European History

I LIKED THIS ARTICLE in the March 3, 1915 issue of THE FATHERLAND because of the overview it provides of English outrages against any competitor or source of wealth that presented itself. It puts the Great War into perspective very well, but is a bit too optimistic as to the hoped-for outcome. At this time, the United States was still seen as the fair-minded uninvolved arbiter, a role it totally failed to fulfill in this war, and the next. -Carolyn

v. 2 no. 4   March 3, 1915     Page 11

ENGLAND AND PROVIDENCE

By Dr. Edmund von Mach

NATIONS, like individuals, are the tools of Providence. We may think we understand the reasons of our actions, but we do not know the aims of Providence until the results are achieved.

By Carolyn Yeager

THESE FIRST FOUR ITEMS COME FROM the No. 26 issue of THE FATHERLAND newspaper, [No. 24 shown at left] meaning that after 26 consecutive weeks it was still going strong. Also going strong was discussion of the United States-declared 'Neutrality' in regards to the war raging in Europe. We know today that U.S. neutrality was a sham, but at the time those Americans who were not pro-England or pro-Russian were struggling to bring attention to the situation.

The Fatherland v.1 no.26 P 5

N.Y. Staats Zeitung editorial, January 25, 1915

“On Our Knees to England”

"IN a letter to United States Senator Stone, but intended for general consumption, Secretary Bryan has undertaken to justify the attitude of the administration toward the warring nations and to reply to the attacks which have been provoked by the attitude of the Government on this subject. It is well that the letter bears the signature of Mr. Bryan, as otherwise it might have been assumed that it had been composed in London, or the British Embassy in Washington, except that British diplomats would probably have gone about it with more skill and discretion than our Secretary of State...."

By Carolyn Yeager

From acute hatred in 1914 to smoldering prejudice today, where did anti-Germanism start and why does it persist?

I cannot find any documentation of this phenomenon prior to the lead-up to World War I in the nineteenth century, and centered in the British Foreign Office. The image presented was of an exaggerated authoritarianism in both the German personality and culture.

Germans had always, up to then, been seen as a nation of “Poets and Thinkers” who were “disinclined to war,” acccording to Dr. Michael F. Conners in his book Dealing in Hate: The Development of Anti-German Propaganda. I have just now found Dr. Conners book online, as I am preparing to post this article, and will read what he has to say with interest ex post facto, as it were. 

Or, even worse, the irreplaceable medieval manuscripts housed in the library there? Those uncivilized barbarians!

By Carolyn Yeager

THIS IS THE NARRATIVE YOU WILL COME ACROSS by a superficial Internet search on the popular search engines. I knew there was an alternate version of this narrative, but was surprised when I could not find any mention of one with a quick online search. There was not even a reference to it on the relevant Wikipedia pages. So I thought, again: The Internet is being denuded of all 'alternative' versions of history! This is getting to be nuts.

IN THE NOVEMBER 18, 1914 ISSUE OF THE FATHERLAND, two articles struck me as especially powerful proofs that the popular feelings about this at-that-time-3-month-old war were being driven by British propaganda and the cooperation of the Press in most countries save Germany and Austria-Hungary. These two articles, copied below, speak against the narrative already being set in stone via the newspapers that it was the German “barbarians” who were out to take over and dominate Europe through undemocratic force. In truth, we know it was England that elected long before to utilise war as the means to weaken any European nation that successfully competed with it. It is Great Britain that was not above using illegal means to assure its dominance, including ignoring and abusing the rights of American citizens. -Carolyn

Image

And time for Germans to demand it!

THE WAR GUILT HOAX

By August Krazer

The first part originally appeared as a letter to the editor dated 31 August, 1981, on the 49th anniversary of the eve of Germany's invasion of Poland, Sept 1, 1939. Find the German original here. This is a machine translation lovingly and carefully improved on by yours truly, Carolyn Yeager.

RUDOLF TRENKEL, BORN IN THORN, SAID AT A LECTURE in Scharzfeld/Harz (1978) on the basis of the captured files of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Intelligence, that in 1933 Poland had tried a preventive war against Germany with the support of France, as well as in 1936.

In the summer of 1939 more than 50,000 Germans were imprisoned, 70,000 fled, and "thousands of ethnic German women and children, men and old people were brutally murdered."

By Carolyn Yeager

ON THE 11TH DAY OF THE 11TH MONTH OF NOVEMBER 1918, a German government delegation led by Mathias Erzberger crossed into France and signed a cease-fire at the 11th hour in the presence of Marshall Ferdinand Foch and other French and British military commanders. Yet this is now called by official historians a German surrender.

Update: See some great pics and news items in real time here: https://twitter.com/RealTimeWW1

Germany never intended to surrender militarily, but between this date and 28 June, 1919 when a peace treaty was signed in the Hall of Mirrors at the Versailles palace outside Paris, the United States, Britain, France and Italy colluded in separating Germany from her allies, bullying and blockading (starving) her into accepting unacceptable conditions of peace. They did the same with Austria and Hungary, in separate treaties.

Image

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.

We now move on to Chapter 5: The World War. Hitler had been living and working in Munich for two and a half years when the war came. He tells how the situation appeared to him and how that led him to enlist at the first opportunity. His mistrust of the Slavs and dislike of multiculturalism continues to be part of his thinking. 

P 321   5.2   THE GERMAN WAR FOR FREEDOM

The moment the news of the assassination [of Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie -cy] reached Munich, two thoughts came into my mind. First, that war was absolutely inevitable, and second, that the Habsburg State would now be forced to honor its alliance. What I had most feared was that one day Germany itself, perhaps as a result of the alliance, would become involved in a conflict not directly caused by Austria. In this case, Austria might not be able to muster the will to fight on behalf of its ally. The Slavic majority in the empire would have immediately begun to undermine any such intentions, and would have always preferred to shatter the entire state rather than to aid its ally. But now this danger was removed. The old state was compelled to fight, whether it wished to or not.

The following is copied from the julius milaitis blog, where it was posted in May 2011. It's a review of the book by Finnish author Erkki Hautamäki, titled Finland in the Eye of the Storm, recommended to me by a Dutch friend who will be nameless because he lives under the Stalinesque laws of the European Union. The blog post has no copyright on it so I've posted the whole thing. If someone with authority has a problem with this, just let me know and I'll make adjustments. Of course, it's because I think this content is very important in the interests of getting to the truth about the Allied role in starting WWII. Read more about Erkki Hautamäki here. -cy

* * *

Finnish author Erkki Hautamäki was a councillor of education and a reservist in the Finnish army, holding the rank of Major. Hautamäki has completed a lengthy process and fulfilled a historical task in his book “Finland in the Eye of the Storm”, which Marshall Mannerheim and his trusted aid Vilho Tahvanainen left for future generations. Driven by a need to bring out the historical truth for the Baltic Youth, this book is dedicated to Vilho Tahvanainen, an unrelenting patriot and aid to Field Marshall C.G.E. Mannerheim. 

From the prologue of the book, by E Hautamäki:

By Carolyn Yeager

THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING ADOLF HITLER'S BEHAVIOR AS A PEACE AND WAR LEADER lies in this sentence, quoted by Hermann Giesler from August 1943, after the devastating air attack on Hamburg. Hitler said, recalling his decision not to attack the remaining British troops at Dunkirk in 1940:

It didn't agree with my character to step on the one who lays on the ground.

He saw the British as essentially defeated, and that they must themselves recognize that fact. He followed up with this: “After awhile I had to rethink. I was mistaken—magnanimity will not be recognized. What you see there [in photos of the Hamburg victims] is destructive brutality. Again and again one tries not to believe this, now I know—no mercy.” (p50 in The Artist Within The Warlord, from which all the quotes here are taken.)

But character is not changed by events. Decisions may be made against one's own character, but it is not easy or natural. Adolf Hitler was resolute, firm in his opinions and beliefs; he could be hard when necessary, but he was not ruthless, as were his adversaries. There were lines he would or could not cross.

Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt were all prepared to carry out whatever acts they thought would get them closer to their goal—unconditional victory. They brought into play the darkest of black ops, and had no regard for their own soldiers apart from public opinion – the perception the public had of them as leaders.

Adolf Hitler never intended to utterly destroy anything, except for Bolshevism. He wanted to negotiate with other nations, to make deals that freed Germany from the Versailles Dictate and gave her respect and a high standing in the world again. He seems to have genuinely believed others were reasonable because war was such an unthinkable prospect after the recent Great War in which he had been a participant. But if reason was not followed, then he was prepared to use the greater persuasive power of strength and even limited force of arms. But from everything he says according to Hermann Giesler's memoir, ruthlessness was not among his attributes or his options.

There are plenty out there who find that lack of ruthlessness a grave failing in Hitler, and the reason Germany was ultimately decimated. They may be right. They probably are right. All the winners were ruthless and they have gotten away with it in the official history so far because they won. They were devious, dirty and without scruples or conscience. Do we really wish Hitler had been the same because our THE SECOND EDITION of race realist and nationalist views coincide with his? After consideration, I for one don't, but in any case, wishing doesn't change anything. I want to understand Hitler, not try to prop up a false idol. So I am going to share in this essay what I've discovered about the personality of Adolf Hitler as revealed by Giesler in his book Ein Anderer Hitler (Another Hitler), that also shines through in our English translation from that book, titled The Artist Within the Warlord.