dimanche 2 octobre 2011

Comment le Lend-Lease de FDR a sauvé l'Union Soviétique




VIDEO - Deanna Spingola - A Comparison of Roosevelt and Hitler - full version

Elizabeth Dilling - The Roosevelt Red Record and Its Background (10.21 MB)


THE REAL EFFECT
OF LEND-LEASE:
A FACTUAL ANALYSIS
HOW FDR’S LEND-LEASE PROGRAM
SAVED THE SOVIET UNION
BY THE BARNES REVIEW, 2009


THE LEND-LEASE PROGRAM, FIRST SUGGESTED by Winston Churchill, was enthusiastically adopted by Franklin Roosevelt. It was to be a major factor in the survival of the Soviet Union—an evil empire with feet of clay—and the victory over National Socialism. The U.S. taxpayers contributed the major portion of this giveaway. Even with the American Lend-Lease food aid, many Russians died fromlack of food. Equally important was Lend-Lease’s contribution to transportation. It would have been impossible for the Red Army to move the masses of troops and supplies on the primitive roads to the front lines without U.S. Studebaker trucks, which also served as the launching pads for the dreaded Soviet rocket artillery. The trucks were also used for more sinister activities, including the genocidal deportation of the North Caucasus Muslims.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__dCb5tmxOb0/S6QvPJ7UJqI/AAAAAAAAB2o/WaVKLIZG7eU/s320/250px-Georgi_Zhukov_in_1940.jpg  
MARSHAL GRIGORI ZHUKOV
Admitted Lend-Lease saved the Soviet Union.


By focusing on the origin, history and importance of the wartime so-called “Lend-Lease” program (1) to the Soviet Union, acclaimed historian Albert L.Weeks (2) in his book Russia’s Life-Saver: Lend- LeaseAid to the USSR in World War II provides an excellent purview of the influences, Communist and British, at play in the immediate prewar period to get the United States involved in the war against Germany (and to satisfy Stalin’s wishes with respect to Soviet war needs). Even though it was Japan that had (foolishly) attacked the United States, the Roosevelt administration’s top priority remained the defeat of Germany. Consequently, for the first year or two of the war, American armaments production went primarily to build up our own forces at home and to help the British and the Russians.

Weeks credits Russian historians Boris V. Sokolov and Alla Paperno, as well as others, for having broken through the enforced silence surrounding the true extent and importance of Lend Lease to the Soviet war effort.(3) Also,Weeks acknowledges the contribution of Russian historian Aleksandr Vyslykh in emphasizing the importance of Lend Lease in Soviet Russia’s victory.(4)

Until quite recently most Soviet authorities insisted that American aid had played only a minor role in the Red Army’s victory.

But in 1963 even Marshal Georgy Zhukov confessed:
 When we entered the war, we were still a backward country in the industrial sense, as compared to Germany. Today, some say the Allies really didn’t help us. . . . But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us materiel without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war. . . .We did not have enough munitions; and how would we have been able to turn out all those tanks without the rolled steel sent to us by the Americans?
Congress passed the Lend-Lease bill in February 1941 to, as President Roosevelt put it, “keep the British Isles afloat” and provide—against the advice of U.S. Ambassador Steinhardt—unconditional aid to the Soviet Union. Although the president had approved American Lend-Lease aid to Russia nine months before America was even in the war, the bulk of the shipments did not actually reach the USSR until about 1943, i.e., when the German advance had already been stopped and both sides were near exhaustion. The Lend-Lease materiel would give the Red Army the boost it needed to turn the tide and start the march to Berlin.
Thus, the Roosevelt administration had chosen to support the Soviet Union and the British absent any provocation on the part of Germany.
Weeks notes that, in the face of the American people’s opposition to intervention in the war, it took all of Roosevelt’s Machiavellian political skills and his soothing radio voice to convince Congress to aid Soviet Russia.A goodly number of leading senators, including Roosevelt’s own future vice president, Harry Truman, were of the opinion thatAmerica need only stay out of the war andwatch the two totalitarian states bleed each other to death.
But Roosevelt was encouraged by Winston Churchill, who needed both Russia and the United States as allies in the war Britain declared against Germany and to consider Stalinist Russia as a traditional defense-minded state rather than a revolutionary power bent on subverting and overturning the world order.
Meanwhile, as Weeks reminds us, hundreds of Soviet “agents of influence” and outright spies were already operating in the United States in the employ of the NKVD, NKGB and GRU in Moscow and their networks of resident agents (rezidentury in Russian). Among President Roosevelt’s closest advisers and friends were Henry Morgenthau, secretary of the Treasury, Harry Hopkins (later identified in the Venona intercepts as a Soviet agent of influence, and Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles, a “dove” with regard to the Soviet Union, later forced to resign because of a homosexual incident.
The assistant secretary of the Treasury, Harry Dexter White, one of the main drafters of the administration’s side of the Lend-Lease particulars, particularly as they pertained to the Russians, was also later identified as an agent of the NKGB.

There were differences in opinion as far as Lend-Lease tanks were concerned. The Kremlin officials were generally happy with them initially as they managed to bridge the shortfalls between Russian production quotas and their heavy combat losses. They weren’t quite so popular with the Russian tankers who had to crew them, however.
Later on in the war, when the Russians received some of the more advanced tank models like the M4 Sherman/76, they began to realize that some Allied tanks had features that were superior to their own. Allied tanks that had stabilized guns, radios and good reliability made a great impression on the Russians. A point often overlooked is the proportion of the Russian tank force that Allied Lend-Lease shipments represented. The Lend-Lease shipments accounted for some 15% of the total Russian tank force in 1941-1942.The list below details the numbers and types of individual vehicles sent to Russia:
Bren carriers—2,336
M3 half-tracks—900
Other half-tracks—820
M3A1 scout cars—3,092
M3A1 Stuart tanks—1,233
Valentine—3,487
Churchill tanks—258
M3A3 Lee Grant tanks—1,200
Matilda tanks—832
M4A2 75mm Sherman tanks—1,750
M4A2 76mm Sherman tanks—1,850
Light trucks—151,000
Heavy trucks—200,000
Jeeps—51,000
Tractors—8,070


Lend-Lease Aircraft

The aircraft delivered as part of the lend lease programme were especially welcome following the Red airforces catastrophic losses during the opening months of the campaign. Lend-lease aircraft amounted to 18% of all aircraft in the Soviet air forces, 20% of all bombers and 16% of all fighters and 29% of all naval aircraft. Some American aircraft types, such as the P-39 Airacobra fighters, A-20 Boston and B-25 Mitchell bombers and C-47 transport aircraft, were highly revered by their Russian crews. Several Russian aces scored more than 40 victories with Airacobras. The list below details the numbers and types of individual aircraft sent to Russia:
P-39 Airacobra single-engine fighters : 4719
P-40 single-engine fighters : 2397
P-47 : 195
Hurricane single-engine fighters : 2952
Spitfire single-engine fighters : 1331
 A-20 twin-engine light attack bombers : 2908 
B-25 twin-engine medium bombers : 862


 Lend-Lease Artillery Shipments
The Russians felt that they had sufficient numbers of field artillery and knew that production would increase following the relocation their manufacturing facilities to the Urals and Siberia. However they did need AA and AT guns more urgently. However they were not satisfied with the performance of the AT guns they received and did not request any more. They were however satisfied with the Allied anti-aircraft guns they received. The list below details the numbers and types of individual AA and AT guns sent to Russia:
37mm Anti-Tank 35
57mm Anti-Tank 375
37mm Anti-Aircraft 340
40mm Anti-Aircraft 5,400
90mm Anti-Aircraft 240
Lend-Lease Ammunition And Explosives
The Allies supplied 317,000 tons of explosive materials including 22 million shells that was equal to just over half of the total Soviet production of approximately 600,000 tons. Additionally the Allies supplied 103,000 tons of toluene, the primary ingredient of TNT. In addition to explosives and ammunition, 991 million miscellaneous shell cartridges were also provided to speed up the manufacturing of ammunition.
Additional War Material
In addition to military equipment, other commodities were sent which were essential to the war effort. These included 2.3 million tons of steel, 229,000 tons of aluminium, 2.6 million tons of petrol, 3.8 million tons of foodstuffs including tinned pork, sausages, butter, chocolate, egg powder and so on, 56,445 field telephones and 600,000km of telephone wire. The Soviet Union also received 15 million pairs of army boots.
Conclusion
Overall, lend lease material made a considerable difference to the Russian war effort. Following heavy equipment losses in 1941 and early 1942 and the almost complete relocation of Soviet industry, it helped to reestablish the Russians ability to continue fighting. In the later years of the war it helped to enable and sustain the large mobile operations the Russians undertook as they pushed German forces out of Russia and back into Germany. Joseph Stalin never revealed to his own people the full contributions of Lend-Lease to their country's survival, but he referred to the program at the 1945 Yalta Conference saying, 'Lend-Lease was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most remarkable and vital achievements in the formation of the anti-Hitler alliance'. Lend lease material accounted for almost 10% of all Russian war material.

SOURCE: WWW.THEEASTERNFRONT.CO.UK/ LENDLEASE.HTM



Total Lend-Lease Aid
to Stalin’s Soviet Union

($28+ billion to June 1944)
Munitions: $15.1 billion
Industrial Materials: $6 billion
Agricultural Products: $3.6billion
Services: $3.5 billion

The Venona documents established beyond doubt his treason in the Nathan Silvermaster spy ring (another Treasury official) and as an agent in a Soviet secret operation.The billionaire industrialist Armand Hammer, a notorious international fence for the Communists, also played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend Lease. Hammer acted as intermediary between Roosevelt, Hopkins and Stalin.(5)
Further, Weeks states that Soviet spy penetration within the upper echelons of the American government was incredibly extensive.
In addition to the abovementioned individuals, there was the American diplomat and policymaking aide Alger Hiss; also Lauchlin Currie, Roosevelt’s economics assistant within the White House itself and a spy courier. Soviet agents operated in the War Department, the OSS, (6) theAir Corps, the War Production Board, the Office of War Information, departments of Agriculture and Commerce and the administration of Lend Lease. Averell Harriman, another close adviser to the president, while not himself sympathetic to Communism, headed a firm that had been a large investor in the Soviet economy since 1918 and was therefore anxious that good relations continue between America and the Soviet Union. Says Weeks:
The very conception and eventual administration of Lend Lease was in large part made possible by officials under the influence—directly as spies or tangentially in their respective administrative agencies—of such Soviet underground activity by spy ‘illegals.’ . . . It is hard to deny that this widespread penetration of Soviet agents of influence, not to mention the many unnamed Soviet sympathizers in the American bureaucracy and at the highest levels in Washington, D.C., all became potent factors that led Stalin, before World War II, in the direction of accommodation with the U.S. government, which he calculated he could influence so well.As, in fact he did. (p. 45)
BothMaxim Litvinov, the ex-foreign minister who had been replaced to placateHitler and thenmade ambassador toWashington, and S.A. Lozovsky, deputy commissar of foreign affairs, both Jewish, had plans for America. Early on, while ambassador, the prescient Maxim Litvinov had assured Stalin: “It is beyond all question that later on Roosevelt will be accessible to our influence.”
His assurance proved golden. (Nonetheless, when Stalin had no further use for these gentlemen, he removed them. In 1952 during the anti-Jewish campaign Stalin had Lozovsky executed.)
It is interesting,Weeks observes, that both Stalin and Hitler were convinced that Washington was run by “Jewish money.”
When Harry Truman, whom Stalin disliked at first meeting, replaced FDR as president, Stalin reasoned that a new, “non-Jewish” group was now in charge in America.
Churchill, in earlier days, had lamented that Communism, as a baby, had not been strangled in the cradle. Moreover, British diplomatic treachery and hypocrisy were well known to the world and especially to Stalin. Stalin had never really trusted Churchill and the English ruling class.
On the other hand, a genuine friendship appears to have developed between Roosevelt and the Soviet tyrant. According to Russian historian Yu.B. Basistov, whom Weeks cites, by 1939 Stalin considered the United States to be a “pro-Soviet” country.
Stalin viewed Roosevelt as a foxy character and “politikan,” a shrewd politico, whom only he, Stalin, could outwit. It is obvious, of course, why Stalin would favor Roosevelt, but why the American president should have been so pro-Soviet remains a mystery.Was it because of the number of Communist sympathizers in FDR’s entourage?
To ingratiate himself with Stalin, Roosevelt often did so at the expense of Churchill and the British Foreign Service.
Since Stalin well knew that bothWestern leaders before June 22 were publicly and undeniably committed to the notion that, of the two dictatorships, German and Russian, the latter was far less threatening to American and British interests, he was in the driver’s seat. The Russian dictator was also quite aware of the fact that both Britain and the United States needed Russian manpower in the war against Germany. The United States indeed became the “arsenal of democracy,” but Russia was to suffer most of the battlefield deaths.
By late 1940 and especially since the unsuccessful and disruptive visit of Molotov to Hitler, Stalin realized he would inevitably be allied with the United States and Britain against Germany, Weeks maintains. On the diplomatic front, in July 1940 Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles engaged in exploratory talks with Konstatin Umansky, the Soviet ambassador, on issues of mutual interest. Not long after, Umansky, certainly with Stalin’s approval, made the public statement: “Without doubt the Soviet Union and the United States will eventually be on the same side anyway.”
Weeks quotes Ya.Ye. Chadayev, an eyewitness to a Politburo meeting in the Kremlin on November 14, 1940, in which Stalin is reported to have said, among other things:
1. Germany is preparing to attack our country. The Fuehrer used the talks in Berlin in an attempt to cover up his true intentions.
2. The Sovietsmade their agreements with Nazi Germany merely to forestall an attack by fascist Germany. . . . This provided us with a temporary breathing spell.
3. Meanwhile the Reich’s ruling circles have increased their hostile actions toward us as though to accentuate the fact that the attack on the Soviet Union was a foregone conclusion.
4. So, what are the Fuehrer’s intentions with respect to further cooperation with the Soviet state? Can we assume that at some time Hitler would abandon the plans inscribed in Mein Kampf? Of course we cannot make this assumption.
5. Hitler has subdued six European countries [really four and two halves, considering that Russia took half of Poland and Hitler took only half of France—Ed.]. . . .
This was of course a great strategic achievement for fascist Germany. Now Hitler has set task of settling matters with England. Yet this is not Hitler’s main goal.Themain thing for him is to attack the Soviet Union. . . .We must always keep this inmind as we prepare to repulse the fascist aggression. (p. 95)
Ironically, on the day (March 11, 1941) FDR signed Lend Lease into law, V.N. Merkulov, the NKGB boss, issued a secret report stating that there was solid evidence from “many reliable diplomatic sources in Berlin that Germany was planning an attack on the Soviet Union that very likely will take place in the summer of this year.”
In another incident Weeks recounts that at a late-night party in the apartment of a Georgian friend G.A. Egnatashvili, someone expressed the fear that one day Soviet Russia would find itself at war with America. Hearing this Stalin blurted out: “My dear Liliya Germanova, we won’t be fighting America.We will be fighting Germany. England andAmerica will be our allies. So don’t be worried.”
It is true that the Russian dictator did not believe Hitler would attack the Soviet Union while Britain was still in the war and reportedly told Marshal Zhukov in the spring of 1941,
“Hitler is not so foolish as to think the Soviet Union is simply another Poland or France, or Britain, or all of themtaken together!”
That belief, however, would not preclude his making his own plans for the invasion of Germany. In fact, itmight actually have encouraged Stalin to proceed with his aggressive plans.
Weeks states emphatically: “Stalin was kept well informed about German troop movements in the spring of 1941. To suggest that he simply ignored or repudiated all this espionage warning of German war plans is simply not credible.That Stalin, in fact, sought to exploit the information is credible.”
While Stalin appeared to dismiss the countless warnings of an impending German attack from his own intelligence sources as well as those fromthe UK and the United States,Weeks suggests the Soviet leader might have deliberately assumed that innocent and trusting posture for his public image at home and to mislead the Germans as to his true plans.To be sure, Soviet public policy (propaganda) before, during, and after WorldWar II has been to emphasize the purely “defensive” nature of any Soviet entry into the war (despite his attack on Finland). Stalin could hardly have announced publicly that he was planning an aggressive war against Germany. No doubt, if Germany had not upset the Russian planned attack (“Groza” = “Thunder”), the USSRwould have invented a convincing pretext for the operation.
Total Lend-Lease aid exceeded $50 billion (in 1940 dollars or about $300 billion in current dollars), of which Britain received some $31 billion and the USSR $12.5 billion (about $80 billion in current dollars). Stalin himself, whom all historians including Weeks now emphasize was an exceeding competent man whose prodigious memory impressed everyone, took the lead, after consultations with his military leaders, in compiling his Lend-Lease want-list. By war’s end, he had received roughly 10,000 tanks; 10,000 artillery pieces; 14,500 aircraft; high-octane aviation fuel; 100,000 tons of nonferrous metals; 500,000 trucks; 2.3million tons of food provisions; hundreds of ships; $3 billion worth of machinery, including whole factories; and military cloth sufficient to clothe 3 million Red Army men.
Weeks could neither confirm nor deny that some uranium had also been shipped to the Soviet Union. According to Sokolov, whom Weeks cites: “Lend-Lease shipmentsmade up anywhere from 15 to 25% and in some cases upwards to 50%of what the Soviets themselves were able to produce. . . . [W]ithout these shipments under Lend Lease, the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great PatrioticWar, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders.”
Weeks also describes the technical details of Lend-Lease shipments including the four main sea lanes of communication, their traffic loads, safety considerations and scheduling.
President Truman attempted to discontinue Lend-Lease aid on May 8, 1945, when the war in Europe officially ended, but quickly reinstated it on the advice of Ambassador Harriman. Much of this materièl was to turn up in the Korean War in the hands of the North Koreans and Chinese, to killAmerican boys.
During the entire period Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was in force, President Roosevelt, acting on his weird “hunch” that Stalin was really a closet democrat and that the United States and USSR were converging towardmoderate socialist democracies, insisted against the advice of his own ambassadors to the USSR (Lawrence Steinhardt, William Bullitt, AdmiralWilliam Standley) and the State Department (George Kennan, Charles Bohlen, Loy Henderson) that the Soviet Union should not be pressured tomake any reciprocal gestures of friendship or appreciation to the United States.
Stalin even refused to cooperate with the United States in wartime tactics and strategy.
Stalin constantly pressed a compliant President Roosevelt to send ever more materièl even after Soviet victory was assured. Supporting President Roosevelt’s naïve approach to the Soviets were Harry Hopkins, Joseph Davies, and Philip Faymonville.
Averill Harriman, who was intelligent enough to know that Roosevelt’s policy was wrong, never contradicted the president.Years later, Kennan voiced his opinion of President Roosevelt:
The truth is—there is no avoiding it—that Franklin Roosevelt, for all his charmand for all his skill as a political leader, was, when it came to foreign policy, a very superficial man, ignorant, dilettantish, with a severely limited intellectual horizon.(7)


ENDNOTES:

(1) We would “lend” the British the use of the destroyers and other war materiel in exchange for which they agreed to “lease” several British islands in the Caribbean for our own use and security. How the British would ever be able to return the destroyers etc., after they had been used and perhaps blown up in war has never been explained. It was just a phony arrangement to ship armaments etc to Britain and the Soviet Union.

(2) Albert L.Weeks, Russia’s Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the USSR in World War II, Lexington Books, Lanham, Boulder, NewYork, Toronto, Oxford, 2004, 176 pp. Dr. Weeks, professor emeritus of New York University, is the author of several books on Russia and international affairs, including Stalin’s Other War: Soviet Grand Strategy, 1939-1941, published in 2002. Fluent in Russian, Weeks himself was a lieutenant in the USAAF in World War II and actually flew in some of the aircraft sent to the USSR under Lend Lease. Weeks has guest lectured at West Point Military Academy and taught at NewYork University for over 25 years until his retirement in 1989.

(3) A. Paperno, Lend-Liz Tikhii Okean (Lend-Lease the Pacific Ocean, Moscow, Terra, 1998; Boris V. Sokolov. Tainy Vtoroi Mirovoi Voiny (Secrets of the Second World War), Moscow, Veche, 2001.

(4) Aleksandr Vislykh. Spasatel’nii Lend-Liz. Ne nado preumenshivat’ ego znacheniye v nashei pobede v Velikoi Otechestvennoi Voine (Life-Saver Lend-Lease: It Is Not Necessary to Minimize Its Importance in Our Victory in the Great PatrioticWar). Nezavisimoye voyennoye obozreniye), November 12, 2001.

(5) Daniel Michaels, “Epstein’s Hammer: The Life of Avraham ben Yehuda Maccabee, akaArmand Hammer,” THE BARNES REVIEW,Vol.VII, No. 2, 2001, pp. 41-44.

(6) Daniel Michaels, “Donovan’s OSS: A Flawed Organization,” THE BARNES REVIEW, Vol. VI, No. 4, 2000, pp. 17-22. Donovan’s chief aide and adviser, Duncan Lee, was a Soviet agent; among others, Leonard Mins was a GRU agent.

(7) Dennis J. Dunn, Caught Between Roosevelt and Stalin: America’s Ambassadors to Moscow, the University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, 1998, 350 pp.







Shocking Revelations Emerge in New Book
• Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941
By Michael Collins Piper
Until a few years ago, most patriots fondly recalled aviator Charles Lindbergh for his leadership of the America First movement that fought to prevent Franklin D. Roosevelt from steering the United States into war against Adolf Hitler’s Germany.
However, in recent times, pernicious Internet agitprop has convinced many patriots that heroes like Lindbergh and his “isolationist” colleagues were actually traitors doing the work of the New World Order.
One broadcaster in particular promotes this nonsense by constantly harping about “the Nazis,” hyping writers who smear Lindbergh and claim Hitler’s heirs are today plotting the “rise of the Fourth Reich.”
Those conned by this garbage fail to see this is really a ploy to keep the image of “the Holocaust” alive, thereby advancing the interests of Israel, which benefits from the Holocaust in multiple ways, without ever mentioning the word “Israel” even once. And that’s propaganda at its most deceptive and calculating.
Even more disturbing is that—as a consequence of this skewed version of history taking a grip on the minds of so many—a remarkable number of today’s patriots have no idea that roughly 90 percent of the American people agreed with Lindbergh: A war against Hitler was a war America should not fight.
The history of that period has been savagely distorted and those who should know don’t have a clue as to what really happened.
Ironically, however, coming out of an elite publishing giant, Random House, is a new book presenting a fascinating look at the efforts by Lindbergh to stop the push to embroil America in that unnecessary war: Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941.*
The flagrantly pro-British author, Lynne Olson, clearly holds Lindbergh’s traditional American nationalism in contempt, which explains why former secretary of state Madeleine Albright—who famously said the price of 500,000 dead Iraqi children was “worth it”—hails Olson as “our era’s foremost chronicler of World War II politics and diplomacy.”
Still, though soiled by its pro-New World Order slant, this is a book patriots need to read. Many books from establishment sources contain a lot of valuable facts. This is one such volume. Here are just a few of the author’s amazing admissions:
• Solid data proving that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and its Wall Street backers did not support Hitler, but vehemently opposed him.
• British intelligence set up shop at Rockefeller Center in Manhattan and collaborated with the pro-war Fight for Freedom—mostly “upper class East Coast Protestants”—and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, the Jewish espionage agency. All worked closely with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who was tapping the phones of those who opposed to the drive for war that Lindbergh said was the work of “the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.”
• The amazing story of how many high-ranking military officers “fiercely opposed” FDR’s efforts to arm Britain. Opposing aid to the British was no less than Gen. George C. Marshall whom the author says is now “regarded as the country’s greatest military figure in WWII.”
•While Americans today believe Britain was always seen as a grand ally, the author reveals that, after World War I, “many Americans came to believe that their country had entered the war not because its own national interests demanded such action, but because it had been tricked by the scheming, duplicitous British.”
• FDR utilized warmongering rhetoric of exactly the type today coming from essentially the same sources, including advocacy of the kind of police-state measures such as the Patriot Act and the concept of “homeland security,” which patriots have become convinced was a “Nazi” invention. Substitute’s today’s Muslim-bashing for German-bashing and it is history repeating itself.
Declaring any criticism of his policies as detrimental to national security, FDR spoke of “clever schemes of foreign agents” on American soil. However, the author admits: “The United States never faced any serious threat of internal subversion before or during the war. But the American people never knew that; in fact, they were told the opposite.”
• And, despite Pearl Harbor, most Americans still didn’t see the need for war against Hitler. The author admits, “the odds are high that Congress and the American people would have pressured the president to turn away from an undeclared war against Germany . . . and focus instead on defeating Japan.” Today, most Americans think Pearl Harbor sparked a nationwide cry of “Defeat the Nazi Beast.” It never happened.
——
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem.
The Book’s Publisher Says
Those Angry Days is the definitive account of the debate over American intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately determined the fate of the free world.
At the center of this controversy stood the two most famous men in America: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who championed the interventionist cause, and aviator Charles Lindbergh, who as unofficial leader and spokesman for America’s isolationists emerged as the president’s most formidable adversary. Their contest of wills personified the divisions within the country at large, and author Lynne Olson makes masterly use of their dramatic personal stories to create a poignant and riveting narrative.
While FDR, buffeted by political pressures on all sides, struggled to marshal public support for aid to Winston Churchill’s Britain, Lindbergh saw his heroic reputation besmirched by allegations that he was a Nazi.
Spanning the years 1939 to 1941, Those Angry Days vividly recreates the rancorous internal squabbles that gripped the United States in the period leading up to Pearl Harbor. After Germany vanquished most of Europe, America found itself torn between its traditional isolationism and the need to come to the aid of Britain, the only country still battling Hitler. The conflict over intervention was, as FDR noted, “a dirty fight,” rife with chicanery and intrigue, and Those Angry Days recounts every bruising detail.


http://i43.tower.com/images/mm102002233/stalins-war-extermination-1941-1945-planning-realization-documentation-joachim-hoffmann-hardcover-cover-art.jpg
STALIN’S WAR OF EXTERMINATION
1941-1945
Planning, Realization & Documentation German historian Dr. Joachim Hoffmann was certainly one of the most qualified scholars in the world on Soviet military history. For over 30 years he has pored over Russian-language documents about WWII.
Stalin’s War of Extermination is the result of this eye-opening and enduring research.
Since the 1920s, Josef Stalin had planned to invade and conquer Europe in order to force communism on its inhabitants.
The outbreak of war between Germany and theWestern Allies in 1939 gave Stalin the opportunity to prepare an attack against Europe which was unparalleled not only in terms of his far-reaching goal of conquering all of Europe itself, but also in terms of the massive numbers of troops and materiel he was preparing to flood across the Soviet border.
Hoffmann also explains how Soviet propagandists incited their soldiers to hatred of all things German. Hoffmann gives the reader a short but extremely unpleasant glimpse of what happened when these soldiers, dehumanized by Soviet brainwashing and brutality, finally reached German soil in 1945.
Luckily, Hitler’s brilliant lightning strike prevented Stalin from succeeding with his plans to unleash his hordes on dozens of other hapless nations.
Stalin’s War of Extermination (hardback, 415 pages, #282, $40 minus 10% for TBR subscribers) is available from TBR BOOK CLUB, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003. Add $3 S&H per book inside the U.S. Email TBRca@aol.com for best S&H to areas outside the U.S.





ASSESSING WHO REALLY CAUSED
GERMANY’S 1941 ATTACK ON RUSSIA


Documents show that World War II-era Germany had no chance for peace, being surrounded by imperialist powers that were bent on her unconditional surrender and the annihilation of the German people. Germany’s only hope was a pre-emptive attack on the giant, menacing Soviet Union. It was a necessary but desperate measure that resulted in failure and the loss of World War II.

BY UDO WALENDY
THE BARNES REVIEW, 2009
Free PDF DOWNLOADS

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRrdbI28jO1u4nfFgQIU4x8hV4wqwFBjEqnTnHOcAEJvAIl55ICjBeRrOGH
Udo Walendy—a
highly respected
scholar—has been
imprisoned in
Germany on several
occasions for viola-
ting that nation’s
draconian thought
crimes laws.



Even now, nearly 65 years after the end of World War II, the most absurd and untruthful accusations of guilt for the 1941 campaign in Russia are spread about throughout the world—against Germany or Adolf Hitler, as the casemay be—coming fromthe politicians, themedia and “court historians’” books. Yet the Bolshevik objective of world domination, the heavily armedmilitary in the USSR and Stalin’s openly aggressive advance during 1939-1941 through Finland into the Baltic area, toward Poland, Romania, Bulgaria andYugoslavia, were well known worldwide.

The Red Army’s gigantic troop deployment along the entire western front, for the invasion of Europe, had already been known to the cognoscenti in governmental circles in 1941 through secret services, the diplomatic corps and the press. FDR and Churchill, in order to force a German-Soviet war, had already provided war materiel to the Soviet Union, prior to June 1941. International researchers later confirmed this in detail.

The most recent example of a “historian” enmeshed in overly zealous re-education opportunism was given by Bogdan Musial in his book Kampfplatz Deutschland—Stalins Kriegspläne gegen den Westen (“Battleground Germany: Stalin’s War Plans Against the West,” Berlin, Historische Tatsachen [HT], no. 103, 2008, pp. 3 ff).

Musial confirmed unequivocally from Soviet archive documents the globally unique industrial buildup, the deployment of Soviet military forces near the western national borders—“explicitly for the war of aggression against Germany” (ibid., p.465). But then Musial made all these facts appear insignificant.

Thus he referred to production and organizational deficiencies in the structure of the Soviet state and “established” that Hitler had “suspected nothing” at all (ibid., p. 465) of Stalin’s dangerous preparations, but rather had instead been “possessed by his idea of the acquisition of ‘Lebensraum’,” and even of “world domination” (462), and that Hitler had, in an irresponsible way, made himself to blame for opening the two-front war for Germany. Hitler therefore had no right (according to Musial) to launch a preventive war.

Rather, he was the “criminal aggressor,” because he, in the end, had “started it.” For such conclusions, authorMusial needed no evidence.

Not once did he even find a need to take a look in the Akten zur Deutschen Auswärtigen Politik (“Official Documents of German Foreign Policy” or ADAP).

A look in these official German documents, which are today known to have been edited by representatives of the victorious Western powers at the end of the war (Great Britain, France, U.S.A.), would have sufficed to refute such nonsense.

With regard to the antecedent history of the Russia campaign, it is to be noted that already in 1941 masses of authentic documents had been made available to the world, that they would of themselves be sufficient to debunk the motives imputed to Hitler of “lust for war and conquest.”

It is obvious that among the Allied editors of the Documents of German Foreign Policy for 1941, that—in contrast to what they had done in regard to the years 1938/1939/1940—the re-educators were doing the presorting.

In view of the massive documentary inventory for the year 1941, they had in the interim lost either the desire or the imagination (perhaps also the personnel, money or time) to develop the same intensity they had in their zeal for previous forgeries. For the year 1941, they seemingly contented themselves with excluding undesired papers.

Undoubtedly, it was clear to them that with this method one can likewise achieve the effect of a falsification of background. Both the one and the other—forgeries and exclusions—can be found in the ADAP as the official publications of the Foreign Office of today’s German federal government.

One finds numerous Soviet complaints about violations of Russian airspace sovereignty by German airplanes, but not a single German complaint about violation of German airspace by Soviet reconnaissance planes. Even the astonished question on June 21, 1941 of the Soviet foreign commissar, Molotov, directed to the German ambassador in Moscow, Count von der Schulenburg, is to be found in the ADAP, namely, that he could not at all understand the reasons why the German government would be so manifestly discontented with the Soviet government.

But one will search without success in Volume XII of Series D 1937-1941 (April 6 to June 22, 1941) for very decisive documents. Thus, as an example, the Memorandum der Reichsregierung (“Memorandum of the Imperial German Government”) presented to an international press conference by Reichsminister for Foreign Affairs von Ribbentrop in the early morning of June 22, 1941, which had been handed to Soviet Ambassador [Vladimir] Dekanosow in Berlin just a few hours before, about the grounds for the German military action against the USSR, is missing.

Likewise, the corresponding OKW (German High Command) announcements and the report of the Reichsminister for the Interior Dr. Wilhelm Frick and of SS-Reichsfuehrer Heinrich Himmler about the agitation, sedition and sabotage by Comintern inside the German sphere of influence are not listed.

True, the editors of theADAP do indicate that one would be able to look up these documents in the Monatshefte fuer Auswaertige Politik (“Monthly Publication of the Foreign Office”) being published at that time, in Issue 7, 1941, 545 ff—but who is able to do that in the face of the systematically “cleansed” German libraries following 1945?

If one goes through this publication of documents [i.e., Dokumente der Deutschen Politik], one is astonished at the extensive and careful work connected with the collection, especially when one considers the desperate war situation in Germany in 1944.

Something else is striking: One finds nowhere any sort of defamatory agitation, or even lies about atrocities, regarding any of Germany’s opponents, but, on the contrary, exclusively objective argumentation. Documents reprinted in this issue of HT about the causes and background of the Russia campaign (as likewise all the remaining documents) show that:

• The entirety of Hitler’s foreign policy decisions resulted from the conclusions and consequences of the most varied information from other people and governments, and not a single one from some capricious, preconceived madness or “plan” developed on his own authority, which is supposed to be ascribed to him;

• Hitler never ordered a subordinate to spread any lies whatsoever, in order to pave the way for a “desired aggression”;

• No lies were needed and none were employed, in order to provide grounds for the preventive attack of the German Wehrmacht against the USSR on June 22, 1941. Rather, the state of affairs presented from the German side corresponded clearly with the facts. It changes nothing in the circumstances of the case that, for all that, those in Berlin were not able to recognize the full extent of the Soviet army’s military strength, nor sufficiently see through to the intensity of the political cooperation at that time between the USSR, Great Britain and the U.S.A.

Already in 1939, Germany was encircled by imperialistic powers desirous of war and annihilation of the German people. Their initiatives, before the outbreak of war on September 1, 1939, were directed toward the extermination of Germany or toward unconditional surrender.

There is not a single document from these imperial powers (Great Britain, the U.S.A. or the USSR)—if one disregards fraudulent and (in Lenin’s sense) “tactical” documents and agreements—that would substantiate any claim that, after the early summer of 1939, any chance for peace was left to Germany.

This is the translated introduction to the German version of Historische Tatsachen (HT or “Historical Facts”) no. 104, which contains extensive documentation on this subject. (The complete issue of HT no. 104, in German, is available; please call 202-547-5586 for more information.) Translated by P. Strahl.






Russian Historian Blames Poland
For Instigating Second World War


By the THE BARNES REVIEW Staff

THE FOLLOWING WAS EXCERPTED from the Russian Internet newspaper edition of VSGLAD (“View”) of June 4, 2009. Originally the article appeared on the website of the Russian Defense Ministry. It was removed at the request of the Polish government but has appeared in various publications in Russia since. The author, Sergey N. Kowaljow, is the head of research for military history at the Russian Defense Department. He writes as follows:

The position of the Soviet Union on the eve of the breakout of World War II has been subject of discussion for quite some time by politicians, researchers and specialists as well as the public. Anti-Russian articles are based on a falsified and distorted depiction of the Russian leadership during that time. The mass media proclaims that a new cold war has begun. Some Western authors write the following: “It is time to confront the bitter truth: Russia has returned; it is rich and strong and carries animosity toward the West—a new cold war has been started, and, just like in the 1940s, we realize it too late.”

Today’s falsifiers attempt to turn the Soviet Union into the instigator of WorldWar II or at least blame “two bloody dictators” with equal parts of responsibility for unleashing it. A favorite argument is the non-aggression pact signed between the Soviet Union and Germany onAugust 23, 1939.

Judging the history of World War II without prejudice, one has to know that it was started with Poland’s refusal to German demands. Less known is that the German demands were very modest: The return of the city of Danzig to theThird Reich and asking for permission to construct an autobahn and railroad in order to connect East Prussia with the main part of Germany were hardly unreasonable. The inhabitants of Danzig were almost all Germans, separated from Germany by the Versailles Peace Treaty. They sincerely desired to be united with their historic homeland. The demands for building the roads were reasonable, especially since no claims were made for territory in the “Polish Corridor,” which separated Germany into two parts. Germany had never accepted the territorial changes in the east as determined by the Versailles Treaty (as opposed to changes on its western borders).

For these reason, the adjustment suggested by Germany to Poland on October 24, 1938 concerning Danzig and the Polish Corridor, was not considered to further complicate that situation. However, Warsaw answered gruffly and rejected the German suggestions. Poland aspired to major power status at the time and did not want to become a junior partner of Germany.

On March 26, 1939 Poland unequivocally refused to accede to German demands. Germany reacted by canceling on April 28, 1939 the German-Polish agreement of friendship and cooperation signed in 1934 and invading Poland on Sept. 1, 1939.








WORLD WAR II’ S FIRST RUSSIAN REVISIONIST

SUVOROV: THE MAN WHO REWROTETHE HISTORY OF WORLD WAR II


WE HAVE BECOME ACCUSTOMED TODAY to view [June 22, 1941, the invasion of the USSR] as Hitler’s greatest blunder. It is quite obvious since the publication ofViktor Suvorov’s books that this aspect of World War II has to be reexamined.One can now understand howthe preventive offensive actions of theGerman army begun against the USSR on 22 June 1941 actually constituted Hitler’s most brilliant military action, the high point of his military career. . . . Suvorov has opened an entirely new layer of our history. This is his greatest service. I amcertain that others will now surface to correct, refine and amplify his work. But they will always be the second, third or tenth.Viktor Suvorov was the first.—Historian Yuri Felshtinsky, Boston
BY DANIEL W.MICHAELS
BY THE BARNES REVIEW, 2009
Free PDF DOWNLOADS

Declared by the former USSR Communist Party and government to be a traitor and sentenced to death in absentia,
“Viktor Suvorov” (his real name being Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun) is nonetheless themost popular andmost widely read military analyst of the Russo-German war in Russia today. Much more than a Revisionist historian, Suvorov was the first, excluding of course the German leaders who were hanged at Nuremberg, to expose the conspiratorial activities of Stalin and his generals in planning a sneak-attack military takeover of Europe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Suworow_Wiktor.jpg/240px-Suworow_Wiktor.jpg
VIKTOR SUVOROV
Exposed the lies of Stalin.
Suvorov has proved to most independent historians that Stalin planned to attack Germany in early July, only to have his plans upset by Hitler on June 22.
Mindful always that the first victims of Communism were the peoples of the Soviet Union, Suvorov writes with reverence for the millions of lives that were wasted in the insane plans of Lenin and Stalin for “world revolution.” He also recognizes that many Russians will despise himfor his revelations. Suvorov explains:
I have challenged the one sacred thing the Russian people still cling to— their memory of the “Great Patriotic War.” I have sacrificed everything dear tome to write these books. It would have been intolerable to have died without telling the people what I have uncovered.
Curse the books fromwhich I have drawn my conclusions. Curse me. But even as you curse me, try to understand.
Before Suvorov’smost significant books on the prelude to and beginning of World War II, namely, Icebreaker, Mobilization Day (Day “M”), The Last Republic, Suicide and The Purge were published, it was as unthinkable to question the generally accepted version of the causes and prosecution of the Russo-German war, as it is today to question aspects of the so-called holocaust—almost a religious taboo.
Except for a very limited English-language edition of his Icebreaker published in the United Kingdom, none of Suvorov’s books has been made available in English. The first full text in any language appeared in German in 1989, while the first full Russian edition did not appear until 1992.
[Most of his books are available in Polish. Suvorov has written 18 books that have been translated into 20 languages.—Ed.]
Hamish Hamilton of London published the first and only English-language edition in 1990, but all copies soon mysteriously disappeared.To date, well over 4million Russian-language copies, far more than any other historical work, have been printed in the Russian Federation.
Over the years, extensive abstracts of Suvorov’s books have appeared in two American journals: The Journal of Historical Review (JHR) and THE BARNES REVIEW (TBR).These have cast new light on the events leading to the outbreak of hostilities between Germany and the Soviet Union.(1)
Finally, an American publisher, the Naval Institute Press, has published a highly readable single volume of Viktor Suvorov’s World War II works, summarizing the contents of his four major works.(2)
Briefly stated, the official version of the causes for the war between Germany and the Soviet Union (National Socialism vs. Communism) in the Western democracies before Suvorov’s works became available could be phrased thusly:
Without warning or provocation, Hitler launched a surprise Blitzkrieg against the woefully unprepared Soviet Union, thereby violating a friendship pact made with its leader, the unsuspecting and trusting Stalin. The crazed German “Fuehrer” was driven by his lust for Lebensraum in the east and his mad obsessive hatred of the Jews, who he believed to be the dominant force in both Communism and capitalism. In Hitler’s treacherous attack, which was only part of his megalomaniac scheme for world conquest, the National Socialist hordes with their preponderance of tanks and aircraft initially over- whelmed the land of the Soviets.
Needless to say, both the Russians and the Germans, whose war it actually was, have a more realistic explanation for the causes of it. Communism and National Socialism, while irreconcilable ideologies, were both revolutionary in the sense that after World War I old Europe had vanished. The European monarchies were decimated, the empires were tottering, capitalism had collapsed into a world depression, Christianity appeared to have no answers, and young people in Europe were attracted to one or the other of the new ideologies—they were building a new world order to fill the vacuum left by the old.
Suvorov, by virtue of his experience as a former Soviet intelligence officer, has turned the ridiculous version of the Russo-German War prevalent in theWest completely upside down. He proved that:
• It was Germany, not the Soviet Union, that was completely unprepared for war (the USSR, not Germany, possessed hordes of soldiers, tanks, aircraft, artillery etc);
• It was the Communists, not the National Socialists, who sought world conquest;
• The Germans did in fact issue a declaration of war, listing their reasons for doing so;
• Stalin had a timetable and plan for his intended sneak attack on Germany;
• Hitler, on the other hand, generally reacted to Soviet andWestern actions. But he was determined that the Soviet Union would never massively attack Germany first;
•When war came, both sides planned for an aggressive offensive campaign;
• If he was to win, Hitler needed a short fourmonth Blitzkrieg campaign; and
• If his own surprise attack failed, Stalin favored a long war of attrition.
As it turned out, Hitler upset Stalin’s methodical plan by attacking first and winning the initial battles. Stalin, however, on the strength of Soviet industry’smass production of war materiel and the endurance and toughness of his soldiery, prevailed, to win the war. Hitler’s Wehrmacht fought tenaciously, almost to the last man and last cartridge, but, after its failure to take Moscow, it could not win. Hitler’s allies— Romania, Hungary, Finland and thousands of volunteers, including some Britons and men from India—however brave and dedicated—could notmatch the strength contributed to the Soviet Union by Stalin’s allies: the United States, the United Kingdom (and her colonies), France (and her colonies), Poland and other “democracies.”
Suvorov agrees with historians A.J.P. Taylor, David Hoggan, Patrick Buchanan and others that Hitler neither wanted nor planned for a European-wide conflict in 1939. Even the British and French declarations of war against Germany did not necessarilymean a world war would ensue, especially since Germany continued to try to negotiate a peace during the PhonyWar (der Sitzkrieg; October 1939-April 1940) and even reduced her armed forces. Britain, however, would have none of it.
British diplomacy, intentionally or not, misled the Germans as to how the unfair provisions might be corrected.At first, and for some time thereafter, the British assured Germany that the inequities in the Versailles Treaty could all be rectified through peaceful negotiations.Then suddenly the British reversed policy and issued a war guarantee to Poland in the event Germany pressed her demands to undo decisions taken against her at Versailles.
The Kremlin now knew that the world war that Stalin planned for had begun.
Lenin and Stalin, Suvorov argues, both believed the Communist world revolution could only be spread to Europe by means of another war.To this end, Stalin began early to fan Germany’s revanchist fires by permitting theThird Reich to train its armed forces on Soviet soil, actually helping Hitler to gain power with the hidden aim of eventually using Germany as a surrogate to conquer Europe. As the title of his most famous book Icebreaker implies, a vehicle or agent was needed to clear the path to war. Hitler, according to Suvorov, was to be that agent.Moreover, the Third Reich would also bear the onus of having instigated the war.
At the opportune time, i.e., after the National Socialists had subjugated Europe and all the belligerents (Germany, France, Poland and England) were exhausted, the Soviet Union would invade Germany with an irresistible, overwhelming surprise attack, thereby conquering and communizing not only Germany but all the nations of Europe under National Socialist control as well. The Soviets would then, as Stalin planned, occupy most of Europe as “liberators.”
Lenin said: “History progresses on the basis of wars of liberation.”
Stalin said: “Revolution is exported on the points of bayonets.” Stalin’s closest associates, Molotov, Zhdanov, Mekhlis and Shcherbakov, constantly spoke of “expanding the boundaries of socialism on the wings of war.”
The main principles of Soviet military doctrine in spring 1941 were: 1) The Red Army is an offensive army; 2) War must always be fought on enemy territory with minimumfriendly losses and the total destruction of the enemy; 3) The working class in the enemy’s country is a potential ally and should be encouraged to rebel against the ruling class; and 4)War preparations must ensure that offensive capabilities are realized.
Suvorov fixed the date of the planned Soviet attack on Germany andWestern Europe by analyzing the Soviet Union’s mobilization plans. On August 19, 1939, the same month the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact was signed and before Stalin and Hitler had even invaded Poland, Stalin activated his secret mobilization plan in the Soviet Union calling for the Second Strategic Echelon, formed from units in the interior, to proceed to the western frontier to merge with the First Strategic Echelon that was already in their jump-off positions for offensive action.
Since this secretmobilization, as planned by Gen. Boris Shaposhnikov, would take two years to conclude, and since totalmobilization in Russia is only undertaken when war is inevitable, Suvorov concluded that Stalin planned to attack Germany in the summer of 1941. Victory over Germany would also mean that the Soviet Union would occupy theWest European countries that Germany had conquered, as “liberators.”
Pursuant to the secretmobilization plan, by June 1941 the 74 divisions of the 2nd Strategic Echelon joined the 170 of the 1st Echelon already in position on the border, raising the total of RedArmymen to 5million.A total of 15,800 Soviet aircraft and 25,800 tanks had also beenmassed on the western border. Since the RedArmy was concentrated in two threatening salients protruding into the west (Belostok in Belorussia and Lvov in Ukraine) in attack positions, it could hardly be withdrawn or disbanded.
Nor could it remain in battle readiness indefinitely.
Suvorov asks the questions no Russian general or official has ever been able to answer: “Why were such enormous forces massed?And what else remained for them to do, but attack?”
Stalin very early (1930s) undertook to provide the armed forces of the Soviet Union with the best possible offensive weaponry to satisfy the requirements as defined in the Communist war philosophy and the Sovietmilitary doctrine.The weapon systems so developed, according to Suvorov, always exceeded Germanmilitary strength in numbers, and, with few exceptions, in quality as well. One of the best impartial descriptions of the comparative strengths of the armed forces of Germany and the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 and throughout the war that supports Suvorov’s contention may be found in Stalin’s Secret War by RobertW. Stephan.(3)
Among the many advanced arms and military equipment in the RedArmy indicative of planned offensive action were an airborne assault force of almost a million men with about a thousand long-range TB-1 and TB-3 aircraft to deliver them; amphibious tanks (T-40), airborne KT (A-40) tanks, wheeled tanks for use on European highways; strategic bombers (TB-7), Su-2 (Ivanov) attack aircraft modeled after the Nakajima B5N2 used by the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, maps of border areas and targets in Romania and Germany; German-Russian military phrasebooks etc. The Zhukov Plan ofMay 15, 1941 for the invasion of Germany emphasized the crucial condition necessary for success:
In order to prevent a surprise German attack and to destroy the German army, I consider it essential that under no circumstances should the initiative for freedom of action be given to the German High Command.
I consider it essential to preempt enemy deployment, to attack the German army when it is still in the stage of deployment and has not yet had time to organize [its] front and the interaction between [its] service arms.
In the spring of 1941 when German military intelligence reported that the Red Army had built up her attack force on the border in strength that could no longer be ignored and that the Communist juggernaut appeared poised to strike, Hitler had to decide: He could either wait for the Soviet Union to attack him, or he could take the initiative and attack the USSR preemptively, believing that if he defeated the Soviet Union, England would becomemore conciliatory.The first-strike plan Zhukov had proposed to Stalin for dealing with the Wehrmacht was precisely what Hitler used against the Red Army.
Barbarossa shattered Stalin’smethodically drawn-up plan to “liberate” (Communize) all of Europe. Suvorov contends that Stalin was disappointed in the outcome of the war, reminding a fewWestern generals visiting Moscow that, “Czar Alexander I had gotten as far as Paris.” He showed his disappointment, Suvorov continues, in several ways:
• He abandoned work on the Palace of Soviets;
• He had Marshal Zhukov, not himself, the supreme commander, lead the victory parade in 1945;
• No other official May 9 victory parade was ever authorized until after his death;
• Stalin never wore any of the medals he was awarded during the war; and
• He hinted to some of his close associates that he might retire now that the war was over.
The Palace of the Soviets, approved by the Soviet government in the early 1930s, was to be taller than the Empire State Building and crowned with a statue of Lenin. It was to be built on the site of the former Cathedral of Christ the Savior. On Stalin’s order this magnificent symbol of old Russia was blown up in 1931—an act for all to see whereby the nation’s new Communist leaders symbolically erased the soul of old Russia to make room for the centerpiece of atheistic world Communism. (Under Putin the original cathedral was rebuilt.)
Suvorov considers Stalin to be Hitler’s “superior” in cleverness, rationality, emotional stability, international politics, cruelty and bloodletting. Moreover, Stalin was much better informed about German military capabilities than Hitler was of Russian. The only reason for Hitler’s initial successes, Suvorov believes, was that Barbarossa was an entirely irrational decision, which the thoroughly rational Stalin could not possibly have foreseen. But it is also possible that Hitler launched Barbarossa precisely because he knew Stalin would not expect it, thereby increasing the chances of success.
The importance, magnitude and effect of Suvorov’s indictment of Stalin as the primary instigator of the war in which some 31 million Russians and Germans perished are obvious. As a Russian, Suvorov cannot be expected to exonerate Hitler, but he does nevertheless understand why the German dictator undertook his “suicidal” attack on the Soviet Union. Hitler had to attack to have any chance of survival.
By refusing to negotiate for peace on theWestern Front after Poland capitulated, British diplomacy succeeded in dooming Germany to a two-front war.At ameeting with British Foreign Minister Lord Halifax on November 19, 1937, Hitler ominously warned, “Only one country —Soviet Russia—can win in the event of an all-encompassing conflict.”
Apparently in complete ignorance of the high state of Soviet military preparations, plans and weaponry (Suvorov considers the USSR at that time to have been the world’s first and only superpower), the United States in the late 1930s began supplying the Soviet Union with military hardware under a secret agreement made by President Roosevelt in 1938.
Then in February 1941, ninemonths before “neutral”America was even in the war and her own forces adequately armed, Congress passed the Lend-Lease bill ostensibly to “keep the British isles afloat” and, disregarding the advice of theU.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, to provide unconditional aid to the USSR.
In 1963 Marshal Zhukov said:
Today some say the Allies really didn’t help us. But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us materiel without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.We did not have enough munitions, and how would we have been able to turn out all those tanks without the rolled steel sent to us by theAmericans?
Suvorov sums up the attitude of theWest in the face of the two aggressors:
The world hated Hitler and commiserated with Stalin.
Hitler conquered half of Europe and the rest of the world declared war against him. Stalin conquered half of Europe and the world sent him greetings. To ensure that Hitler could not hold on to the conquered European countries, theWest sank German ships, bombed German cities, and then landed amassive and powerful army on the European continent. To enable Stalin to conquer and hold on to the other half of Europe, theWest gave Stalin hundreds of warships, thousands of military aircraft and tanks, hundreds of thousands of military vehicles and millions of tons of fuel, ammunition and supplies.
Understandably, the current Russian government cannot accept Suvorov’s Revisionism and indictment of Soviet policy because the country suffered some 27million casualties in the war; and to tell the nation that their government not only planned for the war but also botched it terribly would be unthinkable.
In Germany, it is dangerous, under penalty of punitive legal action, to question the official views on the war and the “holocaust” as established by the Allies. To accept Suvorov’s thesis would also mean that the Western Allies were completely blind to Communism’s greater threat to Europe and to themselves.
Fully aware of the importance of Suvorov’s work and anxious to bring his findings to the greatest audience, Russia and Germany have produced an 18-part documentary on three DVDs, called The Last Myth. The “Kloto” Association took 10 years to produce the documentary. It might well be worth your time to take a look at this video series.
ENDNOTES:
1 “Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War?” JHR, November/December 1997, vol. 16, no. 6, p. 22; “M-Day,” JHR, November/December 1997, vol. 16, no. 6, p. 28; “The Last Republic,” JHR, July/August 1998, vol. 17, no. 4., p. 30; “Stalin’sTrap,” JHR, vol. 18, no.3, 1999, p. 40. “Operation Barbarossa and the Russian Historians’Dispute,” JHR, vol. 19, no.6, 2000, p. 40. “Stalin’s 1937 Purge of the Red Army,” TBR, May/June 2000, vol.VI, No. 3, p.49; JHR, November/December 2000, vol. 19, no. 6, p. 40; “Revising the 20th Century’s Perfect Storm, and Russian and German Historians Debate Barbarossa and Its Aftermath,” JHR, September/ December 2001, vol. 20, nos. 5/6, p. 59.
2 Viktor Suvorov, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to StartWorldWar II, Naval Institute Press,Annapolis, Maryland, 2008, 330 pp.
3 RobertW. Stephan, Chapter 1, “The World Will Hold Its Breath” of Stalin’s SecretWar, University Press of Kansas, 2004, pp. 21-44.






AN OFFICIAL NAZI DOCUMENT:
The German Army’s Guidelines
For the Conduct of Troops During Wartime


SOME PEOPLE HAVE A HARD TIME BELIEVING that the German soldier of World War II was anything but a bloodthirsty killingmachine out to exterminate every Jew and Slav he could get his hands on. Soviet propagandists claimed thatHitler wanted to kill all Russians—whether Christian, Jew or non-denominational.

None of these claims is true, according to the set of guidelines for the behavior of German troops in active battle zones printed below. The document was printed inside every German soldiers’ pay book. It rigorously demonstrates that there was no talk of any extermination of the peoples of the Soviet Union, and that no such extermination was ever planned. German soldiers who violated this policy faced severe penalties. This official Nazi policy is greatly at odds with the encouraged policy of raping and rapine willingly practiced by a huge number of Soviet soldiers.

1.The German soldier will fight honorably for the victory of his people. He would dishonor himself by resorting to cruel deeds and unnecessary destruction.

2.The fighter must be in uniform or adorned with a visible and acceptable badge. To fight in civilian clothes without such a badge is prohibited.

3.No enemy that gives himself up shall be shot, not even the guerrilla fighter or the spy. These will receive their just punishment through the courts.

4.Prisoners of war shall not be mistreated or insulted. Weapons, plans and records shall be confiscated. None of their personal belongings shall be removed.

5.Dum-dum bullets are prohibited. It is also forbidden to convert regular bullets into such.

6.The Red Cross is inviolable. Wounded enemy troops are to be treated in a humane manner. Medical staff and clergy are not to be impeded in their medical or pastoral duties.

7.The civilian population is inviolable. The soldier is prohibited from plundering or willfully destroying anything. Historical monuments and buildings that serve the worship of God, the arts, the sciences or charity in particular are to be respected. Contributions in kind and services of the population can only be claimed for compensation by order of a superior officer.

8.Neutral territory cannot be included in the wartime actions through trespassing on foot or flying over it or through shooting.

9.Should a German soldier be taken prisoner, he must identify himself upon questioning by name and service rank. Under no circumstances is he to identify his affiliation with his unit or talk about themilitary, political or economic conditions of the German side. He must not be persuaded to do this through bribery or threats.

10.Actions taken against the existing orders concerning service is a criminal offense. Violations of the enemy against the principles outlined in 1 to 8 are to be reported. Retaliatory rebukes are only permitted by order from the higher troop leadership.






ADOLF HITLER: THE SAVIOR OF EUROPE


This 1938 portrait of Hitler, entitled
The Standard Bearer, depicts the
Fuehrer as an armored European
knight defending Europe and Chris-
tianity. The painting was very pop-
ular in poster and postcard form.
It was created by Hubert Lanzinger.


HERE’S WHAT DIDN’T HAPPEN, but could so easily have been: In Western Europe, in the autumn of 1941:The RedArmy sweeps south from Germany and France into Italy and Spain. Everywhere the NKGB imposes the bloody terror already suffered by the tortured nations of the east.Millions are rounded up—anti-Communists, formermilitary officers, shopkeepers, land owners including small farmers, members of youth movements and cultural associations.The luckier ones are shot outright. Many more die horribly in the blood-soaked basements of Soviet interrogation centers.The rest join endless columns shuffling off to Siberia and the Gulag Archipelago. Only the prettiest girls are kept behind, alive, for now. There is an epidemic of rape. The lower ranks of the new Red puppet administrations consist mainly of sadistic criminals and psychopathic perverts, many of them Jewish. The key posts everywhere are overwhelmingly dominated by Jews.

Too late, the people of Europe learn that their new masters take literally the Talmudic admonition, “The best of the ‘goyim’ [a scurrilous word for non-Jews] must be destroyed.”

How close this nightmarish scenario came to becoming reality is revealed in Russian military historian Viktor Suvorov’s definitive account of the buildup to Operation Groza (“Thunderstorm”), the RedArmy’smassive assault on Germany and the rest of Europe scheduled to begin on July 6, 1941.

Icebreaker, by Suvorov, details the huge scale of the lengthy Soviet preparations to attack theWest. In 1939, for example, when Hitler had a total of 4,000 paratroopers ready to seize key points ahead of an advance, Stalin had more than one million. Soviet tank production dwarfed that of the rest of the world put together, but the majority of the tanks were capable of effective operation only on the good roads of Western Europe and were useless when forced onto the defensive in the backward wastes of Russia. Soviet pilots were totally untrained in aerial combat, since the German Luftwaffe was to be destroyed on the ground on Day 1 of Operation Thunderstorm.

As things turned out (as the chief of the General Staff Academy of the Armed Forces of the USSR, Gen. S.P. Ivanov, admitted in 1974), “The Nazi command succeeded in forestalling our troops, literally two weeks before the war” was supposed to begin.

This was why the advancing German Wehrmacht found millions of Russia’s best troops crowded together with huge supplies of ammunition, fuel, airplanes and tanks in indefensible positions right on the frontier.

Suvorov shows clearly how Stalin came within 14 days of taking this key step along the Marxist-Leninist path to ultimately bolshevizing the world, including America. But Hitler guessed Stalin’s design. That is why WWII ended “catastrophically” for Stalin. He “only” got half of Europe (thanks to Roosevelt and Churchill), and some places here and there in Asia.

Regardless of the abuse heaped on him by the media and the establishment historians, this book provesAdolf Hitler is the savior of the West (and the East). For more on this subject see our package of articles in this issue on Viktor Suvorov, Icebreaker and Operation Barbarossa, starting on page 35.

—JOHN TIFFANY
Assistant Editor





The Triumph of Christianity in the
Third Reich
BY MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN

When the allied military war against Germany and other dollar-independent nations ended in 1945, the destruction of their fallen peoples and other Europeans continued by other means. As always it was accompanied by crude propaganda. This continues unabated today as the allies, marching to Israel’s batonwielding lobby, decimate the European peoples through race-mixing, abortion,the promotion of same gender sex, and the systematic destruction of their racepride and their sense of history. What follows is a compendium of quotes concerning Christianity in the Third Reich.

It was against monstrous genocide that the Austrianborn leader of scores of millions within and beyond Germany railed. It was due to his love not only for his own German people but for European civilization as a whole that Adolf Hitler opined: “As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilizations of the ancient world some two thousand years ago—a civilization which was driven to its ruin through the same Jewish people.”
An important plank in the present day one-sided war of propaganda is the depiction of National Socialism as being anti-Christian and it being of an “occult” nature. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Adolf Hitler was of course scathing of what Christianity had become then and still is today. He observed: “It is a tragedy of the Germanic world that Jesus has been judaized, distorted, falsified; and an alien Asiatic spirit was forced upon us. That is a crime we must repair.”
Adolf Hitler was always acutely aware of his nation’s deep rooted spiritual beliefs and in Mein Kampf wrote, “Our task is to harness the God-given energy of this German nation to stand firm for the Truth.”
Born on April 20, 1889, in Braunau (on the River Inn), an idyllic rural village near the German-Austrian frontier, he was the third son of Alois and Klara Hitler. He was baptized in the local church. In his major work, Mein Kampf, the Holy Bible is quoted no less than five hundred times.
His own profound belief in the Almighty’s resistance against Jewish power is summed up by his statement: “I would like here to appeal to a greater than I, Count Lerchenfeld. He said in the last session of the Landtag that his feeling ‘as a man and a Christian prevented him from being an anti-Semite.’
“I say: my feelings as a Christian point me to the Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to a man who once in loneliness, surrounded only be a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
“In boundless love as a Christian and a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in his might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight for the world against the Jewish poison.
“Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.”
Within a year of his election, in January 1934, during his New Year’s message to the German people, their increasingly popular national leader said: “. . . we have not only brought thousands of priests back into the Church, but to millions of respectable people we have restored their faith in their religion and in their priests.”

Official German Government Policy
“The German Government, which regards Christianity as the unshakeable foundation of the ethical life of the German nation, attaches the greatest importance to the maintenance and development of friendly relations with the Holy See. . . .
“The national government regards the two Christian confessions as the most important factors of the maintenance of our ethical personality.
“The Party as such advocates a positive Christianity without binding itself to any particular church.” (24th Point, Government’s Program.)
“The Government will adopt a just and objective attitude towards all other religions.”

Critics Rounded Up
“Amongst the accusations directed against Germany in the so-called democracies is the charge that the National Socialist state is hostile to religion. In answer to that charge I want to make before the German people the solemn declaration:
1. “No one in Germany has in the past been persecuted because of his religious views, nor will anyone in the future be so persecuted.
2. “The National Socialist State since January 30, 1933, from public moneys derived from taxation through the organs of the State, has placed at the disposal of both Churches the following sums” (1,800,000,000 Reichsmark). Hitler went on to detail the enormous riches pouring into the German Churches making them by far the most prosperous in Europe, and pointed out that in separating the Church from the State he was only following the lead of France, America and other countries.
3. “The National Socialist State has not closed a church, nor has it prevented the holding of a religious service, nor has it ever exercised any influence upon the form of a religious service. . . .”

God Be Thanked
“In this hour I pray that the Almighty will give His blessing in the years to come to our labors, to our judgment and to our strength of resolution, that He may guard us from all false pride as from all cowardly submission, that He will let us find the right path, which He in his Providence has allotted to the German people, and that He gives us always the courage to do right and never to waver or weaken before any force or danger.” —5th Anniversary of the National Socialist government.

Rudolf Hess: Deputy Führer
“He countered atheistic blasphemy with the idea of an Almighty Being.”
Rudolf Hess spoke for his nation when he said: “Was it an accident that Hitler came? I do not think so. I believe that a Providence watches over the nations and that when a task is to be fulfilled in the world, this Providence sends the right man at the right time to fulfill and thus save the nation from downfall.”
In respect for those not sharing Christian beliefs he was equally forthright. “No National Socialist shall be allowed to suffer because he does not subscribe to a certain religion or because he subscribes to no religion at all. Belief is a matter for each one to resolve in the light of his own conscience. Compulsion must not be exercised.”
He added, “National Socialism would have every German decide for himself on spiritual questions, just as in the days of Frederick the Great. The National Socialist state gives to the church what belongs to the church, and to the state what belongs to the state.”
How interesting and observant of him that on 21 May 1935 Adolf Hitler could say: “. . . we never want to see a lack of religion and faith and do not want our churches turned into clubrooms and cinemas.”
Does that not precisely sum up the most casual tour of any locality in England and Europe today? We even see former churches turned into cash and carry wholesalers of which the proprietors are Jewish or Muslim. Other churches have been turned into mosques!

The Deputy German Leader
Rudolf Hess: “The Protestant world is still under German leadership. There is no foundation for the fear, voiced abroad, that Germany will forsake the Protestant world. The Protestant may remain Protestant and the Catholic Catholic, and he who is neither and nevertheless owns Christ, may also remain what he is.”
Hanns Kerrl, German Minister for German Affairs agreed: “Adolf Hitler gave us back our faith. He showed us the true meaning of religion. He has come to renew for us the faith of our fathers and to make us new and better beings . . . just as Jesus Christ made his twelve apostles into a faithful band to the martyr’s death whose faith shook the Roman Empire, so now we witness the same spectacle again. Adolf Hitler is the true Holy Ghost.”
And the German Faith Movement added, “I believe in the Holy German people inside and outside the German frontiers. I believe in Adolf Hitler, who by the grace of God was sent to give the German people faith in themselves once more.”


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Vs367kV7t9Y/Tq3-YnuHRZI/AAAAAAAABJ0/ly9AyMf2-UE/s1600/anti-german%2Bcommunist%2Bprop.JPG
More Anti-German, Communist Propaganda . . .
Above are two of the many anti-Nazi works of communist designer John Heartfield. Heartfield
continued his brazen propaganda efforts until the Communist Party was banned after Adolf
Hitler became chancellor. The poster on the left had a caption (not shown) that read: “The
Bishop of the Reich Inspects the Christian Ranks,” implying that Christian leaders had better
toe the National Socialist line if they wanted to remain in their positions. The poster on the
right had a caption (not pictured) that read: “The Cross Wasn’t Heavy Enough.” A Nazi Party
member adds additional boards to Christ’s cross to form a swastika. According to historian
Michael McLaughlin, propaganda like this, though effective, was far from truthful regarding
the National Socialist stance on Christianity.



Of the priesthood
Of the priesthood at Koblenz on August 26th, 1934, Adolf Hitler was unstinting in his support. “I know there are thousands and tens of thousands of priests who are not merely reconciled to the State today but who gladly give to the State their co-operation, and I am convinced that this co-operation will grow ever closer and more intimate. For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world today, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord.
“These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles! And I believe that if we should fail to follow these principles, then we should not be able to point to our successes, for the result of our political battle is surely not unblest by God.”

And of False Prophets
The German leader however was not blind to the infamy of the charlatan priesthood and was aware that some priests subverted their religious calling by diverting their teaching from spiritual need to political and social statements:
“Undoubtedly there have always been unscrupulous rogues who did not hesitate to degrade religion to the base use of politics. Nearly always such people had nothing else in their minds except to make a business of religion and politics. But on the other hand it would be wrong to hold religion itself, or a religious denomination, responsible for a number of rascals who exploit the Church for their own base interests just as they would exploit anything else in which they had a part.”
In Mein Kampf he wrote with clarity: “. . . it would be wrong to make religion, or the Church as such, responsible for the misdeeds of individuals. . . but for each of these unworthy specimens we can find a thousand or more who fulfil their mission nobly as the trustworthy guardians of souls and who tower above the level of the corrupt epoch, as little islands above the sea-swamp.”

The Church's first duty
Hitler’s endorsement of the teaching of Christ often brought him into conflict with the Church. His main charge against the Church’s influential hijackers was summed up by his surmising that they had “sinned against the likeness of the Lord in ignoring race and the purity of the blood of the nation. Instead of plaguing Hottentots and Kaffirs with missions which they neither desire nor understand, the Churches have a work to do at home to save their own people from a bodily and moral leprosy.”

Typical Pronouncements by Adolf Hitler
“The Aryan stands firm, one with God in his attitude to the world and its people.”
“We wish to fill our culture once more with the spirit of Christianity—but not only in theory.”
“And so I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew, I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.”
“To a political leader the religious teachings and practices of his people should be sacred and inviolable. Otherwise he should not be a statesman but a reformer, if he has the necessary qualifications for such a mission. Any other line of conduct will lead to disaster, especially in Germany.”
“It is a tragedy of the Germanic world that Jesus was judaised, distorted, falsified; and an alien Asiatic spirit was forced upon us. That is a crime we must repair.”
“In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the past, so in the years to come He would give His blessing to our work and our action, to our judgment and our resolution, that He will safeguard us from all false pride and from all cowardly servility, that He may grant to us to find the straight path which His Providence has ordained for the German people, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence, before any danger.”
His enemies never missed an opportunity in their attempts to undermine his authority, his popularity, and the Führer’s undoubted ability to win the hearts of true Christians throughout the Aryan diaspora. His response as always was Christian and spirited. In Stuttgart on the 15th of February, shortly after his electoral victory, in a barbed attack against the pro-Marxist Catholic Centre Party (Centrum) he said:
“And now Staatsprasident Bolz says that Christianity and the Catholic faith are threatened by us. And to that charge I can answer: In the first place it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany. I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity.
If many wish today to take threatened Christianityunder their protection, where, I would ask, was Christianity for them in these fourteen years when they went arm in arm with atheism . . . sat with those who denied God in one and the same Government?” —Stuttgart, 15 February 1933.

God Never Abandoned Any Man
“When folk have set before them a true purpose and then pursue it unmoved with bravery and courage, when they withstand with a strong heart every trial which Heaven sends upon them, then one day at the last Almighty Providence will yet grant them the fruits of their struggle and of their sacrifices. For God has never abandoned any man upon this earth unless he has first abandoned himself.”
In a lesson that might be applied to Northern Ireland’s misguided Christians, the Führer had a simple message: Convinced that the common struggle being waged against the common destroyer of Aryan humanity, he called for Catholic and Protestant mutual respect and mutual esteem. “In the ranksof our Movement the most loyal Catholic must be able to sit side by side with the most loyal Protestant without either of them having to suffer the smallest conflict of conscience with his religious convictions.”
Of interfaith rivalry the Führer deplored the confessions for their looking on unconcerned at the desecration and destruction of a noble and unique creature—Aryan man—which by God’s grace had been given to earth. He added “For the future of the earth it is of no significance whether the Protestants conquer the Catholics or the Catholics the Protestants: the only significance consists in the question whether Aryan man is preserved or whether he dies out. And yet both Churches today do not fight against the destroyer of Aryan man but mutually seek to annihilate each other.”

With God’s Help
“If Providence had not guided us I would often never have found these dizzy paths. Thus it is that we National Socialists have in the depths of our hearts our faith. No man can fashion world history or the history of peoples unless upon his purpose and his powers there rests the blessing of this Providence.”
“I believe that this was God’s Will—to send a boy into theReich, to let him become its Leader, in order to bring his home country into the Reich. Otherwise one must doubt Providence.”
“Help thyself, then thou wilt also have the help of the Almighty.”

Christian Charity
During the Winter Help Campaign during October 1937, the German Leader was demonstrative in his tireless campaigning for the have-nots: “This Winter Help Work is also in the deepest sense a Christian work. When I see, as I so often do, poorly clad girls collecting with such infinite patience in order to care for those who are suffering from the cold while they themselves are shivering with cold, then I have the feeling that they are all Apostles of a Christianity—and in truth of a Christianity which can say with greater right than any other: This is the Christianity of an honest confession (church), for behind it stand not words but deeds.”

National Socialism Anti-Cult
Only on the matter of cultish beliefs was the Führer less than complimentary. At Nuremberg, on 6 September 1938, he made his views absolutely clear:
“National Socialism is a cool-headed doctrine of realities; it mirrors clearly scientific knowledge and its expression in thought. Since we have won the heart of our people for this doctrine we do not wish to fill their minds with a mysticism which lies outside of that doctrine’s goal and purpose.
“National Socialism is not a cult-movement—a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkish’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship. Therefore we have no rooms for worship but only halls for the people—no open spaces for worship but spaces for assemblies and parades. We have no religious retreats, but arenas for sports and playing-fields, and the characteristic feature of our places of assembly is not the mystical gloom of a cathedral but the brightness and light of a room or hall which combines beauty with fitness for its purpose.
“In these halls no acts of worship are celebrated, they are exclusively devoted to gatherings of the people of the kind which we have come to know in the course of our long struggle.”
In a clear and unambiguous warning to cultists who then as now tried to hijack the National Socialist movement, the Führer was pointed in his response: “We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folkare not National Socialists but something else—in any casesomething which has nothing to do with us. . . . Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men: it is to these we pay our respect.”



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eLUStofpDHs/Tq3-Hnb8YyI/AAAAAAAABJo/U9h3GkD_0W8/s1600/church%2Bgermany%2B.JPG
Even Germany’s enemies admitted that the National Socialist regime brought a welcome
prosperity to Germany. Above, the Kaiser Wilhelm (Protestant) Church, in Berlin, accented
by automobiles, trams and shoppers depictsordinary life between the world wars. The
Nazi regime knew that religion was a stabilizing force and would do nothing to weaken
it. Communistand left-leaning church leaders did all they could to stir sedition against
the regime, in spite of the military threat from the east. Today, only the shattered west
tower of the church remains standing as a memorial of World War II. It is one of the
few buildings that was not totally destroyed during the British-led and American
bombing raids lasting for six months from late 1943 until mid-1944.

http://freemasonrywatch.org/pics/HitlerKnight.jpg
Above, Adolf Hitler as portrayed by
artist Hubert Lanzinger in a 1930s
painting entitled “The Flag Bearer.”
Here, Hitler is depicted as a knight
in silver armor, harking back to the
days of the Middle Ages. Knights of
that era were unanimously Christians
and it is doubtful Hitler would have
approved of the imagery had he
disapproved of Christianity. To many,
this painting implied that Hitler was a
Christian crusader, ready to defend
the Reich against heathen invaders,
as did the medieval Crusaders. And
that is exactly what he did, fighting
until the bitter end to destroy that
singularly anti-Christian movement
known as Bolshevism.


Typical Opinions Voiced by Foreigners
“Adolf Hitler always declared, ‘First I believe in Almighty God. And, I solemnly declare that Almighty God has chosen me for this task.’” —James Larratt Battersby, German World Church in Europe.
“Catholic and Protestant, Prussian and Bavarian, employer and workman, rich and poor, have been consolidated into one people. Religious, provincial and class origins no longer divide the nation. There is a passion for unity born of dire necessity.” —David Lloyd George.
“The tolerance shown towards the agnostic and anti-Christian confessions is also extended to Jewish religious activities in Germany. I have already attempted to make it quite clear that the special treatment meted out to Jews in Germany is inspired solely by racial and not by religious motives. The Jews enjoy full liberty in the exercise of the ritual.” —Cesare Santoro, Hitler’s Germany Seen by a Foreigner.
“At last the German Christians feel that the Almighty has done something. If only the immense spiritual forces in the new Germany can be harnessed in the service of Christianity, the new mission of which the Germans are profoundly conscious will be a Christian one.
“This is what I learned from my Jewish friends, who are staying in Germany and have no intention of leaving the country, nor have they ever been asked to leave the country. Those who wish to leave and return may do so at their own pleasure. The laws relating to the freedom of Jews are substantially the same as those of other people.” —H. Powys-Greenwood, Hitler’s First Year.
“As far as I am aware there is not a single incident inwhich the so-called anti-Christian Nazis murdered a single priest.” —Dr. Austin J. App, historian, University of Philadelphia.

Jewish Opinion of Religion in the Third Reich
“. . . in that the Third Reich treated Christianized Jews preferentially. The National Socialist Third Reich carefully distinguished between Talmudic and Christianized Jews.” —Philip Freedman, Their Brothers Keepers, N.Y., 1957. American Double Standard
“The United States took exception to a German law on March 30, 1938, which removed the Jewish church from the established German church roll which deprived it of state funds. In fact, this brought German law into line with English law.” — Daniel L. Hoggan, Historical Revisionist.

Illustrative Last Will & Testaments
Joseph Goebbels: “Do not let yourself be confused by the uproar that will now reign throughout the world. The lies will one day break down under their own weight and the truth will again triumph. The hour will come when we shall stand pure and undefiled as our aims and beliefs have always been.” —Joseph Goebbels, last letter to his stepson.
Magda Goebbels: “Therefore, I have also brought the children here with me. They are too precious for the life that will come after us; a merciful God will understand me when I myself help them to a merciful deliverance.” —Madga Goebbels’ final letter to her son.
Rudolf Hess: “Whatever the verdict of this court I shall be held innocent before the Judgment Seat of Christ.”
Alfred Rosenberg: “Crimes against Christianity? Did you ever pay any attention to the Russian crimes against Christianity? The Russians have the nerve to sit in judgment, with thirty million lives on their conscience? Why? They are the world’s experts. They killed priests by the thousands during their revolution.”
Field Marshal Keitel: “I call on the Almighty. May He have mercy on the German people and show them tenderness.”
Adolf Hitler: “National Socialism is essentially a religious movement and faith. The Germanic or Aryan world of ideas, both political and religious will go out as a sacred Gospel to heal mankind.” —Adolf Hitler, Last Will and Testament.

Michael McLaughlin is an independent business consultant. Although well traveled, he has spent most of his life in or around Merseyside, northwest England and Wales.