by Unknown
After the revision of the map of the world and of territorial and racial spheres, which was as thorough as it was fundamental, had been effected by means of force, a League of Nations was founded whose task it was to crystallize these crazy, unreasonable proceedings and to coordinate its results into an everlasting and unalterable basis of life.
I notice very often that English politicians would be glad to give back to us our colonies if they were not so disturbed by the thought of the wrong and violence which would thus be done to the native inhabitants.
All those colonial empires have not come into being through plebiscites. They are today naturally integral parts of the states in question and form, as such, part of that world order which always has been designated to us, especially by democratic policies, as the “world order of right.”
That right the League of Nations now has been ordered to protect. I cannot understand why a nation which itself has been robbed by force should join such illustrious company, and I cannot permit the conclusion to be drawn that we should not be prepared to fight for the principles of justice just because we are not in the League of Nations. On the contrary, we do not belong to the League of Nations, because we believe that it is not an institution of justice but an institution for defending the interests of Versailles.
A number of material considerations must, however, be added.
First, we left the League of Nations because—loyal to its origin and obligations—it refused us the right to equal armament and just as equal security.
Second, we will never reenter it, because we do not intend to allow ourselves to be used anywhere in the world by a majority vote of the League of Nations for the defense of an injustice.
Third, we believe we will please all those nations who are misled by misfortune to rely on and trust the League of Nations as a factor of genuine help. We should have regarded it as more correct, for instance, in the case of the Ethiopian war, for the League to have shown more understanding for vital Italian needs and less disposition to help the Ethiopians with promises. This would, perhaps, have enabled a more simple and reasonable solution for the whole problem.
Fourth, on no account will we allow the German nation to become entangled in conflicts in which the nation itself is not interested. We are not willing to stand up for the territorial or economic interests of others without the slightest benefits to Germans being visible. Moreover, we ourselves do not expect such support from others. Germany is determined to impose upon herself wise moderation in her interests and demands. But if German interests should be seriously at stake we shall not expect to receive support from the League of Nations but we shall assume the right from the beginning to shoulder our task ourselves.
Fifth, we do not intend to allow our attitude to be determined in the future by any international institution which, while excluding official recognition of indisputable facts, resembles less the acts of a man of considered judgment than the habits of a certain type of large bird. The interests of nations in so far as their existence or nonexistence are ultimately concerned are stronger than formalistic considerations. For in the year 2038 it is possible that new states may have arisen or others disappeared without this new state of affairs having been registered at Geneva.
Germany will not take part in such unreasonable proceedings by being a member of the League of Nations.
With one country alone have we scorned to enter into relations. That state is Soviet Russia. We see in bolshevism more now than before the incarnation of human destructive forces. We do not blame the Russian people as such for this gruesome ideology of destruction. We know it is a small Jewish intellectual group which led a great nation into this position of madness. If this doctrine would confine itself territorially to Russia maybe one could put up with it. Alas, Jewish international bolshevism attempts to hollow out the nations of the world from its Soviet center.
As I have more than once stated, Germany has in Europe no more territorial demands to make of France. With the return of the Saar we trust the period of Franco-German territorial differences is finally closed.
Germany also has no quarrel with England apart from her colonial wishes. However, there is no cause for any conceivable conflict. The only thing that has poisoned and thus injured the common life of these two countries is the utterly unendurable press campaign which in these two countries has existed under the motto “freedom of personal opinion.”
The British government desires the limitation of armaments or the prohibition of bombing. I myself proposed this some time ago. However, I also suggested at the time that the most important thing was to prevent the poisoning of the world’s public opinion by infamous press articles. That which strengthened our sympathy with Italy, if this were possible, is the fact that in that country state policy and press policy tread the same road.
There are more than ten million Germans in states adjoining Germany which before 1866 were joined to the bulk of the German nation by a national link. Until 1918 they fought in the Great War shoulder to shoulder with the German soldiers of the Reich. Against their own free will they were prevented by peace treaties from uniting with the Reich.
This was painful enough, but there must be no doubt about one thing: political separation from the Reich may not lead to deprivation of rights, that is the general rights of racial self-determination which were solemnly promised to us in Wilson’s Fourteen Points as a condition for the armistice. We cannot disregard it just because this is a case concerning Germans.
In the long run it is unbearable for a world power, conscious of herself, to know there are citizens at her side who are constantly being inflicted with the severest sufferings for their sympathy or unity with the total nation, its faith and philosophy.
We will know there can scarcely be a frontier line in Europe which satisfies all. It should be all the more important to avoid the torture of national minorities in order not to add to the suffering of political separation, the suffering of persecution on account of their belonging to a certain people.
That it is possible to find ways leading to the lessening of tension has been proved. But he who tries to prevent by force such lessening of tension through creating an equilibrium in Europe will someday inevitably conjure up force among the nations themselves. It cannot be denied that Germany herself, as long as she was powerless and defenseless, was compelled to tolerate many of these continual persecutions of the German people on our frontier.
But just as England stands up for her interests all over the globe, present-day Germany will know how to guard its more restricted interests. To these interests of the German Reich belong also the protection of those German peoples who are not in a position to secure along our frontiers their political and philosophical freedom by their own efforts.
I may say that since the League of Nations has abandoned its continuous attempts at disturbance in Danzig and since the advent of the new commissioner this most dangerous place for European peace has entirely lost its menace.
Poland respects the national conditions in the free city of Danzig and Germany respects Polish rights.
Now I turn to Austria. It is not only the same people but above all a long communal history and culture which bind together the Reich and Austria.
Difficulties which emerged in the carrying out of the agreement of July 11, 1936, made essential an attempt to remove misunderstandings and obstacles to final reconciliation. It is clear that whether we wished it or not an intolerable position might have developed that would have contained the seeds of catastrophe. It does not lie in the power of man to stop the rolling stone of fate which through neglect or lack of wisdom has been set moving.
I am happy to say that these ideas correspond with the viewpoint of the Austrian chancellor, whom I invited to visit me. The underlying intention was to bring about a détente in our relations which would guarantee to National Socialist sympathizers in Austria within the limits of the law the same rights enjoyed by other citizens.
In connec
tion with it there was to be an act of conciliation in the form of a general amnesty and better understanding between the two states through closer and friendlier relations in the various spheres of cultural, political, and economic cooperation. All this is a development within the framework of the treaty of July 11.
I wish to pay tribute to the Austrian chancellor for his efforts to find together with me a way which is just as much in the interests of both countries as in that of the entire German people, whose sons we all are regardless of where we came from. I believe we have thus made a contribution to European peace.
Our satisfactory relations with other countries are known to all. Above all is to be mentioned our cooperation with those two great powers which, like Germany, have recognized bolshevism as a world danger and are therefore determined to resist the Comintern with a common defense. It is my earnest wish to see this cooperation with Italy and Japan more and more extended.
The German people is no warlike nation. It is a soldierly one which means it does not want a war but does not fear it. It loves peace, but it also loves its honor and freedom.
The new Reich shall belong to no class, no profession, but to the German people. It shall help the people find an easier road in this world. It shall help them in making their lot a happier one. Party, state, armed forces, economics are institutions and functions which can only be estimated as a means toward an end. They will be judged by history according to the services they render toward this goal. Their purpose, however, is to serve the people.
I now pray to God that he will bless in the years to come our work, our deeds, our foresight, our resolve; that the almighty may protect us from both arrogance and cowardly servility, that he may help us find the right way which he has laid down for the German people and that he may always give us courage to do the right thing and never to falter or weaken before any power or any danger.
Long live Germany and the German people!
Winston Churchill Braces Britons to Their Task
“I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.”
When Winston Churchill addressed Parliament on May 13, 1940, he had just been appointed prime minister, a position that he held from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 until his retirement in 1955. His Conservative party sought to ready England for defense in the face of Nazi aggression, and Churchill rallied his country after succeeding Neville Chamberlain, a prime minister who thought he had achieved “peace for our time,” in the appeasement of Hitler at Munich in 1938.
Churchill delivered speeches eminently suited for quoting, their memorable phrases ranging from “their finest hour” to “iron curtain.” But no orator can guarantee that his prose will survive the editing of history: this 1940 speech about “blood, toil, tears, and sweat” is now often identified by the altered quotation “blood, sweat, and tears.” (The editing is apt; “toil” and “sweat” are redundant.) Curiously, common usage prefers to begin sequential phrases with “blood”: Otto von Bismarck’s warlike 1862 Eisen und Blut was also switched around to “blood and iron.”
The German threat, memorably described by Churchill as “a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime,” is the foremost concern of the new prime minister. Addressing the House of Commons, he uses repetition and alliteration (“many, many months of struggle and suffering”) to pound home the period of stress and sacrifice ahead. Through answers to his countrymen’s questions (“You ask, what is our policy?” and “You ask, what is our aim?”), Churchill outlines his intentions for England during the onset of World War II.
***
ON FRIDAY EVENING last I received from His Majesty the mission to form a new administration.
It was the evident will of Parliament and the nation that this should be conceived on the broadest possible basis and that it should include all parties.
I have already completed the most important part of this task. A war cabinet has been formed of five members, representing, with the Labour, Opposition, and Liberals, the unity of the nation.
It was necessary that this should be done in one single day on account of the extreme urgency and rigor of events. Other key positions were filled yesterday. I am submitting a further list to the king tonight. I hope to complete the appointment of principal ministers during tomorrow.
The appointment of other ministers usually takes a little longer. I trust when Parliament meets again this part of my task will be completed and that the administration will be complete in all respects.
I considered it in the public interest to suggest to the Speaker that the House should be summoned today. At the end of today’s proceedings, the adjournment of the House will be proposed until May 21 with provision for earlier meeting if need be. Business for that will be notified to MPs at the earliest opportunity.
I now invite the House by a resolution to record its approval of the steps taken and declare its confidence in the new government. The resolution:
“That this House welcomes the formation of a government representing the united and inflexible resolve of the nation to prosecute the war with Germany to a victorious conclusion.”
To form an administration of this scale and complexity is a serious undertaking in itself. But we are in the preliminary phase of one of the greatest battles in history. We are in action at many other points—in Norway and in Holland—and we have to be prepared in the Mediterranean. The air battle is continuing, and many preparations have to be made here at home.
In this crisis I think I may be pardoned if I do not address the House at any length today, and I hope that any of my friends and colleagues or former colleagues who are affected by the political reconstruction will make all allowances for any lack of ceremony with which it has been necessary to act.
I say to the House as I said to ministers who have joined this government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering.
You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.
You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs—victory in spite of all terrors—victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.
Let that be realized. No survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge, the impulse of the ages, that mankind shall move forward toward his goal.
I take up my task in buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men.
I feel entitled at this juncture, at this time, to claim the aid of all and to say, “Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength.”
Churchill Rallies the British People after the “Miracle of Deliverance” at Dunkirk
“We shall not flag or fail… We shall fight on the beaches… we shall fight in the fields and in the streets… we shall never surrender.”
The evacuation of 340,000 British soldiers from the beaches of Dunkirk on the continent of Europe, with 40,000 left behind to be taken prisoner by the Nazi forces, was called by Churchill “a miracle of deliverance,” as if it were a kind of allied victory. But the retreat to the beaches and across the English Channel on May 26 and 27, 1940, was—as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was reported to have said privately afterward—“the greatest military defeat for many centuries.”
He spoke to the House of Commons on June 4, as directional signs were being taken down at crossroads throughout Britain in anticipation of Hitler’s invasion. Three weeks before, he had delivered his speech offering nothing but “blood, toil, tears, and sweat” (see p. 143) but showing “buoyancy and hope” and concluding with a ringing “let u
s go forward together with our united strength.” That was before Allied forces suffered a crushing defeat and the real possibility of the landing of German troops swept the country. Now a longer speech in a more somber mood was required, containing a report more detailed in its military analysis, and with some silver lining seen in the war cloud.
After reviewing the tactical defenses put up by the British, French, and Belgian “armies of the north,” he reported how “the German eruption swept like a sharp scythe” around them. By showing how “the whole root and core and brain of the British Army… seemed about to perish or be led into an ignominious and starving captivity,” he accentuated the worst case possible, which made the successful retreat a “miracle of deliverance” for which Britain should be grateful. His repetition of the biblical word “deliverance” was the cue to the press to refer to “the miracle of Dunkirk.” By emphasizing the scope of the losses that were not suffered, the new prime minister lessened the impact of the defeat that took place.
Churchill was careful not to destroy his credibility by overtly minimizing the defeat that drove the British from the Continent and would be followed in three weeks by the surrender of France. “We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations.” Then came his crucial and upbeat but: “But there is a victory inside this deliverance… gained by the air force.” Only after paying tribute to the few thousand young airmen who beat back the Luftwaffe in this engagement, and calling their future defense of the realm an unprecedented “opportunity for youth,” did Churchill admit that the past week had been “a colossal military disaster.”
