Prof. Friedrich Grimm by a high Allied official is told the following by a Jew: “We will continue with this horror propaganda, increase it, until no one will accept a good word from the Germans […] and until the Germans themselves will have become so confused that they do not know anymore what they are doing!”
WW II: Whose War was it?
By Prof. Emil Schlee
The period from the beginning of the First to the end of the Second World War is increasingly called what it actually was: the Third Thirty Years War (1914-1945) for the destruction of Germany, which from the end of the nineteenth century had been growing into a scientific and economic superpower. This fact, however, is hidden behind a veil of continuing war propaganda from the media, the historians, and the politicians. The reason for the propaganda is that the entire postwar order hangs on hiding the truth. Historical accuracy, however, demands a correction of the historiography of both world wars: Germany did not unleash either.
1. Is Germany’s guilt for two world wars an illusion?
The victorious powers in both world wars against Germany understood and labeled both world wars a “Thirty Years War,” not without reason (Winston Churchill, Herbert Gladwyn, John Major, Alfred M. de Zayas, Charles de Gaulle). Lord Gladwyn1 even called the two world wars the “Third Thirty Years War.” In order to fend off embarrassing questions, the Allies had an easy response to the question in the headline of this article: without historiographical substantiation and against better knowledge, they imposed the responsibility for both wars on the vanquished. Article 231 of the “peace dictate” of Versailles reads as follows:2
“The allied and associated governments declare and Germany acknowledges [*with the gun to its head!~gv] that Germany and her allies are responsible for all losses and all damages which the allies and associated governments and their dependents have suffered as a result of the war forced upon them by the attack of Germany and its allies.”
By treating the question of responsibility for the war thus, morality, trust, and justice were destroyed as the basis for peaceful coexistence and policy between the nations. Because this era was, by declaration, the era of a “Thirty Years War,” the French scientist Jacques Bainville, known for his anti-German attitude, could declare in 1920 in his best selling book Les con- séquences de la paix (The consequences of the peace):
“It can be said that the peace treaty of Versailles organized the eternal war.”3
In accordance with the demands for “unconditional surrender” as agreed upon [*forced upon Germany~gv] in Casablanca in 1943, the victorious powers did not even attempt to enter into peace negotiations during or at the end of World War II, but let the German Wehrmacht first surrender, then disarmed it, subsequently simply arresting the German Dönitz-government, and finally and illegally seizing power in Germany according to the “Berlin Declaration” of June 5, 1945.
Moreover, they did not forget to state:4
“The German forces on land, water, and in the air are totally beaten and have surrendered unconditionally, and Germany, who is responsible for the war, is no longer able to defy the will of the victorious powers. Thus the unconditional surrender of Germany took place.”
At this point it can simply be noted: The German Reich did not surrender in 1945. No documentary evidence exists for this. To the contrary: in the declaration of Monheim of July 5, 1945, the last head of state of the German Reich Admiral Karl Dönitz, who had been ar- rested by the Allies, protested against the illegal seizure of power by the Allies.5 The sole responsibility for starting the war, which was assigned arbitrarily to the Germans by the victorious powers at the end of both world wars, is historically without proof, not justifiable by international law, and therefore politically untenable.
Only one year after the termination of the Reinsurance Treaty between Germany and Russia in 1890, France and Russia signed a security treaty, and by 1892 a military alliance had been forged between France and Russia, which resulted in a twenty-year-long lead-up to the First World War. With time, more nations joined this alliance, leading to the encirclement of Germany. Since the end of hostilities in 1945, there has been no international peace treaty with Germany, a treaty which, as should be general knowledge, can only be signed by the German Reich, which is still with power to do so. Hence, the so-called “Two-plus-Four Agreement” of 1991 signed by the four Allied powers and the two German postwar satellite states, cannot be considered anything even close to a peace treaty. Thus one could just as well speak of a hundred-year war against Germany (1891-1991).
The following critical remark comes from a book entitled Teufelszeug von A bis Z (Devil’s Stuff from A to Z) by Carl-August Moser:6
“Because the peace treaty after the First World War was the reason for the second, in order to avoid a third there was no treaty at all !”
On the question of the responsibility for the war, the victorious powers’ conduct toward the German nation and the German people at Versailles, Nuremberg or elsewhere is best described in a sentence by Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach: “The justice of the stronger is the greatest injustice.”7 From the outset, the dragon’s seed of Versailles8 and vengeful justice of Nuremberg9 were a challenge to the cultivated and civilized nations asking for correction.
Delving into the problem of responsibility for the wars, one sees, can see why Hugo Wellems titled his book The Century of the Lie,10 and what Winfried Martini wanted to make clear to the re- educated reader with his book title The Victor Writes History.11 What Lord Buckmaster (Lord Chancellor, 1915/16) says about the treaty of Versailles is only the “tip of the iceberg”:12
“To get any nation to lay down its weapons based on certain conditions, and then, when it is defenseless, to impose different conditions, is a dishonorable act which can never be erased.”
Senator Robert T. Taft (1889-1953) made a similar statement in October 1946 at a university in Ohio. Shortly after the judgments of October 1946 were announced, this respected jurist and honorable Republican spoke of the legal monstrosities and historic falsifications of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunals:13
“I believe that the majority of the Americans will be very alarmed because of the war trials just coming to an end in Germany, and now beginning in Japan. They violate the fundamental principal of the American legal system, which requires that an individual cannot be sentenced with reference to a law which was enacted only after the incriminated deed was committed. The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial, however the forms of its jurisdiction may be disguised. About the sentences floats the spirit of vengeance. […] In these trials we assumed the Russians’ understanding of this type of trial. We risk to have discredited the concept of justice in Europe for years to come.”
U.S. President Ronald Reagan stated the real truth when he said at Bitburg (Eifel) on May 5, 1985:
“A feeling of guilt was unjustly forced upon the Germans.”
Thus setting straight the question of responsibility for the two world wars is now overdue. Let us therefore move from The Century of the Lie to the century of truth!
2. Germans are addicted to self-accusation
[*gv: That’s not it! The Germans are under the Jewish-U.S. occupation government corporation called the Bundesrepublik that forces the guilt on the Germans already in Kindergarden, for 70 years now!~gv]
The inaccuracy with which the victorious powers of both world wars decreed Germany’s war guilt has been convincingly proven through an abundance of documents, facts, witnesses, and testimonies as well as a large amount of expert literature from all over the world. One must therefore wonder why the leading officials of the Federal German authorities, who can easily be recognized by their false arguments, still seem to live in the fairy-tale world [*not a fairy-tale world, a cheating world! A Jewish world~gv] of early enemy propaganda. If German Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder had read only a few of the 21 books listed in the table below, he would not have revealed his own ignorance [*not ignorance but deception under the US thumb~gv] during a conference for security policy in February 1999 in Munich. During this meeting of international “insiders,” he stated that Germany must bear the burden of responsibility for both world wars.14 [*he is a goy dog for the Jew!~gv]
It does not seem to interest the representatives of the German people, their government officials, or the Federal Republic of Germany’s historians [*all goy dogs of the Jews or end of their careers~gv] whether the American historian Harry E. Barnes established in his thoroughly researched book The Genesis of the World War (New York 1929):15 The Genesis of the World War Barnes 1927
“Of all powers involved in the war, Germany was the only one which is not guilty at all for the outbreak of the war [of 1914]”;
whether a joint declaration drafted during a German-British conference of historians in 1955 in Bamberg on the subject “Germany and England 1904-1914” stated:16
“In 1914, the German policy did not aim at the unleashing of a European war”;
whether in 1928, the American historian S. B. Fay came to the conclusion that:17
“Germany did not instigate a European war, it did not want it. The best historical researchers of all countries generally acknowledge that the Versailles verdict of Germany’s guilt is no longer tenable or defendable”;
or whether the Deutsch-Amerikaner (The German American, Chicago)18 introduced the basic theses of the book by R. F. Keeling, Cruel Harvest—The Expensive Attempt to Exterminate the German People (Chicago 1947) in November 1973 with the following words:19
“For a long time have honorable historians rejected the fable that Germany is solely or originally responsible for World War I. And even for the outbreak of World War II, Germany’s enemies have to carry the burden of a large part of responsibility.”
Nor does it seem to interest representatives of the Germans that Winston Churchill declared to the British people by radio in November 1939:20
“This war is a British war, and its goal is the destruction of Germany!”
Around Christmas 1970, on occasion of the preparation of the so-called German East Treaties with Poland and the Soviet Union, the German historian Emil Maier-Dorn prepared a compilation of a thousand statements by politicians, militaries, and historians of the victorious powers. In their statements, they expressed their desire for war and their subsequent satisfaction over the escalation of a local conflict into a world war. Maier-Dorn mailed this compilation to each German member of parliament and requested that they notify him of errors or falsifications, but the entire parliament stayed mute.21
Seen from an international perspective, such behavior by responsible officials of the German people after the Second World War is completely perverse. It caused American historian Prof. H.E. Barnes, who visited Germany in the spring of 1964, just after publishing his book The Question of German War Guilt in Tübingen, to express the following surprise:22
“In my time [before WWII] the German people and its scholars searched for the facts of the origins of the war of 1914, which exonerated them from the sole responsibility for the outbreak of the World War I, but in 1964, they were still intentionally attempting to suppress all facts capable of liberating them from the sole responsibility for 1939. Viewed in connection with German guilt feelings, the situation in 1964 presents a case of incomprehensible addiction to self-accusation that is unparalleled in history. [*It’s the U.S.-Jewish bat held over their head!~gv]
I for one don’t know of another historical example whereby a people shows this lunatic addiction to burden itself with the dark shadows of political crimes that it did not commit—except for the crime of imposing the responsibility of the second world war on itself. In the years 1926/27, the German government and the German public actively and enthusiastically supported research into the truth of 1914. In 1964, however, those who searched for the truth about 1939 were vilified and even exposed to persecution as political criminals. [*Here you have it. That’s why!!!~gv] The German press, of course, made no mention of this fundamental fact.”
In his book H.E. Barnes also praised the fundamental research results of Prof. Dr. L. Hoggan:23
“He has, for all time, destroyed the myth of Germany’s sole guilt for the outbreak of the war in 1939. This myth, on which all post-war German policy is based, will never again be revived successfully in the domain of learning, never mind how long West German policy can avoid its consequences.”
This federal German myth that Germany must bear the burden of responsibility for both world wars of the twentieth century contradicts the current findings and knowledge of national and international scholarly research. In 1963, this caused the British attorney and historian F.J.P. Veale to make the following attempt to explain:24
“The question of the responsibility for the outbreak of the second world war is of unique importance. It is not an academic problem. It is not a question of finding the truth for some event of the past. Its clarification will unavoidably influence the future on a massive scale. The main points of this question were much too important and their importance reached too far to leave its answering solely up to historiography. To the politicians, it was clear that practicality requires under all circumstances to uphold the interpretation which had been accepted for a quarter century.”
3. The ‘Riddle’s’ Solution: Illegal Re-Education of the German People
During his visit to Germany in 1964, American historian H.E. Barnes was able to observe a war guilt feeling without parallel in history, accompanied by an incomprehensible addiction to self-accusation. That this has not changed 35 years later is in- dicated by German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who stated in 1999 that Germany has to bear the burden of responsibility for both world wars of the twentieth century. [*This is the mind game they play with the Children of Germany who have turned into adults who believe in a false history-all arranged by the Lying Allies, primarily the Jews and the U.S.A.~gv] Thus, this phenomenon must have deeper roots, particularly when con- sidering that Germany is often called the land of “Poets and Thinkers.” We find a clue to the underlying reasons this in F.J.P. Veale’s statement of 1963, when he noted that the solution of the question of war guilt, which is of unique importance for the future, is neither a mere aca- demic problem nor a matter of finding the truth, and hence cannot be left to the historians for resolution. For it seemed clear to the politicians that the standpoint of the victors had to be the generally accepted one, for a quarter of a century or more, in order to fulfil its usefulness (which one, for what?). This effort is reflected in the scientifically indefen- sible statement by Prof. Eschenburg of March 1960, which shows a complete adaptation to the Zeitgeist:25
“The question of the guilt for the Second World War, which is scientifically clearly answered, is not a matter of historiography. Rather, the realization of Hitler’s uncontested and sole guilt is the basis of the policy of the Federal Republic [of Germany].”
In 1965, during the XIIth International Congress of Historians in Vienna, the German historian Prof. B.V. Richthofen declared to the applause of the large majority of participants:26
“The thesis that Germany carries the sole guilt for the outbreak of World War II, is a false generalization that has long ago been finally refuted with scholarly means.”
[*gv: Germany is not guilty at all!~gv]
The striking contradiction between the war guilt allegation, declared “politically useful,” and the repeated scholarly refutation of this allegation on an international level is clearly explained by the re-education of the entire German population during the occupation period between 1945 and 1952, which was planned well in advance. The basic prerequisite for this was an “unconditional surrender” not provided for by the conventions of international war. This is also evident in comparing the different perceptions of the history of the war, of the immediate post-war generation on one hand and of the succeeding generations on the other. Thanks to the “mercy of late birth,” the latter generations were fully hit by the “curse of the re-education.”
The editor-in-chief of the New York World, Walter Lippmann (1889- 1974), explained the planned reeducation as follows:27
“A war can only be considered lost when the territory is occupied by the enemy, the leading elite of the defeated people is sentenced in war crime trials, and the conquered are subjected to a re-education program. An obvious method for this is to plant the victor’s perception of history into the minds of the van- quished. It is of the utmost importance to transfer the ‘moral’ categories of the victorious nation’s war propaganda into the conscience of the vanquished. Only if the victor’s war propaganda found entry into the history books of the vanquished and is believed by the following generation, then the re-education can be considered as really successful.”
No occupational power was authorized to carry out this brainwashing and other meddling.
4. Thoughtful Ideas for the 21st Century
The twentieth century has come to an end. “It could have been Germany’s century,” stated the French sociologist Raymond Aron and the German-American historian Fritz Stern jointly in West Berlin in 1979. It did not become a German, but rather an American century. For the aspiring Germany, it became the Century of the Lie (H. Wellems). Envy and hate perfidiously triggered two unnecessary world wars. The victors decreed Germany’s war guilt. These were the two lies of the century. International historiography has refuted them both long ago. Why is the truth kept hidden? Let us now begin the century of enlightenment and truth.
Those who belong to the generation that shares the “mercy of late birth” usually do not know that they are also the victims of “re-education.” One focus of the “re-education” of Germans is also their de-nationalization and the instilling of belief in the war guilt. The victors’ historical perception and the “moral” content of their war propaganda were meant to be implanted in the minds of the vanquished. When the history books have been rewritten in this fashion; when cinemas, theaters, churches, labor unions, and all media perform their mission of teaching; and the new generation believes, then the process of re-education has been successful. In May 1945, the ruthless application envisioned for the atrocity propaganda was explained to Prof. Friedrich Grimm by a high Allied official as follows:28
“We will continue with this horror propaganda, increase it, until no one will accept a good word from the Germans […] and until the Germans themselves will have become so confused that they do not know anymore what they are doing!”
Consider whether you have become confused, and then struggle for the truth.
In November 1999, the writer Heinz Mahncke submitted a petition to the German Parliament requesting the forming of a “commission consisting of selected historians and scientists” investigating “dubious historical post-war allegations.” The applicant was thinking among others of the following:
1) Research on the causes of the war, and on the responsibility for it.
2) Coming to terms with all inhumanities of the last war, including the cruelties which befell the German people during expulsion, mass rapes, and territorial annexation.
3) Coming to terms with the question of guilt for the terror bombing of German civilians.
4) Investigation of the question of forced labor, including the German slave workers abroad.
5) The entire complex of questions regarding anti-Semitism. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the German people, as the nation’s sovereign power should cooperate more intensively with its representatives and with state offi- cials, and demand more information of them.
For, according to Prof. H.H. von Arnim:
“the basic evil of [Germany’s] democracy lies in the fact that it is not a democracy!”
Let’s take a good look at this!
First published in Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 4(2) (2000), pp. 179-185; translated by Fabian Eschen.
1 Cf.: Lord Gladwyn, H.: Plädoyer für Europa, Köln 1967, p. 29 & 32.
2 Cf.: Martini, W.: Der Sieger schreibt die Geschichte, Munich 1991, p. 35; Lentin, A.: Die Drachensaat von Versailles. Die Schuld der “Frie- densmacher,” Leoni 1994. – Ebray, A.: Der unsaubere Frieden. Ver- sailles – Der zweite Akt des Vernichtungskrieges gegen Deutschland im
20. Jahrhundert, Viöl 1996 (first edition: 1925).
3 Bainville, J.: Les conséquences de la paix, Paris 1920, p. 57.
4 Grabert, W.: Jalta-Potsdam und die Dokumente zur Zerstörung Europas, Tübingen 1985, p. 44f.
5 Ibid., p. 54f.
6 Moser, C.-A: Teufelszeug von A bis Z. Wörter und Worte der Zeitkritik, Berg 31986, p. 159 (keyword: „Geschichtslücke”).
7 Quoted in: Peltzer, K.: Das treffende Zitat, Gedankengut aus drei Jahr- tausenden und fünf Kontinenten. p. Aufl. Thun 1974, p. 551: aus Apho- rismen, Berlin 1880.
8 Lentin, A.: Die Drachensaat von Versailles, Leoni 1984.
9 Saunders, H.A: Forum der Rache, Deutsche Generale vor alliierten Sie- gertribunalen 1945-1948, Leoni 1986.
10 Wellems, H.: Das Jahrhundert der Lüge. Von der Reichsgründung bis Potsdam 1871–1945, Kiel 21999.
11 Martini, W.: Der Sieger schreibt die Geschichte. Anmerkungen zur Zeit- geschichte, Munich 1991.
12 Quoted and retranslated from: Grenfell, R.: Bedingungsloser Haß? Die deutsche Kriegsschuld und Europas Zukunft, Tübingen 1954, p. 78 (date of statement: 1922); Engl.: Unconditional hatred. German war guilt and the future of Europe. Devin-Adair, New York 1953.
13 Quoted in: Bardèche, M.: Nürnberg oder die Falschmünzer, Viöl 1992,
14 Cf.: Stürmer, M.: Schröders lockere Lektion über eine Chefsache, in:
Welt am Sonntag, Feb. 21, 1999, p. 35.
15 A. A. Knopf, New York, London 1929; quoted and retranslated acc. to: Maier-Dorn, E.: Alleinkriegsschuld. 1200 Antworten auf 400 Fragen. Großaitingen 1970, p. 118.
16 Ibid., in the report mentioned: p. 11, Chap. IX.
17 Quoted in: Lutz, H.: Verbrechervolk im Herzen Europas? Tübingen 1958, p. 26.
18 Official periodical of the German-American National Congress, an um- brella organization of 300 German-American associations.
19 Quoted in: Richthofen, B. v.: Kriegsschuld 1939-1941. Der Schuldanteil der anderen. Kiel 1981, p. 11f.
20 Quoted in: Bernhardt, H.: Deutschland im Kreuzfeuer großer Mächte. 1000 aufschlußreiche Zitate als Jahrhundertzeugen, Preuß. Oldendorf 1988, p. 274.
21 Quoted in ibid., p. 357.
22 Barnes, H. E.: Die deutsche Kriegsschuldfrage, Tübingen 1964, p. 124; Engl.: Revisionism and brainwashing, 1963; more recent in: The Barnes Trilogy, IHR/HRP, Torrance/ London 1979.
23 Ibid., p. 125.
24 Veale, F.J.P.: Schuld und Sühne, Munich 1963. Quoted. acc. to: Rich- thofen, B. v.: op. cit. (note 19), pp. 31, 64; Engl.: Crimes discreetly veiled IHR, Torrance, CA, 1979.
25 Eschenburg, Th.: Zur politischen Praxis in der Bundesrepublik. Kritische Betrachtungen 1957-1961, Bd. I, Munich 1961, p. 162ff.
26 Richthofen, B. v.: op. cit. (note 19), p. 7f.
27 Quoted acc. to Diwald, H.: Geschichte der Deutschen, Propyläen, Frank- furt, 1978, p. 98.
28 Grimm, F. W.: Politische Justiz, die Krankheit unserer Zeit, Scheur, Bonn 1953, p. 146ff.; similar in Grimm: Mit offenem Visier, Druffel, Le- oni 1961, p. 248f.
Source: The Revisionist, Volume 1, Number 1, February 2003