by John Hamer
To backtrack a little, in April 1939, there was an exchange of documents and dialogue between US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and Adolf Hitler, as well as between the Polish and German governments. On 15th April, FDR sent a telegram to the Chancellor making claims about Germany as an antagonist and demanding assurances of non-aggression. Apparently, Hitler saw this as a last-minute chance to avoid open hostilities in Central Europe, thus avoiding a terrible global conflagration. He used this opportunity to openly and honestly address all nations, but especially those most directly involved. On 28th April he called a special session of the Reichstag and through German radio and relayed broadcasts, was heard by much of the world. Yet this important address, an honest and sincere effort to avoid war, is today ignored and air-brushed from history as it does not fit with the accepted view of what really happened. Upon reading the selections below, one may clearly see why the Elite chose to isolate and pay no heed to this document. Indeed, one may even notice parallels with current events.
“Adolf Hitler took a last minute opportunity to speak, not only to the USA, but to the whole world, just as dark war clouds were surely and certainly on the horizon. He not only addressed the topics in FDR's wire transmission, but spoke clearly on other problematic key issues of the day such as the Versailles debacle, the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, the Munich Agreements, etc. He told the truth about what had been and what was going on in Europe, exhaustively responding to each point raised by the American leader. After a thorough reading, what did I conclude? For one thing, it is quite evident that Germany invited continuing dialogue, not war. Even the casual reader can see this. While the Chancellor speaks strongly and straightforwardly, there are no threats, no aggressive language or provocations. Interestingly, and contradicting the popular image of the ‘anti-Semitic Jew baiter’, he says little other than to assign them much of the blame for the financial failures of the post-war era and for the rise of Bolshevism; and this in just a few sentences. His talk logically progresses into a longer, more detailed examination of how the opportunities following WWI were squandered, hijacked and sabotaged. He asked that Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points be fully and equally implemented for all the nations, including Germany. And, he fully recognised Poland's right to the sea, but maintaining Danzig as a German ethnic area. Several sections recount the various efforts to secure fair and lasting agreements with Poland, but all were summarily rejected by the oppressive and recalcitrant military dictatorship that ruled the newly emerged state. And, there is more, but explore the selections below.
This fascinating manuscript is quietly suppressed by simply ignoring it. As said, the very limited partial translation does not do it justice, revealing very little of the real content of this timely foreign policy address by a major world leader. We cover sections which readers may, hopefully, find educational and enlightening. As said, almost all of the quotations herein seem to be unavailable anywhere else. The introductory headings are from those appearing in the margins of the booklet pages. Since the ill-fated Versailles Treaty was central to many of Europe's problems, we begin with that.” Dr. Harrell Rhome
Hitler responded to Roosevelt... “But the millions were cheated of this peace; for not only did the German people or the other peoples fighting on our side suffer through the peace treaties, but these treaties had a devastating effect on the victor countries as well.
That politics should be controlled by men who had not fought in the war was recognised for the first time as a misfortune. Hatred was unknown to the soldiers, but not to those elderly politicians who had carefully preserved their own precious lives from the horrors of war and who now descended upon humanity as in the guise of insane spirits of revenge.
Hatred, malice and unreason were the intellectual forebears of the Treaty of Versailles. Territories and states with a history going back a thousand years were arbitrarily broken up and dissolved. Men who had belonged together since time immemorial were torn asunder.
No one knows this [the burdens of Versailles] better than the German people. For the Peace Treaty imposed burdens on the German people, which could not have been paid off in a hundred years, although it has been proved conclusively by American teachers of constitutional law, historians and professors of history that Germany was no more to blame for the outbreak of the war than any other nation. It is hard to imagine a clearer and more concise summary of the massive errors at the end of the war, setting the stage for the next one.
The resultant misery and continuous want [after the war] began to bring our nation to political despair. The decent and industrious people of Central Europe thought they could see the possibility of deliverance in the complete destruction of the old order, which to them represented a curse.
Jewish parasites, on the other hand, plundered the nation ruthlessly, and on the other hand, incited the people, reduced as it was to misery. As the misfortune of our nation became the only aim and object of this race, it was possible to breed among the growing army of unemployed suitable elements suitable elements for the Bolshevik revolution. The decay of political order and the confusion of public opinion by the irresponsible Jewish press led to ever stronger shocks to economic life and consequently to increasing misery and to greater readiness to absorb subversive Bolshevik ideas. The army of the Jewish world revolution as the army of the unemployed were called, finally rose to almost seven million. Germany had never known this state of affairs before.
As a matter of fact, these democratic peace dictators destroyed the whole world economy with their Versailles madness.
They [Western powers] declared at the time that Germany intended to establish herself in Spain, taking Spanish colonies. In a few weeks from now, the victorious hero of Nationalist Spain [Generalissimo Franco] will celebrate his festive entry into the capital of his country. The Spanish people will acclaim him as their deliverer from unspeakable horrors as the liberator from bands of incendiaries, of whom it is estimated that they have more than 775,000 human lives on their conscience, by executions and murders alone. The inhabitants of whole villages and towns were literally butchered, while their benevolent patrons, the humanitarian apostles of Western European and American democracy, remained silent.”
Apparently all of this was too large a dose of the truth. As with most of the passages herein, this and the one before it are not found in the minimal translations available. He told the truth, not only about subversive Illuminati communists in Germany, but also about Spain, where the forces of Nationalism won a resounding victory over Bolshevism and world oppression.
Hitler stated.... “Mr. Roosevelt declared that he had already appealed to me on a former occasion for a peaceful settlement of political, economic and social problems without force of arms. I myself have always been an exponent of this view and as history proves, have settled necessary political, economic and social problems without force of arms, without even resorting to arms.
Unfortunately, however, this peaceful settlement has been made more difficult by the agitation of politicians, statesmen and newspaper representatives who were neither directly concerned nor even effected by the problems in question.”
Does this sound like an unstable, power-mad dictator, ready to launch his legions on the world? Or, is this the voice of a reasonable world leader, still ready to negotiate for real and lasting peace? Read on and decide for yourself.
“If the cry of 'Never another Munich' is raised in the world today, this simply confirms the fact that the peaceful solution of the problem appeared to be the most awkward thing that ever happened in the eyes of those warmongers. They are sorry no blood was shed, not their blood, to be sure for those agitators are, of course, never to be found where shots are being fired, but only where money is being made. No, it is the blood of many nameless soldiers!
They hate us Germans and would prefer to eradicate us completely. What do the Czechs mean to them? They are nothing but a means to an end. And what do they care for the fate of a small and valiant nation? Why s
hould they worry about the lives of hundreds of thousands of brave soldiers who would have been sacrificed for their policy? These Western Peace-mongers were not concerned to work for peace but to cause bloodshed, so in this way to set the nations against one another and to thus cause still more blood to flow. For this reason, they invented the story of German mobilization.
Moreover, there would have been no necessity for the Munich Conference, for that conference was only made possibly by the fact that the countries which had at first incited those concerned to resist at all costs, were compelled later on, when the situation pressed for a solution on one way of another, to try to secure for themselves a more or less respectable retreat; for without Munich that is to say, without the interference of the countries of Western Europe, a solution of the entire problem if it had grown so acute at all would likely have been the easiest thing in the world.”
Here, Hitler presents FDR with a necessary history lecture.....
“Mr. Roosevelt declared finally that three nations in Europe and one in Africa have seen their existence terminated. I do not know which three nations in Europe are meant. Should it be a question of the provinces reincorporated in the German Reich, I must draw the attention of Mr. Roosevelt to a mistake of history on his part.
It was not now that these nations sacrificed their independent existence in Europe, but rather in 1918. At that time, in violation of solemn promises, their logical ties were torn asunder and they were made into nations they never wished to be and never had been. They were forced into an independence which was no independence but at most could only mean dependence upon an international foreign world which they detested.
Moreover, as to the allegation that one nation in Africa has lost its freedom, that, too, is erroneous. On the contrary, practically all the original inhabitants of this continent have lost their freedom through being made subject to the sovereignty of other nations by bloodshed and force. Moroccans, Berbers, Arabs, Negroes, and the rest have all fallen victim to the swords of foreign might, which however, were not marked 'made in Germany' but 'made by Democracies'.
Ireland charges English, not German oppression. Palestine is occupied by English, not German troops. Arabs appeal against English, not German methods.”
FDR made a sweeping, somewhat grandiose demand and it is clear that the Middle East, as it does today, occupied a crucial position; “Are you willing to give assurance that your armed forces will not attack or invade the territory or possessions of the following independent nations: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain and Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Russia, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Iraq, the Arabias, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Iran?”
Hitler responded… “But I must also draw Mr. Roosevelt's attention to one or two mistakes in history. He mentions Ireland, for instance, and asks for a statement to the effect that we will not attack Ireland. Now, I have just read a speech by Mr. de Valera, the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister), in which he does not charge Germany with oppressing Ireland, but reproaches England with subjecting Ireland to continuous aggression. With all due respect to Mr. Roosevelt's insight into the needs and cares of other countries, it may nevertheless be assumed that the Irish Taoiseach would be more familiar with the dangers which threaten his country than would the President of the United States.
Similarly the fact has obviously escaped Mr. Roosevelt's notice that Palestine is at present occupied not by German troops but by the English; and that the country is undergoing restriction of its liberty by the most brutal resort to force, is being robbed of its independence and is suffering the cruellest maltreatment for the benefit of Jewish interlopers.
The Arabs living in that country would therefore certainly not have complained to Mr. Roosevelt of German aggression, but they are voicing a constant appeal to the world, deploring the barbarous methods with which England is attempting to suppress a people which loves its freedom and is merely defending it.
This, too, is perhaps a problem which in the American President's view should be solved at the conference table, that is, before a just judge, and not by physical force or military methods, by mass executions, burning down villages, blowing up houses and so on. For one fact is surely certain. In this case England is not defending herself against a threatened Arab attack, but as an uninvited interloper is endeavouring to establish her power in a foreign territory which does not belong to her.”
Hitler then reminds America that it should not fear Germany as she did not have hidden intentions or motives. Besides, she did not have the natural or military resources to wage a world war across the Atlantic. Only the USA had the wherewithal to do that.
“And, I here solemnly declare all assertions which have in any way been circulated concerning an impending German attack or invasion on or in American territory are rank frauds and gross untruths, quite apart from the fact that such assertions, as far as military possibilities are concerned, could only be the product of the silliest imagination. Friendship and respect for the British Empire must be mutual.
During the whole of my political activity I have always propounded the idea of a close friendship and collaboration between Germany and England. In my movement I found others of like mind. Perhaps they joined me because of my attitude in this regard. This desire for Anglo-German friendship and co-operations conforms not merely to sentiments based on the racial origins of our two peoples but also to my realisation of the importance of the existence of the British Empire for the whole of mankind.
I have never left room for any doubt of my belief that they existence of this empire is an inestimable factor of value for the whole of human culture and economic life. By whatever means Great Britain has acquired her colonial territories and I know that they were those of force and often brutality, I know full well that no other empire has ever come into being in any other way, and that, in the final analysis, it is not so much the methods that are taken into account in history as success, and not the success of the methods as such, but rather the general good which those methods produce.
Now, there is no doubt that the Anglo-Saxon people have accomplished immense colonizing work in the world. For this work, I have sincere admiration.
I regard it as impossible to achieve a lasting friendship between the German and the Anglo-Saxon peoples if the other side does not recognize that there are German as well as British interests, that just as the preservation of the British Empire is the object and life-purpose of Britons, so also the freedom and preservation of the German Reich is the life-purpose of Germans.
A genuine lasting friendship between these two nations is only conceivable on a basis of mutual regard. The English people rule a great empire. They built up this empire at a time when the German people were internally weak.
Germany once had been a great empire. At one time she ruled the Occident. In bloody struggles and religious dissensions, and as a result of internal political disintegration, this empire declined in power and greatness and finally fell into a great sleep.
But as this old empire appeared to have reached its end, the seeds of its rebirth were springing up. From Brandenburg and Prussia there arose a new Germany, the Second Reich, and out of it has finally grown the Reich of the German people.
And I hope that all the English people understand that we do not possess the slightest feeling of inferiority to Britons.
The part we have played in history is far too important for that.”
Then, he insisted on naval parity, renegotiating the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, and the return of all German colonies. It seems clear that Britain could have come to terms with the Reich, thus retaining her naval strength, her army and air power, and her colonies, therefore avoiding whatever hostilities there might have been on the continent. But largely due to the provocations of Churchill and the war party, this option was never considered. This is one of the great what-ifs of history.
Hitler continued;
“If however, President Roosevelt considers that he is entitled to address the problems of Europe, in particular to Germany or Italy, because America is so far removed from Europe, we on our side might by the same right, address to the President of the American Republic the question as to what aim American foreign policy in turn has in view, and on what intentions this policy is based, in the case of Central and South American states, for instance. In this event Mr. Roosevelt would, I must admit, every right to refer to the Monroe Doctrine and to decline to reply to such a request to interfere in the internal affairs of the American continent.
We Germans support a similar doctrine for Europe and above all, for the territory and interests of the Greater German Reich.
Moreover, I would obviously never presume to address such a request to the President of the United States of America, because I assume he would probably rightly consider such a presumption tactless.”
