"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

29 January 2011

The Life of George Lincoln Rockwell

A well done presentation of Rockwell's life.

To learn about Rockwell's death, please visit my other blog.

Rockwell was a man of great courage and ability, who spoke some important truths, but it remains an open question with me, to what extent Rockwell really was a national-socialist. Clearly he had an essentially biological view of man (despite nominal Christianity) and was thoroughly anti-Communist, and he was aware of Jews as a subversive element, but these tendencies were strong in the USA prior to World War II, and not especially linked to national-socialism until war-propaganda made them so.

Rockwell was certainly a nationalist. It is on the second half of the "national-socialist" label that Rockwell seems open to question.* I have noticed that some of the people (William Pierce, Kurt Saxon) that joined Rockwell leaned toward a traditional American "rugged individualism" and seemed to take little interest in the NSDAP's economic policies; they seemed to be hostile toward the basic idea of social-welfare programs, which were crucial to the National-Socialist project in Germany.


* According to today's standard textbook definitions, abundant social programs and central economic planning do not qualify a society as socialist without government-ownership of enterprises. This technicality gives Marxists the pleasure of declaring that national-socialism even as it was practiced in Germany is not really socialism. But my question is whether even the aspects of socialism that the NSDAP practiced are supported by or consistent with Rockwell's statements and writings.

25 January 2011

Hitler’s Peace Offers 1933-1939

This pamphlet bears no date but was evidently composed and published in the months between the conquest of Poland and the commencement of hostilities between France, Britain, and Germany. A French-language edition also exists. 

The author, Dr. Friedrich Stieve, was a much-published German author long before the ascent of National-Socialism in Germany. Before the First World War Stieve wrote a book of poems (1908) and a biography of the mediaeval Italian prince Ezzelino da Romano (1909); Stieve apparently began writing history in 1916 with Die Politischen Probleme Des Weltkrieges; in 1920 Gedanken über Deutschland was published, apparently a book reflective of Germany’s unfortunate position at the time. Thereafter Stieve continued to write about the causes of the First World War, especially the role of Russia, including Isvolsky and the World War. During the National-Socialist period Stieve produced several books on German history, including Die außenpolitische Lage Deutschlands von Bismarck bis Hitler.

Among the interesting points made here is that Hitler had offered a non-aggression pact to France three years before he offered it to the Soviet Union. There were only two ways to make Germany secure from military encirclement and the threat of a two-front war: a pact with France or with the U.S.S.R. French intransigence forced Hitler to take the latter option.

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 cause trouble and devastation all around him. At the same time they intentionally conceal an all-important fact: they themselves drove the Leader of the German people finally to draw the sword. They themselves compelled him to seek to obtain at last by the use of force that which he had been striving to gain by persuasion from the beginning: the security of his country. They did this not only by declaring war on him on September 3, 1939, but also by blocking step 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 collaborate with him in a reconstruction of Europe represent an ever-recurring pattern in his conduct since the commencement of his labors for the German Reich. But these attempts were wrecked every time by reason of the fact that nowhere was there any willingness to give them due consideration, because the evil spirit of the Great War still prevailed everywhere, because in London and Paris and in the capitals of the Western Powers' vassal states there was only one fixed intention: to perpetuate the power of Versailles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Germany receives full equality of rights.

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

3. Germany adheres to this agreement, freely undertaking to make only so much actual moderate use of the equality of rights granted to her as will not present 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 to the elimination of certain weapons for use against the civilian population.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“And it gives further assurance that it will agree to any international limitations or abolition of arms whatsoever for a uniform space of time."

This time again Hitler's declarations did not find the slightest response. On the contrary, France made an alliance with Russia in order to increase her preponderating influence on the Continent still further, and to augment to a gigantic degree the pressure on Germany from the East. In view of the evident destructive intentions of his opponents, Adolf Hitler was therefore obliged to take new measures to ensure the safety of the German Reich. On March 3, 1936, he occupied the Rhineland, which had been without military protection since Versailles, and thus closed the wide gate through which the Western neighbor could carry out an invasion. Once again he followed the defensive step which he had been obliged to take with a liberal appeal for general reconciliation and for the settlement of all differences. On March 31, 1936, he formulated the following peace plan:

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

2. In order to shorten in the economic interest of the European nations the period of uncertainty, the German Government proposes a limit of four months for the first period up to 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 Powers participating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18. Germany expresses her willingness to re-enter the League of Nations, either at once, or after the conclusion of these agreements.

At the same time, the German Government again expresses as its expectation that, after a reasonable time and by the method of friendly negotiations, the question of colonial equality of rights and that of the separation of the Covenant of the League of Nations from its foundations in the Versailles Treaty will be cleared up.

19. Germany proposes the setting up of an International Court of Arbitration, which shall be responsible for the observance of the various agreements 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 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 positions of the nations, but above all a diminution of the psychological tension.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus on all sides he opposed to the enemy plans his determination to preserve peace and strove to protect Germany in this way. When however he saw that London and Paris were arming for 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 a line of communication to the south of the Reich through Czechoslovakia having concluded a treaty with Russia which put her in the position of a bridge between east and west. Czechoslovakia, however, was in control of the high-lying country of Bohemia and Moravia, which Bismarck had called the citadel of Europe, and this citadel projected far into German territory. The threat to Germany thus assumed truly overpowering proportions.

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

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

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

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

September 30, 1938

Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain.

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

Herr Joachim von Ribbentrop, Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, and M. Georges Bonnet, French Minister of Foreign Affairs, acting in the name and by the order of their Governments, are, at their meeting in Paris, on December 6, 1938, agreed as follows:

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

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 qualities lead to international difficulties.

In token whereof the representatives of the two Governments have signed the present Declaration, which comes into immediate effect. Done in two original Documents in the French and German language respectively, in Paris, December 6, 1938.

Joachim von Ribbentrop Georges Bonnet
Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs Minister for Foreign Affairs

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

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

Thus the moment was close at hand for the attack on the Reich by the countries which had been brought together for the purpose. Adolf Hitler, making a final extreme effort in the interests of peace, saved what he could. On August 23rd, Ribbentrop succeeded in reaching an agreement in Moscow for a non-aggression pact with Russia. Two days later the German Fuehrer himself made a final and truly remarkable offer to Britain, declaring himself ready "to enter into agreements with Great Britain," "which . . . would not only, on the German side, in any case safeguard the existence of the British Empire, but if necessary would guarantee German assistance for the British Empire, irrespective of where such assistance might be required."

At the same time he was prepared "to accept a reasonable limitation of armaments, in accordance with the new political situation and economic requirements."

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

But even when Britain and France had already declared war, as they 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 so although his hands were now free to act against the enemy in the west. He did so, although the fight against him personally was proclaimed in London and Paris, in immeasurable hate, as a crusade. At this moment he possessed the supreme self-control to proclaim in his speech of October 6, 1939, a new plan for the pacification of Europe to public opinion throughout the world. This plan was as follows:

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


For this it is necessary that the aims of the foreign policy of each European State should be made perfectly clear. As far as Germany is concerned, the Reich Government is ready to give a thorough and exhaustive exposition of the aims of its foreign policy. In so doing, it begins by stating that the Treaty of Versailles is now regarded by it as obsolete, in other words, that the Government of the German Reich and with it the whole German people no longer see cause or reason for any further revision of the Treaty, apart from the demand for adequate colonial possessions justly due to the Reich, involving in the first place a return of the German colonies.

This demand for colonies is based not only on Germany's historical claim to her colonies, but above all on her elementary right to a share of the world's resources of raw materials. This demand does not take the form of an ultimatum, nor is it a demand which is backed by force, but a demand based on political justice and sane economic principles.


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


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 individual nations. This security will not only be rendered possible by the final sanctioning of the European status, but above all by the reduction of armaments to a reasonable and economically tolerable level. An essential part of this necessary sense of security, however, is a clear definition of the legitimate use and application of certain modern armaments which can at any given moment strike straight at the heart of every nation and hence create a permanent sense of insecurity. In my previous speeches in the Reichstag I made proposals with this end in view. At that time they were rejected—presumably for the simple reason that they were made by me. I believe, however, that a sense of national security will not return to Europe until clear and binding international agreements have provided a comprehensive definition of the extent to which the use of certain weapons is permitted or forbidden.

The Geneva Convention once succeeded in prohibiting, in civilized countries at least, the killing of wounded, the ill-treatment of prisoners, war against non-combatants etc., and just as it was possible gradually to achieve the universal observance of this statute, a way ought surely to be found to regulate aerial warfare, the use of poison gas, of submarines, etc., and also so to define contraband that the war will lose its terrible character of a conflict waged against women and children and against non-combatants in general. The growing horror of certain methods of modern warfare will of its own accord lead to their abolition, and thus they will become obsolete. In the war with Poland, I endeavored to restrict aerial warfare to objectives of military importance, or only to employ it to combat resistance at a given point. But it must surely be possible to emulate the Red Cross in drawing up some universally valid international regulation. It is only when this is achieved that peace can reign, particularly on our densely populated continent—a peace which, uncontaminated by suspicion and fear, will provide the only possible condition for real economic prosperity. I do not believe that there is any responsible statesman in Europe who does not in his heart desire prosperity for his people. But such a desire can only be realized if all the nations inhabiting this continent decide to work together. To assist in ensuring this co-operation must be the aim of every man who is sincerely struggling for the future of his own people.

To achieve this great end, the leading nations on this continent will one day have to come together in order to draw up, accept, and guarantee a statute on a comprehensive basis which will ensure for them a sense of security, of calm,—in short, of peace. Such a conference could not possibly be held without the most thorough preparation, i.e. without exact elucidation of every point at issue. It is equally impossible that such a conference, which would determine the fate of this continent for many years to come, could carry on its deliberations while cannons are thundering, or mobilized armies bringing pressure to bear upon it. Since, however, these problems must be solved sooner or later, it would surely be more sensible to tackle the solution before millions of men are first uselessly sent to their death, and billions of dollars� worth of property destroyed. The continuation of the present state of affairs in the west is unthinkable. Each day will soon demand increasing sacrifices. Perhaps the day will come when France will begin to bombard and demolish Saarbr�cken. The German artillery will in turn M�lhausen in ruins. France will retaliate by bombarding Karlsruhe, and Germany in her turn shell Strasburg. Then the French artillery will fire at Freiburg, and the Germans at Kolmar or Schlettstadt. Long-range artillery will then be set up, and from both sides destruction will strike deeper and deeper, and whatever cannot be reached by the long-range artillery will be destroyed from the air. And that will be very interesting for certain international journalists, and very profitable for the aeroplane, arms, and munition manufacturers, etc., but appalling for the victims. And this battle of destruction will not be confined to the land. No, it will reach far out over the sea. To-day there are no longer any islands.

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

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

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

23 January 2011

Gandhi Be Racist.

"I'm a tell you why."

13 January 2011

A Jewish Attempt at Damage Control

Mother Jones' reporter Nick Baumann, responding to the urgings of a "noted Jewish roots columnist and researcher" (so called by the Jewish Telegraph Agency) has posted this footnote to his report about Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter who killed six people and shot a Jewish congresswoman in the head several days ago:

Tierney says Loughner's mom is Jewish. But a columnist who researched the subject doesn't think that holds up. Tierney also said that Loughner himself was definitely not religious.

While Baumann seems a bit circumspect about the finding of the Jewish "columnist and researcher," the Jewish Telegraph Agency spreads the word without reservation:

Nate Bloom, the noted Jewish roots columnist and researcher, has done the legwork -- and pretty much buries this notion.

We can expect that from now on every apologist for all things Jewish, whenever the name Jared Lee Loughner arises, will immediately, in programmed cult-like fashion, loudly proclaim, Loughner's mom was not Jewish! That's an anti-Semitic canard! It's been disproven!  

At that point you are supposed to be intimidated into silence because you are not really sure of the facts. But he doesn't really have any facts either.

It should take some strong evidence to refute the word of Loughner's friend, who has known him since middle school and was close enough to merit a "final goodbye" voicemail the night before the shooting. What Nate Bloom offers, however, is largely a matter of guesswork, some of it clearly biased.

Bloom's argument against the possibility that Loughner's mother could be a Jew (contradicting the testimony of somebody who has known Loughner perhaps ten years) is full of holes. It neglects possibilities like Jews adopting the religion of a non-Jewish spouse or otherwise converting to Christianity,1  which was very common during the big Jewish influx 100-130 years ago. It neglects the real possibility that a Jew might identify his ethnicity as something other than "Jewish" on a census form.2  It also neglects that a lot of Jewish immigrants to the United States took non-Jewish names. There is a lot of uncertainty about identifying ethnic Jews based on census information -- and that is supposed to trump the word of a close acquaintance?

Loughner's mother's maiden name is Amy Totman, which seems Jewish enough. Her mother's name apparently was Lois May Bleifuss.3  For me, the funniest part of Bloom's attempt at obfuscation was when he announced that the best known bearer of the surname Bleifuss, journalist and editor Joel Bleifuss, is not Jewish. Here is a nice little photo of  the "not Jewish" Joel Bleifuss:

Bloom is thus proud to conclude, "It is exceedingly unlikely that Amy Loughner has any Jewish ancestry."

Others will conclude differently.
1.  Further confusion results from Jews who attend Christian church services without ever giving up their Jewish ethnic identity, which is more common than one might suspect. The fact that some person had a Christian funeral is no proof of the absence of Jewish ethnicity as Bloom assumes.

2. There are two factors in this. One is the fact that, since the Enlightenment, Jews have customarily represented themselves as "Frenchmen" or "Germans," etc. "of Jewish faith," in other words pretending that there is no such thing as Jewish ethnicity. Another factor is the common Jewish penchant for dissimulation. If you have much experience with Jews you will notice that many of them will change their whole story about their heritage according to circumstances. I've had a Jew that I'd known a number of years claim that he was Scottish, even though both his parents were Jews. Another claimed that he was Norwegian, which, if you could have seen him, you would have recognized as a completely ridiculous claim.

3. Bloom never says "Lois May Bleifuss" in his article; he uses only the married name, Lois May Totman. When he mentions Anton Bleifuss and his wife Jessie Anderson Bleifuss, he does not identify them as the parents of Lois May but as the parents of her sister Helen Medernach. This is a very roundabout and unnecessarily confusing way of admitting that Jared Loughner's maternal grandmother was born with the surname Bleifuss. I suspect that Bloom's avoidance of connecting the names Lois May and Bleifuss is a matter of deliberate obfuscation. He may have hoped, probably correctly, that few people would read it that carefully and see how he had made something simple into something confusing.

                 Racial Solidarity is Love

And discrimination is part of that.

Oxytocin is a neurotransmitter "intricately involved in social behaviors such as mother-child bonding, feelings of trust and love, and group recognition," according to Social psychologist Dr. Carsten De Dreu of the University of Amsterdam.

A study conducted by Dr. De Dreu and recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences documents a connection between Oxytocin and racial discrimination.  “Under oxytocin we saw an increase of in-group favoritism, which has the downside of discrimination against people who are not part of your group,” says Dr. De Dreu.

In all of the experiments, men who snorted a dose of oxytocin showed stronger and more frequent favoritism towards their countrymen over rival groups. Men who whiffed a placebo still showed signs of favoritism, but less frequently and at weaker levels. [Dave Mosher, "'Cuddle Chemical' Also Fuels Favoritism, Bigotry," Wired, 12 January 2011]

Dr. De Dreu acknowledges the survival value of such discrimination: "We thought it was odd a neurological system that survived evolution would make people indiscriminately loving toward others.”

10 January 2011

Crazy Jew shot Jewish Congresswoman

Yes, it's a Jew.

 A gunman shoots a Jewish congresswoman and immediately there is an attempt to gain political advantage by jumping to conclusions.

Some ridiculously inaccurate information supplied to Fox News by somebody  in the Department of Homeland Security suggested that Jared Taylor's American Renaissance somehow might have motivated the attack on Gabrielle Giffords  (which resulted in the deaths of six others), delusionally referring to Taylor's  completely civil and Jew-friendly organization as "anti-government" and "anti-Semitic."

I wondered from the beginning if the shooter Jared Loughner might be a Jew, and I noticed that some other people were asking that question. It turns out he is. Mother Jones (10 January 2011) reports this:

[Shooter Jared Loughner's friend Bryce] Tierney believes that Loughner was very interested in pushing people's buttons—and that may have been why he listed Hitler's Mein Kampf as one of his favorite books on his YouTube page. (Loughner's mom is Jewish, according to Tierney.) Loughner sometimes approached strangers and would say "weird" things, Tierney recalls. "He would do it because he thought people were below him and he knew they wouldn't know what he was talking about."*

Crazy crimes like this involve Jews far out of proportion to their numbers in the general population. Jews on average are much more prone than Whites to be mentally ill and unstable.

Because of this one crazy Jew, we are seeing efforts to stigmatize criticism of the government, and there is already, on the Monday after the shooting, a move to increase restrictions on firearms ownership. 
* If you go to read Mother Jones to get the full story, please read also my response to the footnote that has been added, A Jewish Attempt at Damage Control.

07 January 2011

The Goebbels Diaries are Fake

Today I was looking at Wikipedia's entry on Joseph Goebbels and I was startled at the unequivocal claim there that Goebbels had ordered the anti-Jewish violence of "Kristallnacht." I knew that there had been a rumor or surmise of that nature (still taken seriously, for example, by Heinrich Haertle in 1965), but I was surprised to see it presented even today as unquestionable fact, for a couple of reasons. 

In the first place, the story is incredible on its face. Are we supposed to believe that Goebbels instigated widespread domestic disorder on his own initiative and that Hitler, when he found out, was enraged but let him stay in the government? It really is hard to believe.

Secondly, Ingrid Weckert, who has written a book about the matter and is not a stupid person, argues that Goebbels had nothing to do with it. I could not believe that she would take that position if there were strong evidence that he was involved. If I am not to believe that Ingrid Weckert is insane, then I must assume that there is disagreement about some crucial piece of evidence.

As it turns out, there is such a disagreement.

The source upon which the claim in the Wikipedia article relies is a quotation from Goebbels' diaries that is reproduced in a book by Martin Gilbert. I had a look at the chapter on Kristallnacht in David Irving's  Goebbels. Although Irving's book has the reputation of being hostile to Goebbels -- indeed it got Irving a lot of criticism when it appeared in the mid-90s, because he seemed to be trying to make amends to the Jews for having dismissed the Auschwitz gas-chamber story a few years earlier -- I thought it might offer some hint of conflicting information.

What I learned from Irving's book is that Goebbels' diary for November 1938, pertaining to Kristallnacht, correlates poorly with events in Goebbels' life:

Goebbels had not anticipated either Hitler’s fury or, probably, such an uncontrollable, chaotic orgy of destruction. Not surprisingly [?] he made no reference to this unwelcome turn of events in his diary. [Irving, Goebbels, p. 497]

We are even supposed to believe that Goebbels, who insisted on accurate reports about the progress of the war1, for his own private consumption wrote statements that he knew to be false:

He ... was careful to record this — perhaps slanted — note in his diary, which stands alone, and in direct contradiction to the evidence of Hitler’s entire immediate entourage: ‘He is in agreement with everything. His views are quite radical and aggressive. The Aktion itself went off without a hitch. A hundred dead. But no German property damaged.’ Each of these five sentences was untrue, as will be seen [p.498]

Instead of making the obvious observation that a diary in which a man appears to lie to himself might not be authentic, Irving accepts that Goebbels lied to himself in his own diary, justifying that position with the innuendo that Goebbels was not quite sane. Either way it is admitted that the so-called Goebbels diaries are an unreliable source.

The clear intention behind those untruthful statements in the "Goebbels diaries" is to expand responsibility for Kristallnacht to Hitler and his government, instead of letting Goebbels appear as a rogue instigator as rumored in 1938. It serves the victors' agenda of criminalizing the defeated German government.

We know that the conquering powers of World War II had no scruples about falsifying evidence. I have demonstrated this in other posts on this blog, especially in regard to the content of some of the films that Frank Capra made for the U.S. Army, which go so far as to use altered documentary footage. Hermann Rauschning's Conversations with Hitler, a staple of anti-Hitler propaganda, are completely fake. So is The Testament of Adolf Hitler (a.k.a. The Hitler-Bormann Documents). David Irving himself made worldwide news by debunking a really ridiculous set of "Hitler diaries," but that was back before the Jews broke his will. The Goebbels diaries could easily be fraudulent, because we do not have the original documents, only photographic images: "No one knows now where his original notebooks are, or what happened to them," says David Irving.2

I was going to ask Professor Robert Faurisson if he had ever inquired about the authenticity of the alleged Goebbels diaries. But first I searched his blog, and found some relevant quotes about the "Goebbels diaries" from Mark Weber, given under oath in a Canadian courtroom in 19883:

The later entry, which I think is the 27th of March [1942], is widely quoted to uphold or support the extermination thesis. It is not consistent with entries in the diary like this one of March 7th, and it is not consistent with entries at a later date from the Goebbels diaries, and it is not consistent with German documents from a later date.

[…] there is a great doubt about the authenticity of the entire Goebbels diaries because they are written on typewriter. We have no real way of verifying if they are accurate, and the U.S. Government certified, in the beginning of the publication, […] that it can take no responsibility for the accuracy of the diaries as a whole.

[…] I think again it is worth mentioning that the passage of the 27th of March is inconsistent with the passage of the 7th of March and the one from April, and I don’t remember the date exact (Transcript, p. 5820-5821).

Goebbels had no responsibility for Jewish policy. He wasn’t involved in that. He was the Propaganda Minister. He was involved only to the extent that there were Jews in Berlin and he was responsible for Berlin (p. 5822-5823).

At the time when Weber testified in 1988, all the alleged Goebbels Diaries that had been published were from typed pages, and therefore, as he testified, unverifiable as to authenticity.

In fact, all alleged Goebbels Diaries dated later than July 1941 -- which means all that could be used as evidence for the Holocaust, since this is not supposed to have begun until months later -- come from typed pages or images of typed pages, and are, as Weber testified, unverifiable as to authorship.

The photographic images of handwritten diaries dated earlier than July 1941 are also unverifiable as to authorship, because images of handwriting can be rearranged to make the writer say things that he did not. These alleged documents come from Soviet state archives, from a government that is well known to have produced false documentary evidence relating to the so-called Holocaust (e.g. the documents framing John Demjanjuk as "Ivan the Terrible").

Most likely there were some real Goebbels diaries that were altered to create what the world has been shown as "the Goebbels Diaries" since 1945. That would explain why, as Weber testified, there are internal contradictions and contradictions with known fact in the diaries.

If the "Goebbels diaries" are fake, then there is little evidence to support the claim that Goebbels was the instigator of anti-Jewish violence on Kristallnacht. In that case everything else about Goebbels' behavior, and Hitler's behavior toward him, makes a lot more sense.

1. "Even Goebbels always insisted that the Wehrmacht communiqués be as accurate as possible." --Konrad Kellen (Rand Corporation), Introduction to Jacques Ellul's Propaganda (1965).

2. David Irving, "Revelations from Joseph Goebbels' Diary," The Journal of Historical Review, January-February 1995 (Vol. 15, No. 1), pages 2-17

3. These quotes of Weber's testimony came from Robert Faurisson, "Mark Weber Must Resign from the Institute for Historical Review," 3 April 2009, posted on The Unofficial Blog of Robert Faurisson. You can get more of the context by reading a summary of Weber's testimony and the responses  in Barbara Kulaszka, Did Six Million Really Die? -- Report of the Evidence in the Canadian "False News Trial of Ernst Zündel, Samisdat Publishing, Toronto (1992).

05 January 2011

Cannibalism in Post-Colonial Africa

In the 19th century under White colonial rule, cannibalism fell into disuse, but since the mid-20th century, following the retreat of the White Man from Africa, the Negro has been returning to his old patterns.

African cannibalism seems to fall into three categories that I have noticed: 

(1) cannibalism in war -- "Anybody who is your enemy, you can eat him," says a young Liberian;

(2) use of body parts (especially from albinos) in "traditional medicine";

(3) eating of Pygmies because Negroes consider them subhuman.

Eating of enemies in Liberia. (Begins at 3:00.)

"Traditional medicine" in South Africa.

The danger of being an albino in Africa.