Germany
Did Not Start World War II
Germany
Did Not Start World War II
Paul
Craig Roberts
This is
the second installment of Ron Unz’s long report on the emergent truth about
World War II. (http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/)
Unz has a facility for summarizing vast works of scholarship into their
essentials. Unz is also intellectually honest and has massive intellectual
courage. He saves the rest of us a lot of work.
The aims
of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, a mass movement that came to
power legally in Germany, to correct the unemployment caused by unjust
reparations forced on Germany by a starvation policy imposed by the British
following World War I and to put Germany, dismembered by the unjust and demonic
Versailles Treaty, back together, has been demonized and its intentions
mischaracterized by most Western historians. There is no worst, or more
uninformed, epitaph than to be called a
Nazi.
World War
II began when the Churchill government and the French, quickly betrayed and
abandoned by the British, declared war on Germany. The declaration of war on
Germany resulted from an unenforceable “guarantee” given by Britain to the
military dictatorship in Poland, a guarantee designed to provoke a German
invasion of Poland. The German leader, Adolf Hitler, had re-acquired German
territories given to Denmark, France, and Czechoslovakia by the humiliating
Versailles Treaty and had united with German Austria without war. But three
wanted war with Germany: Zionist Jews who saw war as a path to a Jewish state
in Palestine, Winston Churchill, who dreamed of repeating the military
conquests of his famous ancestor, and Franklin D. Roosevelt who intended to
ruin Britan with war and take over the British pound’s role as world reserve
currency and destroy Britain’s control of world trade. The British guarantee
emboldened the Polish military dictatorship to refuse to negotiate the return
of German territory and population.
World War
II was a war started by private agendas. Jews understood
these agendas and encouraged them. Roosevelt’s lust for world hegemony and
Churchill’s lust to rival his famous ancestor’s defeat of the Sun King of
France with his defeat of Germany traveled roads paved for them by Jewish
anti-German propaganda. All Hitler contributed was to force countries given
German territory by the Versailles Treaty to release the lands and the Germans,
who were heavily persecuted in Czechoslovakia and Poland. Hitler’s restoration
of Germany’s national boundaries was misrepresented in the British and US press
as “German aggression.”
This fake
news story of German aggression was used to build the case that Germany, which
was merely recovering its national territory and rescuing German people from
persecution in Czechoslovakia and Poland, was an aggressor with world conquest
as its goal. The American people and in Britain the Chamberlain government
resisted this false story for a long time, but as historians have revealed the
British and American press was controlled by Zionist Jews, and these Jews had
all the entrances they needed into Churchill and Roosevelt.
It is
difficult to believe that a world war that killed 50, perhaps 60, million
people and doomed the world to permanent war and misunderstandings was the
product of a few personal interests. Hitler stated many times that he did not
want, or intend, war with Britain and France and only intended to recover the
lost German populations stolen from Germany by the unjust Versailles Treaty. No
less an important Englishman than John Maynard Keynes, the father of modern
economics, denounced the Versailles Treaty as certain to lead to a new war.
Keynes was correct.
Never was
a war as unnecessary, and only the US profited from it. Britain was ruined.
Britain lost the reserve currency role and its control of world trade, which
were Roosevelt’s intentions, and Britain lost its empire, also Roosevelt’s
intention.
David Irving
describes how Roosevelt played the drunken British Prime Minister into
mortgaging the British Empire to America in support for his war against
Germany. Roosevelt understood how war could rescue his administration from the
Great Depression. He also understood how war, by bankrupting Britain, would
leave the United States as the world hegemon.
Hitler
had nothing to do with any of this. The war was forced on him. As established
stories have an immunity to facts, Unz’s report has a tough row to hoe.
The war
forced on Germany was too much for Germany. Faced with having to occupy
defeated Europe, with the threat of an American invasion, faced with a Russian
front, and faced with having to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa, German
resources, despite the magnificence of the German Army, were too thin to
prevail. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, each for his own reasons, had forced
Germany into a war that Hitler did not want.
Unz
reports that revisionist historians have “implicated FDR as a pivotal figure in
orchestrating the world war by his constant pressure upon the British political
leadership, a policy that he privately even admitted could mean his impeachment
if revealed. Among other testimony, we have the statements of the Polish and
British ambassadors to Washington and the American ambassador to London, who
also passed along the concurring opinion of Prime Minister Chamberlain himself.
Indeed, the German capture and publication of secret Polish diplomatic
documents in 1939 had already revealed much of this information, and William Henry
Chamberlin confirmed their authenticity in his 1950 book. But since the
mainstream media never reported any of this information, these facts remain
little known even today.”
With
Churchill having set the stage for war with Germany, Franklin D. Roosevelt
initiated the outbreak by exerting diplomatic pressure on the British and
Polish governments to avoid any negotiated settlement with Germany. The Polish
government’s mistreatment of Germans in territories under Polish control forced
Hitler’s hand. The joint German and Soviet invasion of Poland, with the Soviet
Union taking half of Poland resulted in England and France declaring war only on
Germany. It was alright for the Soviets to invade Poland, but not for Germany.
Roosevelt
orchestrated the Japanese “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor to take the US into
the war against Germany. The Polish ambassador to the United States, Count
Jerzy Potocki, described the overwhelming Jewish hostility to Germany and its
impact on American attitudes toward Germany in a secret report to the Polish
Foreign Minister in Warsaw:
“There is
a feeling now prevalent in the United States marked by growing hatred of
Fascism, and above all of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with
National Socialism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control
almost 100% [of the] radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this
propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible–above
all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited–this propaganda
is nevertheless extremely effective since the public here is completely
ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe.
“At the
present moment most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and National Socialism
as the greatest evil and greatest peril threatening the world. The situation
here provides an excellent platform for public speakers of all kinds, for
emigrants from Germany and Czechoslovakia who with a great many words and with
most various calumnies incite the public. They praise American liberty which
they contrast with the totalitarian states.
“It is
interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is
conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost
completely eliminated. Soviet Russia, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in a
friendly manner and things are presented in such a way that it would seem that
the Soviet Union were cooperating with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to
the clever propaganda the sympathies of the American public are completely on
the side of Red Spain.
“This
propaganda, this war psychosis is being artificially created. The American
people are told that peace in Europe is hanging only by a thread and that war
is inevitable. At the same time the American people are unequivocally told that
in case of a world war, America also must take an active part in order to
defend the slogans of liberty and democracy in the world. President Roosevelt
was the first one to express hatred against Fascism. In doing so he was serving
a double purpose; first he wanted to divert the attention of the American
people from difficult and intricate domestic problems, especially from the
problem of the struggle between capital and labor. Second, by creating a war
psychosis and by spreading rumors concerning dangers threatening Europe, he
wanted to induce the American people to accept an enormous armament program
which far exceeds United States defense requirements.
“Regarding
the first point, it must be said that the internal situation on the labor
market is growing worse constantly. The unemployed today already number 12
million. Federal and state expenditures are increasing daily. Only the huge
sums, running into billions, which the treasury expends for emergency labor
projects, are keeping a certain amount of peace in the country. Thus far only
the usual strikes and local unrest have taken place. But how long this
government aid can be kept up it is difficult to predict today. The excitement
and indignation of public opinion, and the serious conflict between private
enterprises and enormous trusts on the one hand, and with labor on the other,
have made many enemies for Roosevelt and are causing him many sleepless nights.
“As to
point two, I can only say that President Roosevelt, as a clever player of
politics and a connoisseur of American mentality, speedily steered public
attention away from the domestic situation in order to fasten it on foreign
policy. The way to achieve this was simple. One needed, on the one hand, to
enhance the war menace overhanging the world on account of Chancellor Hitler,
and, on the other hand, to create a specter by talking about the attack of the
totalitarian states on the United States. The Munich pact came to President
Roosevelt as a godsend. He described it as the capitulation of France and
England to bellicose German militarism. As was said here: Hitler compelled
Chamberlain at pistol-point. Hence, France and England had no choice and had to
conclude a shameful peace.
“The
prevalent hatred against everything which is in any way connected with German
National Socialism is further kindled by the brutal attitude against the Jews
in Germany and by the émigré problem. In this action Jewish intellectuals
participated; for instance, Bernard Baruch [financial adviser to Churchill];
the Governor of New York State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge of the
Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter; Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau, and
others who are personal friends of Roosevelt. They want the President to become
the champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, and the man who
in the future will punish trouble-mongers. These groups, people who want to
pose as representatives of “Americanism” and “defenders of democracy” in the
last analysis, are connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
“For this
Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its
race, to put the President of the United States at this ‘ideal’ post of
champion of human rights, was a clever move. In this manner they created a
dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in this hemisphere and divided the
world into two hostile camps. The entire issue is worked out in a mysterious
manner. Roosevelt has been forcing the foundation for vitalizing American
foreign policy, and simultaneously has been procuring enormous stocks for the
coming war, for which the Jews are striving consciously. With regard to
domestic policy, it is extremely convenient to divert public attention from
anti-Semitism which is ever growing in the United States, by talking about the
necessity of defending faith and individual liberty against the onslaught of
Fascism.”
Count Jerzy Potocki to Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, The German White
Paper: Full Text of the Polish Documents Issued by the Berlin Foreign Office;
with a foreword by C. Hartley Grattan, New York: Howell, Soskin & Company,
1940, pp. 29-31.
Unz
summarizes the role of Jewish anti-German propaganda in launching World War II
and the role of propaganda in general in distorting historical understanding:
“Given
the heavy Jewish involvement in financing Churchill and his allies and also
steering the American government and public in the direction of war against
Germany, organized Jewish groups probably bore the central responsibility for
provoking the world war, and this was surely recognized by most knowledgeable
individuals at the time. Indeed, the Forrestal Diaries recorded the very
telling statement by our ambassador in London: ‘Chamberlain, he says, stated
that America and the Jews had forced England into the war.’
“The
ongoing struggle between Hitler and international Jewry had been receiving
considerable public attention for years. During his political rise, Hitler had
hardly concealed his intent to dislodge Germany’s tiny Jewish population from
the stranglehold they had gained over German media and finance, and instead run
the country in the best interests of the 99% German majority, a proposal that
provoked the bitter hostility of Jews everywhere. Indeed, immediately after he
came into office, a major London newspaper had carried a memorable 1933
headline announcing that the Jews of the world had declared war on Germany, and
were organizing an international boycott to starve the Germans into submission.
“In
recent years, somewhat similar Jewish-organized efforts at international
sanctions aimed at bringing recalcitrant nations to their knees have become a
regular part of global politics. But these days the Jewish dominance of the
U.S. political system has become so overwhelming that instead of private
boycotts, such actions are directly enforced by the American government. To
some extent, this had already been the case with Iraq during the 1990s, but
became far more common after the turn of the new century.
“Although
our official government investigation concluded that the total financial cost
of the 9/11 terrorist attacks had been an absolutely trivial sum, the
Neocon-dominated Bush Administration nonetheless used this as an excuse to
establish an important new Treasury Department position, the Under Secretary
for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. That office soon began utilizing
America’s control of the global banking system and dollar-denominated
international trade to enforce financial sanctions and wage economic warfare,
with these measures typically being directed against individuals,
organizations, and nations considered unfriendly towards Israel, notably Iran,
Hezbollah, and Syria.
“Perhaps
coincidentally, although Jews comprise merely 2% of the American population,
all four individuals holding that very powerful Treasury post over the last 15
years since its inception—Stuart A. Levey, David S. Cohen, Adam Szubin, Sigal
Mandelker—have been Jewish, with the most recent of these being an Israeli
citizen. Levey, the first Under Secretary, began his work under President Bush,
then continued without a break for years under President Obama, underscoring
the entirely bipartisan nature of these activities.
“Most
foreign policy experts have certainly been aware that Jewish groups and
activists played the central role in driving our country into its disastrous
2003 Iraq War, and that many of these same groups and individuals have spent
the last dozen years or so working to foment a similar American attack on Iran,
though as yet unsuccessfully. This seems quite reminiscent of the late 1930s
political situation in Britain and America.
“Individuals
outraged by the misleading media coverage surrounding the Iraq War but who have
always casually accepted the conventional narrative of World War II should
consider a thought-experiment I suggested last year:
‘When we
seek to understand the past, we must be careful to avoid drawing from a narrow
selection of sources, especially if one side proved politically victorious in
the end and completely dominated the later production of books and other
commentary. Prior to the existence of the Internet, this was an especially
difficult task, often requiring a considerable amount of scholarly effort, even
if only to examine the bound volumes of once popular periodicals. Yet without
such diligence, we can fall into very serious error.
‘The Iraq
War and its aftermath was certainly one of the central events in American
history during the 2000s. Yet suppose some readers in the distant future had
only the collected archives of The Weekly Standard, National Review, the WSJ
op-ed page, and FoxNews transcripts to furnish their understanding of the
history of that period, perhaps along with the books written by the
contributors to those outlets. I doubt that more than a small fraction of what
they would read could be categorized as outright lies. But the massively skewed
coverage, the distortions, exaggerations, and especially the breathtaking
omissions would surely provide them with an exceptionally unrealistic view of
what had actually happened during that important period.’
“Another
striking historical parallel is the fierce demonization of Russian President
Vladimir Putin, who provoked the great hostility of Jewish elements when he
ousted the handful of Jewish Oligarchs who had seized control of Russian
society under the drunken misrule of President Boris Yeltsin and totally
impoverished the bulk of the population. This conflict intensified after Jewish
investor William F. Browder arranged Congressional passage of the Magnitsky Act
to punish Russian leaders for the legal actions they had taken against his huge
financial empire in their country. Putin’s harshest Neocon critics have often
condemned him as “a new Hitler” while some neutral observers have agreed that
no foreign leader since the German Chancellor of the 1930s has been so fiercely
vilified in the American media. Seen from a different angle, there may indeed
be a close correspondence between Putin and Hitler, but not in the way usually
suggested. [Propaganda used to demonize both]
“Knowledgeable
individuals have certainly been aware of the crucial Jewish role in
orchestrating our military or financial attacks against Iraq, Iran, Syria, and
Russia, but it has been exceptionally rare for any prominent public figures or
reputable journalists to mention these facts lest they be denounced and
vilified by zealous Jewish activists and the media they dominate. For example,
a couple of years ago a single suggestive Tweet by famed CIA anti-proliferation
operative Valerie Plame provoked such an enormous wave of vituperation that she
was forced to resign her position at a prominent non-profit. A close parallel
involving a far more famous figure had occurred three generations earlier
[Lindbergh].
“These
facts, now firmly established by decades of scholarship, provide some necessary
context to Lindbergh’s famously controversial speech at an America First rally
in September 1941. At that event, he charged that three groups in particular
were “pressing this country toward war: the British, the Jewish, and the
Roosevelt Administration,” and thereby unleashed an enormous firestorm of media
attacks and denunciations, including widespread accusations of anti-Semitism
and Nazi sympathies. Given the realities of the political situation,
Lindbergh’s statement constituted a perfect illustration of Michael Kinsley’s
famous quip that “a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth – some obvious
truth he isn’t supposed to say.” But as a consequence, Lindbergh’s once-heroic
reputation suffered enormous and permanent damage, with the campaign of
vilification echoing for the remaining three decades of his life, and even well
beyond. Although he was not entirely purged from public life, his standing was
certainly never even remotely the same.
“With such examples in mind, we should hardly be surprised that for decades
this huge Jewish involvement in orchestrating World War II was carefully
omitted from nearly all subsequent historical narratives, even those that
sharply challenged the mythology of the official account. The index of A.J.P.
Taylor’s iconoclastic 1961 work contains absolutely no mention of Jews, and the
same is true of the previous books by Chamberlin and Grenfell. In 1953, Harry
Elmer Barnes, the dean of historical revisionists, edited his major volume
aimed at demolishing the falsehoods of World War II, and once again any
discussion of the Jewish role was almost entirely lacking, with only part of
one single sentence and Chamberlain’s dangling short quote appearing across
more than 200,000 words of text. Both Barnes and many of his contributors had
already been purged and their book was only released by a tiny publisher in
Idaho, but they still sought to avoid certain unmentionables.
“Even the
arch-revisionist David Hoggan seems to have carefully skirted the topic of
Jewish influence. His 30 page index lacks any entry on Jews and his 700 pages
of text contain only scattered references. Indeed, although he does quote the
explicit private statements of both the Polish ambassador and the British Prime
Minister emphasizing the enormous Jewish role in promoting the war, he then
rather questionably asserts that these confidential statements of individuals
with the best understanding of events should simply be disregarded.
“In the
popular Harry Potter series, Lord Voldemort, the great nemesis of the young
magicians, is often identified as ‘He Who Must Not Be Named,’ since the mere
vocalization of those few particular syllables might bring doom upon the
speaker. Jews have long enjoyed enormous power and influence over the media and
political life, while fanatic Jewish activists demonstrate hair-trigger
eagerness to denounce and vilify all those suspected of being insufficiently
friendly towards their ethnic group. The combination of these two factors has
therefore induced such a ‘Lord Voldemort Effect’ regarding Jewish activities in
most writers and public figures. Once we recognize this reality, we should
become very cautious in analyzing controversial historical issues that might
possibly contain a Jewish dimension, and also be particularly wary of arguments
from silence.
“Those
writers willing to break this fearsome Jewish Taboo regarding World War II were
quite rare, but one notable exception comes to mind. As I recently wrote:
‘Some
years ago, I came across a totally obscure 1951 book entitled The Iron
Curtain Over America by John Beaty, a well-regarded university
professor. Beaty had spent his wartime years in Military Intelligence, being
tasked with preparing the daily briefing reports distributed to all top
American officials summarizing available intelligence information acquired
during the previous 24 hours, which was obviously a position of considerable
responsibility.
‘As a
zealous anti-Communist, he regarded much of America’s Jewish population as
deeply implicated in subversive activity, therefore constituting a serious
threat to traditional American freedoms. In particular, the growing Jewish
stranglehold over publishing and the media was making it increasingly difficult
for discordant views to reach the American people, with this regime of
censorship constituting the ‘Iron Curtain’ described in his title. He blamed
Jewish interests for the totally unnecessary war with Hitler’s Germany, which
had long sought good relations with America, but instead had suffered total
destruction for its strong opposition to Europe’s Jewish-backed Communist
menace.
‘Then as
now, a book taking such controversial positions stood little chance of finding
a mainstream New York publisher, but it was soon released by a small Dallas
firm, and then became enormously successful, going through some seventeen
printings over the next few years. According to Scott McConnell, founding
editor of The American Conservative, Beaty’s book became the second
most popular conservative text of the 1950s, ranking only behind Russell Kirk’s
iconic classic, The Conservative Mind.
‘Books by
unknown authors that are released by tiny publishers rarely sell many copies,
but the work came to the attention of George E. Stratemeyer, a retired general
who had been one of Douglas MacArthur’s commanders, and he wrote Beaty a letter
of endorsement. Beaty began including that letter in his promotional materials,
drawing the ire of the ADL [the Jewish Anti-defamation League], whose national
chairman contacted Stratemeyer, demanding that he repudiate the book, which was
described as a ‘primer for lunatic fringe groups’ all across America. Instead,
Stratemeyer delivered a ‘blistering reply to the ADL,’ denouncing it for making
‘veiled threats’ against ‘free expression and thoughts’ and trying to establish
Soviet-style repression in the United States. He declared that every ‘loyal
citizen’ should read The Iron Curtain Over America, whose pages finally
revealed the truth about our national predicament, and he began actively
promoting the book around the country while attacking the Jewish attempt to
silence him. Numerous other top American generals and admirals soon joined
Statemeyer in publicly endorsing the work, as did a couple of influential
members of the U.S. Senate, leading to its enormous national sales.’
“In
contrast to nearly all the other World War II narratives discussed above,
whether orthodox or revisionist, the index of Beaty’s volume is absolutely
overflowing with references to Jews and Jewish activities, containing dozens of
separate entries and with the topic mentioned on a substantial fraction of all
the pages in his fairly short book. I therefore suspect that any casual modern
reader who encountered Beaty’s volume would be stunned and dismayed by such
extremely pervasive material, and probably dismiss the author as being
delusional and ‘Jew-obsessed;’ but I think that Beaty’s treatment is probably
the far more honest and realistic one. As I noted last year on a related
matter: ‘…once the historical record has been sufficiently whitewashed or
rewritten, any lingering strands of the original reality that survive are often
perceived as bizarre delusions or denounced as “conspiracy theories.’
“Beaty’s
wartime role at the absolute nexus of American Intelligence certainly gave him
a great deal of insight into the pattern of events, and the glowing endorsement
of his account by many of our highest-ranking military commanders supports that
conclusion. More recently, a decade of of archival research by Prof. Joseph
Bendersky, a prominent mainstream historian, revealed that Beaty’s views were
privately shared by many of our Military Intelligence professionals and top
generals of the era, being quite widespread in such circles.”
“Who
controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the
past.” The control over explanations means that the historical assumptions that
govern the politics of today are entirely misleading.
It is the
few revisionist historians and Ron Unz their explicator who possibly can save
the world from destruction by deception.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.