Sunday, 25 September 2016


 My wife's lucky charm swastika

 Alain Soral présente : "Mémoires d'un magicien", de Hjalmar Schacht
Kontre Kulture

Select quotes from the Hitler-Bormann documents (1945):
"In them (Asians), the White races have imposed their will by force, and the influence they have had on the native inhabitants has been negligible; the Hindus have remained Hindus, the Chinese have remained Chinese, and the Muslims are still Muslims. There have been no profound transformations, and such changes as have occurred are less marked in the religious field, notwithstanding the tremendous efforts of the Christian missionaries, than in any other.
There have been a few odd conversions the sincerity of which are open to considerable doubt-except, perhaps in the case of a few simpletons and mentally deficients. The White races did, of course, give some things to the natives, and they were the worst gifts that they could possibly have made, those plagues of our own modern world-materialism, fanaticism, alcoholism and syphilis. For the rest, since these peoples possessed qualities of their own which were superior to anything we could offer them, they have remained essentially unchanged."
  "Colonization is not an activity which Germans feel called upon to pursue, Germany should never make common cause with the colonizing nations and should always abstain from supporting them in their colonial aspirations.
"Pride in one's own race - and that does not imply contempt for other races - is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them."
"I am sure that the Japanese, the Chinese and the peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France, in spite of the fact that we are related by blood."
"To tell the truth, I feel much more sympathetically inclined to the lowliest Hindu than to any of these arrogant islanders (Britain).
Leon Degrelle, Belgian SS General and confidante of Hitler, also supports the claims of Gabriel Diaz:

"German-racialism has been deliberately distorted. It never was anti-”other race” racialism. It was a pro-German racialism. It was concerned with making the German race strong and healthy in every way. Hitler was not interested in having millions of degenerates, if it was his power not to have them. Today one finds rampant alcohol and drug addiction everywhere. Hitler cared that the German families be healthy, cared that they raise healthy children for the renewal of a healthy nation. German racialism meant re-discovering the creative values of their own race, re-discovering their culture. It was a search for excellence, a noble ideal. National Socialist racialism was not against the other races, it was for its own race. It aimed at defending and improving its race, and wished that all other races did the same for themselves."

By Mike King
"Lord God, give us the strength that we may retain our liberty for our children and our children's children, not only for ourselves but also for the other peoples of Europe, for this is a war which we all wage, this time, not for our German people alone, it is a war for all of Europe and with it, in the long run, for all of mankind."
-Adolf Hitler, Jan. 30, 1942

In May 2014, a New York City cab driver caused quite a local media firestorm after some self-righteous "anti-Nazis" ratted him out for wearing a Swastika armband. The New York tabloids sparked a feeding frenzy which spilled over to TV News, and culminated with the Anti-Defamation League demanding that the driver be punished. He was indeed suspended for 30 days.
What made the story even more unusual was that the "Nazi", Gabriel Diaz, was a Black Hispanic. When confronted by an ignorant reporter at his home,  Diaz proudly stood his ground and stunned millions of TV viewers in the NY-NJ-CT area. Here are a few excerpts from the exchange:
CBS Reporter: You know what that (swastika) means, right?
Diaz: I know what it means. The media portrays it as a symbol of hate, but it's not to us, not to us.
CBS Reporter: Who is "us"?
Diaz: The believers of the ideology. National Socialists. We don't call it "Nazi". That's what you guys call it.
CBS Reporter: But you know what happened under National Socialism, right?
Diaz: I believe we have been told lies about Hitler our whole life.
CBS Reporter: Why do you wear it (the armband)?
Diaz: Because I'm a National Socialist.
CBS Reporter: What does that mean?
Diaz: I believe in the natural order of things....We believe in reason and nature.
CBS Reporter: You know, real National Socialists wouldn't have cared for you at all.
Diaz: I don't know what you mean by that.
CBS Reporter: They believed in Aryan supremacy. They exterminated people they didn't like.
Diaz:  Well...National Socialism doesn't teach you to have a hatred of others. It teaches you to have a love for your race...not be against others. Who ever said you had to be White to be a National Socialist? You don't have to be White. It could be anybody.!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/index_635_390/nazi-nyc-cabbie-taxi.jpg
No apologies, Diaz stood his ground.  video here  
 The tone of the news coverage was more comical than it was indignant. How funny that a Black Hispanic like Diaz should be a Hitler fan. Crazy fool! ... Or is he?
Although it is certainly true that Hitler extolled the greatness of his German people and the Aryan (Nordic) race in general, his love for his people never took the form of hatred for other races nor a desire to rule over them. To the contrary, Hitler came to believe that Europeans had done harm to other races and should refrain from dominating them!
Select quotes from the Hitler-Bormann documents (1945):
"In them (Asians), the White races have imposed their will by force, and the influence they have had on the native inhabitants has been negligible; the Hindus have remained Hindus, the Chinese have remained Chinese, and the Muslims are still Muslims. There have been no profound transformations, and such changes as have occurred are less marked in the religious field, notwithstanding the tremendous efforts of the Christian missionaries, than in any other.
There have been a few odd conversions the sincerity of which are open to considerable doubt-except, perhaps in the case of a few simpletons and mentally deficients. The White races did, of course, give some things to the natives, and they were the worst gifts that they could possibly have made, those plagues of our own modern world-materialism, fanaticism, alcoholism and syphilis. For the rest, since these peoples possessed qualities of their own which were superior to anything we could offer them, they have remained essentially unchanged."
  "Colonization is not an activity which Germans feel called upon to pursue, Germany should never make common cause with the colonizing nations and should always abstain from supporting them in their colonial aspirations.
"Pride in one's own race - and that does not imply contempt for other races - is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them."
"I am sure that the Japanese, the Chinese and the peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France, in spite of the fact that we are related by blood."
"To tell the truth, I feel much more sympathetically inclined to the lowliest Hindu than to any of these arrogant islanders (Britain).
Leon Degrelle, Belgian SS General and confidante of Hitler, also supports the claims of Gabriel Diaz:

"German-racialism has been deliberately distorted. It never was anti-”other race” racialism. It was a pro-German racialism. It was concerned with making the German race strong and healthy in every way. Hitler was not interested in having millions of degenerates, if it was his power not to have them. Today one finds rampant alcohol and drug addiction everywhere. Hitler cared that the German families be healthy, cared that they raise healthy children for the renewal of a healthy nation. German racialism meant re-discovering the creative values of their own race, re-discovering their culture. It was a search for excellence, a noble ideal. National Socialist racialism was not against the other races, it was for its own race. It aimed at defending and improving its race, and wished that all other races did the same for themselves."

Bormann (with Hitler in Image 1) and Degrelle (with Hitler in Image 3), both knew Hitler very well. Their works confirm that Hitler was NOT a racial bigot and respected all humanity. The same cannot be said for the imperialist British & French.

Further testimony in support of the racial tolerance of Hitler comes to us from the Black American hero of the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin, Jesse Owens. In refuting the big lie that Hitler "snubbed" him by storming out of the stadium after Owens' victories, Owens took the propaganda press to the woodshed:

"Hitler had a certain time to come to the stadium and a certain time to leave. It happened he had to leave before the victory ceremony after the 100 meters. But before he left I was on my way to a broadcast and passed near his box. He waved at me and I waved back. I think it was bad taste to criticize the 'man of the hour' in another country."

Many years later, Owens wrote: "Hitler didn't snub me – it was our president (FDR) who snubbed me."

Indeed, the German crowds went wild for Owens, and the 1938 German film commemorating the Olympics (Olympia) featured Owens accomplishment. 

Finally, in 2009, an aging German sportswriter named Siegfried Mischner came clean and revealed that Hitler not only had his picture taken with Owens, but that Owens carried the cherished photo around in his wallet and wanted the press to publish it. From the UK Daily Mail (August, 2009 / (here):

"Mischner claimed Owens showed him the photograph and told him: 'That was one of my most beautiful moments.'
Mischner said: 'It was taken behind the honor stand and so not captured by the world's press. But I saw it, I saw him shaking Hitler's hand. '

'The predominating opinion in post-war Germany was that Hitler had ignored Owens. We therefore decided not to report on the photo. The consensus was that Hitler had to continue to be painted in a bad light in relation to Owens.'  

Mischner, who went on to write a book about the 1936 Olympics, said other journalists were with him on the day that Owens produced the photo and they too did not report on it.",_Sommerolympiade,_Siegerehrung_Weitsprung.jpg
Image 1 & 2: Long-Jump Gold-medalist Owens and German Silver-medalist Luz Long became good friends and pen pals. Their exchange of letters ended in 1943 after Long was killed in the North African theater of World War II.
Image 3: *Artistic Rendition: According to witnesses, Owens carried a photo of he and Hitler shaking hands. Owens evidently knew that it would be best for him to keep the photo a secret. 
1936       1960's
Owens honorably carried out Luz Long's wish to maintain friendship with his family if he were to perish in the war, and he was indeed killed in 1943. In the image above, a much older Owens and Long's grown-up son re-enact the photo from 1936.

The most compelling evidence of all that Hitler's Germany was not a "White Supremacist" bigoted nation is the multi-racial foreign composition of the German Waffen SS, in German uniforms. Have a look:

Africans, Indians, Muslims all fought voluntarily and honorably in the Waffen SS under German command.

So you see, Gabriel Diaz was right. "National Socialism" truly is a liberating and natural ideal that is fit and healthy for all races. And Diaz is not the only non-White who has come to understand this.

Black St. Louis, MO pastor Ray Hagins pulls no punches when defending Hitler:

"How can the world have been so misled. ......Now I'm gonna drop something on you all that a lot of people ain't gonna like when they hear what I'm about to say. But there is a man who these people convinced us was a mad man. .....These people that I'm talkin' about told us that this man was a Satanic agent - he was a mass murderer.
These illegitimate people called Jews convinced the world that a man named Adolf Hitler was a mad man. And we all grew up understanding that Hitler was a tyrant, that he was a mad man. But I'm gonna be honest with you. After doing some research on this, I found out that it was these liars, and deceivers that Adolf Hitler was trying to cleanse the world of."
Hitler adopted one of the oldest symbols of God-consciousness. It's called the swastika. We have to hate the swastike because we have been taught by these people (Jews)."  video here
Black Hispanic and Black American Hitler fans also have some counterparts among Asians, particularly in Thailand where Hitler-Mania is totally in fashion these days. On April 20th, 2015 (Hitler's Birthday), Thai Royal Prince ML Rungguna Kitiyakara posted the following comments on his Facebook page:

ML Rungguna Kitiyakara is not amused by the Jew's stupid gas chamber hoax.

"So why is Hitler considered to be evil? Because he found a way to free the people from being slaves to the Jews? Because he found a way to create a better world, free from Zionists?
As that is what he did.
He was a People’s man. He was the Father of Germany. His people loved him, and he loved his people.
Heil Hitler… Happy Birthday to you!
Hitler was a true genius and a patriot. Everything in Germany became better because of him.
History is written by the victors, by the Allied forces. The Zionists and the Jewish bankers don’t want the truth to come out. They destroyed Hitler and Germany. Hitler has been imputed as the bad guy for the so-called Holocaust, which actually did not occur. It was propaganda to establish sympathy to expel and kill Palestinians from their homeland so the Jews would have their own state."
The Big H has always had a huge fan base throughout the Arab and Muslim world as well:

German officials and Hitler meet with Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini, Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in British Palestine.

Not so sweet treat: A street-seller stands with his boxes of Hitler cones. Hitler's name and image are splashed across the boxes of ice cream cones, which are readily-available across India Macabre: A box of Hitler ice cream cones. German newspaper Bild has labelled the snacks a 'macabre publicity stunt', while Twitter users brand it 'tasteless!'
Hitler Ice-Cream in India

1 & 2 - Hitler Cafe in Indonesia
2- Malaysian politician congratulates Hitler after Germany's 2014 World Cup (Soccer) victory over Brazil
Hitler Fried Chicken & Hitler-themed McDonald's in Thailand  (use the right arm, sweetie)
Young Thais, including many intellectuals and government officials,  understand that you don't have to be White to appreciate the greatness of the Great One and his system.;0xw,0.20701754385964913xh&resize=2000:*&output-format=image/jpeg&output-quality=90
Hitler makes appearance in a Thai School video aimed at instilling good morals. This isn't the first time that the name "Hitler" has sparked anger in India....
India: Clothing Store  / Cafe / Comic Books
South Africa: Student Body President Mcebo Dlamini posted on his Facebook page: "I Love Hitler". Dlamini was then forced to step down.
The falsely-accused Michael Jackson (who usually wore Black & Red colors and an armband) was a closeted admirer of Adolf Hitler (here)

Perhaps the ultimate proof that Hitler was not the raving, ranting 'racist' bigot that he is portrayed as lies in the fact that 150,000 1/2 Jewish & 1/4 Jewish soldiers proudly fought for Germany in World War II. True story! 


1- Hitler's Jewish soldiers were not swayed by the propaganda of the West's Marxist Jews
2- Jewish Dr. Eduard Bloch had treated Hitler's dying mother and, until his dying day, spoke highly of the then 18-year old Hitler.  After coming to power 25 years later, Fuhrer Hitler still remembered the kindly physician and granted favors to him.

Adolf Hitler was great because Adolf Hitler was good. He was a man for all ages and his noble philosophy is for all races. Hitler's legacy should serve to unite the diverse peoples of the world in the common cause of liberation from the murderous predatory gangsters who work ceaselessly to torture and enslave the peoples of this planet. His great name will be restored one day, but, like Jesus, only after many years of being dragged through the Marxist mud.
How deliciously ironic it is that so many non-Whites seem to be more enthused about Hitler these days than the dumbed-down Whites of the brainwashed West. Perhaps they will be the spark that serves to finally wake the dying West up to the cultural and physical genocide that is rapidly being prepared for the oblivious White Man.

Hitler's 1942 prayer may not have been answered then, but to the Eternal Cosmic Intelligence, the answering of prayers has no time-table. If and when the whole world comes to understand what World War II was really all about; it will be "lights out" for the Satanic scum of The New World Order!

With that hope in mind, let's us close as we began; with Hitler's sincere prayer for ALL humanity - a prayer that is as relevant today as it was then:
"Lord God, give us the strength that we may retain our liberty for our children and our children's children, not only for ourselves but also for the other peoples of Europe, for this is a war which we all wage, this time, not for our German people alone, it is a war for all of Europe and with it, in the long run, for all of mankind."
Amen Chief. A-flippin-men!
Do your part! Share this powerful piece via Social Media and Internet postings on a regular basis.
You have been LIED to about Hitler and World War II. Read 'The Bad War' and learn the shocking truth that 'they' don't want you to know about.

Amazon Paperback / Price just reduced by Amazon!
Click on Cover 

from Crytalinks Website




The symbol of the 4-sided swastika is an archetype for the rotations of time and consciousness - moving clockwise and counterwise - in upward or downward spirals - allowing souls to experience many levels of reality simultaneously.





The word Swastika comes from the Sanskrit words su, meaning well, and asti, meaning to be.

The swastika is an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles either clockwise or anticlockwise. It is traditionally oriented so that a main line is horizontal, though it is occasionally rotated at forty-five degrees, and the Hindu version often has a dot in each quadrant.

The swastika has not always been used as a symbol of Nazism and was in fact borrowed from Eastern cultures. It seems to have first been used by early inhabitants of Eurasia. It is an important symbol in Eastern religions, notably Hinduism and Buddhism, among others, and was also used in Native American faiths before World War II.


By the early twentieth century it was regarded worldwide as a symbol of good luck and auspiciousness. Swastikas appeared on the spines of books by the Anglo-Indian writer Rudyard Kipling, and the symbol was used by Robert Baden-Powell's Boy Scout movement.

Since the rise of the National Socialist German Workers Party, the swastika has been associated with fascism, racism, World War II, and the Holocaust in much of the western world. Before this, it was particularly well-recognized in Europe from the archaeological work of Heinrich Schliemann, who discovered the symbol in the site of ancient Troy and who associated it with the ancient migrations of Indo-European (Aryan) peoples.


Nazi use derived from earlier German völkisch nationalist movements, for which the swastika was a symbol of "Aryan" identity, a concept that came to be equated by theorists like Alfred Rosenberg with a Nordic master race originating in northern Europe. The swastika remains a core symbol of Neo-Nazi groups.

Since the end of World War II, the traditional uses of swastika in the western world were discouraged. Many innocent people or products were wrongly persecuted.


There have been failed attempts by individuals and groups to educate Westerners to look past the swastika's recent association with the Nazis to its prehistoric origins.



Etymology and alternative names

The word swastika is derived from the Sanskrit svastika, meaning any lucky or auspicious object, and in particular a mark made on persons and things to denote good luck.


It is composed of su- (cognate with Greek ευ-), meaning "good, well" and asti a verbal abstract to the root as "to be"; svasti thus means "well-being".


The suffix -ka forms a diminutive, and svastika might thus be translated literally as "little thing associated with well-being", corresponding roughly to "lucky charm", or "thing that is auspicious". The word first appears in the Classical Sanskrit (in the Ramayana and Mahabharata epics).

Alternative historical English spellings of the Sanskrit word include suastika and svastica. Alternative names for the shape are:

  • Crooked cross
  • Cross cramponned - in heraldry, as each arm resembles a crampon or angle-iron
  • Cross gammadion - tetragammadion or just gammadion, as each arm resembles the Greek letter (gamma)
  • Fylfot - meaning "four feet", chiefly in heraldry and architecture
  • Sun wheel - German Sonnenrad - a name also used as a synonym for the sun cross
  • Tetraskelion - Greek "four legged", especially when composed of four conjoined legs
  • Thor's hammer - from its supposed association with Thor, the Norse god of thunder, but this may be a misappropriation of a name that properly belongs to a Y-shaped or T-shaped symbol. - The Swastika shape appears in an 8th century Icelandic grimoire where in it is named Þurs Hamar
  • Hooked cross - (Dutch: hakenkruis, Icelandic Hakakross, German: Hakenkreuz, Finnish: hakaristi, Norwegian: Hakekors, Italian: croce uncinata and Swedish: Hakkors)
  • Black Spider - to various peoples in middle and western Europe





The swastika appears in art and design from pre-history symbolizing, in various contexts: luck, the sun, Brahma, or the Hindu concept of samsara.


In antiquity, the swastika was used extensively by Hittites, Celts and Greeks, among others. It occurs in other Asian, European, African and Native American cultures ­ sometimes as a geometrical motif, sometimes as a religious symbol. Today, the swastika is a common symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, among others.

The ubiquity of the swastika has been explained by three main theories: independent development, cultural diffusion, and external event. The first theory is that the swastika's symmetry and simplicity led to its independent development everywhere, along the lines of Carl Jung's collective unconscious, or just as a very simple symbol.

Another explanation is suggested by Carl Sagan in his book Comet.


Sagan reproduces an ancient Chinese manuscript that shows comet tail varieties: most are variations on simple comet tails, but the last shows the comet nucleus with four bent arms extending from it, recalling a swastika. Sagan suggests that in antiquity a comet could have approached so close to Earth that the jets of gas streaming from it, bent by the comet's rotation, became visible, leading to the adoption of the swastika as a symbol across the world.

Theories of single origin as a sacred prehistorical symbol point to the Proto-Indo-Europeans, noting that the swastika was not adopted by Sumer in Mesopotamia, which was established no later than 3500 BC, and the Old Kingdom of Egypt, beginning in 2630 BC, arguing that these were already well-established and codified at the time of the symbol's diffusion. As an argument ex silentio, this point has little value as a positive proof.

The swastika symbol is prominent in Hinduism, which is considered the parent religion of Buddhism and Jainism, both dating from about the sixth century BC, and both borrowing the swastika from their parent. Buddhism in particular enjoyed great success, spreading eastward and taking hold in southeast Asia, China, Korea and Japan by the end of the first millennium.


The use of the swastika by the indigenous Bön faith of Tibet, as well as syncretic religions, such as Cao Dai of Vietnam and Falun Gong of China, is thought to be borrowed from Buddhism as well. Similarly, the existence of the swastika as a solar symbol among the Akan civilization of southwest Africa may have been the result of cultural transfer along the African slave routes around 1500 AD.

Regardless of origins, the swastika had generally positive connotations from early in human history, with the exceptions being most of Africa and South America.



Adoption of the swastika in the West

The discovery of the Indo-European language group in the 1800s led to a great effort by archaeologists to link the pre-history of European peoples to the ancient Aryans.


Following his discovery of objects bearing the swastika in the ruins of Troy, Heinrich Schliemann consulted two leading Sanskrit scholars of the day, Emile Burnouf and Max Müller.


Schliemann concluded that the swastika was a specifically Aryan symbol. This idea was taken up by many other writers, and the swastika quickly became popular in the West, appearing in many designs from the 1880s to the 1920s.

The positive meanings of the symbol were subverted in the early twentieth century when it was adopted as the emblem of the National Socialist German Workers Party.


This association occurred because Nazism stated that the historical Aryans were the modern Germans and then proposed that, because of this, the subjugation of the world by Germany was desirable, and even predestined.


The swastika was used as a convenient symbol to emphasize this mythical Aryan-German correspondence.


Since World War II, most Westerners see the swastika as solely a Nazi symbol, leading to incorrect assumptions about its pre-Nazi use and confusion about its current use in other cultures.



Geometry and Symbolism

A right-facing swastika may be described as "clockwise"...... or "counter-clockwise". A swastika composed of 17 squares in a 5x5 grid.

Geometrically, the swastika can be regarded as an irregular icosagon or 20-sided polygon. The arms are of varying width and are often rectilinear (but need not be). Only in modern use are the exact proportions considered important: for example, the proportions of the Nazi swastika were based on a 5x5 grid.

The swastika is chiral, with no reflectional symmetry, but both mirror-image forms have 90° rotational symmetry (that is, the symmetry of the cyclic group C4).



A right-facing swastika may be described as "clockwise"...



.. or "counter-clockwise"



A swastika composed of 17 squares in a 5x5 grid


The mirror-image forms are often described as:

  • left-facing and (as depicted above) right-facing
  • left-hand and right-hand
  • clockwise and counterclockwise

"Left-facing" and "right-facing" are used mostly consistently.


Looking at an upright swastika, the upper arm clearly faces towards the viewer's left (SM) or right (SP). The other two descriptions are ambiguous as it is unclear if they refer to the direction of the bend in each arm or to the implied rotation of the symbol. If the latter, the question as to whether the arms lead or trail remains. The terms are used inconsistently (sometimes even by the same writer) which is confusing and may obfuscate an important point, that the rotation of the swastika may have symbolic relevance.

The swastika is, after the simple equilateral cross (the "Greek cross"), the next most commonly found version of the cross.

Seen as a cross, the four lines emanating from the center point to the four cardinal directions. The most common association is with the Sun.


Other proposed correspondences are to the visible rotation of the night sky in the Northern Hemisphere around Polaris.




The name sauwastika is sometimes given for the supposedly "evil", left-facing, form of the swastika (SM).


However, the evidence for sauwastika seems sketchy and there seems to be very little other than conjecture to support the notion that the left-facing swastika is regarded as evil in Hindu tradition. Although the more common form is the right-facing swastika, Hindus all over India and Nepal still use the symbol in both orientations for the sake of balance.


Buddhists almost always use the left-facing swastika.

Some contemporary writers - Servando Gonzalez, for example - confuse matters even further by asserting that the right-facing swastika, used by the Nazis is in fact the "evil" sauwastika. (Gonzalez "proves" that the left-facing swastika is the sunwise one with reference to a 1930s box of Standard fireworks from Sivakasi, India.) This inversion ­ whether intentional or not ­ might derive from a desire to prove that the Nazi's use of the right-handed swastika was expressive of their "evil" intent.


But the notion that Adolph Hitler deliberately inverted the "good left-facing" swastika is wholly unsupported by any historical evidence.



Art and Architecture

The swastika is common as a design motif in current Hindu architecture and Indian artwork as well as in ancient Western architecture, frequently appearing in mosaics, friezes, and other works across the ancient world.


Ancient Greek architectural designs are replete with interlinking swastika motifs. Related symbols in classical Western architecture include the cross, the three-legged triskele or triskelion and the rounded lauburu.


The swastika symbol is also known in these contexts by a number of names, especially gammadion. Pictish rock carvings, adorning ancient Greek pottery, and on Norse weapons and implements.


It was scratched on cave walls in France seven thousand years ago.





In Chinese, Korean, and Japanese art, the swastika is often found as part of a repeating pattern.


One common pattern, called sayagata in Japanese, comprises left and right facing swastikas joined by lines. As the negative space between the lines has a distinctive shape, the sayagata pattern is sometimes called the "key fret" motif in English.

The swastika symbol was found extensively in the ruins of the ancient city of Troy.

In Greco-Roman art and architecture, and in Romanesque and Gothic art in the West, isolated swastikas are relatively rare, and the swastika is more commonly found as a repeated element in a border or tesselation. A design of interlocking swastikas is one of several tesselations on the floor of the cathedral of Amiens, France.


A border of linked swastikas was a common Roman architectural motif, and can be seen in more recent buildings as a neoclassical element. A swastika border is one form of meander, and the individual swastikas in such border are sometimes called Greek Keys.

The Laguna Bridge in Yuma, Arizona was built in 1905 by the U.S. Reclamation Department and is decorated with a row of swastikas.

The Canadian artist ManWoman has attempted to rehabilitate the "gentle swastika."



Religion and Mythology


The swastika is found all over Hindu temples, signs, altars, pictures and iconography in India and Nepal, where it remains very popular.

It is considered to be the second most sacred symbol in Hinduism, behind the Om symbol. In Hinduism, the two symbols represent the two forms of the creator god Brahma: clockwise it represents the evolution of the universe (Pravritti), anti-clockwise it represents the involution of the universe (Nivritti).

It is also seen as pointing in all four directions (North, East, South and West) and thus signifies stability and groundedness. Its use as a sun symbol can first be seen in its representation of Surya, the Hindu lord of the Sun.

The swastika is considered extremely holy and auspicious by all Hindus, and is regularly used to decorate all sorts of items to do with Hindu culture.

It is used in all Hindu yantras and religious designs. Throughout the subcontinent of India it can be seen on the sides of temples, written on religious scriptures, on gift items, and on letterhead.

The Hindu God Ganesh is closely associated with the symbol of the swastika.

Amongst the Hindus of Bengal, it is common to see the name "swastika" applied to a slightly different symbol, which has the same significance as the common swastika, and both symbols are used as auspicious signs. This symbol looks something like a stick figure of a human being.

"Swastika" is a common given name amongst Bengalis and a prominent literary magazine in Calcutta is called the Swastika.

In Buddhism, the swastika is oriented horizontally.
These two symbols are included, at least since the Liao dynasty, as part of the Chinese language, the symbolic sign for the character meaning "all", and "eternality" (lit. myriad) and as SP which is seldom used.

A swastika marks the beginning of many Buddhist scriptures.

The swastikas (in either orientation) appear on the chest of some statues of Gautama Buddha and is often incised on the soles of the feet of the Buddha in statuary.

Because of the association with the right facing swastika with Nazism, Buddhist swastikas after the mid 20th century are almost universally left-facing.

This form of the swastika is often found on Chinese food packaging to signify that the product is vegetarian and can be consumed by strict Buddhists. It is often sewn into the collars of Chinese children's clothing to protect them from evil spirits.

Additionally, the left-facing swastika is found on Japanese maps to indicate a temple.

The swastika used in Buddhist art and scripture is known in Japanese as a manji, and represents Dharma, universal harmony, and the balance of opposites. When facing left, it is the omote (front) manji, representing love and mercy.

Facing right, it represents strength and intelligence, and is called the ura (rear) manji. Balanced manji are often found at the beginning and end of Buddhist scriptures.

In Jainism, the swastika symbol is the only holy symbol.
Jainism does not use the Hindu om symbol at all and thus gives even more prominence to the swastika than Hinduism. It is a symbol of the seventh Jina (Saint), the Tirthankara Suparsva.
It is considered to be one of the 24 auspicious marks and the emblem of the seventh arhat of the present age. All Jain temples and holy books must contain the swastika and ceremonies typically begin and end with creating a swastika mark several times with rice around the altar.

The Abrahamic religions
The swastika was not widely utilized by followers of the Abrahamic religions.
Where it does exist, it is not portrayed as an explicitly religious symbol and is often purely decorative or, at most, a symbol of good luck. The floor of the synagogue at Ein Gedi, built during the Roman occupation of Judea, was decorated with a swastika.
Some Christian churches built in the Romanesque and Gothic eras are decorated with swastikas, carrying over earlier Roman designs. Swastikas are prominently displayed in a mosaic in the St. Sophia church of Kiev, Ukraine dating to the 12th century. They also appear as a repeating ornamental motif on a tomb in the Basilica of St. Ambrose in Milan.
The Muslim "Friday" mosque of Isfahan, Iran and the Taynal Mosque in Tripoli, Lebanon both have swastika motifs.

Other Asian Traditions




Falun Gong Emblem


Some sources indicate that the Chinese Empress Wu (684-704) of the Tang Dynasty decreed that the swastika would be used as an alternative symbol of the sun.


The Chinese character SP has developed into the modern one , pronounced f ng in Standard Mandarin, and has the main meaning of "square". As part of the Chinese script, the swastika has Unicode encodings U+534D SM (left-facing) and U+5350 SP (right-facing).

The left-facing Buddhist swastika also appears on the emblem of Falun Gong. This has generated considerable controversy, particularly in Germany, where the police have reportedly confiscated several banners featuring the emblem.


A court ruling subsequently allowed Falun Gong followers in Germany to continue the use of the emblem.



In Japan, the swastika is called manji (SM).


On Japanese town plans, a swastika (left-facing and horizontal) is commonly used to mark the location of a Buddhist temple. The right-facing manji is often referred as the gyaku manji ("reverse manji"), and can also be called kagi jokji, literally "hook cross." A PokEmon playing card sold in Japan had a manji graphic.


Because of its resemblance to the Nazi swastika (see below), the card was altered for Western translations, and eventually withdrawn in Japan following Western complaints.


Similarly, a manji symbol was incorporated as a level design in both the Japanese and U.S. versions of the 1986 The Legend of Zelda video game.


Native American Traditions

The swastika was a widely used Native American symbol. It has been found in excavations of Mississippian-era sites in the Ohio valley.


It was widely used by many southwestern tribes, most notably the Navajo. Among different tribes the swastika carried various meanings. To the Hopi it represented the wandering Hopi clans; to the Navajo it was one symbol for a whirling log (tsil no'oli'), a sacred image representing a legend that was used in healing rituals.


From The Book of the Hopi

by Frank Waters

The swastika symbol represents the path of the migrations of the Hopi clans.

The center of the cross represents Tuwanasavi or the Center of the Universe which lay in what is now the Hopi country in the southwestern part of the US. Tuwanasavi was not the geographic center of North America, but the magnetic or spiritual center formed by the junction of the North-South and the East-West axis along which the Twins sent their vibratory messages and controlled the rotation of the planet.

Three directions (pasos) for most of the clans were the same: the ice locked back door to the north, the Pacific Ocean to the west and the Atlantic Ocean to the east.

Only 7 clans-the Bear, Eagle, Sun, Kachina, Parrot, Flute and Coyote clans-migrated to South America to the southern paso at it's tip. The rest of some 40 clans, having started from somewhere in southern Mexico or Central America, regarded this as their southern paso, their migration thus forming a balanced symbol.

Upon arriving at each paso all the leading clans turned right before retracing their routes.


Pre-Christian European Traditions

The swastika, also known as the fylfot in northwestern Europe, appears on many pre-Christian artifacts, drawn both clockwise and counterclockwise, within a circle or in a swirling form.


The Greek goddess Athena was sometimes portrayed as wearing robes covered with swastikas.


The "Ogham stone" found in County Kerry, Ireland is inscribed with several swastikas dating to the fifth century AD, and is believed to have been an altar stone of the Druids. The pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon ship burial at Sutton Hoo, England, contains gold cups and shields bearing swastikas.


Today it is used as a symbol for Asatru, the reconstructed religion of Northern Europe.



Early 20th Century



The British author Rudyard Kipling, who was strongly influenced by Indian culture, had a swastika on the dust jackets of all his books until the rise of Nazism made this inappropriate.


One of Kipling's Just So Stories, "The Crab That Played With The Sea", had an elaborate full-page illustration by Kipling including a stone bearing what was called "a magic mark" (a swastika); some later editions of the stories blotted out the mark, but not its captioned reference, making the readers wonder what the "mark" was.

The Russian Provisional Government of 1917 printed a number of new bank notes with right-facing diagonally-rotated swastikars in their centres. Some have suggested that this may have been the inspiration behind the Nazis adoption of this symbol as Alfred Rosenberg was in Russia at this time.

It was also used as a symbol by the Boy Scouts in Britain, and worldwide. According to "Johnny" Walker,[14] the earliest Scouting use was on the first Thanks Badge introduced in 1911.

Robert Baden-Powell's 1922 Medal of Merit design adds a swastika to the Scout fleur-de-lis as good luck to the person receiving the medal. Like Kipling, he would have come across this symbol in India.

During 1934 many Scouters requested a change of design because of the use of the swastika by the Nazis. A new British Medal of Merit was issued in 1935.

The Lotta Svard emblem was designed by Eric Wasstrom in 1921. It includes the swastika and heraldic roses.

During World War I, the swastika was used as the emblem of the British National War Savings Committee.

In Finland the swastika was used as the official national marking of the Finnish Air Force and Army between 1918 and 1944. The swastika was also used by the Lotta Svard organization.





The blue swastika was the good luck symbol used by the Swedish Count Erich von Rosen, who donated the first plane to the Finnish White Army during the Civil War in Finland.


It has no connection to the Nazi use of the swastika. It also still appears in many Finnish medals and decorations. In the very respected wartime medals of honor it was a visible element, first drafted by Axel Gallen-Kallela 1918-1919.

Mannerheim cross with a swastika is the Finnish equivalent of Victoria Cross, Croix de Guerre and Congressional Medal of Honor. Due to Finland's alliance with Nazi Germany in World War II, the symbol was abandoned as a national marking, to be replaced by a roundel.

The Swedish company ASEA, now a part of Asea Brown Boveri, used the swastika in its logo from the 1800s to 1933, when it was removed from the logo.

In Latvia too, the swastika (known as Thunder Cross and Fire Cross) was used as the marking of the Latvian Air Force between 1918 and 1934, as well as in insignias of some military units. It was also used by the Latvian fascist movement Perkonkrusts (Thunder Cross in Latvian), as well as by other non-political organizations.

The Icelandic Steamship Company, Eimskip (founded in 1914) used a swastika in its logo until recently. In Dublin, Ireland, a laundry company known as the Swastika Laundry was in existence on the south side of the city.


Featuring a black swastika on a white background, the business started up in the early 20th century and continued up until recent times.


North America

The Theosophical Society, founded in New York in 1875, incorporated the Swastika into its seal because of the Buddhist associations of the symbol.

The swastika's use by the Navajo and other tribes made it a popular symbol for the American Southwest. Until the 1930s blankets, metalwork, and other Southwestern souvenirs were often made with swastikas.

One year in the first part of the 20th century, the Corn Palace in Mitchell, South Dakota featured a design that had a swastika on one of the towers.

Swastika is the name of a small community in northern Ontario, Canada, approximately 580 kilometers north of Toronto, and 5 kilometers west of Kirkland Lake, the town of which it is now part. The town of Swastika was founded in 1906. Gold was discovered nearby and the Swastika Mining Company was formed in 1908. The government of Ontario attempted to change the town's name during World War II, but the town resisted.

In Windsor, Nova Scotia, there was an ice hockey team from 1905-1916 named the Swastikas, and their uniforms featured swastika symbols. There were also hockey teams named the Swastikas in Edmonton, Alberta (circa 1916), and Fernie, British Columbia (circa 1922).

The 45th Infantry Division of the United States Army used a yellow swastika on a red background as a unit symbol until the 1930s, when it was switched to a thunderbird.

In 1925, Coca Cola made a lucky watch fob in the shape of a swastika with the slogan, "Drink Coca Cola five cents in bottles".

The Health, Physical Education and Recreation Building (HPER) at Indiana University contains decorative Native American-inspired reverse swastika tilework on the walls of the foyer and stairwells on the southeast side of the building. HPER was built as the university fieldhouse in the 1920's, before the Nazi party came to power in Germany. In recent years, the HPER swastika motif, along with the Thomas Hart Benton murals in nearby Woodburn Hall have been the cause of much controversy on campus.


Nazi Germany

The National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP) formally adopted the swastika or Hakenkreuz (hooked cross) in 1920. This was used on the party's flag (right), badge, and armband.


(It had been used unofficially by the NSDAP and its predecessor, the German Workers Party, Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP), however.)





In Mein Kampf, Adolph Hitler wrote:

I myself, meanwhile, after innumerable attempts, had laid down a final form; a flag with a red background, a white disk, and a black swastika in the middle. After long trials I also found a definite proportion between the size of the flag and the size of the white disk, as well as the shape and thickness of the swastika.

Red, white, and black were the colors of the flag of the old German Empire.

The use of the swastika was associated by Nazi theorists with their conjecture of Aryan cultural descent of the German people. Following the Nordicist version of the Aryan invasion theory, the Nazis claimed that the early Aryans of India, from whose Vedic tradition the swastika sprang, were the prototypical white invaders. Thus, they saw fit to co-opt the sign as a symbol of the Aryan master race.

The use of swastika as a symbol of the Aryan race dates back to writings of Emile Burnouf. Following many other writers, the German nationalist poet Guido von List believed it to be a uniquely Aryan symbol. Hitler referred to the swastika as the symbol of "the fight for the victory of Aryan man" - Mein Kampf.

The swastika was already in use as a symbol of German volkisch nationalist movements. In Deutschland Erwache - Ulric of England writes:

...what inspired Hitler to use the swastika as a symbol for the NSDAP was its use by the Thule-Gesellschaft since there were many connections between them and the DAP... from 1919 until the summer of 1921 Hitler used the special Nationalsozialistische library of Dr. Friedich Krohn, a very active member of the Thule-Gesellschaft.
Dr. Krohn was also the dentist from Sternberg who was named by Hitler in Mein Kampf as the designer of a flag very similar to one that Hitler designed in 1920 Š during the summer of 1920, the first party flag was shown at Lake Tegernsee ... these home-made early flags were not preserved, the Ortsgruppe München flag was generally regarded as the first flag of the Party.

José Manuel Erbez wrote:

The first time the swastika was used with an "Aryan" meaning was on December 25, 1907, when the self-named Order of the New Templars, a secret society founded by [Adolf Joseph] Lanz von Liebenfels, hoisted at Werfenstein Castle (Austria) a yellow flag with a swastika and four fleurs-de-lys.

However, Liebenfels was drawing on an already-established use of the symbol.

NSDAP flags at the 1936 Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg. On 14 March 1933, shortly after Hitler's appointment as Chancellor of Germany, the NSDAP flag was hoisted alongside Germany's national colors. It was adopted as the sole national flag on 15 September 1935.

The swastika was used for badges and flags throughout Nazi Germany, particularly for government and military organizations, but also for "popular" organizations such as the Reichsbund Deutsche Jagerschaft.

Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg. On 14 March 1933, shortly after Hitler's appointment as Chancellor of Germany, the NSDAP flag was hoisted alongside Germany's national colors. It was adopted as the sole national flag on 15 September 1935.


The swastika was used for badges and flags throughout Nazi Germany, particularly for government and military organizations, but also for "popular" organizations such as the Reichsbund Deutsche Jägerschaft.



The Iron Cross featured a swastika during the Nazi period


The Iron Cross featured a swastika during the Nazi period - while the DAP and the NSDAP had used both right-facing and left-facing swastikas, the right-facing swastika is used consistently from 1920 onwards.


However, Ralf Stelter notes that the swastika flag used on land had a right-facing swastika on both sides, while the ensign (naval flag) had it printed through so that you would see a left-facing swastika when looking at the ensign with the flagpole to the right.

There were attempts to amalgamate Nazi and Hindu use of the swastika. Notably by Savitri Devi Mukherji who declared Hitler an avatar of Vishnu.


Taboo in Western Countries

Because of its use by Hitler and the Nazis and, in modern times, by neo-Nazis and other hate groups, for many people in the West, the swastika is associated primarily with Nazism, fascism, and white supremacy in general. Hence, outside historical contexts, it has become taboo in Western countries.


For example, the German postwar criminal code makes the public showing of the Hakenkreuz (the swastika) and other Nazi symbols illegal and punishable, except for scholarly reasons.

The powerful symbolism acquired by the swastika has often been used in graphic design and propaganda as a means of drawing Nazi comparisons; examples include the cover of Stuart Eizenstat's 2003 book Imperfect Justice, publicity materials for Costa-Gavras's 2002 film Amen, and a billboard that was erected opposite the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, Cuba, in 2004, which juxtaposed images of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse pictures with a swastika.

Founded in the 1970s, the Raelian Movement, a religious sect believing in the possibility of immortality by scientific progress, used a symbol that was the source of considerable controversy: an interlaced Star of David and swastika. In 1991, the symbol was changed to remove the swastika and deflect public criticism.


The Society for Creative Anachronism, which aims to study and recreate Medieval and Renaissance history, imposes restrictions on its members' use of the swastika on their arms, although some arms dating to the early days of the group have the symbol.



Raelian Symbol


The Raëlian symbol, before 1991 and after recent years, controversy has erupted when consumer goods bearing the symbol have been exported (often unintentionally) to North America.


In 2002, Christmas crackers containing plastic toy pandas sporting swastikas were pulled from shelves after complaints from consumers in Canada, although the China-based manufacturer claimed the symbol was presented in a traditional sense and not as a reference to the Nazis.

In 1995, the City of Glendale, California scrambled to cover up over 900 cast iron lampposts decorated with swastikas throughout the downtown portion of the city; the lampposts had been manufactured by an American company in the early 1920s, and had nothing to do with Nazism.

In 2004, Microsoft released a "critical update" to remove two swastikas and a Star of David from the font Bookshelf Symbol 7. The font had been bundled with Microsoft Office 2003.

Punk rockers like Siouxsie Sioux, Sid Vicious and John Lydon used, and were photographed using, the Nazi version of the swastika for its shock value, notwithstanding that Malcolm McLaren, the Sex Pistols' manager, was half-Jewish.

The previously successful career of the British band Kula Shaker virtually collapsed in the 1990s after the band's frontman, Crispian Mills, son of actress Hayley Mills, expressed his desire to use Swastikas as part of the imagery of their live show; because of this, and additional remarks he made, he was widely accused of holding Nazi sympathies.

However, the band was musically influenced by Indian styles, and Mills asserted that his attraction to the swastika was part of an attempt to reclaim the Indian usage of the symbol in the West.

In January 2005 there was much criticism when Prince Harry of Wales, third in line of succession to the British throne, was photographed wearing what appeared to be intended as an Afrika Korps uniform, plus a Nazi swastika armband, to a fancy dress party.


The Swastika Stone
The stone overlooks the valley of the River Wharfe, and is identical to some of the 'Camunnian Rose' designs in Val Camonica, Italy - nine cup-marks in a cross shape, surrounded by a curved swastika-shaped groove.
The Ilkley carving also has an 'appendage' off the east arm - a cup surrounded by a curved hook-shaped groove. It is unique on the moor (which is covered in hundreds of cup-and-ring type carvings) although there is an unfinished swastika design (more angular, without cups) on the nearby Badger Stone.

One of the lines of cups on the Swastika Stone is less than a degree off magnetic north-south.
One naturally looks north from the stone, as it is on a rocky outcrop on the north side of the moor.
  • Was it associated with the Pole Star with which its cups align?
  • Why then does its shape describe a clockwise motion, whereas the stars turn anti-clockwise around the pole?
Iron Age Rock Carving
The stone is found in the moors near Ilkley in West Yorkshire.



Perhaps the design relates to the shamanic practice of ascent up the 'Pillar of the World' (to use the Lapp term).


Numerous Siberian and northern European peoples documented by Mircea Eliade see the Pole Star as the summit of a pole holding up the sky (seen as a tent).


Eliade notes similar beliefs about the Pole Star in Ancient Saxon, Scandinavian and Romanian myths. If, then, one imagines the Swastika design to be the base of a Pillar of the World, the implicit motion of the design makes sense. Something that appears to turn anti-clockwise when looking up from the bottom of a pole will, if it slides down the pole and is viewed from above, appear to turn clockwise.

The Swastika Stone may map the turning sky down onto the ground, forming the bond between 'levels' that is so central to shamanic cosmology.

Also, the 'appendage' cup, in relation to the central cup, would have only been a couple of degrees off the summer solstice sunrise during the period 2000BCE - 100CE (covering most of the likely times at which the glyph was carved. The 'hook' groove, if imagined to turn with the swastika, would 'haul' the cup-sun across the sky. This seems to strengthen the swastika-sky connection.

(I should note that I do not support the idea that cup-and-ring patterns are maps of stellar constellations. Perhaps some involved rudimentary attempts at this, but no one has found accurate correspondences in any existing patterns. They seem to me to be more generally concerned with access points to alternate realities).

With the Pole Star/Pillar of the World ideas in mind, one could see some cup-and-ring markings as being related.


The 'tail' grooves could be the Pillar reaching up to the cup-pole, surrounded by rings of revolving stars. Some local cup-and-ring markings, like those on the Panorama Stone, have 'ladders' instead of 'tail' grooves.


This image further supports the shamanic interpretation of the petroglyphs, as ladders are among the most frequently occurring representations of shamanic ascent to other worlds. Human figures atop ladders appear in !Kung San rock art related to trance-state ascension.

Cup-and-ring style petroglyphs in the British Isles are usually dated to the Bronze Age (because some are included in, or in the proximity of, Bronze Age burials) or the Neolithic (because of comparable carvings on Irish passage graves from that period - see also Richard Bradley's recent work 'Signing the Land' for arguments dating this style of prehistoric art to the Neolithic).

The Swastika Stone is arguably associated with this style of rock art, due to its use of cup-marks, but I have recently come to see it as most likely originating in the Iron Age, or even during Roman occupation. This is because of Verbeia, a Romano-Celtic goddess revered by the Roman troops stationed in Ilkley (then Olicana).


Verbeia is often accepted as being a version of the Celtic spring/fire goddess Brigid, who is still associated with swastika-like symbols in Ireland. Also, the Roman cohort which set up her altar were recruited from the Lingones, a Gaulish Celtic tribe.

Apparently Romano-Celtic coins have been found in Gaul bearing swastika-like designs. It seems tempting to think that the Lingones cohort carved the Swastika Stone when they were here, but this would surely be unusual.


Or perhaps the recruited Celtic/Roman troops were influenced in their choice of 'genuis loci', Verbeia, by the native Celts of West Yorkshire, the Brigantes (whose name derives from the goddess Brigantia, related to Brigid), who may have already carved the stone.

The Swastika may map the turning sky down onto the ground, forming the bond between 'levels' that is so central to shamanic cosmology.

Spiritual Secrets in the Carbon Atom - The Swastika
Legend has it that the Vedic civilization was highly advanced.


The sages that oversaw its development, through their mystic insight and deep meditation, discovered the ancient symbols of spirituality - Aumkara and Swastika. They also discovered many scientific principles that they applied to develop a highly advanced technology.


They gave the atom its sanskrit name "Anu".



What the World Rejected Hitler’s Peace Offers, 1933-1939

Even many people who consider themselves well-informed about Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich are ignorant of the German leader’s numerous efforts for peace in Europe, including serious proposals for armaments reductions, and limits on weapons deployment, which were spurned by the leaders of France, Britain and other powers.
Hitler’s first major speech on foreign policy after taking office as Chancellor, delivered to the Reichstag on May 17, 1933, was a plea for peace, equal rights and mutual understanding among nations. So reasonable and persuasively argued was his appeal that it was endorsed even by representatives of the opposition Social Democratic Party. Two years later, in his Reichstag address of May 21, 1935, the German leader again stressed the need for peace on the basis of mutual respect and equal rights. Even the London Times regarded this speech as “reasonable, straightforward and comprehensive.”
Such appeals were not mere rhetoric. On March 31, 1936, for example, Hitler’s government announced a comprehensive plan for strengthening peace in Europe. The detailed paper included numerous specific proposals, including demilitarization of the entire Rhineland region, a western Europe security agreement, and categorical prohibition of incendiary bombs, poison gas, heavy tanks and heavy artillery.
Although this wide-ranging offer, and others like it, were rejected by leaders in London, Paris, Warsaw and Prague, Hitler’s initiatives were not entirely fruitless. In January 1934, for example, his government concluded a ten-year non-aggression pact with Poland. (Unfortunately, the spirit of this treaty was later broken by the men who took power in Warsaw after the death of Poland’s Marshal Pilsudski in 1935.) One of Hitler's most important foreign policy successes was a comprehensive naval agreement with Britain, signed in June 1935. (This agreement, incidentally, abrogated the Treaty of Versailles, thereby showing that neither London nor Berlin still regarded it as valid.)
For years Hitler sought an alliance with Britain, or least a cordial relationship based on mutual respect. In that effort, he took care not to offend British pride or sensibilities, or to make any proposal that might impair or threaten British interests. Hitler also worked for cordial relations with France, likewise taking care not to say or do anything that might offend French pride or infringe on French national interests. The sincerity of Hitler’s proposals to France, and the validity of his fear of possible French military aggression against Germany is underscored by the immense manpower and funding resources he devoted to construction of the vast Westwall (“Siegfried Line”) defensive fortifications on his nation’s western border.
Over the years, historians have tended either to ignore Hitler’s initiatives for reducing tensions and promoting peace, or to dismiss them as deceitful posturing. But if the responsible leaders in Britain and France during the 1930s had really regarded these proposals as bluff or insincere pretense, they could easily have exposed them as such by giving them serious consideration. Their unresponsive attitude suggests that they understood that Hitler’s proposals were sincere, but rejected them anyway because to accept them might jeopardize British-French political- military predominance in Europe.
In the following essay, a German scholar reviews proposals by Hitler and his government -- especially in the years before the outbreak of war in 1939 – to promote peace and equal rights in Europe, reduce tensions, and greatly limit production and deployment of armaments.
The author, Friedrich Stieve (1884-1966), was a German historian and diplomat. During the First World War he served as press attaché with the German embassy in Stockholm. He represented Germany’s democratic government as his nation’s ambassador in Latvia, 1928- 1932. He then moved to Berlin where he headed the cultural- political affairs bureau of the German Foreign Office, 1932- 1939. He held a doctorate from the University of Heidelberg, and was a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. Books by Stieve include Geschichte des deutschen Volkes (1939), Wendepunkte europäischer Geschichte vom Dreißigjährigen Krieg bis zur Gegenwart (1941), and a collection of poems.
Here, below, is a translation of the lengthy essay by Dr. Stieve, Was die Welt nicht wollte: Hitlers Friedensangebote 1933-1939, issued by the “German Information Center” and published as a 16-page booklet in Berlin in 1940. Along with editions that were soon issued in French and Spanish, an English-language edition was published as a booklet, apparently in 1940, by the Washington Journal of Washington, DC.
Hitler did not want war in 1939 – and certainly not a general or global conflict. He earnestly sought a peaceful resolution of the dispute with Poland over the status of the ethnically German city-state of Danzig and the “Corridor” region, which was the immediate cause of conflict. The sincerity of his desire for peace in 1939, and his fear of another world war, has been affirmed by a number of scholars, including the eminent British historian A. J. P. Taylor. It was, of course, the declarations of war against Germany by Britain and France on Sept. 3, 1939, made with secret encouragement by US President Roosevelt, that transformed the limited German-Polish clash into a larger, continent- wide war.
To justify its declaration of war, Britain protested that Germany had violated Polish sovereignty, and threatened Poland’s independence. The emptiness and insincerity of these stated reasons is shown by the fact that the British leaders did not declare war against Soviet Russia two weeks later when Soviet forces attacked the Polish Republic from the East. Britain’s betrayal of Poland, and the hypocrisy of its claimed reasons for going to war against Germany in 1939, became even more obvious in 1944-45 when Britain’s leaders permitted the complete Soviet takeover and subjugation of Poland.
Germany’s six-week military campaign of May-June 1940 ended with a stunning victory over numerically superior French and British forces, and the rout of British troops from the European mainland. In the aftermath of this historic triumph, Hitler and his government made yet another important effort to end the war. (Because it was made in 1940, after Dr. Stieve’s essay was written and published, it is not included in the text, below.)
In a speech delivered to the Reichstag on July 19, 1940, which was broadcast on radio stations around the world, the German leader said:
“... From London I now hear a cry – it’s not the cry of the mass of people, but rather of politicians – that the war must now, all the more, be continued ... Believe me, my deputies, I feel an inner disgust at this kind of unscrupulous parliamentarian destroyers of peoples and countries ... It never has been my intention to wage wars, but rather to build a new social state of the highest cultural level. Every year of this war keeps me from this work ... Mr. Churchill has now once again declared that he wants war ... I am fully aware that with our response, which one day will come, will also come nameless suffering and misfortune for many people ...
“... In this hour I feel compelled, standing before my conscience, to direct yet another appeal to reason in England. I believe I can do this as I am not pleading for something as the vanquished, but rather, as the victor speaking in the name of reason. I see no compelling reason for this war to continue. I am grieved to think of the sacrifices it will claim ... Possibly Mr. Churchill again will brush aside this statement of mine by saying that it is merely an expression of fear and of doubt in our final victory. In that case I shall have relieved my conscience in regard to the things to come.”
Following up on this appeal, German officials reached out to Britain through diplomatic channels. But Winston Churchill and his government rejected this initiative, and instead insisted on continuing the war. – with, of course, horrific consequences for Europe and the world.
-- Mark Weber, June 2013

What the World Rejected
Hitler’s Peace Offers, 1933-1939
By Friedrich Stieve

Germany's enemies maintain today 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 bring misery and devastation everywhere. 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 by 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 join with him in a collaborative restoration of Europe are part of an ever-recurring pattern in his conduct since the commencement of his labors for the German Reich. But these attempts were wrecked every time due to the fact that nowhere was there any willingness to give them due consideration, because the evil spirit of the [first] World 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 [the imposed] Versailles [settlement of 1919].
A quick look at the most important events provides incontrovertible proof of this.
When Adolf Hitler came to the fore, Germany was as gagged and as helpless as the victors of 1918 intended her to be. Completely disarmed, with an army of only 100,000 men meant solely for police duties within the country, she found herself within a tightly closed ring of neighbors all armed to the teeth and allied 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 was forcibly torn away from their mother country and handed over to foreign powers. The German Reich, mutilated on all sides and robbed of every means of defense, at any moment could become the helpless victim of a rapacious neighbor.
It was then 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 post of Reich Chancellor, he delivered a speech in the German Reichstag that included 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 also 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 ready at any time to renounce aggressive 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.
The other powers heedlessly 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 undergo 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 withdrew from the League of Nations, with which it was impossible to reach an understanding. 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 among 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.
4. All states recognize certain obligations in regard to conducting war on humane principles, or not to use certain weapons against the civilian population.
5. All states accept a uniform general supervision that will monitor 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 up on this, a proposal was made to increase the strength of the German army to 300,000 men, corresponding to the strength “required by Germany taking into account 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, which began with this and continued 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 even 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 wide-ranging agreements, the purpose of which as to ensure that any future war would be conducted on humane principles, in fact to make any such 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 principles 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 step-by-step abolition and outlawing of weapons and methods of warfare that are essentially contrary to the still-valid Geneva Red Cross Convention.
“Just as the use of dum-dum [expanding] bullets was once forbidden and, on the whole, thereby prevented in practice, so the use of other specific weapons can be forbidden and their use, in practice, can be eliminated. Here the German government has in mind all those armaments that 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 of doing away with airplanes while leaving open the question of bombing. But it believes it possible to ban the use of certain weapons as contrary to international law, and to ostracize those nations which still use them from the community of humankind, and from its rights and laws.
“It also believes that gradual progress is the best way to success. For example, there might be prohibition of the use of gas, incendiary and explosive bombs outside the actual battle zone. This limitation could then be extended to complete international outlawing of all bombing. But so long as bombing as such is permitted, any limitation of the number of aerial bombers is dubious in view of the possibility of rapid replacement.
“Should bombing as such be branded as barbaric and contrary to international law, the construction of aerial bombing planes will soon be abandoned as superfluous and pointless. If, through the Geneva Red Cross Convention, it proved possible to prevent the killing of defenseless wounded men or of prisoners, it ought to be equally possible, through an analogous convention, to forbid and ultimately to bring to an end the bombing of similarly 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 the pacts of assistance and military agreements.
“The German government is ready to agree to any limitation that leads to abolition of the heaviest arms, especially suited for aggression. Such weapons are, first, the heaviest artillery, and secondly, the heaviest tanks. In view of the enormous fortifications on the French frontier, such an international abolition of the heaviest weapons of attack would automatically give France nearly one hundred percent security.
“Germany declares herself ready to agree to any limitation whatsoever of the caliber-size of artillery, as well as 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 through an international agreement.
“And it gives further assurance that it will agree to any international limitations or abolition of arms whatsoever for a uniform period of time.”
Once again Hitler's declarations did not receive the slightest response.
On the contrary, France made an alliance with Russia in order to further increase her predominance on the continent, and to enormously increase the pressure on Germany from the East.
In view of the evident destructive intentions of his adversaries, Adolf Hitler was therefore obliged to take new measures for the security of the German Reich. On March 3, 1936, he occupied the Rhineland, which had been without military protection since [the] Versailles [settlement of 1919], and thus shut 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 generous 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 usefulness 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. 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 participating powers.
8. Germany, Belgium and France give the assurance that they will give 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-year 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 strengthen these security agreements.
14. The German government repeats that should the Netherlands so desire, it is willing to also include that country in this West European security agreement.
15. In order to give this peace-pact, voluntarily entered into between Germany and France, the character of a conciliatory agreement ending a centuries-old quarrel, 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 that might be calculated to poison relations between the two 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 before the two governments all complaints received, for information and investigation.
16. In keeping with their intention to give this agreement the character of a sacred pledge, Germany and France undertake to ratify it through a plebiscite of the two nations.
17. Germany expresses her willingness, on her part, to contact the states on her south-eastern and north-eastern frontiers, to invite them directly to the final formal signing of the proposed non-aggression pacts.
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 once again expresses as its expectation that, after a reasonable time and through friendly negotiations, the issue of colonial equality of rights, as well as the issue of the separation of the Covenant of the League of Nations from its foundation 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 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 conditions of the nations, but above all a lessening of 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 recommends future conferences, each of which shall have a single, clearly defined objective.
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 of prisoners, or the use of dum-dum 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 proposes that the practical tasks of these conferences shall be:
1. Prohibition of the use of gas, poison, or incendiary bombs.
2. Prohibition of the use of bombs of any kind whatsoever on towns or places outside the range of the medium-heavy artillery of the fighting fronts.
3. Prohibition of the bombardment with long-range guns of towns or places more than 20 kilometers 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 caliber.
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 in relations between the nations, and thereby in reestablishing confidence, which is a precondition for the development of 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 issues 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 of the world economic situation which is closely bound up with it.
The German government believes that with the peace plan proposed above it has made its contribution to the building of a new Europe on the basis of reciprocal respect and confidence between sovereign states. Various opportunities for such a pacification of Europe, for which Germany has so often in the last few years made 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 benefit of all nations. But once more he who alone called for peace was not heard. Only Britain replied with a rather scornful questionnaire that avoided any serious consideration of the essential points involved.
Incidentally, however, Britain revealed her actual intentions by setting herself up as the protector of France and by instituting and commencing regular general staff military consultations with the French Republic just as in the period before the [first] World War.
There could no longer be any doubt now that the western powers were following the old path toward an armed conflict, and were steadily preparing a new blow against Germany, even though Adolf Hitler's thoughts and endeavors were entirely directed towards proving to them that he wanted to remain on the best possible terms with them. Over the years he had undertaken numerous steps in this direction, of which a few more will be mentioned here. With Britain he negotiated the Naval Agreement of June 18, 1935, which provided that the German Navy could have a strength of 35 percent of that of the British Navy. By this he wanted to demonstrate that the German Reich, to use his own words, had “neither the intention, the means, nor the necessity” to enter into any rivalry as regards naval power, which, as is well known, had had such a fateful impact on its relations with Britain in the years before the [first] World War.
On every appropriate occasion he assured France of his desire to live at peace with her. He repeatedly renounced in plain terms any claim to [the region of] Alsace-Lorraine. On the occasion of the return to the German Reich of the Saar territory as a result of plebiscite by its people, he declared on March 1, 1935:
“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, just 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 peoples to join together and collaborate in opposing the difficulties that threaten to overwhelm Europe.”
He even endeavored to arrive at a better understanding with Poland, the eastern ally of the western powers, although that country in 1919 had unlawfully incorporated millions of Germans, and had ever since subjected them to the worst oppression. 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 that concern their mutual relations.”
Thus on all sides he countered the enemy plans with his determination to preserve peace, and in this way strove to protect Germany. When however he saw that London and Paris were arming for an 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 an alliance line to the south of the German Reich through Czechoslovakia, which, already allied with France, then concluded a treaty with Russia, thereby making her a bridge between east and west.
Moreover, Czechoslovakia controlled the high-lying region 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 overwhelming form.
Adolf Hitler found an ingenious way of countering 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 connection between France and Russia mentioned above, a process of dissolution began in the ethnically mixed state of Czechoslovakia, which had been artificially put together from the most diverse national elements. Then, after the liberation of the [ethnically German] Sudetenland [region] and the secession of Slovakia, the Czechs themselves asked for the protection of the German Reich. With this the enemy's “bridge” came into Hitler's hand, while at the same time direct land connection was made established with Italy, whose friendship had been secured some time previously.
While he was gaining this strategic 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 immediately after liberation of the Sudeten Germans, which was approved by Britain, France, and Italy, he made an agreement with the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, the text of which was as follows:
“We have had a further meeting today and are 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 [of 1935] 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, have 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 in this direction of the relations between their countries.
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 duplicate in the French and German languages at Paris, December 6, 1938.
Joachim von Ribbentrop,
Foreign Minister

Georges Bonnet,
Foreign Minister”

It should have been entirely reasonable to expect 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, to more than make up for the loss of Czechoslovakia. She opened negotiations with Russia, and concluded guarantee treaties with Poland, Romania, 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 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 be connected 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 front set up by London against Germany, that any concession, however minor, could be refused. And that wasn’t all. With this same attitude, Poland took an aggressive stance, threatened Danzig, and prepared to take up arms against Germany.
Thus the moment was close at hand for an attack against Germany by the countries that had aligned together for that 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 Britain that ... would not only, on the German side, safeguard the existence of the British Empire come what may, but if necessary would pledge German assistance for the British realm, regardless 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 which are economically sustainable.” And finally he assured once again that he had no interest in the issues in the west, and that “a revision of the borders in the west are out of any consideration.”
The reply to this was a pact of mutual assistance signed that same day between Britain and Poland, which made 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 against Germans in Poland, who for some time had been the victims of frightful massacres, but against Reich German territory.
But even after Britain and France declared war, as they had intended, 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 this even though his hands were now free to act against the enemy in the west. He also did this even though in London and Paris the fight had been proclaimed against him personally, in boundless hate, as a crusade. At this moment he possessed the supreme self-control to present, in his speech of October 6, 1939, to public opinion throughout the world, a new plan for the pacification of Europe. 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 feeling for European security.
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, first of all, that it regards the Treaty of Versailles as no longer valid – in other words, that the German Reich government, and with it the entire German nation, 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 raw material resources. This demand does not take the form of an ultimatum, nor is it a demand that is backed by force, but rather a demand based on political justice and common sense 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 conclusive settlement of relations of the world currencies must be reached, 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 various 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 could, at any given moment, strike straight at the heart of every nation, which therefore 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 that a sense of national security will not return to Europe until clear and binding international agreements 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 mistreatment of prisoners, war against non- combatants, and so forth. Just as it was possible gradually to achieve the universal observance of this prohibition, a way ought surely to be found to regulate aerial warfare, the use of poison gas, of submarines, and so forth, and likewise clearly to define contraband, so 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 deal with 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, free of suspicion and fear, will provide the conditions for real growth and 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 work together. To help bring about this collaboration must be the goal of everyone who is sincerely striving for the future of his own people.
To achieve this great goal, 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 that will ensure for them a feeling of security and calm -- in short, of peace.
Such a conference could not possibly be held without the most thorough preparation, that is, without clearly specifying 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 when mobilized armies are 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 pointlessly sent to their death, and billions of dollars’ worth of property are 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 [the city of] Saarbrucken. The German artillery will in turn lay [the French city of] Mulhouse in ruins. France will retaliate by bombarding Karlsruhe, and Germany in her turn shell Strasbourg. Then the French artillery will fire at Freiburg, and the Germans at Colmar or Sélestat. 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 while all that will be very interesting for certain international journalists, and very profitable for airplane, weapons and munitions manufacturers, and so forth, it will be 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. Today there are no longer any islands.
And the national wealth of Europe will be shattered by shells, and the vigor of every nation will be sapped on the battlefields. And one day 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 appeal was the same as that of all the previous ones made by Adolf Hitler in the name of reason, in the interests of a true renaissance of Europe. His enemies paid him no heed. On this occasion as well no response was forthcoming from them. They rigidly adhered to the attitude 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 the Versailles system, and when it threatened to collapse they wanted war, in order to follow it with an even worse Versailles.
The reproaches they make today against 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 contemplate the forcible oppression of other peoples, and who seek to plunge Europe into devastation and disaster. If that were not so, they would long ago have taken the hand that was stretched out to them, or at least they would have made a gesture of honestly wishing to cooperate in making a new order, and thus spare the nations an excess of "blood, tears and sweat.”
World history is the world court; and in this case as always when it reaches its decision it will pronounce a just verdict.

For Further Reading

Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and 'The Unnecessary War': How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (New York: Crown, 2008).
Matthew DeFraga, "March 1939: America's Guarantee to Britain," Ex Post Facto: Journal of the History Students at San Francisco State University. 1998, Vol. VII.
(,_1998/defraga_m.pdf )

Thomas Fleming, The New Dealers' War: Franklin Roosevelt and the War Within World War II. New York: Basic Books, 2001.
J.F.C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World. New York: 1987. Vol. 3, esp. pp. 372-375, 411-419.
Germany, Auswärtiges Amt [German Foreign Office]. Documents on the Events Preceding the Outbreak of the War. New York: 1940.
Germany, Auswärtiges Amt [German Foreign Office]. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des Krieges. Erste Folge Berlin: 1940.
Germany, Auswärtiges Amt. Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: 1943.
Rudolf Hess. Speech of July 8, 1934. “A Veterans Plea for Peace”
( )

Adolf Hitler. Reichstag speech of Dec. 11, 1941 (Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USA.)
( )

David L. Hoggan. The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. IHR, 1989.
David Irving, Hitler’s War. Focal Point, 2002.
R.H.S. Stolfi, Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny. Prometheus Books, 2011.
Viktor Suvorov (pseud.), The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2008
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War. New York: 1983.
John Toland, Adolf Hitler. Doubleday & Co., 1976.
Mark Weber, "President Roosevelt's Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents," The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983 (Vol. 4, No. 2), pp. 135-172.
( )

Mark Weber, "Roosevelt's 'Secret Map' Speech," The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1985 (Vol. 6, No. 1), pp. 125-127.
( )

Mark Weber, "The 'Good War' Myth of World War Two." May 2008.
( )

Giselher Wirsing. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die Weltherrschaft. Jena: 1942.

No comments:

Post a Comment