Background: The Nazi Partyís Central Propaganda Office, the Reichspropagandaleitung,
published a monthly bulletin for speakers. It was designed to be kept
in notebooks, divided by subject area. This rather lengthy section appeared
soon after the outbreak of the war. It gave the view of the warís origins
that speakers were to incorporate into their speeches. It made particular
use of “neutral” newspapers, though the reader will soon begin
to wonder just how neutral most of them were. The material was not confidential,
though neither was it readily available to those who were not propagandists. I have a large collection of this material, which can be rather hard to find, so I have posted an index to my collection.
The source: Aufklärungs- und Redner-Informationsmaterial
der Reichspropagandaleitung der NSDAP., 11 (1939), pp. 31-41 (En).
The Führer Wanted Peace
The English Warmongers Wanted
With rare honesty, English Prime Minister Chamberlain
revealed his true goals to the world on 12 October. Even neutral
observers were surprised at how brutally he rejected the Führerís
peace offer and declared a war of destruction on Germany, though
the warmonger Churchill and his comrades were undoubtedly pleased.
He naturally had to turn the facts upside down. It is the height
of hypocrisy that he claimed Englandís goal was to maintain peace,
despite the war cries and the incitements that he directed against
No one in the past months, years and decades worked harder
at unleashing a European war, with the goal of destroying Germany,
The other side had no statesman of the stature of Adolf Hitler,
who fought untiringly to keep Europe free of chaos, or who worked
so honestly for an understanding with England.
Even during the period when the National Socialist movement
was struggling for power, the Führer did all he could to
eliminate the idea that France was Germanyís hereditary enemy.
He succeeded. No National Socialist tried to score cheap patriotic
points in this way. The Führerís goal of establishing friendly
relations between the two Western European states is expressed
clearly in his book Mein Kampf. The words he used
there are clear proof that he was intent from the beginning on
eliminating the old attitudes that resulted from the war and
to build a new and better relationship.
Since the takeover, the Führer has extended the educational
work of the party to the entire German people. In nearly every
speech he discussed the relationship of Germany to the two Western
nations. He repeatedly said that, once the Saar issue was resolved,
Germany had no territorial claims on France. That is, he clearly
renounced any German claims to the provinces of Alsace-Lorraine
that had been taken from Germany in 1918. He repeatedly said
that Germany had no claims on England either, with the exception
of our former colonies. This showed both states the importance
Adolf Hitler placed on friendly relations.
And one should not forget that it was these two nations that
hardly made it easy for the Führer to say these words and
proclaim such intentions. Mostly the statesmen to whom the Führer
spoke seemed not to hear him, and when they did respond it was
mostly only to doubt his words or to complain about them, or
to see the German declarations or compromises as self-evident.
If the statesmen did not do it, the press of these nations
did. They used every opportunity to throw dirt at the Führer,
to make him look ridiculous, or to reject his proposals impudently.
It really took great patience and strong faith in the face of
such “successes” to maintain hope in an improvement
of the situation.
The Führer never gave up hope, as his behavior in past years proves,
particularly in the last days and hours before the French and English
declared war. He did everything to prevent a new war in Europe and to
spare its peoples new misery and privation. Today Herr Chamberlain is
the leader of the warmongering against Germany and still dares to say
he did everything to prevent the war. We need only look back on the events
of recent years to show what the Führer has done for peace in Europe,
and what Mr. Chamberlain has done.
It is more necessary than ever to recall these facts today,
and to point out Germanyís peace efforts in order to take the
wind out of the sails of a lying world.
As early as 14 October 1933, as Germany left the League of
Nations, the Führer took the opportunity as Chancellor of
the Reich to explain his thinking about France. He said:
I speak in the name of the entire German people when I assure
the world that we all share the honest wish to eliminate the
enmity that brings far more costs than any possible benefits...
It would be a wonderful thing for all of humanity if both peoples
would renounce force against each other forever. The German people
are ready to make such a pledge.
Since we voluntarily accept the provisions of the peace treaties,
I declare openly that there are no territorial obstacles between
the two countries. Once the Saar returns to Germany, only a lunatic
could want a war between the two countries, since there is no
moral or reasonable grounds for one.
A few days later on 18 October 1933, the Führer said the following
to Ward Price, the special correspondent of the English Daily Mail:
I was deeply unhappy on 4 August 1914 that the two Germanic
peoples were now at war with each other, though they had been
at peace with each other so many hundreds of years despite all
the confusions and uncertainties of history. I would be delighted
if this unhappy psychosis were finally at an end and both nations,
related as they are, were again joined in friendship.
In his proclamation to the German people on 16 March 1935
on the institution of universal military service, the Führer
It [the Reich government the editors] has given France solemn
assurances that Germany has no territorial claims against France after
the successful resolution of the Saar situation. It believes it has,
by making a major political and actual sacrifice, laid the foundation
for an end to the centuries-long conflict between these two great nations.
In his speech to the Reichstag on 21 May 1935 he said:
We want to do everything we can to build a true friendship
with the French people. . . The German government has the honest
desire to do everything to build good relations with the British
people and their government, and to prevent a recurrence of the
only war between the two nations.
In an interview with Bertrand de Juvenile of the Paris
Mid on 21 February 1936, he said:
I want to prove to my people that the idea of hereditary enmity between
France and Germany is nonsense. The German people has understood this.
In a speech to the Reichstag on 7 March 1936:
Over the last three years I have always attempted to build a bridge
of understanding to the French people... The German people has no desire
to see the French suffer, nor do the French desire that for us. What
advantage does France have in Germanyís misfortune? I have eliminated
any hatred of the French people from the German press.
In his Reichstag speech of 20 February 1938:
Germany had no territorial demands on France. We hope that,
with the return of the Saar, territorial conflicts between Germany
and France are forever finished. . . Neither does Germany have
any difficulties with England, aside from colonial issues. There
is no reason for any kind of conflict.
Even in the most politically difficult times last September in 1938,
the Führer continued to express his firm desire for peace to England
and France. In his reckoning with Benesch in the [Berlin]
Sport Palace on 27 September 1938, he said:
I have gone even further, and have offered my hand to England!
I have voluntarily agreed to renounce any kind of naval competition,
to give England a sense of security. I have not done that because
I could not build any more ships, but rather only in order to assure
a lasting peace between the two peoples. . . I have further assured
France that after the return of the Saar, there are no differences
between us. I have said that for us, Alsace-Lorraine no longer
exists! . . . We do not want war with France! We do not want
anything from France! Nothing at all!
In his Reichstag speech of 30 January 1939:
Germany has no territorial claims against England and France,
other than the return of our colonies.
In his Reichstag speech of 28 April 1939:
I have never declared the loss of Alsace-Lorraine for unacceptable,
as France did in 1870/71, but have made a distinction between
the Saar and both former Reich provinces. I have not changed
my mind, nor will I in the future. Domestically, I have never
questioned this matter in any way whatsoever. The return of the
Saar eliminated all territorial conflicts between France and
Germany . . . For my entire political career I have promoted
friendship between Germany and England.
In his Reichstag speech on 6 October 1939, four weeks after
the war forced upon us by England and France, the Führer
spoke these words to both nations that once again show how honestly
and faithfully he has sought understanding:
I have above all sought to improve our relations to France, and to
make them acceptable for both nations. I have been entirely clear about
Germanyís goals, and have never wavered from them. The return of the
Saar was the only requirement for German-French understanding. Once
France had faithfully upheld its side, there remained no cause for any
further demands, nor were any ever made. That means that I entirely
avoided even mentioning the problem of Alsace-Lorraine not because I
was unable to do so, but because I did not see it as a barrier to French-German
relations. I have accepted the decisions of 1919 and refused to begin
a bloody war because of it, since it is not a life necessity for Germany,
but instead would plunge a second generation into a terrible struggle.
France knows this. No French statesman can claim that I ever made any
demand on France that could not be met honorably or was to Franceís
detriment. My only wish has ever been to bury the old enmity forever
and to bring these two nations with their glorious pasts together once
more. I have done everything possible to eliminate any idea of hereditary
enmity between France and Germany, and instead encouraged respect for
the great accomplishments of the French people and their history, just
as every German soldier has the highest admiration for the French army.
My efforts for a German-English understanding were no less
strong, indeed I wanted friendship between Germany and England.
I have never opposed British interests. Unfortunately, I had
regularly to deal with English assaults on Germanyís interests,
even in areas that were of no significance at all to England.
A goal of my life has been to bring the two nations together,
both from reason and sympathy. The German people supported me
in these endeavors. My efforts failed only because of a distressing
enmity on the part of some British statesmen and journalists
who did not conceal their aim, which we cannot understand, to
wage war against Germany once again at the first opportunity.
The less factual foundations these men had, the more they
sought to conceal themselves with empty phrases and claims. I
still believe even today that true peace in Europe and the world
can result only when Germany and England are in agreement. This
conviction has often led me in the past to attempt to reach an
understanding. If it does not happen, it is really not my fault.
Anyone who doubts the Führerís assurances despite his
repeated statements should be persuaded by his astonishing acceptance
of the well-known naval accord with England. Germany declared
in this naval accord that it was willing to restrict its fleet
to a size one third that of the English navy. Even Germanyís
greatest enemy could hardly fail to see the willingness to restrict
our fleet to 35% of Englandís as the Führerís desire to
avoid an armed conflict with England. As the Führer said,
Germany was certainly able to build more warships, but wanted
to prove to the English people that there were no hostile intentions
on Germanyís side.
England has no alternative but to admit that its present advantage
in surface ships was gained by shameless deception. By the way,
the past weeks have shown how exaggerated Englandís claims of
“ruling the seas” are. Our courageous submarines and
flyers within the first weeks of the war sunk the largest British
ships, the aircraft carriers Courageous and Ark
Royal, as well as the battleship Royal Oak, and will see to it in the future that Englandís fleet will cower
like rats in their holes.
We are used to such things on Englandís part. Certain English
statesmen, above all the untiring warmonger Churchill, etc.,
have opposed any efforts at improving German-English relations.
They have dragged the Führerís words through the mud, and
twisted and distorted them. Now they are carrying on an unprecedented
campaign of lies against Germany.
They began a war against the German people for no good reason,
and now are trying to blame Germany for it. Supposedly it was
“sympathy” for a threatened Poland that led them to
give free reign to the promotion of a new war. It was supposedly
this “sympathy” that led them to offer Poland their
generous support and to leave it to this state to start the war
when it chose. Without success, they have tried to persuade the
world of the opposite through a flood of lies. The facts are
too clear, and cannot be contradicted even by the biggest lies
of English warmongers.
The Führerís Efforts to Solve the Problems in the
The following factual material proves how Germany and the
Führer did everything up to the last possible moment to
resolve the Polish question peacefully. and how Polish insanity
on the one hand and the British warmongers on the other hand
hindered any peaceful solution.
1. Consider the proposal to the Reichstag on 28 April to resolve
the pressing questions on our Eastern border through a 25-year
Poland rejected friendly relations with the Reich. England
replied to Germanyís peace efforts by supporting and whipping
up Polish expansionism and desire for conquest.
2. Germanyís warning to Poland on 9 August not to increase
German-Polish tensions through unjust ultimatums about Danzig.
Poland declared that Germany had nothing to say about its
actions with regards to Danzig. It provoked the Reich by increasing
terror and persecution of the Reich and ethnic Germans living
in its territory.
Chamberlain wrote the Führer on 22 August a letter in
which he supported Polandís actions and threatened English action
against the Reich.
3. The Führer decided to make a new attempt to persuade
Poland to give up its course of action. At a reception on 25
August at the British Embassy, Germany made a wide-ranging proposal
for a reasonable understanding between Germany and England, which
Germany would offer the British government after a reasonable
solution of the Danzig and corridor problems.
4. An exchange of letters with Daladier. Germany emphasized
its readiness to resolve its difficulties with Poland peacefully
(despite insane Polish terror).
England used delaying tactics. It proposed direct Polish-German
negotiations on 28 August.
5. Despite grave concerns about Polandís behavior, the Führer
answered England on 29 August by agreeing to its proposal and
saying that he was expecting to meet the Polish governmentís
representative on 30 August.
Poland announced general mobilization on 30 August. The British
ambassador delivered a memorandum at midnight that contained
nothing new, only that the answer of the Führer on 29 August
had been passed on to the Polish government. The British ambassador
6. Make public the German proposal to resolve the question
by a referendum in the corridor region under international supervision.
Instead of the expected meeting with a Polish negotiator,
the Polish ambassador announced on 31 August that the Polish
government “responded favorably to the English proposal
for direct negotiations between Germany and Poland.
On the same day, however, Polish radio announced that the
German proposals of 30 August were unacceptable.
7. Only repeated attacks by Polish irregulars as well as Polish
regular troops on German territory forced the Führer to
respond on 1 September.
The behavior of the Führer and the Reich in these days
of continuous Polish and English provocations were remarkable.
No other nation would have been as patient. It would have done
what the Führer finally did on 1 September much earlier.
Our remarkable restraint was noted by all the neutrals. The
Spanish newspaper Alcazar wrote on 2 September:
Hitler has exhibited extreme patience, until the Polish attack
forced the German army to respond. Nothing is more consistent
than the behavior of the Führer and the Reich government.
While Poland was attacking Germany along the border, Hitler published
his last appeal for peace. The responsibility is not only Polandís,
but also belongs to those statesmen who encouraged Polish insanity.
The Rumanian newspaper Porunca Bremii had this
to say about the German demands on 2 September 1939:
The reader has to be impressed by the reasonableness of Germanyís
demands, which are entirely just.
The American newspaper Washington News wrote on
The German people desire only the same rights that England
and France have. That is also the will of the Führer, without
whom chaos would once more come upon Europe.
Poland Was Only the Pretext for a War Long-planned by London
Poland rejected these just German demands because it felt
secure with Englandís support. It believed it could provoke and
The power-mad Polish politicians and statesmen really believed
that England wanted war only to support their vast demands.
The day of the collapse taught them and the English a lesson.
Duff Cooper proclaimed in the House of Commons on 4 October
that, if England had come to the assistance of Czechoslovakia
over the Sudeten question, “England would not have fought
for Czechoslovakia any more than it fought for Serbia or for
Belgian neutrality in 1914.” Churchill and others declared
before the same body in September with matchless cynicism that
England was fighting not because of Poland or the Polish state,
but rather only to destroy the government of Germany.
English newspapers confirm this, as for example the Daily
Express on 7 September:
England has little interest in the Eastern theatre. England
in reality is fighting to defeat the dangerous German government,
even if Warsaw falls.
One of the worst French warmongers, the notorious de Kerillis,
wrote an article in mid-September in the French newspaper Epoque in which he badly admitted that Poland and its fate was entirely
of indifference to him and the other warmongers. He wrote:
We would naturally have considerable diplomatic difficulties
if Poland were to be partitioned between Germany and Russia.
The English and French would lose the pretext that led them into
The extent to which such an open admission on the part of
the warmongering clique might upset the French people was shown
by the fact that the article was eliminated from later editions
of the paper. The director of the French newspaper Aktion
Francaise noted the fact and wrote:
We seem then to have been drawn into this struggle, which
Kerillis has longed for since 1938, by a “pretext.”
In other words, we were led into war by a hidden reason, by an
apparent reason, without being told the real reason. One must
take this into account for two reasons. First, in order to properly
evaluate the past, but second because of the way in which the
future will develop. One of the first warmongers admits in “Epoque”
that he concealed the real reason for the war.
Even the “old honest sailor,” Stephen King Hall,
so well known to the German people, felt the necessity to explain
to the English people the matter of Poland. At the end of September,
his comments were published in a number of English Sunday papers:
...Naturally I deeply regret, dear readers, that it was not possible
in the last two weeks to rescue Poland. It was impossible, for strategic
reasons, to rescue Poland...
This is another clear admission that Poland was only Englandís pretext
to unleash war. Mr. King Hall excuses Englandís failure to help its Polish
ally by saying that it was strategically impossible for England to help
Poland. Yet the Polish Marshall Rydz-Smigly told a high Rumanian priest
after his flight there that he had realized the war was lost after two
days and wanted to conclude a peace, but England stopped him and declared
that it would send help by land, sea, and air. To persuade Rydz-Smigly
of this, he was told that the English were already fighting near Danzig.
Mr. King Hall says that it was strategically impossible for
England to help Poland. Mr. Rydz-Smigly says that the English
promised him help on the second day of the war. This makes plain
the hypocrisy of Englandís assurances and promises.
The Führer Attempts Yet Again to Avoid War
Even during the warís first weeks the Führer attempted
to maintain peace for the peoples of Europe. Given a situation
of similar successes, one would not have expected the same of
an English statesman. The Führer did that because he wanted
to spare not only the German people, but also the other peoples
The situation had changed greatly. The campaign in Poland was over, and
in a period that left its impression not only on the world, but on these
directly involved. Besides smashing one opponent, the German army had
also done significant damage to England, which the English were hardly
able to respond to. The “wave ruling” British fleet had suffered
the loss of the two aircraft carriers Courageous and Ark
Royal, heavy damage to the large English battleship Hood, damage to numerous other cruisers as well as the sinking of numerous British
commercial ships. On the continent, heavy losses forced the British and
French to recognize the superiority of the German Luftwaffe. Diplomatically,
the Western powers suffered disappointment after disappointment. The first
Russo-German treaty was followed at the end of September by another agreement
that removed the democracies’ last hopes of misusing Russia for their
purposes. They had found no allies among the neutrals who were willing
to bleed for England. Even those they depended on made repeated declarations
of neutrality and declined to join the war provoked by the Western powers.
Despite his superior military and diplomatic situation, the
Führer refused to give up on the possibility of peace. The
very opposite. He offered peace to those who had forced the Reich
into war on 3 September in a sly and sneaky way. We know the
results. There may have been a few who expected that there would
be enough reason on the enemyís side to accept the Führerís
offer, but hardly anyone expected such a brutal and insulting
answer as Chamberlain gave on 12 October.
Chamberlainís speech did not change Germanyís desire to maintain
its just demands, but it probably opened the eyes of the last
German to the true nature of England and its peace offers of
The Neutrals, Too, Have Seen Through Western Methods
Even before the war broke out, and before the brutal admissions
of the warmongers that Poland was only the means to unleash a
war against Germany, numerous neutral politicians had seen through
The Norwegian newspaper Nagnarok wrote the following
in its July 1939 issue:
The fact that Englandís politicians are waving once more the flags
of “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice”
gives us cause for concern. No nation has done more against freedom
than England has to states small and large, and in horrible ways over
the centuries down to the last days of the last war. . . England is
hardly willing to grant the freedom of the seas, or the principles of
democracy to the most important of all political regions. It is unwilling
to support guarantees of peace. To support its own domination it is
ready to destroy the peace of all nations. It presents its program as
democracy in order to conceal the true nature of its policies.
The Norwegian weekly Utenrikskronik wrote on 11
July that “England has always opposed the strongest power
in Europe,” then continued:
England is not concerned about Danzig or Poland, but rather in keeping
Germany from becoming too powerful for English tastes on the continent.
England wants to rule over land and sea. . . That is what a new world
war would be about, though England may assure a gullible world that
it is a question of Danzig, Poland, Rumania, of freedom, democracy,
or something else, anything but Englandís world domination.
The Estonian newspaper Paevaleth saw through Britainís
hypocrisy when it wrote on 7 July that: “English and French
policies take no regard of the wishes of other states and peoples,
but rather treat them like Negroes and use them to haul their chestnuts
out of the fire.”
The Norwegian paper Utenrikskronik makes the following
ironic remarks about Poland on 16 September:
Chamberlain, Eden, and the English press say that the war is not being
fought for Poland, but rather for democracy. It must have interested
the Poles to learn that the war was not being fought for their sake,
and that they were only the pretext for a declaration of war on Germany.
The Swiss newspaper Gazette de Lausanne of 21
Apparently the British warmongers have decided that Polandís
chances of victory are not exactly good. They made a meaningless
guarantee without wanting to risk anything. They merely wanted
a pretext to unleash a world conflagration.
The Czech paper Vecer remarked on 6 September:
If we study Englandís history, we see that its policies always
are determined by its self-interest. As was the case with the
Czechs, now the Poles are sacrificed to Englandís interests.
Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Benesch have the same intentions. They
make cold-blooded calculations and spill other peopleís blood.
The Spanish paper Domingo wrote on 5 September:
England has provoked this war to defend its world domination,
which is in danger. Poland and Danzig are merely pretexts.
The Italian paper Giornale d’ Italia answered
the question of responsibility in this way:
London and Paris thought the hour had come to execute a long-prepared
plan. . . London has shown that it has two faces, just as it did last
September or in 1914. One is that of a moral facade of the world benefactor,
the true face however is one of cold egotism and Englandís naked desire
The Italian paper Tevere wrote on 1 September:
The guilt is wholly on the side of the dirty merchant spirit
of the democracies.
The Japanese paper Tairiki Schimbun wrote on 7
September that those who drafted the Treaty of Versailles are
responsible for this war. Leading Japanese circles note that
England used Poland for its purposes much as it used China two
years ago, without any regard for the consequences to either
nation. China is practically bled dry, so Poland is the substitute.
Finally, the well-known American journalist General Johnson
wrote on 20 September:
Never have soldiers been so betrayed as those of Poland have
been by their own and British politicians. With an unprecedented
stupidity, Poland plunged into war. Now there are even some Americans
who want to join their fate with those egotistical, unreliable,
and idiotic British policies.
These devastating judgments by neutral observers show that
they have seen through England and its methods. The English warmongers,
however, are attempting to look innocent in the face of these
more than clear judgments. They claim that “they left no
means untried to prevent the present situation.”
These are the same Englishmen who gave Poland a blank check
last April, and are therefore responsible for the blood that
has flowed on the battlefields in the last weeks, blood that
thousands of innocent people shed. They have been tortured, mistreated,
kidnapped and murdered not only with Englandís toleration, but
with its active support.
The Peoples in the Dominions Do Not Support England
The manner in which England tried to “prevent the present
situation” is shown by voices reaching us from lands that
belong to the Western powers.
In the British Commonwealths of Canada, the newspaper L’Illustration
Nouvelle wrote on 7 September: “If England and France repeat
their propaganda that they are ready to defend against any aggression,
that is a huge lie. These nations are not fighting a defensive war, but
rather a war of offensive intervention.”
The attitude of the people in the British dominion of South
Africa toward the “motherland” is shown from the special
message of the new Prime Minister Smuts. Following Londonís orders,
South Africa declared war on Germany on 5 September. The then
Prime Minister Herzog resigned. His successor was Smuts. He made
a special proclamation to the South African people on 11 September,
which among other things said:
I have the firm conviction that it is not the right time for
us to separate from the British nation. A feeling of community
has developed that would be lost if we raised at the present
time the possibility of independence.
These words make it clear that the people of South Africa
want independence from England. The loyal Smuts must therefore
choose his words with great care to keep his people on the side
of the “beloved motherland.” This further makes clear
how little the ruling clique around Smuts considers the real
opinion of the South African people. According to Englandís beloved
principles of democracy, this people should really be free, and
if it had its way it clearly would not find itself at war with
Germany. Smuts also must know why he told England that there
was no question of sending South African troops to Europe.
In India, Englandís most valuable foreign possession, the
Executive Committee of the Indian National Congress declared
on 26 September that:
India is not ready to take part in the present war, which
would endanger its own freedom. The governments of France and
England declared that they are waging war for democracy and freedom,
yet they themselves betray the principles they espouse.
What is England Planning?
In view of these voices that prove that one has recognized
Englandís game both in neutral countries and in Englandís dominions,
one might ask what England has in the past done for peace. England
likes peace only insofar as it conceals its drive for world domination.
Whenever peace stands in the way of Englandís interests, it is
ready to ruthlessly destroy it.
Just as in 1914, a rising Germany has become an obstacle.
England is therefore doing everything it can to whip up the rest
of Europe against Germany. These nations were supposed to bleed
once more for England, just as in 1914. Although their sacrifices
would bring them no benefit, as in 1918, England has always understood
how to benefit.
It is clear today that the war England began against Germany in September
was a continuation of the war that ended in 1918. England wants to destroy
Germany now as it did then and this time for good. This goal is
stated daily in the British press with brutal openness.
The English newspaper News Chronicle made the
following demands in a lead article at the beginning of September:
Reading these demands surely reminds one of the Treaty of
- 1. The final destruction of the Nazi regime.
- 2. The establishment of a decent German government.
- 3. The end of any German military activity.
- 4. The total disarmament of Germany.
Today the “destruction of the Nazi regime” is the
demand, then it was the elimination of the Kaiser, of militarism,
and so on:
...Back then the Western powers promoted a German republic
and spread leaflets over the German lines saying that those who
said the word republic when captured would receive better treatment.
Today they speak of a “decent government.” By a “decent
government” the Western democracies mean one like the Weimar
Republic. It accepted every indignity and really felt itself
more an administrator for the victorious powers than a German
Back then, spying commissions looked for any sign of even
the most limited resistance. Today they call it the “end
of any German military activity.” Anything Germany would
do could be declared military activity.
The last demand makes clear what kind of future they have in mind for
Germany: no weapons, unable to give the least resistance, hopelessly given
over to every manner of chicanery, oppression, and extortion. The period
after 1918 was too lovely for these apostles of humanism to forget. We
were a people that helped to make itself defenseless and without rights,
inferior even to its smallest neighbor that had weapons.
That is but one voice of the many that daily discuss how Germany
can be defeated forever.
No means is too evil for these puppeteers and warmongers.
They even sink their own ships, as in the case of the “Athenia,”
letting innocent people perish. They use escapees and traitors
from Germany whose passport stamps claim they are “refugees
from Nazi oppression,” and who receive certain benefits
as long as England needs them. They supply Poland with poison
gas, though they were the first to ask Germany if it intended
to use gas shells. They praise the ruthless murderers of ethnic
Germans as “martyrs,” and spread the worst and most
outrageous lies about German barbarism to the world.
It does them no good. The Germany of 1939 is a very different
Germany from that of 1914, and the world has learned to see through
British methods, a result of Germanyís educational work.
Germany will endure the war forced upon it. Our enemies have
learned this since the war began. They may spread new fables
and lies about signs of a German collapse. They may spread leaflets
trying to drive a cleft between our leadership and people. It
will do no good. Germany knows that its existence is at stake,
it knows what it has to expect if its unforgiving enemy wins,
it knows that only strength and unity can stand against the enemy.
[Page copyright © 1998 by Randall Bytwerk. No unauthorized reproduction. My e-mail address is available on the FAQ page.]
Go to the 1933-1945
the German Propaganda Archive Home Page.