[1944 LETTER FROM CHURCHILL TO STALIN]
“We
never thought of peace, not even in that year when we were completely isolated and could
have made peace without serious detriment to the British Empire, and extensively at your cost.
Why should we think of it now, when victory approaches for the three of us?”
Reference:
Walendy, Udo, The Methods of Reeducation, 3.
[1944 LETTER FROM CHURCHILL TO STALIN]
JEWISH-LED ALLIES, COMMIE-PINKO FDR, MASS MURDERER STALIN, DEGENERATE DRUNK CHURCHILL AND PLOTS TO KILL HITLER.
OPERATION VALKYRIE
"...Germany, in 1918,
based on Woodrow Wilson's empty promises of "peace without victory",
was tricked into laying down its arms and then accepting the brutal rape of the Treaty of Versailles..."
"... the occupying western
Allies ended up inflicting a Soviet-lite form
of oppression in western
Germany, which, in many ways, continues to this
very day. A successful assassination would have changed nothing!
This is exactly what Hitler foresaw;
but the plotters did not, and the court-historians will not -- even in hindsight."
* If you haven't already done so, be sure to sign up for our FREE Report & FREE Updates List at bottom of page.
|
|
1940: NY Times Confirms That Hitler Wanted Peace, but UK Did Not
By Mike King
|
The "Times Machines Archives" -- which your generous donations help to pay for (hint hint)
have proven to be very useful to your favorite Real Historian here when
it comes to the never-ending search for all important original-source
data. It's really interesting to note how -- when read with a "third
eye" and combined with other data -- the Jewish-owned New York Slimes
confirms the version of events presented in the banned and
"controversial" book, The Bad War (by yours truly).
Let's have a critical look at some day-by-day headlines from March 18-20, 1940 -- a moment in time when the "war" -- though declared by the UK & France -- was not actually a war yet. In
its infancy, the relatively bloodless conflict and positioning of
armies could easily have been stopped and the coming global bloodbath
averted. To that end, Hitler offered a very sensible
peace proposal through the Pope, through Italy, and also through the USA
-- while the UK "War Party" (cough cough) maintained its belligerence.
* NYT -- 18 MARCH 1940
This issue explained that Hitler met with Mussolini of Italy (still neutral)
to discuss Hitler's peace proposal. Only Germany, UK & France were
at war at this time, though it is still a "war" of positioning and
posturing, with some minor clashes. The previous war (a real one) between Germany and aggressive Poland had ended 6 months earlier.
* NYT -- 19 MARCH 1940
This
next issue described how the Pope met with U.S. Under-Secretary of
State Sumner Welles to discuss the very reasonable terms of Hitler's
peace proposal, which German Foreign Minister Ribbentrop and the Pope
had also recently discussed. Welles had recently met with Hitler and
Mussolini as well.
MARCH 19
* NYT -- 20 MARCH 1940
The Setting: Again, this "Phony War"
has not actually gone hot yet --- just some minor operations. Few
people in Europe want another World War. The Pope seems to be on board
with Hitler's peace proposal -- which includes statehood and Baltic port
access for Poland. Italy is also in the peace camp, and the U.S. --
through Sumner Welles -- appears to be interested in helping broker the peace process. The hope for peace is very real -- or so it seemed.
So, what killed these promising peace talks? Next headline please....
"PEACE HOPE DIES"
THANK YOU, NEW YORK TIMES!
These
sorts of surprising headlines and articles about "the other side of the
story" would continue up to and even a few months after Japan's
justifiable non-surprise attack upon the Pearl Harbor naval base in
1941. Entire communiques issued by the German and Japanese Foreign
Ministries, as well as statements by Hitler himself, were published --
albeit not as frequently nor as well-placed as the dirty lies of
Churchill and FDR. It wasn't until US troops started to physically
engage the "Axis" nations that the Slimes could show its true colors and
descend into pure "Yellow Journalism." But prior to that, the "paper of
record" dumped a load of truth gems for anyone with the time, sense of
smell and patience to dig them out.
A heartfelt "thank you" to
all of "youse guys" who -- especially in the wake of the Amazon / Kindle
ban -- have kept me in a position to keep doing just that.
SUMMER WELLES
|
POPE PIUS XII
|
|
In
a cynical scheme to pretend to want peace -- US President Franklin
Demono Roosevelt sent Sumner Welles to Europe to meet with Hitler,
Mussolini and the Pope. Just when it seemed that real progress was being
made and that the young non-war was about to be "nipped in the bud,"
the British Royal Air Force bombed the crap out of German bases! You
tell me: Who was the real aggressor behind WW2?DONATE TO KEEP US GROWING
MIKE'S BANNED BOOKS & PDFS
FREE SAMPLE // "THE BAD WAR"
JULY 20, 1944 /
HITLER IS NEARLY ASSASSINATED
TomatoBubble.com: Western
court-historians and other assorted ignoramuses
have always portrayed the attempted assassination of Adolf Hitler as a
noble
effort among German Officers to save Germany from
"Hitler's madness". The plotters, as the goof-ball narrative
goes, viewed the regime as "evil"; and, with the
tide of war turning, were finally in a position to remove the tyrant
Hitler. Hollywood even produced a movie with this theme, so it must be
true; right? (rolling eyes)
Though
it is certainly true that at least some of the
naive plotters were under the delusion that the death of Hitler would
lead
to a peaceful settlement with America and Britain,
treasonous plots against Hitler had existed since 1938; the plotters
generally
being old school, elitist military conservatives
who always resented 'Lance Corporal' Hitler's merit-based populist
ideology and anti-classism. According to
a 1940 report issued by the German Foreign
Ministry, some of these plots were aided by western spy agencies.
Hitler preferred the company of his adoring
rank and file soldiers to that
of some of his snobby Generals.
It
is hard to say which of the plotters were
western-friendly traitors, which were motivated solely by a desire to
save their
own skin, and which truly believed that a just
peace with Churchill and FDR (which would have allowed Germany to
focus on fighting the Soviet Union) was
actually possible. We suspect that several motives were at play. For the
sake
of argument, let us assume that most of the coup
plotters had honorable intentions, as was likely the case with General
Erwin
Rommel; and limit ourselves only to addressing the
delusion that Hitler's death would have spared Germany from the coming
post-war horrors of 1945-1949.
But first, a review
of the amazing 1944 event is in order.
THE JULY 20 PLOT
One
month after the the successful Allied invasion of Normandy, as Stalin's
Red Army
moves westward, the tide of war is clearly turning
against Germany. Barring a stunning counter-offensive in the West, which
will nearly succeed during the coming December, (Battle of the Bulge)
Hitler's days seem numbered. The coup-plotters
believe that the time to kill Hitler and make a deal is 'now or never'.
Operation Valkyrie is a World
War II emergency 'continuity of government' plan issued to the Reserve
Army of Germany to implement in case of a breakdown in civil order caused by the Allied bombing of German cities.
German Generals Friedrich Olbricht and Henning von Tresckow, and Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) modified
the plan with the intention of using it to take control of Germany, disarm the SS,
and arrest the State leadership once Hitler had been assassinated. Hitler's death (as opposed to his arrest)
was required to free German soldiers from their oath of loyalty to him.
von Stauffenberg - Olbricht - von Tresckow
As the war situation deteriorates, Hitler no longer appears in
public and rarely visits Berlin. He spends most of his time at his headquarters at the 'Wolfsschanze' (Wolf's Lair)
in East Prussia, always heavily guarded and
rarely seeing people he does not trust. Waffen SS Leader Heinrich
Himmler
and the Gestapo grow increasingly suspicious of
plots against Hitler, and rightly suspect the officers of the General
Staff,
the source of previous conspiracies against Hitler
and probably some of the post D-Day military "blunders" which
facilitated the Allied advance from the West.
Their aim is to continue the war with Stalin, but to make peace with the U.S. &
U. K.. The conspirators score a major coup
in early July when they recruit Erwin Rommel, the famed "Desert
Fox", into their ranks. Rommel is the most
popular officer in Germany and first active-duty Field Marshal to
lend support to the plot. After lengthy
preparation, the plot is activated in 1944.
General Rommel was a master of military strategy,
but evidently a novice when it came to geo-politics.
The
key role in
the plot's implementation is to be played by
Stauffenberg. Stauffenberg's position as Chief of the Reserve Army
gives him
access to Hitler for reports. Stauffenberg will
carry out both the assassination attempt and the Valkyrie coup
operation.
After two abortive attempts, Stauffenberg places a
briefcase bomb under a table near Hitler during a July 20
conference
at the Wolf's Lair. After a few minutes, he
receives a pre-arranged
telephone call and leaves the meeting. When the
bomb detonates, the conference room is demolished,
killing three officers and a non-combatant stenographer, which
does not speak too well of Stauffenberg's "honor".
Hitler survives with a perforated eardrum.
1- The bombed-out
conference room 2- Hitler's torn and singed pants 3- Hitler visits one of his injured Generals in
the hospital
Believing
that Hitler
is dead, Stauffenberg hurries back to Berlin to
assume his pivotal role in the 'continuity of government' coup.
Meanwhile,
conspirator Carl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel, military
governor of occupied France, disarms
the local SS and captures most of their leadership.
He then travels to the headquarters of General Günther von Kluge
and asks him to contact the Allies, only to be
informed that Hitler is still alive.
By
this time Himmler has taken charge of
the situation and issued orders countermanding the
mobilisation of Operation Valkyrie. In many places the coup is going
ahead, led by officers who believe that Hitler is
dead. Berlin Commandant, and conspirator, General Paul von Hase even
tries
to arrest Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. In Vienna, Prague, and many other places, troops occupy Nazi Party offices and arrest SS officers.
The
coup fails and the conspiracy unravels.
Some of the plotters commit suicide. Others,
including Stauffenberg, are rounded up and executed by firing squad.
Later on,
when it is discovered that General Rommel had given
his blessing to the coup, the popular general is granted the privilege
of swallowing poison, thus dying of "natural
causes".
WHY THE PLOTTERS WERE FOOLS (or worse!)
Again,
just for argument, let us
assume that the plotters were not self-serving
scoundrels out to position themselves for a decent life in the coming
post-war
Germany. The fact remains that the conspirators
were incredibly naive to think that Churchill and especially
the commie-pinko FDR would ever deny their Soviet
"Uncle Joe" of the pleasure of taking, and raping, Berlin and
Eastern Germany. The"Cold War" fallout with Stalin
only came a few years after the war ended, when Stalin
disappointed the Globalists by turning nationalist
and keeping eastern Europe in the Soviet sphere instead of making the
region
part of the "Family of Nations". But in July of
1944, Stalin was very much a full and trusted partner of FDR's gang.
Even
if the plotting
fools had already forgotten how Germany, in 1918,
based on Woodrow Wilson's empty promises of "peace without victory",
was tricked into laying down its arms and then accepting the brutal rape of the Treaty of Versailles;
a basic
reading of American newspapers and magazines would
have confirmed that a negotiated surrender would never have been
acceptable
to the Jewish-led Allies. Furthermore, it was made
clear that Stalin was going to have his way in the east, no matter what!
Have a look:
- From 1941, 4 months before the U.S. even entered the war:
"Pact Provides Priority to Moscow's Orders"
- From 1942, Time Magazine Man of the Year story about Stalin:
"There
is
also a story in high places that, in keeping with
the 'tough guy' tradition, credits Stalin with one other desire: permission
from the allies to raze Berlin, as a lesson in psychology to the Germans and as a burnt offering to his own heroic
people."
- From the front page of 1943 New York Times 1942, FDR aims for "unconditional surrender".
And
there are so many other similar public admissions that it's not even
necessary to
explore the private correspondence of FDR,
Churchill and Stalin; such as that very telling excerpt from a 1944
letter that
Churchill wrote to the mass-murdering Bolshevik
Stalin. In it, the degenerate cigar-chomping drunk reassures Stalin that
Britain will never make a separate peace with
Germany:
“We
never thought of peace, not even in that year when we were completely isolated and could
have made peace without serious detriment to the British Empire, and extensively at your cost.
Why should we think of it now, when victory approaches for the three of us?”
Reference:
Walendy, Udo, The Methods of Reeducation, 3.
Churchill and FDR were very chummy with the
great mass murderer Joseph Stalin; who worried needlessly that German peace
offers might be accepted by his Western Allies.
Had Stauffenberg and friends succeeded
in killing Hitler, the result would have been an internal civil war to go along with the bloody Soviet invasion of
eastern Germany that would still have come anyway, only sooner. And just for the record, the occupying western
Allies ended up inflicting a Soviet-lite form
of oppression in western
Germany, which, in many ways, continues to this
very day. A successful assassination would have changed nothing!
This is exactly what Hitler foresaw;
but the plotters did not, and the court-historians will not -- even in hindsight.
You are here
What the World Rejected
Hitler’s Peace Offers, 1933- 1939
Foreword
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.
( http://userwww.sfsu.edu/epf/journal_archive/volume_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”
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p38_Hess.html )
Adolf Hitler. Reichstag speech of Dec. 11, 1941 (Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USA.)
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html )
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.
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html )
Mark Weber, "Roosevelt's 'Secret Map' Speech," The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1985 (Vol. 6, No. 1), pp. 125-127.
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html )
Mark Weber, "The 'Good War' Myth of World War Two." May 2008.
( http://www.ihr.org/news/weber_ww2_may08.html )
Giselher Wirsing. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die Weltherrschaft. Jena: 1942.
