the first place (diversity of species appears only trough racial segregation).
Violence: Were a people not ready to defend itself with violence, they would never be taken seriously (not even by a dog) and they would not know neither freedom nor peace.
Hate-speech: Were this people not capable of denouncing, with hate, the bad intentions of their enemies, their cultural and spiritual life would fall into that of animals.
While Judaism has a morality based on an all-seeing God, we have the laws of Nature (namely of Evolution and Physics). These are our ideological weapons and the foundations over which our whole world view is built. Beauty and happiness can be produced only through Nature and …
Even trees live in communities and are “racist”. Most of the inferior peoples can accept with optimism and humbleness the fact that there are better races than them, without hating them.
…But not the Jew. Despite of being crooked and lacking in creativity, he feels himself superior to everyone else and the fact that an ugly parasite feels this way is of course is not natural; it goes against the purposes of Evolution.
He would rather destroy the whole universe than admit that he did something wrong or accept that there can be someone better than him.
If we could distillate the essential parts Judaism something like the following appears:
These three concepts make a single structure where there is no place for Beauty, talent, Evolution, or the Transcendental. Neither of these three concepts are natural; they are all perversions that lead to the destruction of life. Because they are so essential for the understanding of Judaism, I will take a few lines in order to explain them.
Have you ever asked yourself, why did the Church forbid usury to everyone except the Jews, when it was precisely the Jews who were the ones damaging the society with usury? Were they so stupid as not to notice that they were granting them a monopoly on swindle? Since the Jews were not even official part of the society, it was easier to forbid them usury, so why they didn’t do it?
We know from the sources that the Jews were responsible for levying the taxes of the christian church [yes, you read it right “for the Christian church” and NOT “for the Jewish congregation”] and he stood at the door of the church in order to collect the money from the attendants and he even got to decide about the amounts for baptisms weddings and burials (see “Separation and its Discontents” by Kevin Macdonald).
It was also the Church that generously financed the colonial expeditions of the Renaissance and it was the pope who approved the conquest in the name of a worldwide rule of Christ [Globalism], where all races share the same values and exchange freely their goods [Multiculturalism] (“Die Indianerkulturen Altamerikas” by Richard Konetzke)
We know also from the sources that many ideological movements were created and promoted by Conversos [Jews in disguise] leading to Antisemitism and charges of poisoning the morals and culture (also from “Separation and its Discontents”).
It was the same damn story as today. The Catholic church was like the modern US government, which is there to serve the Jews and it was the Jew behind all the ideological movements of the Church, the one who financed the kings, etc.
The same way that in the last century he played the communists vs the capitalists, he played in those times the heretical movements (which were nothing more than Communism) vs the orthodox Church (which was a milder form of Communism, similar to modern Capitalism).
He even got to play the persecuted Jew. Already in the Middle Ages he portrayed himself as a kind of social benefactor, who had to go through multiple persecutions and attempts of genocide, solely because of the superstitious bigotry of European men.
So much for history, now let’s turn to the ideology…
The only way in which people could have ever been forced to ignore the laws of Nature is by introducing an all seeing and all powerful god, that dictates morality in a capricious manner. Because of his supposed omnipotence, his morality can theoretically go contrary to all common sense and observable reality.
Don’t waste much time analyzing the ideology of the Jews because all reduces itself to the assumption that there is an objective morality that pleases god, or in our modern secular society, some form of karma is pleased by “selfless deeds”. There is someone observing and controlling. And this all providing karma, God or global government is the force that enables the domestication of humans and the supposed overcoming of the laws of nature.
Jesus’s parable of the seeds and the Speech of the Mountain all have the assumption that evolution doesn’t exist, that all that happens is dictated by a Jewish god. This god is the big brother of Orwell’s novel. It is the hand that spreads the seeds in Jesus’ parable and it is the parasitic race that raises black people among Whites, etc.
We are in the middle of a war between mother Nature and the parasitic Lord of the Hosts. Through patient Evolution Mother nature created the Aryan Race, with all its white geniuses who figured out the laws of nature, while YHWH sent the curse of the jews in order to stop Nature’s holy path of renewal, replacement, progress and diferenciation.
Our societies are suffering from the HIV of Jewish morals; we contracted it during the Middle Ages and it has been developing undetected through a long time until the point when our immune system fails at the invasion of aliens.
Whenever we hear about “racist nazis”, white supremacists, hate-speech, intolerance, etc. it is the virus slandering the immune system of our Race, playing its tricks in order to remain undetected.
The problem with Individualism is that humans have never and will never exist outside communities. To judge a person without considering his culture and race is as absurd as evaluating a car just on the basis of its wheels. A man cannot “run” without belonging to a race and to a specific culture.
To have your own culture and to live among people of the same race is as necessary for the long-term survival, as eating is the case in the short-term. We have seen that all racially mixed societies, without exception, are not self-sufficient and that they exist only thanks to the help of the White Nations (they get money, technology and know-how from White People). We could say that only racially homogeneous nations are really alive.
The difference between a homogeneous society and a multicultural one is analogous to the difference between an ancient forest and a garden in a NY restaurant; the forest is self-sufficient, creative, strong and creates ever more sophisticated forms of beauty through evolution… The garden is sterile and totally helpless, unable to create, to survive without external care.
In a more transcendental level, we know that the human body produces an electromagnetic field, a field of energy that emanates from the whole body. Since a human society is like a body, it follows that some kind of energy field develops in a society. It is this feeling we get when we are in a homogeneous society, the beauty of the culture, which is possible only when all parts resonate in healthy harmony.
It takes a single out-of-tune instrument in order to ruin the biggest orchestra and when we imagine a white society as an inspiring piece of music, it takes just a few Blacks to ruin the beautiful atmosphere of a white society. The damage caused by this dissonance is incalculable; it is no less a crime than destroying an ancient forest and bringing all its inhabitants to extinction in order to build a parking place that in 10 years will be out of use and fashion.
The same that a human body becomes unstable and sick when it is invaded by external cells (and without intervention dies), whenever a white society adopts people of other races the whole cultural atmosphere becomes corrupted…. The society usually dies without artificial maintenance or help from more homogenous societies.
Every time we see a black man, it’s like seeing a living fossil. We could think of the black race as analogous to a thousand year old body that is being fed in vitro. In normal situations such an untalented race would have already been replaced by more capable ones and the only reason we have so many black people is because of the unnatural, artificial help they get from dumb institutions and people who fall into Jewish morals.
The whole environment is about to collapse because of the over-exploitation of resources and we go on to channel even more resources for a failed race that has no future and that has never been self-sufficient? Instead of letting nature rejuvenate itself by replacing old life-forms, we keep them alive at the expense of the environment, jeopardizing the future of life on this planet.
It might sound paradoxical to say that, after all, Mother Nature did send some kind of savior god in order to rescue humanity from its pitiful existence. This savior god is called the Aryan Race and as he replaces dinosaur races like the Aztecs or the Negroes; he becomes the new humanity and renews its contract with divinity. So much for Jewish morals!
Materialism is a prominent part of the Jewish character. This culture of the corporation-man in suits, who prides himself of his sophisticated way of speaking, of wearing expensive clothes, of travelling all the time, of being “international”, finding offensive anything that has to do with natural urges (sex, hunger, hate) and hating everything that doesn’t fit his superficial appearances, etc., is a symptom of the Judaization of our society.
We could say that, in some sense “the predator”, did really “give us his mind” in order to enslave us (the reader may remember this quote from the shaman in Castaneda books).
If this Judaization continues, Western Countries will look like Latin America; in such race-mixed countries all people with a decent income have become utterly individualistic, and materialistic; they have no interest at all about reality and live their lives through Hollywood films and alcohol.
I find repugnant the idea of living among racially mixed, materialistic people who think of themselves as Jewish pop stars. As ever more sociological studies show, this is not a specific problem of LA, rather this is a symptom of Globalization. Places where people have lost their identity and traditions become easy prey to drugs, TV, food, emotional, and all other kinds of addictions. They don’t care anymore about social projects, finding an elusive identity in Hollywood films and a fake source of self-esteem in money (see “The Globalization of Addiction: A Study in Poverty of the Spirit” by Bruce Alexander Cook)
…in fewer words, Open borders = borderless Individualism and borderless Materialism.
Without a doubt, the effects of over-individualism and the loss of all human culture are crueler than any kind of racial discrimination, so much that many young people choose suicide instead of living in such a nightmare.
The first traces of the Jews, long before the writing down of their “holy” books, reveal a past that is not much more flattering than the present. Many archaeologists believe that the Jews developed from a nomadic people called the Apiru, which are mentioned in the Amarna letters of Egypt:
[..] the Apitu, a group described in the Tell el-Amarna letters of the fourteenth century BcE (as well as other Bronze Age texts) in a variety of unflattering ways. Living outside mainstream Canaanite society, uprooted from their homes, they are sometimes described as outlaws or brigands, sometimes as soldiers for hire.
In one case they are even reported to be present in Egypt itself as hired laborers working on government building projects. In short, they were refugees or rebellious runaways from the system, living on the social fringe of urban society. No one in power seemed to like them; the worst thing that a local petty king could say about a neighboring prince was that “he joined the Apiru.” In the past, scholars have suggested that the word Apiru (and its alternative forms, Ilapiru and Habiru) had a direct linguistic connection to the word lbri, or Hebrew… [The Bible Unearthed; Israel Finkelstein, Ch. 4 – Who Were the Israelites?]
It seems that these problematic tribes were some kind of anarchic rebels who despised settlement, all kinds of rules and who for some reason (as archaeology attests) they decided not to eat pork in order to differentiate themselves from their neighbors. At some point they started to believe fanatically in a strange kind of jealous god, who promised them that they would become rulers of the earth.
We know now that the laws of Evolution apply not only to living beings but also to the whole universe. If Jewish morals go against the laws of Nature it can only follow that the Jews go against the laws of the whole cosmos. Their world view goes contrary to the essence of nature, the Transcendental, the subjective and with it, Beauty and progress, which are replaced with physical gratification; Such an evil force can only come outside this Universe.
Today, more and more physicists adopt the view that we live in a multiverse, that means that there are out there parallel universes. Could it be that the Jews are being inspired by an evil force from another universe?
This idea, as crazy as it sounds came from Rabbi Michael Laitman who in his Israel Nation’s lectures, teaches to other Jews the doctrine (inspired presumably on the Kabbala) that they have a mission that originates outside of this planet. Whether this is real or not, the fact that it comes from another universe would explain why they act so slowly and are having so much difficulties.
It would also explain why there’s disagreement among the Jews. Because of the limitations of the speed of light, it must be extremely difficult to communicate between universes, even with the most advanced technology. They interact in a very circumvented, indirect manner, that leaves much space for “noise’ and interference.
With so much promotion of the replacement of humans with machines and the fact that the Jew doesn’t seem to care about the irreversible destruction of Nature (its not that he doesn’t know, he is aware and nevertheless that doesn’t disturb him), I can only imagine that we are only a means to an end, and as soon as we have advanced enough machines all living forms in this planet will be replaced with robots.
How do they do it and why the Jews? I really don’t know, it may be related to their genes, but all I know is that even if they are being manipulated against their will, a globalist Jew has no cure.
On the night of February 13th, 1945 there began one of the most controversial raids of World War 2 – the bombing of Dresden. It is a controversy which still rages today. This documentary, taking into account the latest historical evidence, attempts to shed new light on this event.
Contemporary witnesses, previously unheard, describe the events and the terror of what it was like to be in Dresden through the night of bombing.
The film combines archive images of pre-war Dresden with a night of remembrance 45 years later in the Palace of Culture. Using information from Winston Churchill’s diaries the outspoken historian David Irving painted a comprehensive picture of the time, the background to the bombing, and the strategies employed.
Above all this film was made as a memorial to the loss of human life and of great works of art, and as a warning of the future. It is a demand for peace and a plea for humanity.
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:
JEFFERSON, THOMAS. 18th century American statesman: “Dispersed as the Jews are, they still form one nation, foreign to the land they live in.” (D. Boorstin, THE AMERICANS)
BEAMISH, HENRY H. 20th century British publisher: “There is no need to be delicate on this Jewish question. You must face them in this country. The Jew should be satisfied here. I was here forty-seven years ago; your doors were thrown open and you were then free. Now he has got you absolutely by the throat – that is their reward. ” (New York speech, October 30, 1937)
HARRINGTON, LORD. 19th century British statesman. Opposed admission of Jewish immigrants to England because: “They are the great moneylenders and loan contractors of the world… The consequence is that the nations of the world are groaning under heavy systems of taxation and national debt. They have ever been the greatest enemies of freedom. (Speech in the House of Lords, July 12, 1858)
CHURCHILL, WINSTON. 20th century British politician. In 1920, he wrote a long newspaper article of the recent Bolshevik seizure of Russia. After praising what he called the “national Jews” of Russia, he said: “In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish efforts rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide revolutionary conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster has ably shown, a definite recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworlds of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of the enormous empire.
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creating of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly the very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders… In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astounding. And the prominent if not the principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary Commissions for combating Counter Revolution has been take by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many nonJews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing. (“Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.” ILLUSTRATED SUNDAY HERALD, London, February 8, 1920.)
WILHELM II. German Kaiser: “A Jew cannot be a true patriot. He is something different, like a bad insect. He must be kept apart, out of a place where he can do mischief – even by pogroms, if necessary. The Jews are responsible for Bolshevism in Russia, and Germany too. I was far too indulgent with them during my reign, and I bitterly regret the favors I showed the prominent Jewish bankers.” (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, July 2, 1922)
TWAIN, MARK (S. L. Clemens). 19th century American writer: “In the U.S. cotton states, after the war… the Jew came down in force, set up shop on the plantation, supplied all the Negroes’ wants on credit, and at the end of the season was the proprietor of the Negro’s share of the present crop and part of the next one. Before long, the whites detested the Jew.
The Jew is being legislated out of Russia. The reason is not concealed. The movement was instituted because the Christian peasant stood no chance against his commercial abilities. The Jew was always ready to lend on a crop. When settlement day came, he owned the crop; the next year he owned the farm – like Joseph.
In the England of John’s time everybody got into debt to the Jew. He gathered all lucrative enterprises into his hands. He was the King of Commerce. He had to be banished from the realm. For like reasons, Spain had to banish him 400 years ago, and Austria a couple of centuries later.
In all ages Christian Europe has been obliged to curtail his activities. If he entered upon a trade, the Christian had to retire from it. If he set up as a doctor, he took the business. If he exploited agriculture, the other farmers had to get at something else. The law had to step in to save the Christian from the poor-house. Still, almost bereft of employments, he found ways to make money. Even to get rich. This history has a most sordid and practical commercial look. Religious prejudices may account for one part of it, bit not for the other nine.
Protestants have persecuted Catholics – but they did not take their livelihoods away from them. Catholics have persecuted Protestants – bit they never closed agriculture and the handicrafts against them. I feel convinced that the Crucifixion has not much to do with the world’s attitude toward the Jew; that the reasons for it are much older than that event …
I am convinced that the persecution of the Jew is not in any large degree due to religious prejudice. No, the Jew is a money-getter. He made it the end and aim of his life. He was at it in Rome. He has been at it ever since. His success has made the whole human race his enemy.
You will say that the Jew is everywhere numerically feeble. When I read in the Cyclopedia Britannica that the Jewish population in the United States was 250,000 I wrote the editor and explained to him that I was personally acquainted with more Jews than that, and that his figures were without doubt a misprint for 25,000,000. People told me that they had reasons to suspect that for business reasons, many Jews did not report themselves as Jews. It looks plausible. I am strongly of the opinion that we have an immense Jewish population in America. I am assured by men competent to speak that the Jews are exceedingly active in politics. (“Concerning the Jews,” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, September 1899)
Twain’s opinion on the Jews is probably the best-kept secret in American literary history. Immediately after his death, his eccentric daughter Clara married – or was married by – the Jewish piano player, Ossip Galbrilowitsch. Twain’s publishers were given speedy instructions to delete “Concerning the Jews” from the collected works, where it had appeared in the book The Man that Corrupted Hadleybury & Other Stories. (1) Since Jews provided most of the agitators and orators who pushed forward the Abolition campaign that culminated in the Civil War (which Jewish bankers largely financed, on both sides), it seems a legitimate question whether there was any preplanning for the wholesale – and retail – economic looting done by mainly Jewish carpetbaggers after the war. (2) We have cited a host of other writers on the terrible economic depredation that Jewry visited on the people of Tzarist Russia.
SHAW, GEORGE BERNARD. 20th century British dramatist: “This is the real enemy, the invader from the East, the Druze, the ruffian, the oriental parasite; in a word: the Jew. (London Morning Post, December 3, 1925)
WAGNER, RICHARD. 19th century German composer: “The Jew has never had an art of his own, hence never a live of art-enabling import… “So long as the separate art of music had a real organic life-need in it, down to the epochs of Mozart and Beethoven, there was nowhere to be found a Jew composer: it was utterly impossible for an element quiet foreign to that living organism to take a part in the formative stages of that life. Only when a body’s inner death is manifest, do outside elements win the power of judgment in it – yet merely to destroy it.
On one thing am I clear: that is the influence which the Jews have gained upon our mental life, as displayed in the deflection and falsification of our highest culture-tendencies. Whether the downfall of our culture can be arrested by a violent rejection of the destructive alien element, I an unable to decide, since that would require forces with whose existence I am unacquainted. (Judaism in Music)
FITZGERALD, F. SCOTT. 20th century American novelist: “Down a tall busy street he read a dozen Jewish names on a line of stores; in the door of each stood a dark little man watching the passers from intent eyes – eyes gleaming with suspicion, with pride, with clarity, with cupidity, with comprehension. New York – he could not dissociate it from the slow, upward creep of this people – the little stores, growing, expanding, consolidating, moving, watched over with hawks’ eyes and a bee’s attention to detail – they [were Jews.]
EMERSON, RALPH WALDO. 19th century American philosopher, poet: “The sufferance which is the badge of the Jew has made him, in these days, the ruler of the rulers of the earth”. (Fate an essay)
BURTON, SIR RICHARD FRANCIS. 19th century British diplomat, writer. After a sting as consul at Damascus, Syria, where some years before, a Catholic priest was allegedly murdered in a blood ritual by Jews, Burton took an interest in the matter. His investigations satisfied him that such killings actually were performed by certain sects of Jews.: “The Jew’s hand was ever, like Ishmael’s, against every man but those belonging to the Synagogue. His fierce passions and fiendish cunning, combined with abnormal powers of intellect, with intense vitality, and with a persistency of purpose which the world has rarely seen, and whetted moreover by a keen thirst for blood engendered by defeat and subjection, combined to make him the deadly enemy of all mankind, whilst his unsocial and iniquitous Oral Law contributed to inflame his wild lust of pelf, and to justify the crimes suggested by spite and superstition.”
DREISER, THEODORE. 20th century American writer: “New York to me is a scream – a Kike’s dream of a ghetto. The Lost Tribe has taken the island. (Letter to H. L. Mencken, November 5, 1922)”
HERDER, JOHANN GOTTFRIED. 18th century German philosopher: “The Jewish people is and remains in Europe an Asiatic people alien to our part of the world, bound to that old law which it received in a distant climate, and which, according to its confession, it cannot do away with…How many of this alien people can be tolerated without injury to the true citizen?
A ministry in which a Jew is supreme, a household in which a Jew has the key of the wardrobe and the management of the finances, a department or commissariat in which Jews do the principal business, are Pontine marshes which cannot be drained. (Bekehrung der Juden)
For thousands of years, since their emergence on the stage of history, the Jews were a parasitic growth on the stem of other nations, a race of cunning brokers all over the earth. They have cause great evil to many ill-organized states, by retarding the free and natural economic development of their indigenous population. (“Hebraer,” in Ideen)
BONAPARTE, NAPOLEON. French statesman, general: “The Jews provided troops for my campaign in Poland, but they ought to reimburse me: I soon found that they are no good for anything but selling old clothes…”
“Legislating must be put in effect everywhere that the general well-being is in danger. The government cannot look with indifference on the way a despicable nation takes possession of all the provinces of France. The Jews are the master robbers of the modern age; they are the carrion birds of humanity… “They must be treated with political justice, not with civil justice. They are surely not real citizens.”
“The Jews have practiced usury since the time of Moses, and oppressed the other peoples. Meanwhile, the Christians were only rarely usurers, falling into disgrace when they did so. We ought to ban the Jews from commerce because they abuse it… The evils of the Jews do not stem from individuals but from the fundamental nature of this people.” (From Napoleon’s Reflections, and from speeches before the Council of State on April 30 and May 7, 1806.)
FRANCO, FRANCISCO. 20th century Spanish statesman. In his victory speech in Madrid, on May 19, 1939, he declared: “Let us be under no illusion. The Jewish spirit, which was responsible for the alliance of large-scale capital with Marxism and was the driving force behind so many anti-Spanish revolutionary agreements, will not be got rid of in a day.”
HENRY WALLACE, Secretary of Commerce, under President Harry Truman, wrote in his dairy that in 1946: “Truman was “exasperated” over Jewish pressure that he supports Zionist rule over Palestine. Wallace added “Pres. Truman expressed himself as being very much ‘put out’ with the Jews. He said that ‘Jesus Christ couldn’t please them when he was here on Earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck?’ Pres. Truman said he hand no use for them and didn’t care what happened to them.”
HENRY ADAMS (Descendant of President John Adams), in a letter to John Hay, October 1895: “The Jewish question is really the most serious of our problems.”