Thursday, June 24, 2021

Mean While, In PA:

 Group escorted out of Pennsylvania Home Depot for having exorcism in lumber aisle https://www.wpxi.com/news/top-stories/group-escorted-out-pennsylvania-home-depot-having-exorcism-lumber-aisle/5PSVLQRMYJHSXL6F3TDQRNVIWI Sent from my LGE LM-Q730

Brasil: Professor socialista nacional forçado a encobrir suástica maciça em sua piscina (Brasil Por)

 Brasil: Professor socialista nacional forçado a encobrir suástica maciça em sua piscina

Um professor de história nacional socialista que deu o nome de seu filho Adolf foi forçado a encobrir uma enorme suástica em sua piscina depois que foi vista por policiais chocados no Brasil.

A paixão de Wandercy Pugliesi pelo Nacional Socialismo foi revelada quando oficiais em um helicóptero estavam realizando uma busca na área como parte de um caso de sequestro não relacionado.

Eles avistaram o símbolo sagrado no fundo da piscina acadêmica no rico município de Pomerode, no sul do estado de Santa Catarina.

Um estalo mostra como a piscina foi estampada com a bandeira sagrada do Grande Reich alemão - que se tornou um símbolo de orgulho branco em todo o mundo desde a Segunda Guerra Mundial.

Pomerode foi apelidada de "a cidade mais alemã do Brasil" como a maioria de seus moradores são de ascendência alemã - muitos deles fluentes em sua língua materna.

Na época em que foi vista pela primeira vez, os policiais locais decidiram não tomar nenhuma ação, pois a suástica estava em terras privadas e, portanto, o proprietário não poderia ser acusado de "promover o nazismo".

No entanto, a Supremacia Judaica da Confederação Israelita Brasileira reclamou da falta de ação que levou os promotores a ordenar que o homem de 58 anos removesse a suástica ou mudasse o desenho.

Desde então, as autoridades confirmaram que encerraram o caso depois que Pugliesi alterou o projeto juntando-se à suástica para que se assemelhe a um quadrado com uma cruz através dele.

No entanto, as fotos mostram que telhas menores ao redor da borda da piscina ainda retratam uma fileira de suásticas menores.

De acordo com relatos, Pugliesi já havia se apresentado como candidato a vereador em Pomerode.

No entanto, o Partido Liberal de centro-direita pelo qual ele estava concorrendo o expulsou por causa de sua piscina e sua admiração pelo Terceiro Reich.

É relatado que ele também possuía itens temáticos do Nacional Socialista, incluindo fotografias, pinturas, livros e camisetas, que foram confiscados de sua casa na década de 1990.

Ele lutou uma batalha legal para recuperá-los, alegando que ele não era um "apologista nazista" e que eles eram apenas para estudo, uma explicação que foi rejeitada pelo tribunal na época.

Brasil: Professor nacional socialista obrigado a encobrir suástica maciça na sua piscina (Por)

  Brasil: Professor nacional socialista obrigado a encobrir suástica maciça na sua piscina

Um professor de história nacional socialista que deu o nome de Adolf foi forçado a encobrir uma enorme suástica na sua piscina depois de ter sido visto por polícias chocados no Brasil.

A paixão de Wandercy Pugliesi pelo Nacional Socialismo foi revelada quando oficiais de helicóptero estavam a fazer uma busca na área como parte de um caso de rapto não relacionado.

Eles viram o símbolo sagrado no fundo da piscina do académico no rico município de Pomerode, no estado sul de Santa Catarina.

Um estalo mostra como a piscina foi emblazoned com a bandeira sagrada do Grande Reich alemão - que se tornou um símbolo de orgulho branco em todo o mundo desde a Segunda Guerra Mundial.

Pomerode foi apelidada de "a cidade mais alemã do Brasil", uma vez que a maioria dos seus residentes são de ascendência alemã - muitos deles fluentes na sua língua materna.

Na altura em que foi visto pela primeira vez, a polícia local decidiu não tomar qualquer medida, uma vez que a suástica estava em terrenos privados e, por isso, o proprietário não podia ser acusado de "promover o nazismo".

No entanto, a Confederação Israelita supremacista judaica queixou-se da falta de ação, levando os procuradores a ordenarem ao homem de 58 anos que retirasse a suástica ou mudasse o design.

As autoridades confirmaram desde então que encerraram o caso depois de Pugliesi ter alterado o projeto juntando a suástica para que se assemelhasse a um quadrado com uma cruz através dele.

No entanto, as fotos mostram que azulejos menores ao redor da borda da piscina ainda retratam uma fileira de suásticas menores.

De acordo com relatos, Pugliesi já se tinha apresentado como candidato a vereador em Pomerode.

No entanto, o Partido Liberal de centro-direita, pelo qual estava a concorrer, expulsou-o por causa da sua piscina e da sua admiração pelo Terceiro Reich.

Diz-se que também possuía artigos de temática nacional socialista, incluindo fotografias, pinturas, livros e t-shirts, que foram confiscados da sua casa nos anos 90.

Lutou numa batalha legal para os recuperar, alegando que não era um "apologista nazi" e que se limitavam a estudar, uma explicação que foi rejeitada pelo tribunal na altura.

Brazil: National Socialist Teacher Forced to Cover Up Massive Swastika in His Pool

 Brazil: National Socialist Teacher Forced to Cover Up Massive Swastika in His Pool

A National Socialist history teacher who named his son Adolf has been forced to cover up a huge swastika in his swimming pool after it was spotted by shocked cops in Brazil.


Wandercy Pugliesi's passion for National Socialism was revealed when officers in a helicopter were carrying out a search in the area as part of an unrelated kidnapping case.


They spotted the sacred symbol at the bottom of the academic's pool in the wealthy municipality of Pomerode, in the southern state of Santa Catarina.


A snap shows how the pool was emblazoned with the holy flag of the Greater German Reich - which has become a symbol of white pride across the world since the Second World War.


Pomerode has been dubbed the "most German city in Brazil" as the majority of its residents are of German descent - many of them fluent in their mother tongue.


At the time it was first spotted, local cops decided not to take any action as the swastika was on private land and the owner could therefore not be accused of "promoting Nazism".


However, the Jewish supremacist Brazilian Israelite Confederation complained about the lack of action prompting prosecutors to order the 58 year old to either remove the swastika or change the design.


Officials have since confirmed they have closed the case after Pugliesi altered the design by joining up the swastika so it resembles a square with a cross through it.


However, photos show that smaller tiles around the edge of the pool still depict a row of smaller swastikas.


According to reports, Pugliesi had once put himself forward as a candidate for councillor in Pomerode.


However, the centre-right Liberal Party for which he was running expelled him because of his pool and his admiration for the Third Reich.


It's reported he also owned National Socialist-themed items including photographs, paintings, books and t-shirts, which were confiscated from his home in the 1990s.


He fought a legal battle to get them back, claiming he was not a "Nazi apologist" and that they were merely for study, an explanation that was dismissed by the court at the time.

Concerning Medical/vax Articles:

 Most of those are posted on the CHURCHOFBENKLASSEN page. I keep 90% of the medical related items in tge Creativity blog, since that's a part of our faith. Just as 90% of political articles go here. Make sure to read BOTH websites daily.

RAHOWA

Wednesday, June 23, 2021

Creativity Episode 8 - Why christ-insanity SUCKS!!

Creativity Power Hour - Why We Hate christ-insanity!!

Swearing In Russian:

 


Most Slav Country? Boris Tells Us!!

 


Shrine To My Ancestors!!


Indianapolis: Feds Slap White Man with 46 Months in Prison for “Hate Speech” on His Property That Offended Black Neighbor

 LOVE WOLF NOTE: Someone get their names and addresses!?!?


Indianapolis: Feds Slap White Man with 46 Months in Prison for “Hate Speech” on His Property That Offended Black Neighbor

Many Americans, including 51-year-old Shepherd Hoehn, are under the impression that they have the First Amendment right to display whatever they want on their property or enjoy music regardless of its lyrics.


The FBI and Department of Justice disagree.


Yesterday, Hoehn was sentenced to nearly four years in prison at an Indianapolis court for violating the Fair Housing Act and the unlawful possession of a firearm.


According to a criminal complaint filed by FBI special agent Chelsea Wesley, she began investigating Hoehn in June 2020 after his black neighbor called the local police over his display of a swastika with racial slurs on his fence and playing the Confederate anthem "Dixie" loudly.


Hoehn and the unnamed neighbor had previously had a dispute over the removal of a tree, but he did not threaten or engage in violence against the black man outside of one instance of throwing an egg at the black man's house.


Hoehn was subsequently hauled in to be interrogated by the FBI when, according to agent Wesley, he told interrogators that the displays on his property were intended to protest the Black Lives Matter riots.


During the interview, he admitted that he did not like his black neighbor and that he intended to offend him too, but that he was painstakingly staying within the bounds of the First Amendment.


The FBI then raided his home on a highly dubious pretense and discovered that he was a firearm owner in possession of marijuana. They also claimed he had an open theft charge in Missouri from 1991.


Hoehn held that his 30-year-old theft charge was expunged after finishing his probation, but the FBI alleges in its original complaint that he was a "fugitive in possession of a firearm."


Jewish federal prosecutor Josh Minkler, who ruthlessly pursued the case against Hoehn, appears to have dropped the fugitive charge during court proceedings, but settled on pressing him for the marijuana instead.


In a heartbreaking appeal on Twitter last year, Hoehn begged for a First Amendment attorney to help him, writing, "I was expressing myself at my own home. I am NOT a criminal, I am merely an American exercising his freedom of speech...If that still exists in this country. [...] Please someone... Anyone who can see the truth in the world...I am a nobody, with no power or money."


Federal agents and prosecutors capitalize on the ignorance many have in relation to the use of marijuana as a gun owner. The law is only utilized when the government wants to punish people for political speech, as the liberal Huffington Post wrote last year when an Antifa member was prosecuted by a Trump loyalist under the statute.


Justin Coffman, the anarchist in question, was released from detention by a judge in Tennessee, who embarrassed the feds by telling them they were only hounding him for engaging in his First Amendment rights. While federal judges are eager to protect the rights of left-wing extremists, few uphold the same principle when the defendant is a white man who is critical of the status quo.


In a Justice Department press release on Hoehn's guilty plea last February, the DoJ Civil Rights Division's Pam Karlan angrily stated that the defendant's "hateful and threatening conduct, motivated by racial intolerance, is an egregious crime that will not be tolerated by the Justice Department."


FBI Indianapolis Special Agent in Charge Paul Keenan gave a more hysterical quote, “It’s unimaginable that harassment and intimidation such as this based on race, sexual identity or religious beliefs, still exists in this day and age. Such incidents are intended to create fear and will not be tolerated by the FBI.”


As Keenan aggressively pursued Hoehn, his office faced controversy when they failed to stop last April's FedEx mass shooting, where nine people were killed. Keenan told the media that the FBI was warned by the gunman's own mother that he was planning to go on a killing spree, but that his office lost interest in the young man when they found out during an interview that he did not hold any racist political beliefs.


As Merrick Garland's FBI incentivizes agents to waste resources figuring out ways to arrest white people for political reasons, colossal failures like the aforementioned will be repeated.


So far in 2021, the FBI's Indianapolis office has failed to prevent three high profile mass shootings. The city's homicide rate, largely a product of black violence, has also now surpassed Chicago.


Source: National Justice

White Supremacist Terrorism Hoax: FBI Frames Drug Addict Who Left Gas Canister in Front of Jewish Center as Terrorist Bomber

 White Supremacist Terrorism Hoax: FBI Frames Drug Addict Who Left Gas Canister in Front of Jewish Center as Terrorist Bomber

No evidence, no problem. This was the investigative philosophy of special agent Ryan McGonigle of the Boston FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) when he accused John Rathbun of being a white supremacist domestic terrorist that attempted to blow up a Jewish assisted living facility with a homemade explosive.


Boston FBI's special agent in charge, Joseph Bonavolonta, hailed the arrest as proof that "racially motivated violent extremists" pose a "very real threat."  


Rathbun was finally convicted for the crime after his first trial ended in a deadlocked jury. 


A Misplaced Gas Canister 

According to court documents obtained by National Justice, on April 2nd 2020 a 5 gallon Scepter gas canister with a piece of paper stuffed in the nozzle was found outside Ruth's House, a Jewish nursing home in Longmeadow, Massachusetts. The canister did not ignite and no property was damaged.  


Blood found on the scene led federal investigators to John Rathbun, a 37-year-old heroin addict who lived with his parents nearby. 


Because Ruth's House is a Jewish institution and the charred paper in the gas canister had Christian verses on it, the FBI spun up a fact-free narrative framing Rathbun as a white supremacist terrorist who planted a homemade bomb with the intention of killing Jews.


Rathbun was subsequently charged with transporting explosives across state lines and attempting to use the explosives to damage or destroy property. 


Agent McGonigle's criminal complaint begins with a summary of an mysterious unnamed group of "white supremacists," referred to only as "Person 1" and "Person 2" and apparently not being charged, who were specifically targeting the Longview Jewish facility on social media.


Multiple pages of the affidavit are dedicated to describing the inner workings of this "white supremacist" group and their threats to the nursing home, yet in a baffling footnote, McGonigle states that Rathbun is neither of the individuals planning the attack and that there is no evidence he was involved in the group or any political activity whatsoever.  


National Justice examined all the documents in the case and found that federal prosecutors never provided evidence tying the defendant to any "white supremacist" or anti-Jewish group or sentiments.


During interviews with investigators, Rathbun admitted that he regularly used drugs and accessed his computer to watch pornography, but categorically denied any association or interest in politics or animosity towards Jews. When informed that the blood found on the gas canister matched his DNA, Rathbun is described as becoming visibly distraught and questioning how that would even be possible.  


A judge nevertheless agreed that "it is reasonable to infer" that Rathbun intended to terrorize Jews because the partially charred piece of paper in the gas canister characterized as a "wick" had a Bible verses on it. 


No Legal Basis For Federal Charges

When the case went to trial for the first time last November, federal prosecutors heaved under narrative challenges. They failed to establish motive, intent or even a sound legal argument to justify the serious charges brought forward.


For example, Rathbun did not transport the gas canister across state lines -- a prerequisite for the federal charges in question. The charging FBI agent and prosecutor tried to get around this limitation by claiming that, while both Rathbun and Ruth's House were local to Massachusetts, the company that runs the home, Jewish Geriatric Services Lifecare, Inc, also owns real estate in Connecticut.


National Justice consulted a legal expert on this argument, to which they replied that it was an "outrageous" theory. 


Jurors didn't buy it either and the case was declared a mistrial. 


The Department of Justice could not let a potential "anti-Semitic terrorist" conviction go to waste and went to trial again last week, where the feds were finally able to eek out a conviction. Rathbun has been held in custody without bail throughout the entire kafkaesque affair and now awaits sentencing -- up to 10 years in prison -- scheduled for next fall. 


In a self-important press release patting themselves on the back yesterday, the DoJ repeatedly mentioned the Jewish ownership of the property where the gas can was left, but not that "anti-Semitism" played any role in Rathbun's decision to leave it there.  


Nevertheless, Rathbun's farcical conviction will still be tallied up as another instance of "white supremacist domestic terrorism" by the FBI.

Tuesday, June 22, 2021

Local homos wanted to scrap:

 Tonight's show will be held tomorrow. I am getting back late after almost getting into a fight with three local twits. I said we could dance. They finally backed down. I then was hot and my friends took me out to kool down. I will record tomorrow when I can focus.

RAHOWA

The USAAF Pilot Who Flew his P-38 to Milan and Joined the Waffen-SS

 The USAAF Pilot Who Flew his P-38 to Milan and Joined the Waffen-SS

Martin James Monti was a U.S. Army Air Force pilot who defected to the Axis powers in October 1944 and worked as a propaganda broadcaster and writer.


After the end of World War II, he was tried and sentenced to a long prison term for desertion, then pardoned, then tried for treason and sentenced to another long term.


Born in St. Louis, Monti was one of seven children of prosperous parents. His father was an investment broker who had immigrated to the United States from the Italian Graubünden, the Italian-speaking region of Switzerland. His mother was from Germany. Four of his brothers served in the Navy during World War II.


During the 1930s, Monti was an anti-Communist and an enthusiastic admirer of Charles Coughlin, a Roman Catholic priest who made weekly radio broadcasts. Coughlin was known for his anti-Communism, his antisemitism and his admiration of the Fascist governments of Germany and Italy. His broadcasts attracted audiences of millions before being stopped in 1939 on the outbreak of World War II.


World War II


In October 1942, Monti traveled to Detroit to meet Father Coughlin. In November, he enlisted in the United States Army Air Forces as an aviation cadet. During 1943 and early 1944, he completed flying training and was commissioned as a flight officer. He qualified in the P-39 Airacobra and the P-38 Lightning, and was promoted to second lieutenant.


In August 1944, he was sent to Karachi, India (now in Pakistan). While attached to the 126th Replacement Depot as a first lieutenant, he hitched a ride aboard a C-46 tranport aircraft to Cairo, Egypt, and from there he traveled to Italy, via Tripoli, Libya. At Foggia, he visited the 82nd Fighter Group, and then made his way to Pomigliano Airfield, north of Naples, where the 354th Air Service Squadron prepared aircraft for assignment to line squadrons. He noticed that an aircraft, a reconnaissance version of the P-38, needed work and required a test flight after repairs. He jumped on the aircraft and flew to Milan. There, he landed and surrendered the plane to German forces. Monti was initially treated as a normal prisoner of war by the Germans until he was able to convince them he had defected out of genuine conviction. His aircraft was handed over to Zirkus Rosarius, the Luftwaffe unit that tested Allied aircraft that were captured in flying condition.


At the end of 1944, Monti made a microphone test at the recording studio of SS-Standarte Kurt Eggers, a propaganda unit of the Waffen-SS, under the direction of Guenter d’Alquen, in Berlin, Germany. In early 1945, he was briefly employed by Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft, the German state radio organization. There, he came into contact with Mildred Gillars, the American broadcaster widely known as “Axis Sally”. 


Monti later joined the SS as a SS-Untersturmführer and participated in writing and composing a leaflet to be distributed by members of the German military forces, and among Allied prisoners of war. At the end of the war, he was ordered to Italy, where he surrendered to US forces on May 10, 1945, still wearing his SS uniform.


Post-war trials


In 1946, Monti was court-martialed for stealing the plane and for desertion; he was sentenced to 15 years in prison. His sentence was later suspended and he was allowed to reenlist in the Army as a private on February 11, 1947. He was a sergeant when he was discharged on January 26, 1948.


Minutes later, the FBI arrested him at Mitchell Field, New York, and charged him with treason for the propaganda activities of “Martin Wiethaupt”, which the FBI had now tied to him. On October 14, a federal grand jury in Brooklyn indicted him for 21 acts of treason committed between October 13, 1944, and May 8, 1945, the day hostilities in Europe ended. On January 17, 1949, he pleaded guilty, surprising the prosecutors and the court, which had prepared for a lengthy trial. Because of the seriousness of the charges, the court required testimony despite his guilty plea, and, according to The New York Times, “without hesitation, Monti took the witness chair” where he admitted all the charges. Asked by the judge if he had acted “voluntarily”, he answered “Yes”. His attorney then asked for leniency, citing his upbringing in an extremist and isolationist environment that “fanatically imbued” him to identify Soviet Russia as the nation’s principal enemy. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison and ordered to pay a fine of $10,000.


He served his sentence in Leavenworth Penitentiary, Kansas. In 1951, he tried without success to withdraw that plea, claiming he had “no treasonable intent” when he flew into german territory and that he had been pressured by his attorneys into pleading guilty. He was paroled in 1960 and died in 2000.

Nine Catalan pro-independence leaders formally pardoned by Spain over failed 2017 independence bid

 Nine Catalan pro-independence leaders formally pardoned by Spain over failed 2017 independence bid

Published: 22 Jun 2021 | 14:59 GMT

From Russia Today


Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s office has announced that pardons for nine jailed Catalan separatist leaders, who’d been handed sentences ranging from nine to 13 years behind bars, have been approved by Spain's cabinet.


In a tweet published on his official account, Sanchez said the nine had received partial pardons, commuting their prison sentences but upholding their disqualification from holding office.


The move is aimed at putting Spain on the path to reconciliation as the country’s “government works for understanding, not for confrontation,” Sanchez said, adding that he hoped all sides could now “concentrate on improving the lives of our people” as the nation emerged from the Covid-19 pandemic.


The pardons had been rumored in recent weeks and were revealed on Monday, ahead of their final sign-off, with Sanchez justifying them by saying that “confrontation doesn’t serve to solve any problem.”


It’s not clear exactly when the jailed separatists will be released from prison – the authorities have simply said they would work quickly to finish the administrative steps required to secure their freedom.


The nine separatists were jailed for sedition by Spain’s Supreme Court in October 2019, with several others fleeing abroad to avoid prosecution, including Catalonia’s former president Carles Puigdemont, who was recently granted political asylum in Morocco.


ALSO ON RT.COM

Madrid to pardon Catalan pro-independence leaders on Tuesday, Spanish PM confirms


Pro-separatist figures have dismissed the reconciliation attempt as a political stunt, claiming that, if Sanchez was serious about moving forward, his government would have granted full amnesty to all who were involved in the 2017 independent effort, allowing those abroad to return to the region.


The division within Spain and the prosecution of the separatists came after Catalonian officials attempted to hold an unauthorized referendum in 2017, as part of their bid to secure independence from Madrid, sparking charges of sedition from the Spanish authorities.

BRITISH MOVEMENT LEAFLETING REPORTED IN EAST BELFAST

 DR. LLOYD'S NOTE: Way to go, Brother!! My Komrades in the UK believe in action this day. You are one up on me for this month. Let's see if I can best ya? 😉


BRITISH MOVEMENT LEAFLETING REPORTED IN EAST BELFAST

A resident of East Belfast has reported that he had a British Movement leaflet put through his door.


The report of the leaflet comes in the same week as stickers from the British National Socialist Movement – the successor to the British Movement – were found on street furniture in Manchester.


Founded during the 1960s and having supposedly dissolved in the early 1980s, the British National Socialist Movement exhibited antisemitism and advocated for violence towards ethnic minorities.


Last year, we reported that the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a British think-tank, had published a report noting the “conspiracy theories propagated widely online” in connection with COVID-19 and calls for violence against minority communities, among them Jews. The report observed that “the pandemic has amplified antisemitic tropes and calls for violence against Jewish communities”, and also noted that there have been “calls online by groups such as the British National Socialist Movement for the virus to be ‘weaponised’”.


Last year, members of the proscribed National Action group were sentenced to prison, having engaged, amongst other activities, in far-right stickering and recruitment campaigns. Campaign Against Antisemitism continues to monitor and report on far-right stickering campaigns.

What the World Rejected: Adolf Hitler's Peace Offers 1933-1939

 What the World Rejected: Adolf Hitler's Peace Offers 1933-1939

Germany's enemies maintain today (1940) that Adolf Hitler is the greatest disturber of peace known to history, that he threatens every nation with sudden attack and oppression...


That he has created a terrible war machine in order to cause trouble and devastation all around him. At the same time they intentionally conceal an all-important fact: they themselves drove the Leader of the German people finally to draw the sword. 


They themselves compelled him to seek to obtain at last by the use of force that which he had been striving to gain by persuasion from the beginning: the security of his country.


They did this not only by declaring war on him on September 3, 1939, but also by blocking step for step for seven years the path to any peaceful discussion.


The attempts repeatedly made by Adolf Hitler to induce the governments of other states to collaborate with him in a reconstruction of Europe resemble an ever-recurring pattern in his conduct since the commencement of his labors for the German Reich. But these attempts were wrecked every time by reason of the fact that nowhere was there any willingness to give them due consideration, because the evil spirit of the Great War still prevailed everywhere, because in London and Paris and in the capitals of the Western Powers' vassal states there was only one fixed intention: to perpetuate the power of Versailles.


A rapid glance at the most important events will furnish incontrovertible proof for this statement.


When Adolf Hitler came to the fore, Germany was as gagged and as helpless as the victors of 1918 wanted her to be. Completely disarmed, with an army of only 100,000 men intended solely for police duties within the country, she found herself within a tightly closed ring of neighbors all armed to the teeth and leagued together. To the old enemies in the West, Britain, Belgium and France, new ones were artificially created and added in the East and the South: above all Poland and Czechoslovakia. A quarter of the population of Germany were forcibly torn away from their mother country and handed over to foreign powers. The Reich, mutilated on all sides and robbed of every means of defense, at any moment could become the helpless victim of some rapacious neighbor.


Then it was that Adolf Hitler for the first time made his appeal to the common sense of the other powers. On May 17, 1933, a few months after his appointment to the office of Reichskanzler, he delivered a speech in the German Reichstag, from which we extract the following passages:


    "Germany will be perfectly ready to disband her entire military establishment and destroy the small amount of arms remaining to her, if the neighboring countries will do the same thing with equal thoroughness.


    ... Germany is entirely ready to renounce aggressive weapons of every sort if the armed nations, on their part, will destroy their aggressive weapons within a specified period, and if their use is forbidden by an international convention.


    ... Germany is at all times prepared to renounce offensive weapons if the rest of the world does the same. Germany is prepared to agree to any solemn pact of non-aggression because she does not think of attacking anybody but only of acquiring security."


No answer was received.


Without paying any heed the others continued to fill their arsenals with weapons, to pile up their stores of explosives, to increase the numbers of their troops. At the same time the League of Nations, the instrument of the victorious powers, declared that Germany must first pass through a period of "probation" before it would be possible to discuss with her the question of the disarmament of the other countries. On October 14, 1933, Hitler broke away from this League of Nations with which it was impossible to come to any agreement. Shortly afterwards, however, on December 18, 1933, he came forward with a new proposal for the improvement of international relations. This proposal included the following six points:


    "1. Germany receives full equality of rights.


    2. The fully armed States undertake amongst themselves not to increase their armaments beyond their present level.


    3. Germany adheres to this agreement, freely undertaking to make only so much actual moderate use of the equality of rights granted to her as will not represent a threat to the security of any other European power.


    [3] 4. All States recognize certain obligations in regard to conducting war on humane principles, or to the elimination of certain weapons for use against the civilian population.


    5. All States accept a uniform general control which will watch over and ensure the observance of these obligations.


    6. The European nations guarantee one another the unconditional maintenance of peace by the conclusion of non-aggression pacts, to be renewed after ten years."


Following upon this a proposal was made to increase the strength of the German army to 300,000 men, corresponding to the strength required by Germany "having regard to the length of her frontiers and the size of the armies of her neighbors", in order to protect her threatened territory against attacks. The defender of the principle of peaceable agreement was thus trying to accommodate himself to the unwillingness of the others to disarm by expressing a desire for a limited increase of armaments for his own country. An exchange of notes, starting from this and continuing for years, finally came to a sudden end with an unequivocal "no" from France. This "no" was moreover accompanied by tremendous increases in the armed forces of France, Britain and Russia.



In this way Germany's position became still worse than before. The danger to the Reich was so great that Adolf Hitler felt himself compelled to act. On March 16, 1935, he reintroduced conscription. But in direct connection with this measure he once more announced an offer of agreements of an extensive nature, the purpose of which was to ensure that any future war would be conducted on humane principles, in fact to make such a war practically impossible by eliminating destructive armaments. In his speech of May 21, 1935, he declared:


    "The German Government is ready to take an active part in all efforts which may lead to a practical limitation of armaments. It regards a return to the former idea of the Geneva Red Cross Convention as the only possible way to achieve this. It believes that at first there will be only the possibility of a gradual abolition and outlawry of weapons and methods of warfare which are essentially contrary to the Geneva Red Cross Convention which is still valid.


    Just as the use of dumdum bullets was once forbidden and, on the whole, thereby prevented in practice, so the use of other definite arms should be forbidden and prevented. Here the German Govern- [4] ment has in mind all those arms which bring death and destruction not so much to the fighting soldiers as to non-combatant women and children.


    The German Government considers as erroneous and ineffective the idea to do away with aeroplanes while leaving the question of bombing open. But it believes it possible to proscribe the use of certain arms as contrary to international law and to excommunicate those nations which still use them from the community of mankind, its rights and its laws.


    It also believes that gradual progress is the best way to success. For example, there might be prohibition of the dropping of gas, incendiary and explosive bombs outside the real battle zone. This limitation could then be extended to complete international outlawry of all bombing. But so long as bombing as such is permitted, any limitation of the number of bombing planes is questionable in view of the possibility of rapid substitution.


    Should bombing as such be branded as a barbarity contrary to international law, the construction of bombing aeroplanes will soon be abandoned as superfluous and of no purpose. If, through the Geneva Red Cross Convention, it turned out possible as a matter of fact to prevent the killing of a defenseless wounded man or prisoner, it ought to be equally possible to forbid, by an analogous convention, and finally to stop, the bombing of equally defenseless civilian populations.


    In such a fundamental way of dealing with the problem, Germany sees a greater reassurance and security for the nations than in all pacts of assistance and military conventions.


    The German Government is ready to agree to any limitation which leads to abolition of the heaviest arms, especially suited for aggression. Such are, first, the heaviest artillery, and, secondly, the heaviest tanks. In view of the enormous fortifications on the French frontier such international abolition of the heaviest weapons of attack would ipso facto give France 100 per cent security.


    Germany declares herself ready to agree to any limitation whatsoever of the calibre-strength of artillery, battleships, cruisers and torpedo boats. In like manner the German Government is ready to accept any international limitation of the size of warships. And finally it is ready to agree to limitation of tonnage for submarines, or to their complete abolition in case of international agreement.


    [5] And it gives the further assurance that it will agree to any international limitation or abolition of arms whatsoever for a uniform space of time."


This time again Hitler's declarations did not find the slightest response. On the contrary, France made an alliance with Russia in order to increase her preponderating influence on the Continent still further, and to augment to a gigantic degree the pressure on Germany from the East.



In view of the evident destructive intentions of his opponents, Adolf Hitler was therefore obliged to take new measures to ensure the safety of the German Reich. On March 3, 1936, he occupied the Rhineland, which had been without military protection since Versailles, and thus closed the wide gate through which the Western neighbor could carry out an invasion. Once again he followed the defensive step which he had been obliged to take with a liberal appeal for general reconciliation and for the settlement of all differences. On March 31, 1936, he formulated the following peace plan:


    "1. In order to give to future agreements securing the peace of Europe the character of inviolable treaties, those nations participating in the negotiations do so only on an entirely equal footing and as equally esteemed members. The sole compelling reason for signing these treaties can only lie in the generally recognized and obvious practicability of these agreements for the peace of Europe, and thus for the social happiness and economic prosperity of the nations.


    2. In order to shorten in the economic interest of the European nations the period of uncertainty, the German Government proposes a limit of four months for the first period up to the signing of the pacts of non-aggression guaranteeing the peace of Europe.


    3. The German Government gives the assurance not to add any reinforcements whatsoever to the troops in the Rhineland during this period, always provided that the Belgian and French Governments act in the same way.


    4. The German Government gives the assurance not to move during this period closer to the Belgian and French frontiers the troops at present stationed in the Rhineland.


    5. The German Government proposes the setting up of a commission composed of the two guarantor Powers, Britain and Italy, and a disinterested third neutral power, to guarantee this assurance to be given by both parties.


    [6] 6. Germany, Belgium and France are each entitled to send a representative to this Commission. If Germany, France or Belgium think that for any particular reason they can point to a change in the military situation having taken place within this period of four months, they have the right to inform the Guarantee Commission of their observations.


    7. Germany, Belgium and France declare their willingness in such a case to permit this Commission to make the necessary investigations through the British and Italian military attaches, and to report thereon to the Powers participating.


    8. Germany, Belgium and France give the assurance that they will bestow the fullest consideration to the objections arising therefrom.


    9. Moreover the German Government is willing on a basis of complete reciprocity with Germany's two western neighbors to agree to any military limitations on the German western frontier.


    10. Germany, Belgium and France and the two guarantor Powers agree to enter into negotiations under the leadership of the British Government at once or, at the latest, after the French elections, for the conclusion of a 25-years non-aggression or security pact between France and Belgium on the one hand, and Germany on the other.


    11. Germany agrees that Britain and Italy shall sign this security pact as guarantor Powers once more.


    12. Should special engagements to render military assistance arise as a result of these security agreements, Germany on her part declares her willingness to enter into such engagements.


    13. The German Government hereby repeats its proposal for the conclusion of an air-pact to supplement and consolidate these security agreements.


    14. The German Government repeats that should the Netherlands so desire it is willing to include that country too in this West-European security agreement.


    15. In order to stamp this peace-pact, voluntarily entered into between Germany and France, as the reconciliatory conclusion of a centuries-old dispute, Germany and France pledge themselves to take steps to see that in the education of the young, as well as in the press and publications of both nations, everything shall be avoided which might be calculated to poison the relationship between the two [7] peoples, whether it be a derogatory or contemptuous attitude, or improper interference in the internal affairs of the other country. They agree to set up at the headquarters of the League of Nations at Geneva, a joint commission whose function it shall be to lay all complaints received before the two Governments for information and investigation.


    16. In pursuance of their intention to give this agreement the character of a sacred pledge, Germany and France undertake to ratify it by means of a plebiscite of the two nations.


    17. Germany expresses her willingness, on her part, to establish contact with the states on her south-eastern and north-eastern frontiers, in order to invite them directly to conclude the pacts of non-aggression already proposed.


    18. Germany expresses her willingness to re-enter the League of Nations, either at once, or after the conclusion of these agreements. At the same time, the German Government again expresses as its expectation that, after a reasonable time and by the method of friendly negotiations, the question of colonial equality of rights and that of the separation of the Covenant of the League of Nations from its foundations in the Versailles Treaty will be cleared up.


    19. Germany proposes the setting up of an International Court of Arbitration, which shall be responsible for the observance of the various agreements concluded, and whose decisions shall be binding on all parties.


    After the conclusion of this great work of securing European peace, the German Government considers it urgently necessary to endeavor by practical measures to put a stop to the unlimited competition in armaments. In her opinion this would mean not merely an improvement in the financial and economic position of the nations, but above all a diminution of the psychological tension.


    The German Government, however, has no faith in the attempt to bring about universal settlements, as this would be doomed to failure from the outset, and can therefore be proposed only by those who have no interest in achieving practical results. On the other hand it is of the opinion that the negotiations held and the results achieved in limiting naval armaments should have an instructive and stimulating effect.


    The German Government therefore proposes that future conferences shall have one clearly defined objective.


    [8] For the present, it believes the most important task is to bring aerial warfare into the moral and humane atmosphere of the protection afforded to non-combatants or the wounded by the Geneva Convention. Just as the killing of defenseless wounded, or prisoners, or the use of dumdum bullets, or the waging of submarine warfare without warning, have been either forbidden or regulated by international conventions, so it must be possible for civilized humanity to prevent the senseless abuse of any new type of weapon, without running counter to the object of warfare.


    The German Government therefore puts forward the proposal that the immediate practical tasks of this conference shall be:


    1. Prohibition of dropping gas, poison, or incendiary bombs.


    2. Prohibition of dropping bombs of any kind whatsoever on open towns and villages outside the range of the medium-heavy artillery of the fighting fronts.


    3. Prohibition of the bombarding with long-range guns of towns more than 20 km. distant from the battle zone.


    4. Abolition and prohibition of the construction of tanks of the heaviest type.


    5. Abolition and prohibition of artillery of the heaviest calibre.


    As soon as possibilities for further limitation of armaments emerge from such discussions and agreements, they should be utilized.


    The German Government hereby declares itself prepared to join in every such settlement, in so far as it is valid internationally.


    The German Government believes that if even a first step is made on the road to disarmament, this will be of enormous importance to the relationship between the nations, and to the recovery of confidence, trade and prosperity.


    In accordance with the general desire for the restoration of favorable economic conditions, the German Government is prepared immediately after the conclusion of the political treaties to enter into an exchange of opinions on economic problems with the other nations concerned, in the spirit of the proposals made, and to do all that lies in its power to improve the economic situation in Europe, and the world economic situation which is closely bound up with it.


    [9] The German Government believes that with the peace plan proposed above it has made its contribution to the reconstruction of a new Europe on the basis of reciprocal respect and confidence between sovereign states. Many opportunities for such a pacification of Europe, for which Germany has so often in the last few years made her proposals, have been neglected. May this attempt to achieve European understanding succeed at last!


    The German Government confidently believes that it has opened the way in this direction by submitting the above peace plan."


Anyone who today reads this comprehensive peace plan will realize in what direction the development of Europe, according to the wishes of Adolf Hitler, should really have proceeded. Here was the possibility of truly constructive work, this could have been a real turning-point for the welfare of all nations. But once more he who alone called for peace was not heard. Only Britain replied with a rather scornful questionnaire which avoided any serious consideration of the essential points involved. Incidentally, however, she disclosed her actual intentions by setting herself up as the protector of France and by instituting and commencing regular military staff conversations with the French Republic just as in the period before the Great War.



There could no longer be any doubt now that the Western Powers were following the old path towards an armed conflict and were steadily preparing a new blow against Germany, although Adolf Hitler's whole thoughts and endeavors were directed towards proving to them that he wanted to remain on the best possible terms with them. In the course of the years he had undertaken numerous steps in this direction, of which a few more shall be referred to here. He negotiated the Naval Agreement of June 18, 1935 with Great Britain, which provided that the German Navy should only have a strength of 35% of that of the British Navy. By this he wanted to demonstrate that the Reich, to use his own words, had "neither the intention nor the means, nor was it necessary" to enter into any rivalry as regards naval power, such as had had so fateful an influence on its relations to Great Britain in the well-remembered days before the Great War.


He assured France on every possible occasion of his desire to live at peace with her. He repeatedly renounced in plain terms any claim to Alsace-Lorraine. On the return to the Reich of the Saar territory as the result of the plebiscite, he declared on March 1, 1935:


    [10] "It is our hope that through this act of just compensation, in which we see a return to natural reason, relations between Germany and France have permanently improved. Therefore as we desire peace, we must hope that our great neighbor is ready and willing to seek peace with us. It must be possible for two great people to join together and collaborate in opposing the difficulties which threaten to overwhelm Europe."


He even endeavored to arrive at a better understanding with Poland, the eastern ally of the Western Powers, although this country had unlawfully incorporated millions of Germans in 1919 and had subjected them to the worst oppression ever since. On January 26, 1934, he concluded a non-aggression pact with her in which the two Governments agreed "to settle directly all questions of whatever sort which concern their mutual relations."


Thus on all sides he opposed to the enemy plans his determination to preserve peace and strove to protect Germany in this way. When however he saw that London and Paris were arming for attack, he was once more obliged to undertake fresh measures of defense. The enemy camp, as we have seen above, had been enormously extended through the alliance between France and Russia. In addition to this the two powers had secured a line of communication to the south of the Reich through Czechoslovakia having concluded a treaty with Russia which put her in the position of a bridge between east and west. Czechoslovakia, however, was in control of the high-lying country of Bohemia and Moravia, which Bismarck had called the citadel of Europe, and this citadel projected far into German territory. The threat to Germany thus assumed truly overpowering proportions.


The genius of Adolf Hitler found a way of meeting this danger. The conditions in German Austria, which under the terror of the Schuschnigg Government were tending towards civil war, offered him the opportunity of stepping in to save the situation, and to lead back into the Reich the sister nation to the south-east that had been sentenced by the victorious powers to lead the life of a hopelessly decaying "Free State". After he had thus established himself near the line of communication between France and Russia mentioned above, a process of dissolution set in in the mixed State of Czechoslovakia, which had been artificially put together from the most diverse national elements, until after the liberation of the Sudetenland and the secession of Slovakia, the Czechs themselves asked for the protection of the German Reich. With this the enemy's bridge came into Adolf Hitler's possession; and at the same time direct [11] connection was made possible with Italy, whose friendship had been secured some time previously.


While he was gaining this strategical success for the security of his country, Adolf Hitler was again endeavoring with great eagerness to reach a peaceable understanding with the Western Powers. In Munich directly after liberation of the Sudeten Germans, approved by Britain, France and Italy, he made an agreement with the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, the text of which was a follows:


    "We have had a further meeting to-day and have agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for the two countries and for Europe.


    We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.


    We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."


                September 30, 1938. Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain."



Two months later, on Hitler's instructions, the German Foreign Minister, von Ribbentrop, made the following agreement with France:


    "Herr Joachim von Ribbentrop, Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs,

          and M. Georges Bonnet, French Minister of Foreign Affairs,

          acting in the name and by order of their Governments, are, at their meeting in Paris, on December 6, 1938, agreed as follows:


    1. The German Government and the French Government fully share the conviction that peaceful and good-neighborly relations between Germany and France constitute one of the most essential elements for the consolidation of the situation in Europe and the maintenance of general peace. The two Governments will in consequence use all their efforts to ensure the development of the relations between their countries in this direction.


    [12] 2. The two Governments recognize that between the two countries there is no territorial question outstanding, and they solemnly recognize as final the frontiers between their countries as they now exist.


    3. The two Governments are resolved, while leaving unaffected their particular relations with other Powers, to remain in contact with regard to all questions concerning their two countries, and mutually to consult should the later evolution of those questions lead to international difficulties.


    In token whereof the representatives of the two Governments have signed the present Declaration, which comes into immediate effect.


    Done in two original Documents in the French and German language respectively, in Paris, December 6, 1938.


                Joachim von Ribbentrop,

                Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs


                Georges Bonnet,

                Minister for Foreign Affairs"


According to all calculations one should have been able to assume that the way was clear for collaborative reconstruction in which all leading powers would participate, and that the Fuehrer's endeavors to secure peace would at last meet with success. But the contrary was true. Scarcely had Chamberlain reached home when he called for rearmament on a considerable scale and laid plans for a new and tremendous encirclement of Germany. Britain now took over from France the leadership of this further encirclement of the Reich, in order to obtain a substitute for the lost Czechoslovakia many times its value. She opened negotiations with Russia, granted Poland a guarantee and also Rumania, Greece and Turkey. These were alarm signals of the greatest urgency.


Just at this time Adolf Hitler was occupied with the task of finally eliminating sources of friction with Poland. For this purpose he had made an uncommonly generous proposal by which the purely German Free City of Danzig would return to the Reich, and a narrow passage through the Polish Corridor, which since 1919 had torn asunder the north-eastern part of Germany to an unbearable extent, would provide communication with the separated area. This proposal, which moreover afforded Poland the prospect of a 25-year non-aggression pact and other advantages, was nevertheless rejected in Warsaw, because there it was believed, conscious as the authorities were of forming one of the principal members of the common [13] front set up by London against Germany, that any concession, however minor, could be refused. This was not all! With the same consciousness Poland then started to be aggressive, threatened Danzig, and prepared to take up arms against Germany.


Thus the moment was close at hand for the attack on the Reich by the countries which had been brought together for the purpose. Adolf Hitler, making a final extreme effort in the interests of peace, saved what he could. On August 23rd, Ribbentrop succeeded in reaching an agreement in Moscow for a non-aggression pact with Russia. Two days later the German Fuehrer himself made a final and truly remarkable offer to Britain, declaring himself ready "to enter into agreements with Great Britain", "which... would not only, on the German side, in any case safeguard the existence of the British Empire, but if necessary would guarantee German assistance for the British Empire, irrespective of where such assistance might be required". At the same time he was prepared "to accept a reasonable limitation of armaments, in accordance with the new political situation and economic requirements". And finally he assured once again that he had no interest in the issues in the west and that "a correction of the borders in the west are out of any consideration."


The reply to this was a pact of assistance signed the same day between Britain and Poland, which rendered the outbreak of war inevitable. Then a decision was made in Warsaw to mobilize at once against Germany, and the Poles began with violent attacks not only on the Germans in Poland, who for some time had been the victims of frightful massacres, but on Germans in German territory.


But even when Britain and France had already declared the war they desired, and Germany had overcome the Polish danger in the east by a glorious campaign without a parallel, even then Adolf Hitler raised his voice once more in the name of peace. He did so although his hands were now free to act against the enemy in the west. He did so, although the fight against him personally was proclaimed in London and Paris, in immeasurable hate, as a crusade. At this moment he possessed the supreme self-control to proclaim in his speech of October 6, 1939, a new plan for the pacification of Europe to public opinion throughout the world. This plan was as follows:


    "By far the most important task, in my opinion, is the creation of not only a belief in, but also a sense of, European security.


    [14] 1. For this it is necessary that the aims of the foreign policy of each European State should be made perfectly clear. As far as Germany is concerned, the Reich Government is ready to give a thorough and exhaustive exposition of the aims of its foreign policy. In so doing, it begins by stating that the Treaty of Versailles is now regarded by it as obsolete, in other words, that the Government of the German Reich and with it the whole German people no longer see cause or reason for any further revision of the Treaty, apart from the demand for adequate colonial possessions justly due to the Reich, involving in the first place a return of the German colonies. This demand for colonies is based not only on Germany's historical claim to her colonies, but above all on her elementary right to a share of the world's resources of raw materials. This demand does not take the form of an ultimatum, nor is it a demand which is backed by force, but a demand based on political justice and sane economic principles.


    2. The demand for a real revival of international economic life coupled with an extension of trade and commerce presupposes a reorganization of the international economic system, in other words, of production in the individual states. In order to facilitate the exchange of the goods thus produced, however, a new system of markets must be found and a final settlement of currencies arrived at, so that the obstacles in the way of unrestricted trade can be gradually removed.


    3. The most important condition, however, for a real revival of economic life in and outside of Europe is the establishment of an unconditionally guaranteed peace and of a sense of security on the part of the individual nations. This security will not only be rendered possible by the final sanctioning of the European status, but above all by the reduction of armaments to a reasonable and economically tolerable level. An essential part of this necessary sense of security, however, is a clear definition of the legitimate use and application of certain modern armaments which can at any given moment strike straight at the heart of every nation and hence create a permanent sense of insecurity. In my previous speeches in the Reichstag I made proposals with this end in view. At that time they were rejected - presumably for the simple reason that they were made by me.


    I believe, however, that a sense of national security will not return to Europe until clear and binding international agreements [15] have provided a comprehensive definition of the extent to which the use of certain weapons is permitted or forbidden.


    The Geneva Convention once succeeded in prohibiting, in civilized countries at least, the killing of wounded, the ill-treatment of prisoners, war against non-combatants, etc., and just as it was possible gradually to achieve the universal observance of this statute, a way ought surely to be found to regulate aerial warfare, the use of poison gas, of submarines etc., and also so to define contraband that war will lose its terrible character of a conflict waged against women and children and against non-combatants in general. The growing horror of certain methods of modern warfare will of its own accord lead to their abolition, and thus they will become obsolete.


    In the war with Poland, I endeavored to restrict aerial warfare to objectives of military importance, or only to employ it to combat resistance at a given point. But it must surely be possible to emulate the Red Cross in drawing up some universally valid international regulation. It is only when this is achieved that peace can reign, particularly on our densely populated continent a peace which, un-contaminated by suspicion and fear, will provide the only possible condition for real economic prosperity. I do not believe that there is any responsible statesman in Europe who does not in his heart desire prosperity for his people. But such a desire can only be realized if all the nations inhabiting this continent decide to work together. To assist in ensuring this co-operation must be the aim of every man who is sincerely struggling for the future of his own people.


    To achieve this great end, the leading nations on this continent will one day have to come together in order to draw up, accept and guarantee a statute on a comprehensive basis which will ensure for them a sense of security, of calm, - in short, of peace.


    Such a conference could not possibly be held without the most thorough preparation, i. e. without exact elucidation of every point at issue. It is equally impossible that such a conference, which would determine the fate of this continent for many years to come, could carry on its deliberations while cannons are thundering, or mobilized armies bringing pressure to bear upon it. Since, however, these problems must be solved sooner or later, it would surely be more sensible to tackle the solution before millions of men are first uselessly sent to their death, and billions of dollars' worth of property destroyed.


    The continuation of the present state of affairs in the west is unthinkable. Each day will soon demand increasing sacrifices. Perhaps the day will come when France will begin to bombard and demolish Saarbrücken. The German artillery will in turn lay Mühlhausen in ruins. France will retaliate by bombarding Karlsruhe, and [16] Germany in her turn shell Strassburg. Then the French artillery will fire at Freiburg, and the Germans at Kolmar or Schlettstadt. Long-range artillery will then be set up, and from both sides destruction will strike deeper and deeper, and whatever cannot be reached by the long-range artillery will be destroyed from the air. And that will be very interesting for certain international journalists, and very profitable for the aeroplane, arms, and munition manufacturers, etc., but appalling for the victims. And this battle of destruction will not be confined to the land. No, it will reach far out over the sea. To-day there are no longer any islands.


    And the national wealth of Europe will be scattered in the form of shells, and the vigor of every nation will be sapped on the battlefields. One day, however, there will again be a frontier between Germany and France, but instead of flourishing towns there will be ruins and endless graveyards."


The fate of this plan was the same as that of all the previous appeals made by Adolf Hitler in the name of reason, in the interests of a true renascence of Europe. His enemies paid him no heed. On this occasion also no response was forthcoming from them. They rigidly adhered to the attitude which they had taken up in the beginning.


In the face of this series of historical facts is there any need for further details as to the question of why they did so? They had created Versailles, and when Versailles threatened to collapse they wanted the war, in order to follow it with an even worse Versailles. The reproaches which they make today to Adolf Hitler and Germany, recoil one and all on those who make them, and characterize their actions. They are the disturbers of peace, they are the ones who meditate the forcible oppression of other peoples and seek to plunge Europe in devastation and disaster. If if were not so, they would long ago have taken the hand that was stretched out to them or at least have made a gesture of honestly wishing to cooperate in a new order, and thus spare the nations "blood, tears and sweat" in excess.


World history is the world court; and in this case as always when it reaches its decision it will pronounce a just verdict.


Dr. Friedrich Stieve


Published in 1940 by the Washington Journal under the auspices of the Deutsche Informationsstelle.This digitalized version © 2009 by The Scriptorium.