Was WW2 worth it?

[A Moose in Love]

Many British WW2 veterans don't like the Britain of today...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229643/This-isnt-Britain-fought-say-unknown-warriors-WWII.html

{
Sarah Robinson was just a teenager when World War II broke out.

She endured the Blitz, watching for fires during Luftwaffe air raids
armed with a bucket of sand.

Often she would walk ten miles home from work in the blackout, with
bombs falling around her.

As soon as she turned 18, she joined the Royal Navy to do her bit for
the war effort.


Some WWII soldiers, and families of those lost in the war, have
complained society today shows no sign of the effort they made to help

Hers was a small part in a huge, history-making enterprise, and her
contribution epitomises her generation's sense of service and
sacrifice.

Nearly 400,000 Britons died. Millions more were scarred by the
experience, physically and mentally.

But was it worth it? Her answer - and the answer of many of her
contemporaries, now in their 80s and 90s - is a resounding No.


They despise what has become of the Britain they once fought to save.
It's not our country any more, they say, in sorrow and anger.

Sarah harks back to the days when 'people kept the laws and were
polite and courteous. We didn't have much money, but we were contented
and happy.

'People whistled and sang. There was still the United Kingdom, our
country, which we had fought for, our freedom, democracy. But where is
it now?!'


Sarah Robinson, who joined the Royal Navy when she was 18, says the
Britain she once knew no longer exists

The feelings of Sarah and others from this most selfless generation
about the modern world have been recorded by a Tyneside writer, 33-
year-old Nicholas Pringle.

Curious about his grandmother's generation and what they did in the
war, he decided three years ago to send letters to local newspapers
across the country asking for those who lived through the war to write
to him with their experiences.

He rounded off his request with this question: 'Are you happy with how
your country has turned out? What do you think your fallen comrades
would have made of life in 21st-century Britain?'

What is extraordinary about the 150 replies he received, which he has
now published as a book, is their vehement insistence that those who
made the ultimate sacrifice in the war would now be turning in their
graves.

There is the occasional bright spot - one veteran describes Britain as
'still the best country in the world' - but the overall tone is one of
profound disillusionment.

'I sing no song for the once-proud country that spawned me,' wrote a
sailor who fought the Japanese in the Far East, 'and I wonder why I
ever tried.'

'My patriotism has gone out of the window,' said another ex-
serviceman.

In the Mail this week, Gordon Brown wrote about 'our debt of dignity
to the war generation'.

But the truth that emerges from these letters is that the survivors of
that war generation have nothing but contempt for his government.

They feel, in a word that leaps out time and time again, 'betrayed'.

New Labour, said one ex-commando who took part in the disastrous
Dieppe raid in which 4,000 men were lost, was 'more of a shambles than
some of the actions I was in during the war, and that's saying
something!'

He added: 'Those comrades of mine who never made it back would be
appalled if they could see the world as it is today.

'They would wonder what happened to the Brave New World they fought so
damned hard for.'

Nor can David Cameron take any comfort from the elderly.

His 'hug a hoodie' advice was scorned by a generation of brave men and
women now too scared, they say, to leave their homes at night.

Immigration tops the list of complaints.

'This Land of Hope and Glory is just a land of yobs and drunks'

'People come here, get everything they ask, for free, laughing at our
expense,' was a typical observation.

'We old people struggle on pensions, not knowing how to make ends
meet. If I had my time again, would we fight as before? Need you
ask?'

Many writers are bewildered and overwhelmed by a multicultural Britain
that, they say bitterly, they were never consulted about nor feel
comfortable with.

'Our country has been given away to foreigners while we, the
generation who fought for freedom, are having to sell our homes for
care and are being refused medical services because incomers come
first.'

Her words may be offensive to many - and rightly so - but Sarah
Robinson defiantly states: 'We are affronted by the appearance of
Muslim and Sikh costumes on our streets.'


This picture of a teenage hoodie making a disrespectful gesture at
Tory leader David Cameron illustrates a wartime WAAF's comments that
Britain has become 'a land of yobs and drunks'

But then political correctness is another thing they take strong issue
with, along with politicians generally - 'liars, incompetents and self-
aggrandising charlatans' (with the revealing exception of Enoch
Powell).

The loss of British sovereignty to the European Union caused almost as
much distress. 'Nearly all veterans want Britain to leave the EU,'
wrote one.

Frank, a merchant navy sailor, thought of those who gave their lives
'for King and country', only for Britain to become 'an offshore island
of a Europe where France and Germany hold sway. Ironic, isn't it?'

'Our culture is draining away and we are forbidden to say anything'


As a group, they feel furious at not being able to speak their minds.

They see the lack of debate and the damning of dissenters as racists
or Little Englanders as deeply upsetting affronts to freedom of
speech.

'Our British culture is draining away at an ever increasing pace,'
wrote an ex-Durham Light Infantryman, 'and we are almost forbidden to
make any comment.'

A widow from Solihull blamed the Thatcher years 'when we started to
lose all our industry and profit became the only aim in life'.

Her husband, a veteran of Dunkirk and Burma, died a disappointed man,
believing that his seven years in the Army were wasted.

'It is 18 years since I lost him and as I look around parts of
Birmingham today you would never know you were in England,' she wrote.

'He would have hated it. He also disliked the immoral way things are
going. I don't think people are really happy now, for all the modern,
easy-living conveniences.

'I disagree with same-sex marriages, schoolgirl mothers, rubbish TV
programmes, so-called celebrities and, most of all, unlimited
immigration.

'I am very unhappy about the way this country is being transformed. I
go nowhere after dark. I don't even answer my doorbell then.'

A Desert Rat who battled his way through El Alamein, Sicily, Italy and
Greece was in despair.

'This is not the country I fought for. Political correctness, lack of
discipline, compensation madness, uncontrolled immigration - the "do-
gooders" have a lot to answer for.

'If you see youngsters doing something they shouldn't and you say
anything, you just get a mouthful of foul language.'

Undoubtedly, some of the complaints are 'grumpy old man' gripes, as
the veterans themselves recognise - from chewing gum on pavements and
motorists using mobile phones to the march of computerisation ('why
can't I just go to the station and buy a railway ticket?') and the
dearth of pop music tunes you can hum.

But it is the fundamental change in society's values which they find
hardest to come to terms with.

Bring back birching and hanging, the sanctions they grew up with, they
say. Put more bobbies back on the beat.

'We were rigidly taught good manners and respect for older people,'
said a wartime WAAF, 'but the nanny state has ruined all that.
Television programmes are full of violence and obscene language.

This Land of Hope and Glory is in reality a land of yobs, drug
addicts, drunkard youths and teenage mothers who think they are owed
all for nothing.'

Aged 85, she has little wish to go on living.

For others, the strength of character that got them through the war is
still helping them to survive the disappointments of peacetime.

A crofter's son from Scotland who served on the Arctic convoys taking
supplies to Russia found the immediate post-war years hard.


Soldiers of the British Expeditionary Force leave the UK for France
aboard a troopship to help the French Resistance during WWII

'In those days we had no welfare support from any source. It was as
though we had served our country to the full and were then forgotten.

'However, we were very resilient and determined to make a go of it,
and many of us, including myself, succeeded.

'How times have changed now, with the countless many clamouring to get
welfare benefits for the asking.'

A medic who made it through Dunkirk and D-Day thought the fallen would
be appalled by the lack of manners in modern life and the worship of
celebrities, plus 'the patent dishonesty of politicians'.

Another common issue was their bemusement at the idea anyone could
live in constant debt.

'We were brought up to believe that if you hadn't the money, you
waited till you had!' one wrote.

However, this particular man was unusual among the 150 respondents in
believing that there were many pluses to modern life.

He even had a good word to say about the European Union and felt it
would appeal to the fallen 'if only for maintaining the peace in
Europe over the past 60 years or so'.

He praised the breaking down of class barriers in Britain compared
with the years when he was young and 'infinitely' increased
prosperity.

'More clothes, cars, holidays abroad, home ownership. As a young
teacher in the Fifties I had one suit (Army issue) and the luxury of a
sports jacket and flannels at the weekend.

'Education has made vast progress. In my early days I taught classes
of 50. Only five per cent of children went on to further education
compared with over 40 per cent today.

'The emancipation of women has also been a huge plus, with the
introduction of the Pill a large contributor. Before the war, women
teachers were dismissed as soon as they married.'

A Land Girl who laboured on farms in Devon during the war agreed that
'we have so much to be grateful for.

'So much progress has been made to transform the standard of living
since the war.'

But she could not help asking whether people were any happier.

She bemoaned the advent of the Pill and the collapse of sexual
morality. 'In my day, drugs were unknown, families remained together,
divorce was a rarity and children felt secure.

'We're now controlled by Germany and France. What a sad irony!'

'Were our sacrifices made so hooligans may run wild? And aggressive
behaviour be accepted as the norm by TV interviewers and society in
general?'

A captain with a Military Cross for valour under fire thought Britain
was still the best country in the world.

The 'occasional' sight of parents and nicely dressed children gave an
otherwise gloomy veteran of the Italian campaign a sense that 'what we
did all those years ago was not for nothing'.

A grandmother, the widow of a Royal Marine who took part in the D-Day
landings, felt the National Health Service had descended into chaos
but was grateful for a pensioner's free television licence, 'which
brings art, travel and animals into my home', and being able to text
her grandchildren.

Just being alive was a bonus. 'Although I hate what is happening to
our country, I am so happy to be here, grumbling, but remembering
better, happier days,' she wrote.

But one of the bitterest complaints of the veterans was that their
trenchant views on many of the matters aired here were constantly
ignored by those in authority.

Their letters of complaint to councillors and MPs went unanswered.

It was as if they didn't matter, except when wheeled out for the
rituals of Remembrance Day.


One person complained it is not right those lost in the World Wars are
only remembered publicly on Remembrance Day

'Why do so many of the British public confuse sentimentality with
genuine concern for others?' asked one letter-writer.

But this was the generation honoured in Remembrance services last
weekend, showered with gratitude and teary-eyed sentiments as their
dwindling ranks marched unsteadily past the Cenotaph and other war
memorials throughout the UK.

The overall impression any reader of the letters gets is that this
generation feel unheard, unwanted and unimportant.

This remarkable collection of their thoughts should give us pause for
reflection.

They may be deemed beyond their sell-by date (and many of their views
may seem unacceptable, flouting every sort of 'ism' imaginable) but,
by their deeds of 60-plus years ago, they have won the right to be
listened to and their disillusionment noted with respect.

In one letter in this collection, an RAF mechanic quoted a poem about
comrades who fell in battle: 'I mourned them then, But now surviving
in a world, Indifferent to their hopes and dreams, I grieve more for
the living.'
}

[The Peeler]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 05:56:15 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love with Nazi Scum
wrote:

> Many British WW2 veterans don't like the Britain of today...

<FLUSH yet another huge load of moose droppings>

You better ask that the Germans that STARTED the war because they thought
they would profit from it!

[Stanislaus Stewart]

Come on. The British and the Americans were selling arms to Hitler
before they discovered he was after world conquest. :>)

[The Peeler]

Sources?

[brian lamb]

'' Sources?''

The Peeler, somebody as stupid as A Moose in Love!

[brian lamb]

The arsehole A Moose in Love drools & slobbers,'' this coming from
someone who wears the uniform of the Canadian Forces and is proud to
shit on a German monument.''!


& where exactly is your garbage can Kraut bastard of a father buried,
moron?


I'll dig up his rotting corpse & shit in the coffin & use his Kraut
skull to wipe my arse with!


Ayup!

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Was WW2 worth it?

Group: alt.politics Date: Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 9:51am From: me...@att.net
(Stanislaus Stewart)

===============================

Nope. Between the Wars, the German arms industry was world-class,
especially in aviation. The Mauser=pattern rifles were the world
standard for infantry arms. Krupp did much work on larger-caliber
artillery that paid dividends.

IOW, Germany was pretty self-sufficient in arms.

--
"There are good men everywhere. I only wish they had louder voices."--

Louis L'Amour

[§pâmßuster]

On 12/10/2012 5:56 AM, A Moose in Love wrote

--
SPAMMED TO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS - AND DELETED

[§pâmßuster]

[§pâmßuster]

[§pâmßuster]

[Tom Farnsworth]

On 10/12/2012 5:56 AM, A Moose in Love wrote:

>
Just exactly what has WWII to do with the country Britain has become?

[carl]

Well in other opinions. Any war from begining of the world to today. War has
been fought...and multiple
millions of lives has been lost. To the families around the country...who
has lost loved ones. Was all these
wars been worth it or not? No one can spacifically say. I lost a brother in
09...he served in the Navy
on two tours. And in 08 I lost a dad...he fought in the vietnam war. He
servived.. He died at age 78.
My brother died just 6 days before his 54th birthday. To be totally honest.
Yes all wars are worth it
to obtain freedom. And I'm originally was born in the UK...but raised in the
US. At least I'm honest
to where I was born..Obama was born in Kenya south Africa. He was raised in
Hawaii.

"Tom Farnsworth" <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Yq4es.11329$nQ6....@newsfe15.iad...

[Tom Farnsworth]

Moose's proposition seems to be that because Britain hasn't turned out
as some would like, some 60 years hence, it would have been better if
the Nazis had won the war.

Now I can't claim to care much for Britain's Gov't of late... but it
seems extraordinary to draw from this the conclusion that we would have
all been better off if Adolf had conquered the world!

It seems to me that Moose should give his head a very hard shake... and
if he hears something rattling, he should draw the obvious conclusion.

[A Moose in Love]

On Oct 13, 1:44 am, Tom Farnsworth <tommy100...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, carl wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Well in other opinions. Any war from begining of the world to today. War has
> > been fought...and multiple
> > millions of lives has been lost. To the families around the country...who
> > has lost loved ones. Was all these
> > wars been worth it or not? No one can spacifically say. I lost a brother in
> > 09...he served in the Navy
> > on two tours. And in 08 I lost a dad...he fought in the vietnam war. He
> > servived.. He died at age 78.
> > My brother died just 6 days before his 54th birthday. To be totally honest.
> > Yes all wars are worth it
> > to obtain freedom. And I'm originally was born in the UK...but raised in the
> > US. At least I'm honest
> > to where I was born..Obama was born in Kenya south Africa. He was raised in
> > Hawaii.
>

> > "Tom Farnsworth" <tommy100...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:Yq4es.11329$nQ6....@newsfe15.iad...
> >> On 10/12/2012 5:56 AM, A Moose in Love wrote:
>
> >> Just exactly what has WWII to do with the country Britain has become?
>
> Moose's proposition seems to be that because Britain hasn't turned out
> as some would like,  some 60 years hence, it would have been better if
> the Nazis had won the war.

I wish that there wasn't a WW2 to begin with, or a WW1, etc. Human
nature being what it is however ensures that we will have wars for
quite some time into the future.
The outcome of WW2 sure as hell didn't help the brits did it?

>
> Now I can't claim to care much for Britain's Gov't of late... but it
> seems extraordinary to draw from this the conclusion that we would have
> all been better off if Adolf had conquered the world!
>
> It seems to me that Moose should give his head a very hard shake... and
> if he hears something rattling, he should draw the obvious conclusion.

I have never stated that I wish that Germany had won WW2. The war
should never have been fought in the first place.

[The Peeler]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 05:13:57 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love with Nazi Scum
wrote:

>>> "Tom Farnsworth" <tommy100...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Yq4es.11329$nQ6....@newsfe15.iad...
>>>> On 10/12/2012 5:56 AM, A Moose in Love wrote:
>>
>>>> Just exactly what has WWII to do with the country Britain has become?
>>
>> Moose's proposition seems to be that because Britain hasn't turned out
>> as some would like,  some 60 years hence, it would have been better if
>> the Nazis had won the war.
>
> I wish that there wasn't a WW2 to begin with, or a WW1, etc.

Tell that to the Germans who STARTED the war!

> Human
> nature being what it is however ensures that we will have wars for
> quite some time into the future.
> The outcome of WW2 sure as hell didn't help the brits did it?
>
>>
>> Now I can't claim to care much for Britain's Gov't of late... but it
>> seems extraordinary to draw from this the conclusion that we would have
>> all been better off if Adolf had conquered the world!
>>
>> It seems to me that Moose should give his head a very hard shake... and
>> if he hears something rattling, he should draw the obvious conclusion.
>
> I have never stated that I wish that Germany had won WW2. The war
> should never have been fought in the first place.

Tell to the Germans who STARTED the war, you disgusting hypocritical
Canadian Nazi pig!

[Harold Burton]

In article
<4f4a0f87-a906-444e...@y1g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

True, but there's no reason the US of A should get involved in them,
except for stupid Presidents.

[Harold Burton]

In article <Yq4es.11329$nQ6....@newsfe15.iad>,

Tom Farnsworth <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/12/2012 5:56 AM, A Moose in Love wrote:
>
> >
> Just exactly what has WWII to do with the country Britain has become?

Finished off what WWI left undone, the bankruptcy of Britain.

[Harold Burton]

In article <2d7es.4091$hh5...@newsfe03.iad>,

Tom Farnsworth <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, carl wrote:
> > Well in other opinions. Any war from begining of the world to today. War has
> > been fought...and multiple
> > millions of lives has been lost. To the families around the country...who
> > has lost loved ones. Was all these
> > wars been worth it or not? No one can spacifically say. I lost a brother in
> > 09...he served in the Navy
> > on two tours. And in 08 I lost a dad...he fought in the vietnam war. He
> > servived.. He died at age 78.
> > My brother died just 6 days before his 54th birthday. To be totally honest.
> > Yes all wars are worth it
> > to obtain freedom. And I'm originally was born in the UK...but raised in the
> > US. At least I'm honest
> > to where I was born..Obama was born in Kenya south Africa. He was raised in
> > Hawaii.
> >
> > "Tom Farnsworth" <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Yq4es.11329$nQ6....@newsfe15.iad...
> >> On 10/12/2012 5:56 AM, A Moose in Love wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >> Just exactly what has WWII to do with the country Britain has become?
> >>
> >
> >
> Moose's proposition seems to be that because Britain hasn't turned out
> as some would like, some 60 years hence, it would have been better if
> the Nazis had won the war.

How did you come up with that stupid conclusion?

> Now I can't claim to care much for Britain's Gov't of late... but it
> seems extraordinary to draw from this the conclusion that we would have
> all been better off if Adolf had conquered the world!

How did you come up with that stupid conclusion?

> It seems to me that Moose should give his head a very hard shake... and
> if he hears something rattling, he should draw the obvious conclusion.

Take your own advice.


snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article
<4f4a0f87-a906-444e...@y1g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
A Moose in Love <parkstre...@gmail.com> wrote:

It would have been fought, it's just that had Britain and France stayed
out of it, it would have been fought between Germany and the Soviet
Union. Whoever "won" would have been so weakened by the effort that he
would have posed no threat to the rest of the world. Especially if
Britain, France, and the US of A rearmed while HItler and Stalin beat
each other up.

[The Peeler]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:11:39 -0400, Harold Burton wrote:

>>> It seems to me that Moose should give his head a very hard shake... and
>>> if he hears something rattling, he should draw the obvious conclusion.
>>
>> I have never stated that I wish that Germany had won WW2. The war
>> should never have been fought in the first place.
>
> It would have been fought, it's just that had Britain and France stayed
> out of it, it would have been fought between Germany and the Soviet
> Union. Whoever "won" would have been so weakened by the effort that he
> would have posed no threat to the rest of the world. Especially if
> Britain, France, and the US of A rearmed while HItler and Stalin beat
> each other up.

LOL! Post proof for your idiotic claims, you endlessly blithering idiot!

[The Peeler]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:05:12 -0400, Harold Burton wrote:


>>>
>> Just exactly what has WWII to do with the country Britain has become?
>
> Finished off what WWI left undone, the bankruptcy of Britain.

What bankruptcy, you blithering idiot? <tsk>

[The Peeler]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:07:24 -0400, Harold Burton wrote:

>>>
>>>
>> Moose's proposition seems to be that because Britain hasn't turned out
>> as some would like, some 60 years hence, it would have been better if
>> the Nazis had won the war.
>
> How did you come up with that stupid conclusion?

Simple, stupid! He read Moose Droppings postings!

>> Now I can't claim to care much for Britain's Gov't of late... but it
>> seems extraordinary to draw from this the conclusion that we would have
>> all been better off if Adolf had conquered the world!
>
> How did you come up with that stupid conclusion?

Simple, stupid: He read Moose Droppings postings!

>> It seems to me that Moose should give his head a very hard shake... and
>> if he hears something rattling, he should draw the obvious conclusion.
>
> Take your own advice.

YOU better take his advice too, dipshit!

[The Peeler]

That's not for assholes like you to decide, smartie! ;-)

[Tom Farnsworth]

> How did you come up with that stupid conclusion?
>
>
>

>> Now I can't claim to care much for Britain's Gov't of late... but it
>> seems extraordinary to draw from this the conclusion that we would have
>> all been better off if Adolf had conquered the world!
>
>

> How did you come up with that stupid conclusion?
>
>

>> It seems to me that Moose should give his head a very hard shake... and
>> if he hears something rattling, he should draw the obvious conclusion.
>
>

> Take your own advice.
>
>
> snicker
>

er... I read his words... English you know... and rephrased what Mooses
word suggested for clarity... and responded what he seemed to be saying.

That's the process involved in my conclusion.

Moose clarified what he meant and I accept that.

then you called me names... and change the destination of your comment
so I couldn't reply.

You are a hero Harold

[The Peeler]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:07:38 -0700, Tom Farnsworth wrote:


> > snicker
> >
>
> er... I read his words... English you know... and rephrased what Mooses
> word suggested for clarity... and responded what he seemed to be saying.
>
> That's the process involved in my conclusion.
>
> Moose clarified what he meant and I accept that.
>
> then you called me names... and change the destination of your comment
> so I couldn't reply.
>
> You are a hero Harold

Oh, yes, he is! LOL!!!

[Harold Burton]

In article <zKkes.14100$zI3....@newsfe18.iad>,

No you didn't, you introduced your own biases.


snicker

[AmericanMorn]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 05:56:15 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
<parkstre...@gmail.com> wrote:


Many people might ask your question regarding war. WW2 got rid of the Nazis. How
about the Civil War, was it worth it? The Civil War ended slavery.

On the other hand, were the Korean War or the Viet Nam war worth it? Probably not,
but that's just my opinion, I'm sure there are others that would disagree with me but
I can't imagine with what reasoning....AM

[Dave Smith]

The Vietnamese War could have been avoided. A fatal blow could have been
dealt to the Vietminh at Diem Bien Phu. The French colonial masters
asked their allies, the US air support, but that was turned down. The
French lost the battle and the colony. A civil war saw the country
divided but an a deal was made to divide the country and to hold a vote
on re-unification. When it became apparent that the communists were
going to win the vote the US backed the corrupt South Vietnamese
regime's decision not to hold the election. After rejecting a democratic
exercise that would have re-united the country, the US ended up going in
to prop up the corrupt the regime under the guise of protecting freedom
and liberty.

[Kixi]

On Oct 12, 6:42 am, The Peeler <finishing...@themoronicRevd.invalid>
wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 05:56:15 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love with Nazi Scum
> wrote:
>
> > Many British WW2 veterans don't like the Britain of today...
>
> <FLUSH yet another huge load of moose droppings>
>
> You better ask that the Germans that STARTED the war because they thought
> they would profit from it!

The Jews started the war about 24 March 1833 - "Judea Declares War on
Germany"

Search for that phrase or go to
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html

[Harold Burton]

In article
<69d0028c-6371-4cc2...@s18g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

Kixi <Kixi...@Hotmail.ca> wrote:

> On Oct 12, 6:42 am, The Peeler <finishing...@themoronicRevd.invalid>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 05:56:15 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love with Nazi Scum
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Many British WW2 veterans don't like the Britain of today...
> >
> > <FLUSH yet another huge load of moose droppings>
> >
> > You better ask that the Germans that STARTED the war because they thought
> > they would profit from it!
>
> The Jews started the war about 24 March 1833 - "Judea Declares War on
> Germany"

As Einstein said, stupidity is infinite.



snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article <res188lv6teaov50p...@4ax.com>,

AmericanMorn <nos...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 05:56:15 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
> <parkstre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Many people might ask your question regarding war. WW2 got rid of the Nazis.

But it didn't need the US, France, and England to do it. Had they
stayed out of it they would have saved lives, dollars, pounds, and
francs, and it all would have been Uncle Joe's problem.


snicker

[AmericanMorn]

Thanks for the history lesson...AM

[AmericanMorn]

But wasn't there a possibility France and England would have been obliterated by the
time Uncle Joe succeeded?.....AM

[Barry Bruyea]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:14:20 -0700 (PDT), Kixi <Kixi...@Hotmail.ca>
wrote:

>On Oct 12, 6:42 am, The Peeler <finishing...@themoronicRevd.invalid>
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 05:56:15 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love with Nazi Scum
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Many British WW2 veterans don't like the Britain of today...
>>
>> <FLUSH yet another huge load of moose droppings>
>>
>> You better ask that the Germans that STARTED the war because they thought
>> they would profit from it!
>
>The Jews started the war about 24 March 1833 - "Judea Declares War on
>Germany"

There was no "Germany" in 1833.

[Kixi]

On Oct 20, 1:25 am, Barry Bruyea <damnthetorped...@duck.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:14:20 -0700 (PDT), Kixi <Kixi_...@Hotmail.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >The Jews started the war about 24 March 1833 - "Judea Declares War on
> >Germany"
>
> There was no "Germany" in 1833.

> >Search for that phrase or go to

> >http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/article...

The newspaper reporters wrote about the Jews' declaration of war on
"GERMANY".

Within 6 weeks of Hitler being appointed Chancellor and the new
National Socialist coalition struggling for broader support, the Jews
already had their global organizations whipping up support for their
economic war. They escalated it to a European war then, when that
didn't look like it was enough, a world war. Jews and the banksters
were behind all escalations to WWII and the sabotaging of all peace
moves with the help of their paid servant, Winston Churchill.

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html

But keep up the 80 year anti-Hitler, anti-National Socialist campaign.
It is vital for keeping Holohoax gelt rolling in.

[Barry Bruyea]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 07:35:59 -0700 (PDT), Kixi <Kixi...@Hotmail.ca>
wrote:

Without the above, mentally deficient idiots like you would have to
settle for having sex with Big Foot.

[brian lamb]

Kixi sure do have a real purty mouth!

\\\\Y////
^
( )
I I
oI Io


Gobble - gobble, slurp - slurp, gulp - gulp!"

[Harold Burton]

In article <cli488pkb2nok5jgo...@4ax.com>,

AmericanMorn <nos...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:14:53 -0400, Harold Burton <hal.i....@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <res188lv6teaov50p...@4ax.com>,
> > AmericanMorn <nos...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 05:56:15 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
> >> <parkstre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Many people might ask your question regarding war. WW2 got rid of the
> >> Nazis.
> >
> >But it didn't need the US, France, and England to do it. Had they
> >stayed out of it they would have saved lives, dollars, pounds, and
> >francs, and it all would have been Uncle Joe's problem.
> >
>
> But wasn't there a possibility France and England would have been obliterated
> by the time Uncle Joe succeeded?.....AM

France WAS. The only reason Hitler attacked France was because France
declared war on her. Hitler never wanted war with England (or France)
as evidenced by the fact that after the fall of France (thanks to French
aggression) Hitler actively sought peace with England. ONLY when
England refused to sign a peace treaty with Germany was Hitler forced to
continue the war on England. Had Britain and France not declared war on
Hitler in the first place, he would have continued his drive east (look
at where Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland are relative to Germany) and
run up against Russia. Then Germany and Russia would have beaten each
other to bloody pulps leaving France, England, and the US of A as the
only powers at full strengh, easily able to kick the shit out of the
"winner" of the Germany/Russia confrontation. Look at how weak the
European "winners" of WWI were at the end. Even Turkey was able to defy
them.

[Topaz]

Auschwitz Museum Director
Reveals 'Gas Chamber' Hoax
By P. Samuel Foner
The Spotlight
Volume XIX, Number 2
5-31-4

In a dramatic and unprecedented videotaped interview, Dr. Franciszek
Piper, senior curator and director of archives of the Auschwitz State
Museum admitted on camera that 'Krema 1,' the alleged 'homicidal gas
chamber' shown off to hundreds of thousands of tourists every year at
the Auschwitz main camp, was, in fact, fabricated after the war by the
Soviet Union -apparently on the direct orders of Josef Stalin.

What Piper said - in effect and on camera - was that the explosive
1988 Leuchter Report was correct: no homicidal gassings took place in
the buildings designated as 'homicidal gas chambers' at Auschwitz.

With this admission by none other than the respected head of the
Auschwitz State Museum, one of the most sacred 'facts' of history has
been destroyed. This 'gas chamber' is the major historical 'fact' on
which much of the foreign and domestic policies of all Western nations
since WWII are based.

It is the basis for the $100+ billion in foreign aid the United States
has poured into the state of Israel since its inception in 1948 -
amounting to $16,500 for every man, woman and child in the Jewish
state and billions more paid by Germany in 'reparations' - not to
mention the constructing of Israel's national telephone, electrical
and rail systems...all gifts of the German people. It is the basis for
the $10 billion 'loan' (read 'gift') made to Israel for housing its
immigrants in the occupied territories...while Americans sleep on the
streets and businesses are bankrupted by the thousands. (Note - As of
2004, not a single 'loan' of US tax money made to the state of Israel
by Washington has ever been paid back. -ed)

Germany is paying 'reparations' - the United States is making
major contributions - to atone for the 'gassings at Auschwitz' and
elsewhere. If the 'homicidal gas chambers' were postwar creations of
the Soviets, in which no one was gassed regardless of race, creed,
color or country of national origin, then these 'reparations' were
unnecessary, and were based on fraud.

The videotape on which Dr. Piper makes his revelations was made in
mid-1992 by a young Jewish investigator, David Cole and follows 12
years of intensive investigation by dozens of historians, journalists
and scientists who have tried to get to the bottom of what really
happened at Auschwitz.

Like most Americans, since his youth, Cole had been instructed in the
'irrefutable fact' that mass homicidal gassings had taken place at
Auschwitz. The number of those executed - also declared irrefutable -
was 4.1 million.

Then came the Leuchter Report in 1988 which was followed with an
official 're-evaluation' of the total deaths at Auschwitz (down to 1.1
million). As a budding historian - and a Jew - Cole was intrigued.

Previous to 1992, anyone who publicly doubted or questioned the
official 4.1 millon 'gassing' deaths at Auschwitz was labeled an anti-
semite, neo-nazi skinhead at the very least. Quietly, because of
revisionist findings, the official figure was lowered to 1.1 million.
No mention was made of the missing 3 million.

The Cole videotape interview proves that the people who run the
Auschwitz State Museum had made a practice of fabricating 'proofs' of
homicidal gassings. Keep in mind that over the years millions of
tourists have been told that 'Krema 1' is in its original state, while
officials knew that 'original state' is a lie.

The political, religious, financial and historical ramifications of
this proof of no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz cannot be
measured. Coupled with the Leuchter Report, the Cole interview with
Dr. Piper on videotape proves that what Western governments have
taught about the Auschwitz gas chamber since WWII is a lie. It proves
that what televangelists such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have
been telling their flocks is simply not true.

No one, regardless of race, creed, color or country of national origin
was gassed to death in any building so designated at Auschwitz. And
without 'homicidal gas chambers' at Auschwitz, where is the reasoning
for the special treatment of the state of Israel?

Note - This is excerpted from the orginal, much longer article by P.
Samuel Foner.



http://www.ihr.org/ http://heretical.com/

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

[AmericanMorn]

Another good history lesson. thanks.....AM

[AmericanMorn]

Very interesting. I don't know how correct you are, but it all certainly sounds
plausible. Wending one's way through all the nonsense and babble that lurks in these
newsgroups it's reassuring to know that in addition to the nonsensical there are many
bright minds here willing to share their knowledge. Thanks....AM

[Spambuster]

On 02/11/2012 12:30 AM, AmericanMorn wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:53:01 -0400, Harold Burton <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <cli488pkb2nok5jgo...@4ax.com>,
>> AmericanMorn <nos...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:14:53 -0400, Harold Burton <hal.i....@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <res188lv6teaov50p...@4ax.com>,
>>>> AmericanMorn <nos...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 05:56:15 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
>>>>> <parkstre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Many people might ask your question regarding war. WW2 got rid of the
>>>>> Nazis.
>>>>
>>>> But it didn't need the US, France, and England to do it. Had they
>>>> stayed out of it they would have saved lives, dollars, pounds, and
>>>> francs, and it all would have been Uncle Joe's problem.

>> declared war on her. Hitler never wanted war with England (or France)
>> as evidenced by the fact that after the fall of France (thanks to French
>> aggression) Hitler actively sought peace with England. ONLY when
>> England refused to sign a peace treaty with Germany was Hitler forced to
>> continue the war on England. Had Britain and France not declared war on
>> Hitler in the first place, he would have continued his drive east (look
>> at where Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland are relative to Germany) and
>> run up against Russia. Then Germany and Russia would have beaten each
>> other to bloody pulps leaving France, England, and the US of A as the
>> only powers at full strengh, easily able to kick the shit out of the
>> "winner" of the Germany/Russia confrontation. Look at how weak the
>> European "winners" of WWI were at the end. Even Turkey was able to defy
>> them.

--
SPAMMED TO NON-RELEVANT NEWSGROUPS - AND CUT

[Spambuster]

On 02/11/2012 5:28 PM, AmericanMorn wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:53:01 -0400, Harold Burton <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <cli488pkb2nok5jgo...@4ax.com>,
>> AmericanMorn <nos...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:14:53 -0400, Harold Burton <hal.i....@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <res188lv6teaov50p...@4ax.com>,
>>>> AmericanMorn <nos...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 05:56:15 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
>>>>> <parkstre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Many people might ask your question regarding war. WW2 got rid of the
>>>>> Nazis.
>>>>
>>>> But it didn't need the US, France, and England to do it. Had they
>>>> stayed out of it they would have saved lives, dollars, pounds, and
>>>> francs, and it all would have been Uncle Joe's problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But wasn't there a possibility France and England would have been obliterated
>>> by the time Uncle Joe succeeded?.....AM
>>
>> France WAS. The only reason Hitler attacked France was because France
>

[Dave Smith]

Yep. In the neoNazi's mind, it was all the fault of Britain and France
for not allowing Germany to expand eastward and to become a larger and
more serious threat to European stability than it had been before. It
was okay for Germany to expand eastward to make living space for Germans
because those lands were occupied by Slavs, who they considered to be a
lesser race. It was okay for them to expand and to proceed with their
plans to exterminate the Jew, the Gypsies, the mentally retarded, their
political opponents etc...

[Topaz]

By Mark Weber

Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception
and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the
Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in
violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of
war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a
vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S. citizens by British
intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his
provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack
against Pearl Harbor-all this is extensively documented and reasonably
well known.[1]

Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility
for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on
Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the
outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with
his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against
Germany in 1938 and 1939.

Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which
had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before
history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.

This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret
Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured
in September 1939.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html
These documents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in bringing
on the Second World War.

Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the
German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called
Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did
in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror and dispossession
against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule.
In my view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German
campaign against Poland in 1939.

Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of
a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain-a
pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless
Poles. Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German
campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government
did not at all fear war with Germany. Poland's leaders foolishly
believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced
that their troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and
add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It is also
important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between
Germany and Poland was only transformed into a Europe-wide
conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against
Germany.

On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy
Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role
in making American foreign policy:

The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State
Department is becoming ever more powerful ...

... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis
which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general
catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.
in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created
real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and
communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred
against Nazism.

This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by
every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans
are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which
wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean
of blood.

In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly
come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is
inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of
propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation
and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is
growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans
and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be
subdued by the 'democratic world.'

Ambassador Potocki's report from Washington of 9 January 1939 dealt in
large part with President Roosevelt's annual address to Congress:
President Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial
governments, above all Germany and Japan, only understand a policy of
force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by
matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most recent measures
of the United States.

The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda
which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the
specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have
strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison
with last year.

Of all the documents in this collection, the most revealing is
probably the secret report by Ambassador Potocki of 12 January 1939
which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This
report is given here in full:

The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing
hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything
connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews
who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical
press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents
Germany as black as possible-above all religious persecution and
concentration camps are exploited-this propaganda is nevertheless
extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and
knows nothing of the situation in Europe...

It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign
which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia
is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a
friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet
Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the
clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on
the side of Red Spain.

Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially
created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging
only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the
American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war,
America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans
of freedom and democracy in the world.

These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the
American government and want to pose as representatives of 'true
Americanism' and 'defenders of democracy' are, in the last analysis,
connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.

For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the
interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States
as the 'idealist' champion on human rights was a very clever move. In
this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and
hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile
camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt
has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy,
and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the
coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously. With
regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public
attention from anti-Semitism, which is constantly growing in the
United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion
and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.

On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw
Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with
Roosevelt's personal envoy, William Bullitt

1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President
Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian
countries.

2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be
carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum
of 1.25 billion dollars.

3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain
must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian
countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind
of territorial changes.

4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon
the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the
side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place
its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.

The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a
top secret report to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning
of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as
explained to him by William Bullitt:

A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt
returned to Paris after a three months' leave in America. Meanwhile, I
have had two conversations with him which enable me to inform you of
his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of
Washington's policy.

The international situation is regarded by official circles as
extremely serious and in constant danger of armed conflict. Those in
authority are of the opinion that if war should break out between
Britain and France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the
other, and should Britain and France be defeated, the Germans would
endanger the real interests of the United States on the American
continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning
the participation of the United States in the war on the side of
France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war.
As Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: 'Should war break out we shall
certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish
it.'

On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and
perceptive report on Roosevelt's foreign policy to his government in
Warsaw. This document was first made public when leading German
newspapers published it in German translation, along with a facsimile
reproduction of the first page of the Polish original, in their
editions of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party
newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador's
report with this observation:

The document itself needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does
not concern us, whether the internal American situation as reported by
the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be decided
by the American people alone. But in the interest of historical truth
it is important for us to show that the warmongering activities of
American diplomacy, especially in Europe, are once again revealed and
proven by this document. It still remains a secret just who, and for
what motives, have driven American diplomacy to this course. In any
case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe and America.
Europe was plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the
hostility of great nations which normally have no differences with the
American people and, indeed, have not been in conflict but have lived
for generations as friends and want to remain so...

While the Polish documents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt's
treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for
posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary
evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the
dispatches to Warsaw...

On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in
Europe-Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the White
House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to
Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt "emphasized the
necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he
himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the
State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before
Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very
secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone
that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the
Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it
could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was
a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S.
Constitution and dupe the American people.

The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves
forced to war" against Germany, the United States would ultimately
also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and
France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually
declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by
it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military
response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to
actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be
based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage
hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of
life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt
conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but "bombing from
the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great
loss of life."

The important point was to "call it defensive measures or anything
plausible but avoid actual declaration of war." That way, Roosevelt
believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against
Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by
insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a
non-declared conflict. "This method of conducting war by blockade
would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United
States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay
reported.[19]

The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his
postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration was already
committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late
1938. "On this and many other occasions," Phillips wrote, "I would
like to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister]
frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would
undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my
official position, I could not properly make such a statement without
instructions from Washington, and these I never received."[20]

The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war
against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have
been made without strong pressure from the White House

In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually
very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S.
Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a virtual
ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British
government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen,
who completely supported Roosevelt's move, "the President warned that
Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the
sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued."[22] Chamberlain
gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy of
cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing
Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself
to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.

In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt
reported from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador
Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law
prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to
circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able
to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The Polish
Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain
financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I
believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States
to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase
planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to
Poland."[24]

On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt
called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European
correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy
in Paris and told him: "War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland
has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield
to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after
Britain and France enter it."[25]

In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939,
Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard
Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain
and France in the anticipated European war.[26]

In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the
United States should establish "a patrol over the waters of the
Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the
event of war." The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted
that "although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain
objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be operated in
our interests."[27]

Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister
in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's role as Roosevelt's deputy in pushing his
country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971,
Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did
everything he could to make France enter the war."[28] An important
confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in pushing
Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first
U.S. Secretary of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he
wrote:

Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him
about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister]
Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain's position in
1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she
could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler
would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it
had not been for [William] Bullitt's urging on Roosevelt in the summer
of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the
French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had
not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said,
kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight; Kennedy that
they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says,
stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the
war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of
1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain's
backside.[29]

"In the West," the Ambassador told Szembek, "there are all kinds of
elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the
arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because
they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation
that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs.
They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since
everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that
as well."[30]

On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities,
Chamberlain's closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador
Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for
President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally
obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now
turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the
American President to "put pressure on the Poles" to change course at
this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone
Kennedy told the State Department that the British "felt that they
could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that
we could." Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly
save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate
plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost
all hope. "The futility of it all," Chamberlain had told Kennedy, "is
the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We
can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of
all Europe."[31]

But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to save the peace of
Europe. To a close political crony, he called Kennedy's plea "the
silliest message to me that I have ever received." He complained to
Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in
the neck: "Joe has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser ...
If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would start
working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to
get everybody to accept it."[33]

Infuriated at Kennedy's stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or
at least limit the conflict that had broken out, Roosevelt instructed
his Ambassador with a "personal" and "strictly confidential" telegram
on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of
the question. The Roosevelt government, it declared, "sees no
opportunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the
President of the United States. The people [sic] of the United States
would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that
would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and
aggression."[34]

In the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the
most vigorous and prophetic American voice of warning against
President Roosevelt's campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton
Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. In a series of
hard-hitting radio speeches, Fish rallied considerable public opinion
against Roosevelt's deceptive war policy. Here are only a few excerpts
from some of those addresses.[35]

On 6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:
The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress
and the world [given two days before] has unnecessarily alarmed the
American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda
emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to
the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to
such speeches is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.

All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt ...
haven't the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin
America.
I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life,
liberty and happiness of our people. The time has come to call a halt
to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers,
Communists, and hysterical internationalists, who want us to
quarantine the world with American blood and money.
He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war
psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people off their
own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates
in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his
own imagination.

On 5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:
The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers
are constantly inciting them to disregard the Munich Pact and resort
to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in foreign
lands the old nations of Europe would compose their own quarrels by
arbitration and the processes of peace, but apparently we won't let
them.

Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company
network on 5 April with these words:
The youth of America are again being prepared for another blood bath
in Europe in order to make the world safe for democracy.
If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away
from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90
percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations
and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one
American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the
Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as
long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be
wars of liberation.

The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped
the better for the peace of the world.

I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population
are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there
will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis
and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of
Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.

New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable
frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare
the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering from a bad
case of war jitters.

President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is
largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which has
given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the
jitters.

I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria
to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12
million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.

I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than
we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging us to go
to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.

Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by
preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers,
munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our
participation in a new world war.

On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:

It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of
foreign entanglements and the rotten mess and war madness of Europe
and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is
impelling us to armed conflict.

What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are forced
into a foreign war by internationalists and interventionists at
Washington, who seem to be more interested in solving world problems
rather than our own.

In his radio address of 26 May, Fish stated:
He [Roosevelt] should remember that the Congress has the sole power to
declare war and formulate the foreign policies of the United States.
The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the
official organ to carry out the policies determined by the Congress.

Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed
almost daily by the internationalists and interventionists in America
that we must participate in the next world war.

On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company
radio network:
If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in
defense of the munitions makers, war profiteers, Communists, to cover
up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for a third
term.
It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to war
over Danzig, power politics, foreign colonies, or the imperialistic
wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.

President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe
without help from powerful allies. Behind him stood the self-serving
international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction
of Germany. The principal organization which drummed up public support
for U.S. involvement in the European war prior to the Pearl Harbor
attack was the cleverly named "Committee to Defend America by Aiding
the Allies." President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and
top administration officials consulted frequently with Committee
leaders.[36]

Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper
publisher, William Allen White, the Committee was actually organized
by powerful financial interests which stood to profit tremendously
from loans to embattled Britain and from shrewd investments in giant
war industries in the United States.
At the end of 1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a
detailed examination of the Committee which exposed the base interests
behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:

The Committee has powerful connections with banks, insurance
companies, financial investing firms, and industrial concerns. These
in turn exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well
as on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One of the
powerful influences used by the group is the '400' and social set. The
story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public interest.
The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British
Empire helped plan the organization and donated its first expense
money.

Some of the important figures active in the Committee were revealed by
Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a paid war propagandist for the British
government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S. Allen of
the Pearson and Allen syndicated column; Henry R. Luce, the
influential publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella
LaGuardia, the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of Now York City; Herbert
Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with important financial
holdings in war industries; and Frank Altschul, an officer in the
Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings in
munitions and military supply companies.

If the Committee succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned,
"American boys will spill their blood for profiteers, politicians and
'paytriots.' If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White
Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans killed in a needless
war."[37]

In March 1941 a list of most of the Committee's financial backers was
made public. It revealed the nature of the forces eager to bring
America into the European war. Powerful international banking
interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas
W. Lamont and others of the great Morgan banking house were listed.
Other important names from the New York financial world included Mr.
and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm
Forbes. Chicago department store owner and publisher Marshall Field
was a contributor, as was William Averill Harriman, the railroad and
investment millionaire who later served as Roosevelt's ambassador in
Moscow.

Of course, Jewish names made up a substantial portion of the long
list. Hollywood film czar Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there,
along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which had been
set up by the head of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System,
contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert H. Lehman, wife
of the New York Governor, was also on the list.[38]

Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry,
Roosevelt's policies make little sense. As Jewish historian Lucy
Dawidowicz noted: "Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle
more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close
advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were
his friends and trusted aides."[39] This is perhaps not so remarkable
in light of Roosevelt's reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.[40]

In his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American
aviator hero and peace leader, nailed the coalition that was pushing
the United States into war:

The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to
it, but the Administration seems to have 'the bit in its teeth' and
[is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the
country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and
radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the
'intellectuals,' and the 'Anglophiles,' and the British agents who are
allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many
others.[41]

Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh's apprehensions about Jewish power.
Before the outbreak of war he privately expressed concerns about "the
Jews who dominate our press" and world Jewry in general, which he
considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the
beginning of hostilities, Kennedy lamented "the growing Jewish
influence in the press and in Washington demanding continuance of the
war "[42]

Roosevelt's efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against
Germany succeeded all too well. The result was untold death and misery
and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had intended
and planned, the Polish and French leaders expected the American
president to at least make good on his assurances of backing in case
of war. But Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of peace sentiment
of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving his
own people, Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had
promised support.

Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as
they were in late 1939 about staying out of war in Europe. When
hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94 percent
of the American people against involvement in war. That figure rose to
96.5 percent in December before it began to decline slowly to about 80
percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is hardly an issue that
even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)[43]

Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular
feeling on this issue. That is why he lied repeatedly to the American
people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S.
out of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to
plunge Europe and America into war.

In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to
the growing fears of millions of Americans who suspected that their
President had secretly pledged United States support to Britain in its
war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part
on the publication in March of the captured Polish documents. The
speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to the
nation on network radio. In the most emphatic language possible,
Roosevelt categorically denied that he had
pledged in some way the participation of the United States in some
foreign war. I give to you and to the people of this country this most
solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding
in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any Government or any
other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any
war or for any other purpose.[44]

We now know, of course, that this pious declaration was just another
one of Roosevelt's many brazen, bald-faced lies to the American
people.

Roosevelt's policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal.
The Constitution of the United States grants authority only to the
Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several major
laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe.
Roosevelt continually violated his oath as President to uphold the
Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the public demand
for his impeachment would very probably have been unstoppable.

The Watergate episode has made many Americans deeply conscious of the
fact that their presidents can act criminally. That affair forced
Richard Nixon to resign his presidency, and he is still widely
regarded as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name
will never receive the respect that normally goes to every American
president. But Nixon's crimes pale into insignificance when compared
to those of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon's lies compared to
those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary cover-up compared to an illegal
and secret campaign to bring about a major war?

Those who defend Roosevelt's record argue that he lied to the American
people for their own good-that he broke the law for lofty principles.
His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was noble,
while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to name two,
is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard. And the
argument doesn't speak very well for the democratic system. It implies
that the people are too dumb to understand their own best interests.
It further suggests that the best form of government is a kind of
benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.

Roosevelt's hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate-almost
personal. This was due in no small part to an abiding envy and
jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in
their personal characters but also in their records as national
leaders.

Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were
astonishingly similar. Both assumed the leadership of their respective
countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous
challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide
economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military
alliance during the most destructive war in history. Both men died
while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945,
just before the end of the Second World War in Europe. But the
enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more
remarkable.

Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His
was a life utterly free of material worry. He took part in the First
World War from an office in Washington as UnderSecretary of the Navy.
Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provinicial family.
As a young man he worked as an impoverished manual laborer. He served
in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the
Western battleground. He was wounded many times and decorated for
bravery.

In spite of his charming manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt
proved unable to master the great challenges facing America. Even
after four years of his presidency, millions remained unemployed,
undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with
all the resources for incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was
plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor and
capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country's deep, festering
racial problems which erupted repeatedly in riots and armed conflict.
The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied his people
behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years
from an economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into
Europe's powerhouse. Germany underwent a social, cultural and economic
rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the
personalities of Roosevelt and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast
between two diametrically different social-political systems and
ideologies.

And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a
cynical politician and front man for powerful alien interests.
Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely
believed that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring
Britain and France into war against Germany. Like Wilson before him,
and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called
upon by destiny to reshape the world according to his vision of an
egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was convinced, as so many
American leaders have been, that the world could be saved from itself
by remodeling it after the United States.

Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex
of different nations, races and cultures which must mutually respect
each others' separate collective identities in order to live together
in peace, but rather according to a selfrighteous missionary
perspective that divides the globe into morally good and evil
countries. In that scheme of things, America is the providentially
permanent leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view
just happens to correspond to the economic and political interests of
those who wield power in the United States.

President Roosevelt's War
In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically
predicted that one day the Second World War would be remembered as
Roosevelt's war. "If we are ever involved in this war, it will be
called by future historians by only one title, 'the President's War,'
because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5
October 1937] has been toward war.[45]

The great American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that war
could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for
Roosevelt's meddling. "Indeed, there is fairly conclusive evidence
that, but for Mr. Roosevelt's pressure on Britain, France and Poland,
and his commitments to them before September 1939, especially to
Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur,
William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in
1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter."[46] In Revisionism: A
Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:

President Roosevelt had a major responsibility, both direct and
indirect, for the outbreak of war in Europe. He began to exert
pressure on France to stand up to Hitler as early as the German
reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was
making his strongly isolationist speeches in the campaign of 1936.
This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to the
coming of the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum
after the quarantine speech of October 1937. As the crisis approached
between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles to
stand firm against any demands by Germany, and urged the English and
French to back up the Poles unflinchingly.
There is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September
1939 had it not been for Roosevelt's encouragement and his assurances
that, in the event of war, the United States would enter on the side
of Britain just as soon as he could swing American public opinion
around to support intervention.

Roosevelt had abandoned all semblance of neutrality, even before war
broke out in 1939, and moved as speedily as was safe and feasible in
the face of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve
this country in the European conflict.[47]

One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt's place in
history came from the pen of the great Swedish explorer and author,
Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:

The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be
explained because of the foundation laid by the peace treaties of
1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the First
World War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great
Britain and France. The decisive push came from the other side of the
Atlantic Ocean.

Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly. He slanders
as undemocratic and un-American those who admonish him in the name of
peace and the preservation of the American way of life. He has made
democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about
freedom of speech and silences those who don't hold his opinion.
He talks about freedom of religion and makes an alliance with
Bolshevism.

He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten million of
his own people with work, bread or shelter. He talks about freedom
from the fear of war while working for war, not only for his own
people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis
powers when it might have united with them, and he thereby drove
millions to their deaths.
This war will go down in history as the war of President
Roosevelt.[48]

Officially orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace
cannot conceal forever his crucial role in pushing Europe into war in
1939.


It is now more than forty years since the events described here took
place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past.
But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in Europe is
very pertinent-particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the
past have never been more important than in this nuclear age. For
unless at least an aware minority understands how and why wars are
made, we will remain powerless to restrain the warmongers of our own
era.


Notes
1. See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and
the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948);
William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade (Chicago: Regnery,
1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, 'Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle,
N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New
York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid
(New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to
War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and
Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
2. Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United
States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress,
House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in
the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
3. Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
4. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
5. Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
6. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March
1940, p. 1.
7. A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the
title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.
8. Tansill, "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in
Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell,
Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and
Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented],
1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the
documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.
9. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism
(N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This booklet is reprinted in
Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New
York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance,
Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979).
10. Chamberlin, p. 60.
11. Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
12. Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and
Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical
foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.
13. Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W.
Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
14. Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um
die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942), p. 224.
15. Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
16. Jack Alexander, "He Rose From the Rich," Saturday Evening
Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see continuation in issue of 18 March
1939.) Bullitt's public views on the European scene and what should be
America's attitude toward it can be found in his Report to the
American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside
Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President's
blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in
Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France.
For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist hysterics, this
anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar
propensities of many other interventionists in government and the
press in those days.
17. Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton,
1980), pp. 203-04.
18. Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign
Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See
also pp. 164-65.
19. Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay,
Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest L. Woodward), Third
series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash,
Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27;
Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Ori-, gins of
World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
20. William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.:
privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
21. Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich:
Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
22. Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, "Washington Daily
Merry-Go-Round," Washington Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A
facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.),
American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner
Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41.
23. Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1956), p. 232.
24. U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United
States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956),
p. 122.
25. "Von Wiegand Says-," Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944,
p. 2.
26. Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
27. Lash, p. 64.
28. Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (Now York:
Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review,
1980), p. 62.
29. James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The
Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been
privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original
manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references
to the Jews were deleted from the published version.
30. Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp.
475-76.
31. David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253;
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish
Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback],
1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the
United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.
32. Dallek, p. 164.
33. Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
34. Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington:
1956), p. 424.
35. The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were
published in the Congressional Record Appendix (Washington) as
follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939)
same, pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21
April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp.
2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
36. Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against
American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
37. Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December
1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part
17, pp. 5808-14.
38. New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
39. Lucy Dawidowicz, "American Jews and the Holocaust," The New
York Times Magazine, 18 April 1982, p. 102.
40. "FDR 'had a Jewish great-grandmother'" Jewish Chronicle
(London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
41. Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A.
Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
42. Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in
fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject
that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides
some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by
Professor Hans A. Muenster, "Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA" in
Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German
Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
43. An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public
opinion measurements to Roosevelt's foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is
Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in
1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
44. Lash, p. 240.
45. New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
46. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical
Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See
also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately
published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
47. Harry Elmer Barnes, "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," Rampart
Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp.
29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to
Peace and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No.
12], 1980).
48. Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A.
Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.

Bibliography
Listed here are the published editions of the Polish documents, the
most important sources touching on the questions of their authenticity
and content, and essential recent sources on what President Roosevelt
was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the
prelude to war. Full citations for all references in the article will
be found in the notes.
Beschloss, Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.
Bullitt, Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret.
[Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt.]
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den
Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der
Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.
Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper. [White Book No. 3.]
New York: Howell, Soskin and Co., 1940.
Germany. Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des
Kriegs. [White Book No. 3.] Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.
Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat in Paris
1936-1939. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
Wirsing, Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die
Weltherrschaft. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942.

[Barry Bruyea]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 05:18:11 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I really hope everyone that reads this has a large septic tank to dump
the crock of shit being dispensed by this twisted carrion eater.

[Harold Burton]

In article <a3id98117re9e37rp...@4ax.com>,

Barry Bruyea <damnthet...@duck.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 05:18:11 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I really hope everyone that reads this has a large septic tank to dump
> the crock of shit being dispensed by this twisted carrion eater.

I really hope everyone notices that you couldn't refute one single thing
posted in the following:

[Dave Smith]

On 04/11/2012 3:44 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
> In article <a3id98117re9e37rp...@4ax.com>,
> Barry Bruyea <damnthet...@duck.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 05:18:11 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I really hope everyone that reads this has a large septic tank to dump
>> the crock of shit being dispensed by this twisted carrion eater.
>
>
> I really hope everyone notices that you couldn't refute one single thing
> posted in the following:
>

Why would a sane person bother to waste the time to go through that
crock of shit line by line? Mark Weber is the director of a holocaust
denial organization...... a fucking nazi. You guys all lie and grovel
in a sea of bullshit.

[David Johnston]

Negotiating over "self-determination" would be incredibly stupid given
what happened to the last nation to negotiate over the
"self-determination" of ethnic Germans.

[Barry Bruyea]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 15:44:18 -0500, Harold Burton
<hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <a3id98117re9e37rp...@4ax.com>,
> Barry Bruyea <damnthet...@duck.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 05:18:11 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I really hope everyone that reads this has a large septic tank to dump
>> the crock of shit being dispensed by this twisted carrion eater.
>
>
>I really hope everyone notices that you couldn't refute one single thing
>posted in the following:

I wouldn't waste my time or effort trying to debunk a debunker. It's
self evident. The man is a bloody Nazi, through and through.

[Dave Smith]

On 04/11/2012 4:36 PM, David Johnston wrote:
Second World War.
>>>>
>>>> Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the
>>>> German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called
>>>> Polish Corridor.
>
> Negotiating over "self-determination" would be incredibly stupid given
> what happened to the last nation to negotiate over the
> "self-determination" of ethnic Germans.
>
>

Never mind the fact that they borders had been established just 20 years
earlier and laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, which was the treaty
to end a war that Germany had started and lost. I see no reason why,
after having a country again, and having assurances from the Allies to
protect its sovereignty, why the Poles should be expected to negotiate
what had been established by an internationally ratified treaty.

[Topaz]

Germany's Declaration of War Against the United States
Here are some quotes from:
Hitler's Reichstag Speech of December 11, 1941
In it the German leader recounted the reasons for the outbreak of war
in September 1939, explained why he decided to strike against the
Soviet Union in June 1941, reviewed the dramatic course of the war
thus far, and dealt at length with President Franklin Roosevelt's
hostile policies toward Germany. Hitler detailed the increasingly
belligerent actions of Roosevelt's government, and then dramatically
announced that Germany was now joining Japan in war against the United
States. The day after it was delivered, an inaccurate and misleading
translation of portions of the address appeared in The New York Times!
Although this historic address should be of particular interest to
Americans, a complete text has apparently never before been made
available in English!
-- Mark Weber

After the repeated rejection of my peace proposal in 1940 by the
British prime minister [Winston Churchill] and the clique that
supports and controls him, it was clear by the fall of that year that
this war would have to be fought through to the end
The German people and its soldiers work and fight today not only for
themselves and their own age, but also for many generations to come. A
historical task of unique dimensions has been entrusted to us by the
Creator that we are now obliged to carry out.
The western armistice which was possible shortly after the conclusion
of the conflict in Norway [in June 1940] compelled the German
leadership, first of all, to militarily secure the most important
political, strategic and economic areas that had been won.
From Kirkenes [in northern Norway] to the Spanish frontier stretches
the most extensive belt of great defense installations and fortresses.
Countless air fields have been built, including some in the far north
that were blasted out of granite.
I am determined to make this European front impregnable against any
enemy attack.
Compelled by bitter necessity, I decided in the fall of 1939 to at
least try to create the prerequisite conditions for a general peace by
eliminating the acute tension between Germany and Soviet Russia [with
the German-Soviet non-aggression pact of August 23, 1939]. This was
psychologically difficult because of the basic attitude toward
Bolshevism of the German people and, above all, of the [National
Socialist] Party.
I may remind you, deputies and men of the German Reichstag, that
throughout the spring and summer of 1939 Britain offered military
alliances to a number of countries, claiming that Germany intended to
invade them and rob them of their freedom. However, the German Reich
and its government could assure them with a clear conscience that
these insinuations did not correspond to the truth in any way.
the best and strongest guarantee against the [Soviet] threat from the
East was Germany. When those countries, on their own initiative, cut
their ties with the German Reich and instead put their trust in
promises of aid from a power [Britain] that, in its proverbial
egotism, has for centuries never given help but has always demanded
it, they were thereby lost. Even so, the fate of these countries
aroused the strongest sympathy of the German people. The winter war of
the Finns [against the Soviet Union, 1939-1940] aroused in us a
feeling of admiration mixed with bitterness: admiration because, as a
soldierly nation, we have a sympathetic heart for heroism and
sacrifice, and bitterness because our concern for the enemy threat in
the West and the danger in the East meant that we were no position to
help.
Already in 1940 it became increasingly clear from month to month that
the plans of the men in the Kremlin were aimed at the domination, and
thus the destruction, of all of Europe. I have already told the nation
of the build-up of Soviet Russian military power in the East during a
period when Germany had only a few divisions in the provinces
bordering Soviet Russia. Only a blind person could fail to see that a
military build-up of unique world-historical dimensions was being
carried out. And this was not in order to protect something that was
being threatened, but rather only to attack that which seemed
incapable of defense.
What we call Europe is the geographic territory of the Occident,
enlightened by Greek culture, inspired by the powerful heritage of the
Roman empire, its territory enlarged by Germanic colonization. Whether
it was the German emperors fighting back invasions from the East on
the Unstrut [river, in 933] or on the Lechfeld [plain, in 955], or
others pushing back Africa from Spain over a period of many years, it
was always a struggle of a developing Europe against a profoundly
alien outside world.
Just as Rome once made her immortal contribution to the building and
defense of the continent, so now have the Germanic peoples taken up
the defense and protection of a family of nations which, although they
may differ and diverge in their political structure and goals,
nevertheless together constitute a racially and culturally unified and
complementary whole.
And from this Europe there have not only been settlements in other
parts of the world, but intellectual-spiritual [geistig] and cultural
fertilization as well, a fact that anyone realizes who is willing to
acknowledge the truth rather than deny it. Thus, it was not England
that cultivated the continent, but rather Anglo-Saxon and Norman
branches of the Germanic nation that moved from our continent to the
[British] island and made possible her development, which is certainly
unique in history. In the same way, it was not America that discovered
Europe, but the other way around. And all that which America did not
get from Europe may seem worthy of admiration to a Jewified mixed
race, but Europe regards that merely as symptomatic of decay in
artistic and cultural life, the product of Jewish or Negroid blood
mixture.
I have to make these remarks because this struggle, which became
obviously unavoidable in the early months of this year, and which the
German Reich, above all, is called upon this time to lead, also
greatly transcends the interests of our own people and nation. When
the Greeks once stood against the Persians, they defended more than
just Greece. When the Romans stood against the Carthaginians, they
defended more than just Rome. When the Roman and Germanic peoples
stood together against the Huns, they defended more than just the
West. When German emperors stood against the Mongols, they defended
more than just Germany. And when Spanish heroes stood against Africa,
they defended not just Spain, but all of Europe as well. In the same
way, Germany does not fight today just for itself, but for our entire
continent.
And it is an auspicious sign that this realization is today so deeply
rooted in the subconscious of most European nations that they
participate in this struggle, either with open expressions of support
or with streams of volunteers.
When I became aware of the possibility of a threat to the east of the
Reich in 1940 through [secret] reports from the British House of
Commons and by observations of Soviet Russian troop movements on our
frontiers, I immediately ordered the formation of many new armored,
motorized and infantry divisions.
We realized very clearly that under no circumstances could we allow
the enemy the opportunity to strike first into our heart.
Nevertheless, in this case the decision [to attack Soviet Russia] was
a very difficult one. When the writers for the democratic newspapers
now declare that I would have thought twice before attacking if I had
known the strength of the Bolshevik adversaries, they show that they
do not understand either the situation or me.
I have not sought war. To the contrary, I have done everything to
avoid conflict. But I would forget my duty and my conscience if I were
to do nothing in spite of the realization that a conflict had become
unavoidable. Because I regarded Soviet Russia as the gravest danger
not only for the German Reich but for all of Europe, I decided, if
possible, to give the order myself to attack a few days before the
outbreak of this conflict.
A truly impressive amount of authentic material is now available which
confirms that a Soviet Russian attack was intended. We are also sure
about when this attack was to take place. In view of this danger, the
extent of which we are perhaps only now truly aware, I can only thank
the Lord God that He enlightened me in time, and has given me the
strength to do what must be done. Millions of German soldiers may
thank Him for their lives, and all of Europe for its existence.
I may say this today: If this wave of more than 20,000 tanks, hundreds
of divisions, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, along with more
than 10,000 airplanes, had not been kept from being set into motion
against the Reich, Europe would have been lost.
If the Slovaks, Hungarians and Romanians had not also acted to defend
this European world, then the Bolshevik hordes would have poured over
the Danube countries as did once the swarms of Attila's Huns,
If Italy, Spain and Croatia had not sent their divisions, then a
European defense front would not have arisen that proclaims the
concept of a new Europe and thereby powerfully inspires all other
nations as well. Because of this awareness of danger, volunteers have
come from northern and western Europe: Norwegians, Danes, Dutch,
Flemish, Belgians and even French. They have all given the struggle of
the allied forces of the Axis the character of a European crusade, in
the truest sense of the word.
And now let me speak about another world, one that is represented by a
man [President Franklin Roosevelt] who likes to chat nicely at the
fireside while nations and their soldiers fight in snow and ice: above
all, the man who is primarily responsible for this war.
When the nationality problem in the former Polish state was growing
ever more intolerable in 1939, I attempted to eliminate the
unendurable conditions by means of a just agreement. For a certain
time it seemed as if the Polish government was seriously considering
giving its approval to a reasonable solution. I may also add here that
in all of these German proposals, nothing was demanded that had not
previously belonged to Germany. In fact, we were willing to give up
much that had belonged to Germany before the [First] World War.
You will recall the dramatic events of that period -- the steadily
increasing numbers of victims among the ethnic Germans [in Poland].
You, my deputies, are best qualified to compare this loss of life with
that of the present war. The military campaign in the East has so far
cost the entire German armed forces about 160,000 deaths, whereas
during just a few months of peace [in 1939] more than 62,000 ethnic
Germans were killed, including some who were horribly tortured. There
is no question that the German Reich had the right to protest against
this situation on its border and to press for its elimination, if for
no other reason than for its own security, particularly since we live
in an age in which [some] other countries [notably, the USA and
Britain] regard their security at stake even in foreign continents. In
geographical terms, the problems to be resolved were not very
important. Essentially they involved Danzig [Gdansk] and a connecting
link between the torn-away province of East Prussia and the rest of
the Reich. Of much greater concern were the brutal persecutions of the
Germans in Poland. In addition, the other minority population groups
[notably the Ukrainians] were subject to a fate that was no less
severe.
During those days in August [1939], when the Polish attitude steadily
hardened, thanks to Britain's blank check of unlimited backing, the
German Reich was moved to make one final proposal. We were prepared to
enter into negotiations with Poland on the basis of this proposal, and
we verbally informed the British ambassador of the proposal text.
Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig-Corridor problem and the
German-Polish minority question:
The situation between the German Reich and Poland is now such that any
further incident could lead to action by the military forces that have
taken position on both sides of the frontier. Any peaceful solution
must be such that the basic causes of this situation are eliminated so
that they are not simply repeated, which would mean that not only
eastern Europe but other areas as well would be subject to the same
tension. The causes of this situation are rooted in, first, the
intolerable border that was specified by the dictated peace of
Versailles [of 1919], and, second, the intolerable treatment of the
minority populations in the lost territories.
In making these proposals, the German Reich government is motivated by
the desire to achieve a permanent solution that will put an end to the
intolerable situation arising from the present border demarcation,
secure to both parties vitally important connecting routes, and which
will solve the minority problem, insofar as that is possible, and if
not, will at least insure a tolerable life for the minority
populations with secure guarantees of their rights.
On the basis of these considerations, we make the following concrete
proposals:
1. The Free City of Danzig returns immediately to the German Reich on
the basis of its purely German character and the unanimous desire of
its population.
2. The territory of the so-called [Polish] Corridor will decide for
itself whether it wishes to belong to Germany or to Poland. This
territory consists of the area between the Baltic Sea [in the north]
to a line marked [in the south] by the towns of Marienwerder,
Graudenz, Kuhn and Bromberg -- including these towns -- and then
westwards to Schoenlanke.
3. For this purpose a plebiscite will be conducted in this territory.
All Germans who lived in this territory on January 1, 1918, or were
born there on or before that date will be entitled to vote in the
plebiscite. Similarly, all Poles, Kashubians, and so forth, who lived
in this territory on or before that date, or were born there before
that date, will also be entitled to vote. Germans who were expelled
from this territory will return to vote in the plebiscite.
4. Not included in this territory is the Polish port of Gdynia, which
is regarded as fundamentally sovereign Polish territory, to the extent
of [ethnic] Polish settlement, but as a matter of principle is
recognized as Polish territory. The specific border of this Polish
port city will be negotiated by Germany and Poland and, if necessary,
established by an international court of arbitration.
7. A simple majority of the votes cast will decide whether the
territory will go to Germany or to Poland.
9. If the Corridor returns to Germany, the German Reich declares that
it is ready to carry out an exchange of population with Poland to the
extent that this would be suitable for the [people of the] Corridor.
13. The German Reich government has protested in the strongest terms
against the Polish treatment of its minority populations. For its
part, the Polish government also believes itself called upon to make
protests against Germany. Accordingly, both sides agree to submit
these complaints to an international investigation commission, which
will be responsible for investigating all complaints of economic and
physical damage as well as other acts of terror.
This is the treaty proposal - as straight-forward and as generous as
has ever been presented by a government - that was made by the
National Socialist leadership of the German Reich.
The former Polish government refused to respond to these proposals in
any way. In this regard, the question presents itself: How is it
possible that such an unimportant state could dare to simply disregard
such proposals and, in addition, carry out further cruelties against
the Germans, the people who have given this land its entire culture,
and even order the general mobilization of its armed forces? A look at
the documents of the [Polish] Foreign Ministry in Warsaw later
provided the surprising explanation. They told of the role of a man
[President Roosevelt] who, with diabolical lack of principle, used all
of his influence to strengthen Poland's resistance and to prevent any
possibility of understanding. These reports were sent by the former
Polish ambassador in Washington, Count [Jerzy] Potocki, to his
government in Warsaw. These documents clearly and shockingly reveal
the extent to which one man and the powers behind him are responsible
for the Second World War. Another question arises: Why had this man
[Roosevelt] developed such a fanatic hostility against a country that,
in its entire history, had never harmed either America or him?
With regard to Germany's relationship with America, the following
should be said:
1. Germany is perhaps the only great power which has never had a
colony in either North or South America. Nor has it been otherwise
politically active there, apart from the emigration of many millions
of Germans with their skills, from which the American continent, and
particularly the United States, has only benefited.
Furthermore, there are no territorial or political conflicts between
the American and German nations that could possibly involve the
existence or even the [vital] interests of the United States. The
forms of government have always been different. But this cannot be a
reason for hostility between different nations, as long as one form of
government does not try to interfere with another, outside of its
naturally ordained sphere.
History itself has rendered its verdict on Wilson. His name will
always be associated with the most base betrayal in history of a
pledge [notably, Wilson's "14 points"]. The result was the ruin of
national life, not only in the so-called vanquished countries, but
among the victors as well. Because of this broken pledge, which alone
made possible the imposed Treaty of Versailles [1919], countries were
torn apart, cultures were destroyed and the economic life of all was
ruined. Today we know that a group of self-serving financiers stood
behind Wilson. They used this paralytic professor to lead America into
a war from which they hoped to profit. The German nation once believed
this man, and had to pay for this trust with political and economic
ruin.
After such a bitter experience, why is there now another American
president who is determined to incite wars and, above all, to stir up
hostility against Germany to the point of war? National Socialism came
to power in Germany in the same year [1933] that Roosevelt came to
power in the United States. At this point it is important to examine
the factors behind the current developments.
First of all, the personal side of things: I understand very well that
there is a world of difference between my own outlook on life and
attitude, and that of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt came from an
extremely wealthy family. By birth and origin he belonged to that
class of people that is privileged in a democracy and assured of
advancement. I myself was only the child of a small and poor family,
and I had to struggle through life by work and effort in spite of
immense hardships. As a member of the privileged class, Roosevelt
experienced the [First] World War in a position under Wilson's shadow
[as assistant secretary of the Navy]. As a result, he only knew the
agreeable consequences of a conflict between nations from which some
profited while others lost their lives. During this same period, I
lived very differently. I was not one of those who made history or
profits, but rather one of those who carried out orders. As an
ordinary soldier during those four years, I tried to do my duty in the
face of the enemy. Of course, I returned from the war just as poor as
when I entered in the fall of 1914. I thus shared my fate with
millions of others, while Mr. Roosevelt shared his with the so-called
upper ten thousand.
After the war, while Mr. Roosevelt tested his skills in financial
speculation in order to profit personally from the inflation, that is,
from the misfortune of others, I still lay in a military hospital
along with many hundreds of thousands of others. Experienced in
business, financially secure and enjoying the patronage of his class,
Roosevelt then finally chose a career in politics. During this same
period, I struggled as a nameless and unknown man for the rebirth of
my nation, which was the victim of the greatest injustice in its
entire history.
Two different paths in life! Franklin Roosevelt took power in the
United States as the candidate of a thoroughly capitalistic party,
which helps those who serve it. When I became the Chancellor of the
German Reich, I was the leader of a popular national movement, which I
had created myself. The powers that supported Mr. Roosevelt were the
same powers I fought against, out of concern for the fate of my
people, and out of deepest inner conviction. The "brain trust" that
served the new American president was made up of members of the same
national group that we fought against in Germany as a parasitical
expression of humanity, and which we began to remove from public life.
And yet, we also had something in common: Franklin Roosevelt took
control of a country with an economy that had been ruined as a result
of democratic influences, and I assumed the leadership of a Reich that
was also on the edge of complete ruin, thanks to democracy. There were
13 million unemployed in the United States, while Germany had seven
million unemployed and another seven million part-time workers. In
both countries, public finances were in chaos, and it seemed that the
spreading economic depression could not be stopped.
From then on, things developed in the United States and in the German
Reich in such a way that future generations will have no difficulty in
making a definitive evaluation of the two different socio-political
theories. Whereas the German Reich experienced an enormous improvement
in social, economic, cultural and artistic life in just a few years
under National Socialist leadership, President Roosevelt was not able
to bring about even limited improvements in his own country. This task
should have been much easier in the United States, with barely 15
people per square kilometer, as compared to 140 in Germany. If
economic prosperity is not possible in that country, it must be the
result of either a lack of will by the ruling leadership or the
complete incompetence of the men in charge. In just five years, the
economic problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was
eliminated. During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously
increased his country's national debt, devalued the dollar, further
disrupted the economy and maintained the same number of unemployed.
But this is hardly remarkable when one realizes that the intellects
appointed by this man, or more accurately, who appointed him, are
members of that same group who, as Jews, are interested only in
disruption and never in order. While we in National Socialist Germany
took measures against financial speculation, it flourished
tremendously under Roosevelt. The New Deal legislation of this man was
spurious, and consequently the greatest error ever experienced by
anyone. If his economic policies had continued indefinitely during
peace time, there is no doubt that sooner or later they would have
brought down this president, in spite of all his dialectical
cleverness. In a European country his career would certainly have
ended in front of a national court for recklessly squandering the
nation's wealth. And he would hardly have avoided a prison sentence by
a civil court for criminally incompetent business management.
Many respected Americans also shared this view. A threatening
opposition was growing all around this man, which led him to think
that he could save himself only by diverting public attention from his
domestic policies to foreign affairs. In this regard it is interesting
to study the reports of Polish Ambassador Potocki from Washington,
which repeatedly point out that Roosevelt was fully aware of the
danger that his entire economic house of cards could collapse, and
that therefore he absolutely had to divert attention to foreign
policy.
The circle of Jews around Roosevelt encouraged him in this. With Old
Testament vindictiveness they regarded the United States as the
instrument that they and he could use to prepare a second Purim
[slaughter of enemies] against the nations of Europe, which were
increasingly anti-Jewish. So it was that the Jews, in all of their
satanic baseness, gathered around this man, and he relied on them.
The American president increasingly used his influence to create
conflicts, intensify existing conflicts, and, above all, to keep
conflicts from being resolved peacefully. For years this man looked
for a dispute anywhere in the world, but preferably in Europe, that he
could use to create political entanglements with American economic
obligations to one of the contending sides, which would then steadily
involve America in the conflict and thus divert attention from his own
confused domestic economic policies.
His actions against the German Reich in this regard have been
particularly blunt. Starting in 1937, he began a series of speeches,
including a particularly contemptible one on October 5, 1937, in
Chicago, with which this man systematically incited the American
public against Germany . He threatened to establish a kind of
quarantine against the so-called authoritarian countries. As part of
this steady and growing campaign of hate and incitement, President
Roosevelt made another insulting statement [on Nov. 15, 1938] and then
called the American ambassador in Berlin back to Washington for
consultations. Since then the two countries have been represented only
by charges d'affaires.
Starting in November 1938, he began systematically and consciously to
sabotage every possibility of a European peace policy. In public he
hypocritically claimed to be interested in peace while at the same
time he threatened every country that was ready to pursue a policy of
peaceful understanding by blocking credits, economic reprisals,
calling in loans, and so forth. In this regard, the reports of the
Polish ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels provide a
shocking insight.
This man increased his campaign of incitement in January 1939. In a
message [on Jan. 4, 1939] to the U.S. Congress he threatened to take
every measure short of war against the authoritarian countries.
He repeatedly claimed that other countries were trying to interfere in
American affairs, and he talked a lot about upholding the Monroe
Doctrine. Starting in March 1939 he began lecturing about internal
European affairs that were of no concern of the President of the
United States. In the first place, he doesn't understand these
problems, and secondly, even if he did understand them and appreciated
the historical circumstances, he has no more right to concern himself
with central European affairs than the German head of state has to
take positions on or make judgments about conditions in the United
States.
Mr. Roosevelt went even beyond that. Contrary to the rules of
international law, he refused to recognize governments he didn't like,
would not accept new ones, refused to dismiss ambassadors of
non-existent countries, and even recognized them as legal governments.
He went so far as to conclude treaties with these ambassadors, which
then gave him the right to simply occupy foreign territories
[Greenland and Iceland ].
But now the honorable wife [Eleanor Roosevelt] took his place. She and
her sons [she said] refused to live in a world such as ours. That is
at least understandable, for ours is world of work and not one of
deceit and racketeering. After a short rest, though, he was back at
it. On November 4, 1939, the Neutrality Act was revised and the arms
embargo was repealed in favor of a one-sided supply [of weapons] to
Germany's adversaries. In the same way, he pushed in eastern Asia for
economic entanglements with China that would eventually lead to
effective common interests. That same month he recognized a small
group of Polish emigrants as a so-called government in exile, the only
political basis of which was a few million Polish gold pieces they had
taken from Warsaw.
This man revealed his true attitude in a telegram of June 15 [1940] to
French premier [Paul] Reynaud. Roosevelt told him that the American
government would double its aid to France, on the condition that
France continue the war against Germany. In order to give special
emphasis to his desire that the war continue, he declared that the
American government would not recognize acquisitions brought about by
conquest, which included, for example, the retaking of territories
that had been stolen from Germany. I do not need to emphasize that now
and in the future, the German government will not be concerned about
whether or not the President of the United States recognizes a border
in Europe. I mention this case because it is characteristic of the
systematic incitement of this man, who hypocritically talks about
peace while at the same time he incites to war.
And now he feared that if peace were to come about in Europe, the
billions he had squandered on military spending would soon be
recognized as an obvious case of fraud, because no one would attack
America unless America itself provoked the attack. On June 17, 1940,
the President of the United States froze French assets [in the USA] in
order, so he said, to keep them from being seized by Germany, but in
reality to get hold of the gold that was being brought from Casablanca
on an American cruiser.
In July 1940 Roosevelt began to take many new measures toward war,
such as permitting the service of American citizens in the British air
force and the training of British air force personnel in the United
States. In August 1940 a joint military policy for the United States
and Canada was established. In order to make the establishment of a
joint American-Canadian defense committee plausible to at least the
stupidest people, Roosevelt periodically invented crises and acted as
if America was threatened by immediate attack. He would suddenly
cancel trips and quickly return to Washington and do similar things in
order to emphasize the seriousness of the situation to his followers,
who really deserve pity. He moved still closer to war in September
1940 when he transferred fifty American naval destroyers to the
British fleet, and in return took control of military bases on British
possessions in North and Central America. Future generations will
determine the extent to which, along with all this hatred against
socialist Germany, the desire to easily and safely take control of the
British empire in its hour of disintegration may have also played a
role.
After Britain was no longer able to pay cash for American deliveries
he imposed the Lend-Lease Act on the American people [in March 1941].
As President, he thereby obtained the authority to furnish lend-lease
military aid to countries that he, Roosevelt, decided it was in
America's vital interests to defend. After it became clear that
Germany would not respond under any circumstances to his continued
boorish behavior, this man took another step forward in March 1941.
As early as December 19, 1939, an American cruiser [the Tuscaloosa]
that was inside the security zone maneuvered the [German] passenger
liner Columbus into the hands of British warships. As a result, it had
to be scuttled. On that same day, US military forces helped in an
effort to capture the German merchant ship Arauca. On January 27,
1940, and once again contrary to international law, the US cruiser
Trenton reported the movements of the German merchant ships Arauca, La
Plata and Wangoni to enemy naval forces.
On June 27, 1940, he announced a limitation on the free movement of
foreign merchant ships in US ports, completely contrary to
international law. In November 1940 he permitted US warships to pursue
the German merchant ships Phrygia, Idarwald and Rhein until they
finally had to scuttle themselves to keep from falling into enemy
hands. On April 13, 1941, American ships were permitted to pass freely
through the Red Sea in order to supply British armies in the Middle
East.
In the meantime, in March [1941] all German ships were confiscated by
the American authorities. In the process, German Reich citizens were
treated in the most degrading way, ordered to certain locations in
violation of international law, put under travel restrictions, and so
forth. Two German officers who had escaped from Canadian captivity [to
the United States] were shackled and returned to the Canadian
authorities, likewise completely contrary to international law.
On March 27 [1941] the same president who is [supposedly] against all
aggression announced support for [General Dusan] Simovic and his
clique of usurpers [in Yugoslavia], who had come to power in Belgrade
after the overthrow of the legal government. Several months earlier,
President Roosevelt had sent [OSS chief] Colonel Donovan, a very
inferior character, to the Balkans with orders to help organize an
uprising against Germany and Italy in Sofia [Bulgaria] and Belgrade.
In April he [Roosevelt] promised lend-lease aid to Yugoslavia and
Greece. At the end of April he recognized Yugoslav and Greek emigrants
as governments in exile. And once again, in violation of international
law, he froze Yugoslav and Greek assets. Starting in mid-April [1941]
US naval patrols began expanded operations in the western Atlantic,
reporting their observations to the British. On April 26, Roosevelt
delivered twenty high speed patrol boats to Britain. At the same time,
British naval ships were routinely being repaired in US ports. On May
12, Norwegian ships operating for Britain were armed and repaired [in
the USA], contrary to international law. On June 4, American troop
transports arrived in Greenland to build air fields. And on June 9
came the first British report that a US war ship, acting on orders of
President Roosevelt, had attacked a German submarine near Greenland
with depth charges.
On June 14, German assets in the United States were frozen, again in
violation of international law. On June 17, on the basis of a lying
pretext, President Roosevelt demanded the recall of the German consuls
and the closing of the German consulates. He also demanded the
shutting down of the German "Transocean" press agency, the German
Library of Information [in New York] and the German Reichsbahn
[national railway] office.
On July 6 and 7 [1941], American armed forces acting on orders from
Roosevelt occupied Iceland, which was in the area of German military
operations. He hoped that this action would certainly, first, finally
force Germany into war [against the USA] and, second, also neutralize
the effectiveness of the German submarines, much as in 1915-1916. At
the same time, he promised military aid to the Soviet Union. On July
10 Navy Secretary [Frank] Knox suddenly announced that the US Navy was
under orders to fire against Axis warships. On September 4 the US
destroyer Greer, acting on his orders, operated together with British
airplanes against German submarines in the Atlantic. Five days later,
a German submarine identified US destroyers as escort vessels with a
British convoy.
In a speech delivered on September 11 [1941], Roosevelt at last
personally confirmed that he had given the order to fire against all
Axis ships, and he repeated the order. On September 29, US patrols
attacked a German submarine east of Greenland with depth charges. On
October 17 the US destroyer Kearny, operating as an escort for the
British, attacked a German submarine with depth charges, and on
November 6 US armed forces seized the German ship Odenwald in
violation of international law, took it to an American port, and
imprisoned its crew.
I will overlook as meaningless the insulting attacks and rude
statements by this so-called President against me personally. That he
calls me a gangster is particularly meaningless, since this term did
not originate in Europe, where such characters are uncommon, but in
America. And aside from that, I simply cannot feel insulted by Mr.
Roosevelt because I regard him, like his predecessor Woodrow Wilson,
as mentally unsound [geisteskrank].
We know that this man, with his Jewish supporters, has operated
against Japan in the same way. I don't need to go into that here. The
same methods were used in that case as well. This man first incites to
war, and then he lies about its causes and makes baseless allegations.
He repugnantly wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy, while
at the same time slowly but very steadily leading humanity into war.
And finally, as an old Freemason, he calls upon God to witness that
his actions are honorable. His shameless misrepresentations of truth
and violations of law are unparalleled in history.
I am sure that all of you have regarded it as an act of deliverance
that a country [Japan] has finally acted to protest against all this
in the very way that this man had actually hoped for, and which should
not surprise him now [the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941].
After years of negotiating with this deceiver, the Japanese government
finally had its fill of being treated in such a humiliating way. All
of us, the German people and, I believe, all other decent people
around the world as well, regard this with deep appreciation.
We know the power behind Roosevelt. It is the same eternal Jew that
believes that his hour has come to impose the same fate on us that we
have all seen and experienced with horror in Soviet Russia. We have
gotten to know first hand the Jewish paradise on earth. Millions of
German soldiers have personally seen the land where this international
Jewry has destroyed and annihilated people and property. Perhaps the
President of the United States does not understand this. If so, that
only speaks for his intellectual narrow-mindedness.
And we know that his entire effort is aimed at this goal: Even if we
were not allied with Japan, we would still realize that the Jews and
their Franklin Roosevelt intend to destroy one state after another.
The German Reich of today has nothing in common with the Germany of
the past. For our part, we will now do what this provocateur has been
trying to achieve for years. And not just because we are allied with
Japan, but rather because Germany and Italy with their present
leaderships have the insight and strength to realize that in this
historic period the existence or non-existence of nations is being
determined, perhaps for all time. What this other world has in store
for us is clear. They were able to bring the democratic Germany of the
past [1918-1933] to starvation, and they seek to destroy the National
Socialist Germany of today.
When Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt declare that they want to one day
build a new social order, that's about the same as a bald-headed
barber recommending a tonic guaranteed to make hair grow. Rather than
incite war, these gentlemen, who live in the most socially backward
countries, should have concerned themselves with their own unemployed
people. They have enough misery and poverty in their own countries to
keep themselves busy insuring a just distribution of food there. As
far as the German nation is concerned, it doesn't need charity, either
from Mr. Churchill, Mr. Roosevelt or [British foreign secretary] Mr.
Eden -- but it does demand its rights. And it will do what it must to
insure its right to life, even if a thousand Churchills and Roosevelts
conspire together to prevent it.
Our nation has a history of nearly two thousand years. Never in this
long period has it been so united and determined as it is today, and
thanks to the National Socialist movement it will always be that way.
At the same time, Germany has perhaps never been as far-sighted, and
seldom as conscious of honor. Accordingly, today I had the passports
returned to the American charge d'affaires, and he was bluntly
informed of the following:
President Roosevelt's steadily expanding policy has been aimed at an
unlimited world dictatorship. In pursuing this goal, the United States
and Britain have used every means to deny the German, Italian and
Japanese nations the prerequisites for their vital natural existence.
For this reason, the governments of Britain and the United States of
America have opposed every effort to create a new and better order in
the world, for both the present and the future. Since the beginning of
the war [in September 1939], the American President Roosevelt has
steadily committed ever more serious crimes against international law.
Along with illegal attacks against ships and other property of German
and Italian citizens, there have been threats and even arbitrary
deprivations of personal freedom by internment and such. The
increasingly hostile attacks by the American President Roosevelt have
reached the point that he has ordered the U.S. navy, in complete
violation of international law, to immediately and everywhere attack,
fire upon and sink German and Italian ships. American officials have
even boasted about destroying German submarines in this criminal
manner. American cruisers have attacked and captured German and
Italian merchant ships, and their peaceful crews were taken away to
imprisonment In addition, President Roosevelt's plan to attack Germany
and Italy with military forces in Europe by 1943 at the latest was
made public in the United States [by the Chicago Tribune and several
other newspapers on Dec. 4, 1941], and the American government made no
effort to deny it.
Despite the years of intolerable provocations by President Roosevelt,
Germany and Italy sincerely and very patiently tried to prevent the
expansion of this war and to maintain relations with the United
States. But as a result of his campaign, these efforts have failed.
Faithful to the provisions of the Tripartite Pact of September 27,
1940, German and Italy accordingly now regard themselves as finally
forced to join together on the side of Japan in the struggle for the
defense and preservation of the freedom and independence of our
nations and realms against the United States of America and Britain.
The three powers have accordingly concluded the following agreement,
which was signed today in Berlin:
Article 1. Germany, Italy and Japan will together conduct the war that
has been forced upon them by the United States of America and Britain
with all the means at their command to a victorious conclusion.
Article 2. Germany, Italy and Japan pledge not to conclude an
armistice or make peace with either the United States of America or
Britain unless by complete mutual agreement.
Article 3. Germany, Italy and Japan will also work very closely
together after a victorious conclusion of the war for the purpose of
bringing about a just new order in accord with the Tripartite Pact
concluded by them on September 27, 1940.
Ever since my peace proposal of July 1940 was rejected, we have
clearly realized that this struggle must be fought through to the end.
We National Socialists are not at all surprised that the
Anglo-American, Jewish and capitalist world is united together with
Bolshevism. In our country we have always found them in the same
community. Alone we successfully fought against them here in Germany,
and after 14 years of struggle for power we were finally able to
annihilate our enemies.
When I decided 23 years ago to enter political life in order to lead
the nation up from ruin, I was a nameless, unknown soldier. Many of
you here know just how difficult those first years of that struggle
really were. The way from a small movement of seven men to the taking
of power on January 30, 1933, as the responsible government is so
miraculous that only the blessing of Providence could have made it
possible.
Our adversaries today are the same familiar enemies of more than
twenty years.
When we think of the sacrifice and effort of our soldiers, then every
sacrifice of [those here in] the homeland is completely insignificant
and unimportant. And when we consider the number of all those in past
generations who gave their lives for the survival and greatness of the
German nation, then we are really conscious of the magnitude of the
duty that is ours.
The government of the United States of America, having violated in the
most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of
neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany, and having
continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany
ever since the outbreak of the European war, brought on by the British
declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally
resorted to open military acts of aggression.
On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States of America
publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force
to shoot on sight any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27,
1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force.
Acting under this order, American naval vessels have systematically
attacked German naval forces since early September 1941. Thus,
American destroyers, as for instance, the Greer, the Kearny and the
Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan.
The American Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that
the American destroyers attacked German submarines.
Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States of America, under
order of their government and contrary to international law, have
treated and seized German merchant ships on the high seas as enemy
ships.
The German government therefore establishes the following facts:
Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of
international law in her relations with the United States of America
during every period of the present war, the government of the United
States of America from initial violations of neutrality has finally
proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. It has thereby
virtually created a state of war.
The government of the Reich consequently breaks off diplomatic
relations with the United States of America and declares that under
these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too,
as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the
United States of America.