The Holocaust Historiography Project

Reflections on German and American foreign policy, 1933-1945

Karl Otto Braun

  • Paper Presented to the Sixth International Revisionist Conference.

During my career as a German diplomat, I had three superiors. The first was Alfred Rosenberg, head of the Foreign Political Office of the National Socialist Party. The next was Foreign Minister Freiherr Konstatin von Neurath, an “old school” conservative. The last was Joachim von Ribbentrop. After the war these men were condemned as criminals by the Allied Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. Rosenberg and von Ribbentrop were sentenced to “death by hanging.” I doubt if many Americans have had a similarly tragic experience with their superiors. The words “death by hanging” still resound in my ears and dreams since the moment I first heard them pronounced over the radio in late 1946 while I myself was an “automatic arrest” inmate in the Dachau concentration camp, then under U.S. Military Government control.

All former German officials with university degrees were subject to “automatic arrest” according to Morgenthau’s punitive directive JCS 1067, regardless of whether or not they had been members of the National Socialist Party. The infamous Morgenthau Plan was originally drawn up by Harry Dexter White, the right-hand man of U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau. White had been born in eastern Poland with the name Weis. White died in suspicious circumstances in 1948 after it was discovered by the U.S.A. government that he'd been a Soviet agent. Morgenthau’s program was thus indirectly drafted by Stalin!

Directive JCS 1067, which determined the main lines of U.S. policy in occupied Germany until July 1947, was itself a violation of the Hague Convention of 1907 which prohibited the automatic arrest of people in occupied territories. When I made this point to my American interrogators, I received the reply that the Germans had already violated the Hague Convention much earlier. Those American officers did not know that the Nuremberg International Tribunal had expressly acknowledged the Hague Convention (and especially section 6b) as the basis of its judgment against the German defendants!

All the same, a bitter fate always has a purifying effect in life. A man who, like Hamlet, suffers “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” is forced to weigh his words carefully, must maintain a sense of balance and, above all, must stick to the facts. Revisionism has a mission. It is to find facts. Historical fact-finding likewise has a purifying effect because it embodies the struggle for truth. History is reborn memory. Men with a rich memory have a superior power. Consequently, nations should promote a regard for history, thereby strengthening their memory and their power. It’s true that the history of the United States is still comparatively young, but two hundred years of memory are enough upon which to build a respect for traditional values. Recalling the values of your forefathers, of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Cleveland and others, you have no reason to despair or be timid. The dawn of another Renaissance is approaching! Believe me: Moral values have a more enduring life than shrewd tactics! If we stoop to the level of Marxist lies and self-deception, as Franklin Roosevelt did, eve fall into the hands of our more cunning enemies; whereas if we keep ourselves on a morally elevated plane, we will emerge victorious. When all is said and done, our blue shining planet, our universe, is in the hands of God-contrary to the erroneous denials of Marxism.'

The great German historian Leopold von Ranke worked on the principle of trying to describe historical events truthfully, just as they actually happened. I try to work in keeping with Ranke’s principle. All the same, I must admit that I see everything through the eyes of my own experience. Please consider and accept this limitation.

On that fateful 30th day of January 1933-ironically, Roosevelt’s 51st birthday-I was reading Dutch books about Mount Kloet, a volcano in Java which mixed its lava with the water of a lake, thus creating the terrible “lahars” which ultimately created fertile fields. Late that evening I left the Geographical Institute of the University of Berlin and stepped out into the crowded streets. Newspaper boys were shouting that President von Hindenburg had appointed Adolf Hitler as Reich Chancellor and that the SA stormtroopers would soon be holding a torchlight parade.

I was myself a simple stormtrooper but my uniform was at home, too far away. Therefore I decided to climb onto a linden tree at the corner of the Unter den Linden boulevard and the Wilhelmstrasse in central Berlin. All the trees were packed with sightseers and the Unter den Linden was crowded with thousands of people. The torchlight procession soon passed through the Brandenburg Gate, nowadays walled off by concrete by Communist tyranny, thus ridiculing its purpose as a gate. When the stormtroopers passed by the darkened French Embassy, I wondered what the French Ambassador, Francois-Poncet, might be feeling about all this. I can remember being vividly struck by this thought.

The torchlight parade turned right into the Wilhelmstrasse, just under my tree, and headed towards the Reich Chancellery. There were 16 men marching shoulder to shoulder in each row. Hitler saluted the men from a window in the Chancellery building. As the first rows passed by him, the words “Deutschland, Deutschland Ueber Alles” echoed through the crowd like an organ. It seemed to be the outcry of a nation humiliated by foreign oppression, occupation, inflation and a scandalous treaty imbued with revenge and contempt. The torchlight procession seemed to me like the glowing, fertilizing lava of Mount Kloet! Then, 22 years of age, I wrote an enthusiastic report about all this to my parents. They kept it until it was burned with their belongings by British bombs in 1944.

The moral outcry of a humiliated nation proved that Hitler’s real historical birthplace was Versailles. The punitive economic clauses of that imposed treaty had been drafted by Bernard Baruch, who later wrote: “President Wilson called me to Paris to serve as one of his advisers on the economic section of the treaty."2 Already in 1920 Baruch published The Making of the Reparation and the Economic Sections of the Treaty, in which he wrote: “I was intimately concerned with the creation of these (economic) sections… Serbia, Rumania and Poland had been victims of merciless German agression."3 Baruch intentionally ignored the murder at Sarajevo and the fact that Austria and Germany had re-established Poland in November 1916 as a constitutional monarchy. Baruch supported the popular slogan of the time, “Let Germany pay first,” and admitted in his 1920 book that “Many of the (Versailles conference) participants preferred war with all its horrors to any peace short of that which they demanded.” He conceded, “It is true that the (Versailles) treaty is a severe treaty."4 It is thus not an exaggeration to say that Baruch significantly helped Hitler to power. History is full of such irony. Already in 1919 we can recognize the genesis of a terrible confrontation, for it was precisely the economic demands of the Versailles conference that brought about the punitive Dawes Plan, the Young Plan, Black Friday, seven million German unemployed and six million German Communist votes. When he came to power, Hitler was thus confronted with a country in economic ruin. Again ironically, Franklin Roosevelt faced a very similar economic catastrophe as he assumed the presidency of one of the victor nations that same year. It is worth noting that after six years of Roosevelt’s New Deal, there were still ten million unemployed Americans, whereas Hitler’s “New Deal” was able to absorb all seven million unemployed Germans without war. Roosevelt achieved the same result only after the world had burst into flames. This contrast is one of the main sources of Roosevelt’s personal jealousy and enmity towards his great adversary.

According to a May 1939 report to Berlin by the German diplomatic representative in Washington, Hans Thomsen, Roosevelt told the Senate Military Committee that “It would be a good thing if Hitler and Mussolini were murdered."5 To make this situation more clear, consider these passages from Hitler’s important address of 28 April 1939 (four months before the outbreak of war in Europe) which were directed personally to President Roosevelt:

I have taken no step that violated foreign rights, but I have restored the rights which had been violated twenty years ago (at Versailles}. Within the territory of the present Greater German Reich there is no part which did not belong to it since ancient times or was not subject to its sovereignty. Long before the American continent was discovered by the White Man, this Reich existed. President Roosevelt believes that the leaders of the great nations have it in their power to protect the nations from the imminent disaster of war. If this is correct, it is criminal rashness if the leaders of nations who wield great power do not curb their newspapers which agitate continuously for war. It would be an honorable achievement if President Roosevelt were to redeem the lofty promises of President Wilson. That would certainly be a practical contribution to the moral consolidation of the world …

President Roosevelt, Hitler continued, I understand that the vastness of your realm and the immeasurable wealth of your resources make you feel yourself responsible for the destiny of the entire world. My scope, however, is much more modest. I have assumed power in a country with 140 inhabitants per square kilometer, not 15. Billions of German savings in gold and foreign exchange were taken from us. We lost all our colonies. In 1933 we had seven million unemployed, as well as several million part-time employed, and we faced ruin. In the past six and half years I have devoted all of my effort to mobilizing the energy of my people, who have been outlawed and abandoned by the rest of the world. Furthermore I have tried to remove, page by page, that (Versailles) treaty which, with its 448 articles, represents the crudest violation ever imposed on nations and individuals.

Anyone can easily check Hitler’s statements about U.S. press agitation for war by looking through leading American newspapers, particularly from the years 1938 to 1941. I was told by Germans returning from visits to the U.S. in 1934 that anti-German defamation was already running high even then. The Zionists were clever enough to establish an “Anti-Defamation League” in 1913 when Wilson became President and their influence first reached the highest level of government. They feared growing opposition. In contrast, Americans of German descent neglected to take any similar defensive measures. As a result, the image of the brutal, militant German still haunts American movies to this day. The question arises whether a pro-German American group should not establish its own “Anti-Defamation League” for the sake of a free America.

My Turn to East Asia

In 1932 I was in England preparing my dissertation on Shakespeare in the library of the British Museum. I continued my studies of English, history, and geography at the University of Berlin in 1933. At the same time I attended lectures at the Hochschule fuer Politik (Higher School for Political Studies) located across from the Imperial Palace, which was torn down in 1945 by German Bolsheviks. I was occupied with lectures on international law by Professor Friedrich Berber and geopolitics by Professor Albrecht Haushofer, and I participated in a seminar on the British press by Professor Karl Boemer. I wrote a study on background forces behind leading English papers for the seminar. Professor Boemer took it with him when he accompanied Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels on his September 1933 trip to the League of Nations in Geneva. Boemer later told me that my survey helped the Minister in his appearance before the League.

The following year I received a postcard from Professor Boemer asking me to visit him at his office in the Foreign Political Office of the National Socialist Party (Aussenpolitisches Amt der NSDAP). To my great astonishment, Boemer immediately introduced me to Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg, a pre-eminent party official and chief editor of the main party paper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, since 1922. As a second surprise Rosenberg asked me if I would join his office in the recently planned East Asia Section. I replied that although I knew Britain well, I knew East Asia only geographically. Rosenberg, a Baltic German from Riga, replied: “You are young enough to be trained.” We arrived at a compromise. I offered to work afternoons in his office while learning Japanese mornings at the Institute of Oriental Languages, which had been founded by Bismarck. Rosenberg accepted my proposal.

I found him a noble, broad-minded and modest superior. His modesty was crowned with some shyness or restraint. He had the gift of being able to present his views convincingly. In practical conflicts, however, he was much too soft. I considered him more of a philosopher than a politician.

When I began my first job in August 1934 I found an unfinished manuscript on my desk entitled “The Amau Declaration and Its Echo in the World Press.” I was asked to add up-to-date observations and comment on it. Amau was the speaker of the Japanese Foreign Office, the Gaimusho. He had announced that Japan considered China as a sphere of her special interest. Already in 1917 Viscount Kikujiro Ishii, Ambassador in Washington, had concluded an agreement with the American Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, which conceded Japan’s special relationship with neighboring China. But this liberal trend changed under Secretary of State Henry Stimson to the inflexible “Open Door Policy” of unrestricted international trade with China. This policy was first introduced by Britain during the last century as part of her imperialistic design based on her world naval supremacy. British political imports have often proved disadvantageous to the United States! There have sometimes been great contrasts between the declared independence of the United States and an American foreign policy still directed by the former “mother country.”

In 1931 Japan proclaimed the formation of the state of Manchukuo from the three ancient Manchurian provinces of northern China. Japan was condemned by the League of Nations for this act and Japan consequently left the League. Then Secretary of State Stimson was an advocate of war against Japan but this view was rejected by President Herbert Hoover, a statesman of German-Swiss descent. In this respect Hoover was a forerunner of General Douglas MacArthur, who warned his country against participation in any land war on the Asian continent. The Amau study returned to my desk a few weeks later with the words stamped on it in green “Hat dem Führer vorgelegen,” showing that Hitler had read it. I felt then that my decision to learn the awesomely difficult Japanese language had not been a false step.

The following year we had a minor success. The first public short wave radio telephone service between Germany and Japan was inaugurated by Alfred Rosenberg. It was followed by a setback. Rosenberg’s internal political adversary, Joachim von Ribbentrop (then Ambassador in London and a close advisor to Hitler) moved ahead of Rosenberg by concluding the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan on 25 November 1936. The Pact was a response to the new policies of the Seventh Congress of the Communist International (Comintern) of 25 July to 21 August 1935 in Moscow. Ribbentrop declared: “The Comintern intends to establish a new Soviet Republic in Spain in order to extend its subversive activity in Europe. Who will be the next victim?” Don’t those words sound very up to date? Between 1936 and 1939 a fierce civil war raged in Spain until Stalin was defeated by Francisco Franco with military aid from Germany and Italy. Stalin’s defeat was costly for Spain because he had arranged for the entire Spanish gold reserve to be shipped to Moscow!

The signing of the Anti-Comintern Pact had several remarkable features:

  1. Ribbentrop had initiated it without the knowledge of the Wilhelmstrasse (the German Foreign Office). In this respect Hitler’s tactics resembled those of Roosevelt, who always relied on intimate advisers such as Felix Frankfurter, Henry Morgenthau and the pro-Soviet Harry Hopkins rather than on his State Department. The negotiations for the Pact were carried out by Herr von Raumer of the “Bureau Ribbentrop” and the Japanese Military. The Japanese liaison officer was the Military Attache Hiroshi Oshima. The Japanese Foreign Office and the Wilhelmstrasse were informed only at the last minute. This was the internal feature, so to speak.
  2. Hitler’s move was a blow to Great Britain which then aided the Red government in Spain on the grounds that it was the only legal government. Britain was legally correct but politically wrong. If Britain had fought Communism in Spain with Franco, Soviet influence would not reign today in Aden, Ethiopia and elsewhere. Japan had been England’s ally in the First World War. The Pact had now blocked this road to partnership.
  3. There were other reasons for Hitler’s approach to Japan. In Mein Kampf he wrote: “When I was 16 years old I followed the Russian-Japanese war (of 1905) with great interest. For national reasons I immediately sided with Japan. A Russian defeat automatically meant a defeat of the Slavs within the Austrian empire."8 Even more revealing, Hitler observed that Great Britain was reluctant to weaken her alliance with Japan after the war because that would have weakened her position vis a vis the United States or, in Hitler’s words, “the gigantic colossus of the United States with her enormous resources.” Nevertheless, the entire Jewish press had definitely turned against Japan. Hitler argued: “How is it possible that the Jewish Anglo-Saxon papers which had faithfully backed England’s war against Imperial Germany suddenly committed a breach of faith and pursued different aims? The annihilation of Germany was not so much a British interest as a Jewish one, just as the annihilation of Japan does not serve the interests of Britain, but rather the long range goals of the advocates of Jewish world domination. England exerts every effort to maintain her predominant position in this world, whereas the Jews are organizing to attack her."7 A few lines later Hitler wrote: “A stable national monarchy like Japan is a thorn in Israel’s eye. Japan will suffer the fate of Imperial Germany.” In short, the 1936 German pact with Japan was less anti-British than it was anti-Jewish. Do not forget that Hitler’s Mein Kampf was written sixty years ago-sixty years in a rapidly changing century. r suggest that you draw your own conclusions from this fact and consider that since the Second World War America has become the heir of the outworn British Empire. Could America not face the same fate? Are you really convinced that your country is run only by your President and an independent Congress? Hitler certainly cannot be considered a statesman like Bismarck, who was far superior. Like Napoleon, Hitler ultimately failed as a statesman and military leader. But Hitler was a prophet-a political prophet with a logical outlook.
  4. Hitler’s policy towards Japan resembled his approach to the Poland of Marshal Josef Pilsudski when he concluded a ten-year Non-Aggression Pact with Poland on 26 January 1934. A new phase in German-Polish relations was opened. Hitler sought an effective German-Polish bloc against the Soviet Union in Europe and a similar alliance with Japan against the USSR in Asia. Hitler considered the detachment of Pilsudski’s Poland from the Anglo-French alliance as a personal triumph over the German Foreign Office which still stubbornly clung to Gustav Stresemann’s anti-Polish and pro-Soviet policy. I can assure you that if Pilsudski had not died in 1935, Britain would never have succeeded in trapping Poland into the unilateral anti-German alliance which forced Hitler to cancel the German-Polish pact on 28 April 1939. Polish-French Freemasonry played an important role in this.8 This was the beginning of Poland’s demise-a twilight which, thanks to Roosevelt and Churchill, has lasted until today.

In 1937 my Japanese study course was coming to an end. From the outset I had told Rosenberg that I intended to enter the Foreign Office by passing all the required examinations. When the time arrived, Rosenberg begged me to stay on with his party office, promising me a higher career in the Foreign Office later on. But I insisted on my idealistic intention to start right at the bottom in order to avoid any criticism of party favoritism. I now know that I was mistaken because I fell into the net of a hidden anti-Hitler conspiracy. In your State Department at least three different gangs of pro-Soviet agents flourished, culminating in Alger Hiss.9 Similarly, Staatssekretaer (Under Secretary) Ernst von Weizsaecker headed the secret opposition within the German Foreign Office. Under the tutelage of Harry Hopkins, atomic material and designs were shipped from the U.S. to the Soviet Union during the war. Colonel Curtis B. Dall considered Hopkins a creature of Bernard Baruch.10 On the other hand, Under Secretary von Weizsaecker, aided by Wilhelm Canaris, frustrated Hitler’s effort for a joint German-Spanish action against Gibraltar in 1940 by telling Franco that Germany would ultimately lose the war. If Franco had decided to join with Germany, an American landing in North Africa would have been prevented. These two examples prove that the faithful officials in both Berlin and Washington might well complain of “the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes.” (Hamlet, Act III, Scene I)

I was fortunate to be assigned to the East Asia Section of the Foreign Office’s Political Department. It was headed by Herr von Schmieden who did not belong to any gang. Thanks to his recommendation I was allowed to accompany the professional diplomatic courier to Tokyo at Christmas-time 1937. The courier spoke Russian and I could assist him with Japanese. The journey via Siberia took two weeks, then the quickest route. It was a unique experience which made me realize that German propaganda about Soviet Russia did not exaggerate. On the contrary, what I observed was worse than i had expected. When we deposited our diplomatic luggage at the German Embassy in Moscow, we saw a revolver on the desk of an official who told us that an attempt had been made to break into the code room the previous night. The intruders did not know that it was guarded round the clock and they had to flee. While escaping over the garden wall, one of the NKVD (Soviet secret police) men lost his revolver, which would now serve as evidence for an official protest. Another surprise came when the Military Attache, General Koestring, confessed that he did not specifically know whether or not the second track of the trans-Siberian rail line had been completed. We later found that, except for five bridges, it had been. On the longest bridge, which spanned the Yenisei River, men worked even at three o'clock in the morning in a temperature of minus 35 degrees Celsius. We passed by numerous freight trains loaded with prisoners-Soviet prisoners in peace time. Stalin was then waging an internal war against the supposed conspiracy of the Chief of the General Staff, Marshal Michael Tukhachevsky. The German General Consul in Novosibirsk told us that thousands were arrested every morning, between three and five o'clock, who had never even heard of his name. Terror reigned at its height. The front page of Pravda was packed with names of high ranking “traitors” who had been liquidated. Many brownish icicles dripped from drains in the rail cars, indicating that the poor prisoners had been locked up for weeks. With a sigh of relief we passed beneath a wooden, redflagged border gate with the slogan “Proletarians of All Countries, Unite!” We were then kindly received by Manchurian-Japanese border guards. We enjoyed the clean Manchurian train and celebrated the last night of 1937 with a hospitable Sino-Japanese dining car crew. It was my good fate indeed to go to East Asia for the first time after experiencing something of the Soviet nightmare. Arriving at Manchuli I had the feeling of being welcomed again by an ancient civilization after a period of complete lawlessness. My conviction that Germany must work together with Japan as a factor for stabilization was reinforced.

There is no denying the fact that the Marxist revolution of Lenin and Stalin was the belated child of the French Revolution of 1789. The cry for unrestricted liberty in Paris had similarly ended in Robespierre’s terrorism. However, it was superseded by a new European order under Napoleon. The Soviets, in contrast, enforced their rule by perpetuating institutionalized terror. Despite the stigma of terroristic rule, the Soviets were remarkably successful at exporting their ideology, not so much through sheer power but more because of the whitewashing policy of the ultraliberal western press. The distorting journalists of the New York Times and other leading papers bear an enormous historical guilt. It is remarkable that U.S. Ambassador William Bullitt’s reports from Moscow to Franklin Roosevelt which compared Stalin with Tsar Ivan the Terrible had been sent as secret dispatches while the controlled German press openly reported on the Soviet terror. Communism cannot exist without terror, just as the teachings of Karl Marx cannot prosper without cultivating hatred and envy.

In 1938 I was assigned to the cultural section of the German Embassy in Tokyo. This timed traveled to Asia by ship from Genoa to Yokohama by way of Ceylon, Singapore and Hong Kong. This journey was not a nightmare, but a sunny tropical dream. Unfortunately, the old-style but patriotic ambassador, Herbert von Dirksen, was no longer in Tokyo. The Military Attache, General Eugen Ott, was chosen as his successor. In my view, this was one of Hitler’s far-reaching mistakes. Ott had been the adjutant of General Kurt Schleicher for at least a decade. Schleicher had been involved in a conspiracy against Hitler and was executed without trial in the SA revolt of June 1934. It was only natural that Ott remained an adversary, regardless of whatever assurances he may have given to Hitler to obtain the appointment as ambassador to Tokyo. From the very beginning Ott considered me a National Socialist supervisor, particularly since my career had begun with Alfred Rosenberg. I can assure you that this was not the case, but Ott’s bad conscience nourished this suspicion. After 18 months I was transferred to the German Consulate in Kobe-Osaka. I did not regret the move because my new superior, Consul General August Balser, was a loyal official and an expert in Chinese affairs who spoke Chinese and Russian. I vividly remember when he invited me to our first breakfast together on 4 September 1939. Two declarations of war-by Britain and France-lay on our table. Have you ever had morning coffee with two war declarations?

The Ott problem was a very delicate one. As an old line military conservative he constantly had to hide his anti-Hitler leanings. But his negative attitude fatefully meshed with that of the infamous Richard Sorge, which came from the opposite ideological side. Officially Sorge was a correspondent for the liberal Frankfurter Zeitung, but he was actually an agent of the Chief of the Soviet General Staff, Marshal B.M. Shaposhnikov. Sorge portrayed himself as an upright democrat who opposed the Japanese monarchy, which he considered “antiquated.” He always had a ready supply of good Göring and Goebbels jokes. I often saw him drunk at Lohmeyer's, a German restaurant, something quite unusual for a secret agent. His Bohemian behavior completely disarmed our suspicions. Despite his hard drinking, he was on a very familiar basis with our Ambassador and furnished him with valuable details on Japanese domestic policy. This friendship made him a permanent guest of our three military attaches. I am still proud that I never invited him to my house. It remained a “Sans Souchi” house, “Ohne Sorge” in German, or “without worry” in English!

In spite of these unfavorable conditions, we in the cultural section succeeded in concluding a bilateral cultural agreement with Japan on 25 November 1938. We chose that date because it was the second anniversary of the Anti-Comintern Pact, an achievement, as already mentioned, of von Ribbentrop, who had become our Foreign Minister the year before. Our efforts were decisively helped by Hitler’s spectacular success in Munich in solving the Bohemian Sudetenland problem. The new agreement with Japan was designed to gradually weaken the still formidable pro-British and pro-American sentiments in the Japanese Foreign Office, and even more so, in the Navy. Meanwhile, the so-called “China Incident” of 1937 had grown into a major war. It brought about greater economic difficulties and sacrifices. Many urns, wooden boxes wrapped in silk containing the ashes of fallen soldiers, were delivered to the mourning relatives. I often saw them at railway stations bowing reverently to the flag and the accompanying officers. Not a tear fell. It was a moving sight!

Prince Fumimaro Konoe resigned as Prime Minister on 4 January 1939 because he could not fulfill his promise to end the war in China. His successor was Baron Kiichiro Hiranuma, but Konoe’s Anglophile Foreign Minister, Hachiro Arita, remained in office. We Germans did not have much confidence in him. Many years after the war I read that Arita had sent a note to President Roosevelt in May 1939 pleading for “a closer cooperation between Japan and America.” Arita was, so to speak, a forerunner of President Reagan! At the time this offer was concealed from the American people, but it leaked out in 1943. Hiranuma felt that -with American help Japanese moderates might prevent a world war, with its dangerous consequences for Japan. However, Roosevelt demanded that Japan must first withdraw entirely from China, and he added more fuel to the fire by giving six months notice that the United States was terminating the Commercial Treaty of 1911 with Japan. In contrast to Roosevelt’s cold shoulder, the Axis offered an alliance at that time. Japan was on the brink of joining the Axis. Percy L. Greaves Jr. deals with this in greater detail in his excellent essay, “Was Pearl Harbor Unavoidable?”

And then something unexpected happened: The British “blank check” guarantee to Poland in March 1939 suddenly forced Hitler to seek a way to break out of the threatening encirclement of Germany on the East and West. Dark clouds arose on all sides. A cunning Stalin offered temporary relief in return for half of Poland, the Baltic states and Bessarabia. British and French delegations were negotiating in Moscow at the same time under rather humiliating circumstances. For example, they had to take notes on their knees because Molotov denied them tables! Two years later, when Hitler attacked Stalin, the Allies voluntarily humiliated themselves by giving the Kremlin everything it wanted without any conditions. Unbelievable! Was this due to a lack of intelligence or a lack of character? And by whom: Roosevelt, Harriman, or the “Brain Trust"?

But to return to 1939. Only after desperate resistance by Poland did the British and French concede-too late-to Molotov that the Red Army could march through Poland against Germany. Hitler was the highest bidder in the “Fourth Partition” of Poland. He thus signed a Ten Year Non-Aggression Pact with Japan’s traditional enemy, Soviet Russia. When the news of the agreement reached our embassy in Tokyo, it was as if a bomb had exploded. Secrecy had been a top priority. Ambassador Ott was informed only at the last minute, thereby deeply offending the Japanese. Our Japanese friends, who supported close collaboration with Germany, were especially upset. Serious border clashes with the Red Army had been going on since May at the Mongolian frontier. General Grigorii Zhukov, who would later conquer Berlin, was victorious against the Japanese because of a superiority in tanks and heavy artillery.

It is easy to imagine the opportunities that Washington could have had if it had not cancelled the U.S.-Japanese Commercial Treaty during that critical August of 1939-a month crammed with fateful events! But as a result the Hiranuma cabinet fell only three days later. Under the two succeeding cabinets Japan followed an independent course between the Great Powers. On 15 September 1939 she signed an armistice with Moscow. Japan’s bad experience with the USSR had a long-range deterring effect. Alfred Rosenberg wrote these significant sentences in his diary on 25 August 1939:

I have the feeling that this Pact with Moscow will one day turn out to be a tragedy for National Socialism. It was not a step of free decision, but was rather an action taken in an emergency. The National Socialist Revolution had to beg for help from the head of another revolution which it has been our ideal to fight for the last twenty years. How can we speak in the future of the rescue and renaissance of Europe when we had to plead for help from the destroyer of Europe?

Hamilton Fish was perfectly correct when he observed that Hitler wanted to move East, but Roosevelt and the British war party forced him to turn against the West.o2 So it happened that while Hitler carried out his 18-day victory over Poland, he had already lost half of the country to his one-time and future enemy! American author Benjamin Colby gave his analysis of Roosevelt’s foreign policy the ironic title 'Twas a Famous victory.13 We should also ask: Was Hitler’s victory over Poland so famous? Stalin reaped his harvest without any noteworthy loss, and deported the resisting Poles along with many thousands of “Holocaust” Jews into the vast interior of his empire. “Vae \!ictis!” Remember Katyn! We honor the memory of twelve Polish Generals, 58 Colonels, 72 Lieutenant Colonels and 9, 217 officers.

It took more than a year to repair our damaged relations with Japan. Hitler’s amazing and convincing victories over Norway, Holland, Belgium and France helped our ongoing efforts. Ribbentrop was intelligent enough to send an envoy to Tokyo whom he trusted and respected, Ambassador Heinrich Stahmer, to assist Ott. Within 18 days Stahmer successfully worked out the Tripartite Pact. It was officially signed in Berlin on 27 September 1940. The negotiations were conducted under Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka of Prince Konoe’s second cabinet. The Pact had two main goals: (1) We hoped that it would help to deter Roosevelt’s provocative policy, but it turned out that we were in error about this. (2) The door was left open for a fourth partner. Our Foreign Office hoped that Soviet Russia might ultimately also join with us.

At my urging I was called back to Berlin at the end of 1940. The only route left open was through Siberia. At Otpor the Soviets had established a strict quarantine zone on the pretext of a single case of pestilence in a dentist’s practice in Hsinking, the capital of Manchuria, more than one thousand kilometers from the border. We were interned for eight days in badly heated third-class sleeping cars and had to turn over all our clothing and belongings to the Soviets for disinfection. Disinfection is a marvelous excuse for people to humiliate others. An NKVD agent interned together with us distributed anti-German books in violation of the existing agreements on propaganda. I realized right there that the hope by the Wilhelmstrasse of winning the USSR as a fourth partner for the Tripartite Pact was an idle dream. In Berlin I reported to Foreign Office Assistant Secretary (Unterstaatssekretaer) Ernst Woermann, a loyal official. He told me: “We have decided to transfer you to the East Asia Section of the Political Department, but, frankly speaking, the important political decisions are taken outside of the Foreign Office in the Führer’s and Ribbentrop’s headquarters.” I suppose that if I had been an American diplomat returning to Washington, Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles might well have explained to me that the important U.S. political decisions were made exclusively by Roosevelt and his “Brain Trust” of Frankfurter, Morgenthau, Baruch, and so forth, but not by the State Department. The fate of a diplomat in a distorted democracy such as Roosevelt’s is not unlike the fate of a diplomat in a dictatorship.

The next major event was the visit of Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka to Berlin, Rome and Moscow. I accompanied Matsuoka in Hitler’s special train from Berlin to the Italian border. We had dinner together. Matsuoka was deeply impressed by his conversation with Hitler and spoke enthusiastically of “the Führer.” Hitler had urged Matsuoka to attack Singapore while strictly avoiding any steps against the United States. Matsuoka was unable to give any military assurances, but he hinted that Japan would be ready for action in May.l5 The Japanese Ambassador in Berlin, Hiroshi Oshima, traveled with Matsuoka on his return journey to Malkinia, the new German-Soviet border crossing. Confidentially I learned from Oshima that Hitler had not mentioned the strained relations with Stalin to Matsuoka, but he (Oshima) had warned his superior not to sign a neutrality agreement with the USSR, as Molotov had been urging. Through the train window Oshima pointed out the long German trains at Posen transporting weapons. But Matsuoka had his instructions and Hitler, whom he had informed about the forthcoming agreement, avoided contradicting him. And so the Soviet-Japanese neutrality agreement was signed. The Soviets promised 100,000 tons of crude oil from North Sakhalin as an added inducement. Matsuoka had been Americanized from his youth and was a talkative character. Hitler was also understandably fearful of revealing his secret plan to attack the USSR. And yet, long after the war I learned, to my great embarrassment, that Hitler had revealed-four weeks before Matsuoka’s visit-to Prince Paul of Yugoslavia that he would attack the Soviet Union in early summer.16 Paul was Anglophile and had a Russian mother. The American Ambassador in Belgrade, Arthur Bliss Lane, immediately reported the news of Hitler’s plan to Washington. Washington informed Moscow at once! This contrast proves that the German-Japanese Pact was in reality not a functioning alliance. Poisonous sacro egoismo prevailed on both sides. In this respect Roosevelt treated his allies much better. Morgenthau was very generous to Britain with American taxpayers' money because he was always afraid that Britain might be seduced by German peace proposals or that Stalin might change sides again. Even today most Germans are convinced that Hitler’s attack against the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941 was a serious blunder. I do not share that view. In his memoirs, Malaya Zemlya, Leonid Brezhnev openly admitted Soviet intentions to attack a weakened Germany.o7 But apart from that, the best proof of Soviet intentions is the fact that the attacking German armies encountered an enormous concentration of Soviet forces being mobilized against the West. That’s the reason for the enormous numbers of Soviet prisoners taken in the summer of l941.t8 It is ironic that Hitler’s armies crossed the Soviet border exactly 129 years after Napoleon began his campaign against Russia. The overthrow of the pro-German government in Belgrade, which was well organized by Roosevelt and Donovan with Stalin’s help, delayed Hitler’s original timetable against the USSR for five weeks. This was perhaps Roosevelt’s greatest triumph during the war. He saved Stalin! *

Hitler failed in Russia primarily because he waged war only militarily and not politically. In Norway, Holland, Belgium and France he had carefully observed the golden rule of Alexander the Great in Asia and Egypt-magnanimity towards the vanquished. However, against the Bolsheviks Hitler was blind with a rage that resembled Roosevelt’s hatred of him. It was Hitler’s error to occupy the Soviet Embassy in Berlin instead of having it put under the protection of a neutral power. It was Hitler’s error not to have formed national Russian and Ukrainian governments. It was Hitler’s error not to have abolished collectivized agriculture and given land to the peasants. If he had done these things, a fire of popular insurrection would have swept away Stalin’s tyranny. Russian armies shoulder to shoulder with the German forces would have smashed Bolshevism forever.

In 1983 I discovered a lengthy report by Felix Frankfurter in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. Roosevelt sent Frankfurter to the USSR in 1941. He visited the retreating Soviet front near Rostov in October 1941 and, along with Allied military specialists, speculated that Hitler’s armies might reach the Ural mountains, leaving only Vladivostok as the last American supply line to the Reds. Therefore he considered Japan a “stumbling block” between California and Siberia. Frankfurter argued for an American war of aggression against Japan. He wrote: “In Japan we have a 'dagger in the back' type of enemy waiting and anxious only for the place and moment when it can sink that dagger to the best advantage. In this show-down war, reasons multiply for annihilating this kind of enemy."t9 Annihilating a whole nation is genocide. Remember Hitler’s prophesies regarding Japan and about whom her annihilation would serve best. If the standards applied to the defeated Axis leaders at Nuremberg and Tokyo had been applied to Frankfurter, I doubt if he would have escaped death by hanging.

Another “bomb” exploded when a top secret telegram from Ambassador Ott landed on my desk in October 1941. It reported that Richard Sorge had been arrested for espionage on behalf of the Soviet government. Further Japanese investigation in the following days revealed that Sorge had been the editor of a Communist paper published near Cologne in 1924, that he had participated in Comintern congresses, and that he had collaborated with Asahi newspaper correspondent Hotsumi Ozaki, who was close to Prince Konoe. Sorge’s mother was a Russian. His great-uncle, Friedrich Albert Sorge, had been General Secretary of the Marxist First International and a friend of Karl Marx. And we had to learn all of this from the Japanese! I felt ashamed. The dreaded Gestapo, the German FBI, suddenly bustled with activity. They finally found a dusty file in the records of the old Prussian democratic police which they had acquired in 1933, but never read. The file label read “Richard Sorge.” The agent was so bold that he didn’t even change his name. To make matters worse, Sorge had transmitted two fateful messages to Vladivostok shortly before his arrest. The first reported a Japanese cabinet decision to refrain from any attack against the Soviet Union. As a result of that information, 200,000 fresh Siberian troops were quickly transferred westwards to the German advance front. On 5 December 1941 the Tenth Motorized Infantry Division leading a pincer movement around Moscow under General Heinz Guderian was forced to retreat for the first time.20 Hitler’s “blitz” came to an end. This was the consequence of Sorge’s treason and the five summer weeks lost in Yugoslavia. Sorge’s second message informed Stalin that Pearl Harbor might be attacked within the next 60 days if war should break out between Japan and the U.S. The Soviets thanked Sorge, replying that “they had informed Roosevelt, Marshall, Admiral Stark, et al."21 In this way Stalin returned his thanks for the priceless “Prince Paul message” of spring. “For Brutus is an honorable man. So are they all, all honorable men.” Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene II)

A few weeks later Under Secretary von Weizsaecker reached me by telephone while I was away visiting in Nuremberg. He asked me about relations between Ott and Sorge. I replied: “They were extremely intimate. Unfortunately, the Japanese knew this. Therefore the Ambassador should be recalled immediately.” Von Weizsaecker replied: “He should stay on there.” Along with the Japanese, I was very disturbed. A few months later they tactfully demanded his recall. After the war I learned the context. I was taught that because Weizsaecker was an honorable man who resisted a dictator, his oath of allegiance did not count. At the end of the war America discovered that the Sorge connection was only half of the story. Major General C.~A. Willoughby, who served under MacArthur, found out that the head of Soviet espionage was based in Shanghai from where the eager American Marxist, Agnes Smedley, organized her footholds in high-level positions in Washington.22 The Sorge-Smedley ring was thus a threat to the United States as well as to Germany.

It is significant that Matsuoka’s negotiations in Europe were not coordinated with the Japanese negotiations being conducted in Washington at the same time. There was considerable disagreement about policy in Tokyo. Although Prince Konoe was fully aware of Hiranuma’s failure, he thought that the Tripartite Pact had strengthened his position and would allow him to take a chance on the United States. He even sacrificed the pro-German Matsuoka in July in favor of retiring Vice Admiral Teijiro Toyoda, who was opposed to any attack against the United States. The Japanese Ambassador in Washington, Nomura, met forty times with Secretary of State Cordell Hull and nine times with President Roosevelt. But Roosevelt’s attitude was so uncompromising that it was he who saved the Tripartite Pact. To be quite clear, I must confess that it was not German diplomatic skill, but rather Roosevelt who alone forced the reluctant Japanese to stick to the alliance with Germany. At virtually the last minute Tokyo asked if we would join them in case of war with America. On 5 December 1941 Hitler gave the Japanese this assurance and, following the Pearl Harbor attack, he complied with it, even though Germany was not legally bound to do so because it was the Japanese who had struck first. On 11 December 1941, long after Roosevelt had issued shooting orders against German warships, Germany declared war against the United States.23 Hitler delivered an epochal speech on that occasion. After reading it one has to admit that Hitler, citing documents found in Prague and Warsaw, indicted Roosevelt in such a way that he may be called a pioneer of historical revisionism. I personally witnessed this speech and will never forget the experience. “The American President has labeled our three nations as 'have nots',” Hitler declared. “That is correct!

But the 'have nots' also wish to live and they will keep from being robbed of even their modest share by the 'haves'."24

There is no need to dwell here on the background to the Pearl Harbor attack. This subject is dealt with in detail in Admiral Theobald’s The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, John Toland’s Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath, and Hamilton Fish’s latest book Tragic Deception. It’s worth recalling Thomas Dewey’s remark of 26 September 1944 to General George Marshall’s messenger, Col. Carter W. Clarke. In reply to Clarke’s plea to suppress the whole issue during the election campaign, Dewey said: “From what I know of Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt, instead of being reselected, ought to be impeached."25 This is also not the place to discuss the Pacific War. The history of that conflict has to be re-written. In his top secret letter to then Republican presidential nominee Dewey, George Marshall credited the U.S. victories at Midway and in the Coral Sea to the intelligence ability to eavesdrop on Japanese High Command communications. It took nearly forty years for these documents to be declassified. Many years of painstaking research will be needed to properly evaluate this library of some 700,000 pages!26 They will open new horizons.

The question arises: If there was so much suspicion and selfish distrust between Germany and Japan, when was the alliance productive? Here are two cases: One fruitful result was Hitler’s presentation of two German submarines together with all patent papers and technical information to the Japanese Navy. This proved to be of great help in rebuilding Japanese industry after the war. But there is another and more important achievement of the German-Japanese alliance. This was the contribution to the Indian National Liberation movement headed by Subhas Chandra Bose. (I delivered a lecture on this remarkable man and his place in history at American University in Washington, D.C. in late 1983.) Bose was President of the All-India Congress and a major figure in the struggle for Indian independence. Shortly after the outbreak of war in Europe he was imprisoned by the British in Calcutta, but he escaped and made his way to Germany via Kabul and Moscow. After a period of speaking to his country over the short wave radio station “Azid Hind” ("Free India") from Germany, Bose wanted

to go to East Asia to organize an Indian National Army. The Foreign Office appreciated his goal and we arranged a submarine voyage in coordination with the Japanese Navy. The remarkable journey was successful and Bose was well received in Tokyo by Prime Minister Hideki Tojo. Bose raised an Indian army in Singapore and Malaya which fought with Japanese forces against the British at the India-Burma border area. Years after the war the British Prime Minister Clement Atlee confessed to the Indian Chief Justice in Calcutta that it was Bose’s Indian National Army which had shattered the loyalty of the British colonial troops. The British could no longer rely on them and were forced to quit India forever.27 Bose perished in an air accident in Taiwan at the end of the war and did not live to see Indian independence. But his struggle survived his death! History is a human affair. It is therefore not barren Marxist materialism but the human spirit that is decisive. Bose, a remarkable orator, had appealed to patriotic spirit. The German-Japanese alliance could not prevent the military defeat of their own countries, but their support for Bose and his movement contributed substantially to the fall of the mighty British empire.

Retrospect and Conclusion

In politics nothing happens by accident. If something happens, you can be sure that it was planned that way. — Franklin Roosevelt

The Second World War turned the world into a slaughterhouse. Altogether some 55 million died and two atomic bombs were dropped in order to force some 90 million Japanese and 75 million Germans to submit to the “unconditional surrender” proclaimed by Roosevelt at Casablanca in January 1943.29

William C. Bullitt, who was later Roosevelt’s first Ambassador to Moscow, broke with President Wilson in 1919. He considered the Versailles Peace Treaty a disaster which would ultimately bring on another war. Ironically, twenty years later, Bullitt, by order of Roosevelt, did everything possible to incite the Poles to war. He had become an eager supporter of war against Germany! This policy ended in catastrophe for his own country because Roosevelt gave away all his cards to Stalin without demanding anything in return. Stalin received considerable Lend-Lease aid amounting to more than $11 billion.30 Roosevelt delivered twice as many tanks to Stalin as Hitler employed at the outset of his invasion. In May 1943 even atomic materials (black uranium oxide and uranium nitrate) and secret technical information were loaded on to Soviet planes in Canada. The orders for this astonishing transfer came from the White House!3l In the final analysis, Yalta and Potsdam meant catastrophe for Germany and Japan, as well as tragedy for the United States, Korea, China and the rest of the Western world. Only two powers emerged triumphant from the conflagration, one old and one new: the Soviet Union and the Zionists.

The First World War was concluded with the Versailles Treaty which, as unjust and fragile as it was, was still a signed treaty. In contrast, there has not been any European peace treaty to conclude the Second World War. Europe’s central power, Germany, was beheaded and, as a result, her two primary wartime enemies, the U.S. and the USSR, still confront each other on the territory of divided Germany under the conditions of a precarious armistice. Western access to divided Berlin remains literally “in the air.' After forty years, this is the longest standing armistice in world history. American sons and grandsons have inherited from their fathers the need to keep watch across Soviet mines at the fortified border through Central Europe. They must also guard the last German prisoner, Rudolf Hess, who spends his 50th birthday in Spandau. The high cost of vengeance, it seems, will never end. As the English poet Alexander Pope put it: “Now Europe’s balanced, neither side prevails. For nothing’s left in either of the scales.' The nervous military build-up on both sides of the Iron Curtain (a term first popularized by Dr. Goebbels) entails the deadly risk that one of the opposing superpowers may act out of fear that the military balance has been broken. The British “balance of power” was destroyed and has been replaced by a “balance of terror.”

Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo have long since disappeared, but the injustices they opposed and the problems they sought to overcome, which caused their emergence, remain unresolved to this day. Nearly one quarter of Weimar Germany was placed under Polish Communist administration. Twelve million Germans were driven from their homes, of whom more than two million were slain in an orgy of hatred.32 Genghis Khan seemed to come to life. For this reason the explosive charge of unresolved problems has become more dangerous than ever. New, explosively dangerous borderlines were created: Korea and Vietnam were divided by Stalin, India was torn asunder, Germany was cut up, Austria was again amputated from her, Poland was doomed, three Baltic states were sentenced to death, Japan was mutilated… The Middle East has been engulfed in turmoil. This conflict was fostered at Versailles in 1919 when the British and French violated numerous solemn pledges and betrayed the Arabs. The last great British defender of the Arabs, T.E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia") was killed in a motorcycle accident in 1935 shortly before a planned meeting with Hitler. The evidence strongly suggests that Lawrence was murdered by British officials.33 The AngloAmerican partition of Palestine provoked a new Islamic fervor which bears the spark of a Third World War. The American officials who were taken hostage in their own Embassy in Teheran dramatically experienced this Islamic renaissance. There is an imminent danger that the Middle Eastern conflict may erupt into a third world conflagration. This must be avoided at all costs! The NATO and Warsaw Pact armies should therefore be withdrawn from German soil. In addition to sound long-range political considerations by both Washington and Moscow, the development of new long-range weapons can facilitate such a move. America should take the lead in this. The two artificially created states on German soil have no weight. People in America and Europe, often misled by sinister forces, shout for peace. Nobody shouts for the prerequisite of real peace: A European Peace Treaty. A consistent and conscientious effort by the super powers leading to a European Peace Treaty must have priority over new armaments. With the implacability of the classical Roman statesman Cato, all Germans should demand ("Ceterum censeo") that the “enemy clause” in the United Nations Charter must be abolished. Above all, the White House should earnestly work for such a peace treaty, which would be more effective and less costly than any armaments race. An active peace policy should have priority over Secretary Weinberger’s purely military campaign. Today we seem to be witnessing the squaring of the circle, but in politics nothing is as permanent as change. A bold and courageous step by the United States may one day overcome Roosevelt’s fatal decision, expressed to Francis Cardinal Spellman in 1943 that “there will be no peace treaty."34 As history has shown, no peace treaty means perpetual danger.

Historians have the duty to ask: What was behind the catastrophe of Yalta and Potsdam? Colonel Curtis B. Dall wisely entitled his book FDR, My Exploited Father-in-Law. Exploited by whom? We Germans found the answer in captured Polish documents. In January 1939, scarcely four months after the Munich Agreement, Polish Ambassador Jerzy Potocki reported from Washington to Warsaw:

The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. In this action various Jewish intellectuals participated: for instance, Bernard Baruch; 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 President Roosevelt… These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the American government and want to pose as representatives of “true Americanism” and “defenders of democracy” are, in the last analysis, connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry… They have 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 masterly manner. Roosevelt has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy, and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind of territorial changes. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.35

The father of this international “Brain Trust” cabal was Wilson. Under blackmail pressure, he was forced to appoint Louis Dembitz Brandeis, an ardent Zionist, as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1916.36 Along with President Wilson, Brandeis bears a major responsibility for pushing America to join Britain’s war in order to obtain from her the fateful Balfour Declaration of 1917. In 1939, a year just a crucial as 1916, Roosevelt nominated Felix Frankfurter, Brandeis' intimate friend, as his successor on the Supreme Court. A secret state within a state was gradually developing. University of Pennsylvania Professor Bruce Allen Murphy is the author of the 1982 work, The Brandeis-Frankfurter Connection, which is significantly subtitled “The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices."37 Based on 300 previously unpublished letters from Brandeis to Frankfurter, Murphy reveals that these men clannishly placed their sympathizers in influential positions throughout the U.S. government. As Murphy put it, this made it possible for them to “pull the invisible wires."38 Among Frankfurter’s “extrajudicial successes,” Murphy noted that “he (Frankfurter) had helped to prepare the nation for its entry into the (Second World) war and had secured assistance, both material and monetary, for Great Britain."39 This was, of course, a blatant violation of the U.S. Neutrality Law of 1935. A Supreme Court Justice thus subverted the law. Worst of all, however, was the ideological influence of these men, which differed radically from the Western tradition of the Founding Fathers. Zionism is an Oriental nationalism based on the spirit of the Old Testament, the pre-Christian Torah and the Babylonian Talmud.40 It has nothing in common with our civilization, which is rooted in Occidental Hellenic and Roman thinking. Recall what I wrote about the magnanimous treatment of the vanquished by Alexander the Great. His teacher was Aristotle, a disciple of Plato. In a way, Alexander’s policy resembled Wilson’s slogan, “a war to end all war.” However, the President unfortunately abandoned this path by entrusting Bernard Baruch with the preparation of the Versailles conference. It is no accident that it was the Zionists who introduced the spirit of hatred and revenge into Anglo-American foreign policy. Montague Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, called the Versailles settlement “economic lunacy."4s In 1944 Morgenthau issued his devastating plan for Germany’s ruin.

The “unconditional surrender” concept grew from the same spiritual root. Dr. Nahum Goldmann, President of the World Jewish Congress, proudly claimed for himself and his Congress the honor of first expounding the idea of a tribunal to punish Nazi war criminals.42 Robert Oppenheimer, the famous Communist-inclined physicist, nearly succeeded in having the first atomic bomb dropped on Kyoto, the cultural heart of Japan. An atomic attack on Kyoto, which is surrounded on three sides be high hills, would have cost many more lives than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, which faces the open sea. Secretary of War Henry Stimson had to use all of his authority to frustrate two attempts by Oppenheimer to have Kyoto selected as the target for the first atomic bombing.43 Satanic hatred also manifested itself in books. In Germany Must Perish, Theodore Nathan Kaufman proposed the compulsory sterilization of all German men and women after victory.44 Germany was to disappear completely and would be totally partitioned off among neighboring countries. Holland would absorb Hamburg, Poland would acquire Berlin, and Munich would become part of France. Goebbels arranged for widespread distribution of a German translation of Kaufman’s book. You can imagine the effect this had on the public! In a 1942 issue of a prominent British magazine, a Jewish emigree who wrote under the pen name of Sebastian Haffner urged the summary killing of at least 500,000 young SS men 45 This murderous proposal surpassed even Stalin’s suggestion at the 1943 Teheran conference that 50,000 German officers should be murdered.46 Finally, at a mass meeting with New York Mayor La Guardia in 1945, Jewish newspaper mogul Joseph Pulitzer called for the killing of one and a half million Nazis, the German General Staff, industrialists and bankers “with army bullets through their heads.” The New York Times of 23 May 1945 reported at length on this rally and Pulitzer’s proposal without any criticism whatsoever. The contemptible Times editors had completely abandoned George Washington’s noble sentiment, expressed in his Farewell Address: “It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great Nation, to give mankind the magnamimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.”

One of America’s greatest generals, George Patton, declared: “We fought the war of 1776 for independence. We fought the Civil War to free the slaves. We fought the war of 1812 to make the world safe for democracy. We fought this war to lose everything owe had gained from the other three."47 Did Patton die for making this critical but accurate statement, in circumstances very similar to those surrounding the death of Lawrence of Arabian Dr. James J. Martin once stated that the policy of the Allied “Big Three” is “unequaled in the history of devious statecraft.” This policy has led the super powers into a maze. There is no way out, unless they abandon Roosevelt’s road to Yalta, a road paved by subversives. Between 1871 and 1918 the French kept a ribbon of mourning on the statue of “lost” Alsace-Lorraine at the Place de la Concorde in Paris. In the same spirit, should not the Statue of Liberty veil her head to mourn the mockery that Roosevelt had made of this noble, proud and venerated symbol? In the search for new horizons of honesty, devotion and love of country, we must courageously oppose those who preach hatred, Marxist class straggle or hollow internationalism. Hope is dawning … Let us not forget that although Anglo-American bombers killed many hopeful specialists at the German rocket center of Peenemuende, fruitful German-American collaboration since the war at Cape Canaveral has brought us to the moon! Columbus would envy us!


  1. See: Ludwig Klages, Der Geist als Widersacher der Seele, 2 vols. (1929). Klages was a German philosophical pioneer.
  2. Bernard M. Baruch, My Own Story (London: Oddhouse Press, 1958), p.276. '
  3. New York: Harper & Bros., 1920. New edition: New York: 1970.
  4. Baruch (1920,1970), pp. 5, 8.
  5. Akten zur deutschen und auswaertigen Politik, (Baden Baden: 1956), Serie D (1937-1945), Band VI, Dokument 403 (17 May 1939), p.441. Cited in: David L. Hoggan, Der erzwungene Krieg (Tuebingen: 1974), p.520.
  6. A. Hitler, Mein Kampf (German edition of 1930), p.173.
  7. Hitler, pp. 722-724.
  8. Chain Leon, Wolnomularstwo w lI RzeezypospoXitet (Warsaw: Cytelnik, 1975).
  9. Earl Jowitt, The Strange Case of Alger Hiss (London: 1953).
  10. Curtis B. Dall, FDR, My Exploited Father-in-Law (1972).
  11. The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, Winter 1983-84), pp. 391-395.
  12. H. Fish, Tragic Deception (Old Greenwich, CN: Devin Adair, 1983), p.94.
  13. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1974 and 1979.
  14. This listing of prisoners was published in the Moscow army daily Krasnaya Zvezda ("Red Star") of 17 Sept. 1940. All correspondence between the Polish prisoners and their relatives was cut off in the spring of 1940. General Sikorski was unable to get any information about their whereabouts from Stalin on 3 Dec. 1940. See also: Louis FitzGibbon, Katyn.
  15. Helmut Suendermann, TagesparoZen: Deutsche Presseweisungen 193á1945, (Leoni: Druffel Verlag, 1973), pp. 186, 209ff.
  16. Konstantin Fotitch, Yugoslavia’s Tragedy and the Failure of the West (New York: 1948). Fotitch, a Serb, was the Yugoslav Ambassador in Washington. See the record of his conversation with Prince Paul of 1 March 1941.
  17. Moscow: 1978. (Russian edition, pp. 6-7?)
  18. Erich Helmdach, Ueberafa11?, (Neckargemuend: 1975).
  19. F. Frankfurter to William J. Donovan, 20 October 1941, p. 14. Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Container Z43, File 004234 Miscellany.
  20. Personal information by eyewitness Dr. Josef Jindrich, Munich. See also: Paul Carell, Unternehmen Barbarossa, (Berlin: Ullstein, 1968), Vol. 1, p. 167, Map 9, and Vol. 2, p. 284.
  21. Sorge Jiken ("The Sorge Case"), (Tokyo: 1962).
  22. C.A. Willoughby, Sorge: Soviet Master Spy (London: Wm. Kimber, 1952). Published in the U.S. by Dutton as Shanghai Conspiracy. See also: Freda Utlev. Last Chance in China [Indianapolis: Bobbs Merits 1947).
  23. Peter Herde, Pearl Harbor: 7. Dez. 1941, (Darmstadt: 19801, Kanitel II, pp. 42-273.
  24. Friedrich Berber, Die Amerikanische NeutraZitaet im Kriege, 1939-1941, (Essen: 1943) Dokumentenanhang, pp. 163-190.
  25. Congressional Investigation, Pearl Harbor Attack, Part 3, pp. 1132-1133.
  26. Index of NSA/CSS Crypto1Ogic^Documents Offered to and Accepted by The National Archives of the United States as of 30 November 1981. (Record Group 457, Modern Military Branch, Military Ar chives Division)
  27. Ranjan Borra, “India’s War of Liberation,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Winter 1982), pp. 407-439.
  28. Quoted in: Gary Allen, None Dare Call it Conspiracy, (German edition, 1971, p. 10)
  29. Meyers Enzyklopaedisches Lexikon (Mannheim: 1979), Vol. 25, p. 215.
  30. Twenty-Second Report to Congress on Lend-Lease Operations [for period ending 31 December 1945] (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946), pp. 17, 26.
  31. The dealer was “Raznoimport,” USSR. Sent by “Amtorg,” New York. Order No. 21-73/043058. Facsimile in: Peter Kleist, Die europaeische Tragoedie (Pr. Oldendorf: K.W. Schuetz, 1971), p. 65. See also: George R. Jordan, From Major Jordan’s Diaries (Boston: Western Islands, 1965).
  32. P. Kleist, p. 311.
  33. Desmond Hansen, “The Enigma of Lawrence,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Fall 1981), pp. 286-287.
  34. R.I. Gannon, The Cardinal Spellman Story. Quoted in: Leon De Poncins, State Secrets, p. 91.
  35. Potocki dispatches of 12 and 16 January 1939. Mark Weber, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Summer 1983), pp. 147, 148, 149.
  36. Conrad Grieb, American Manifest Destiny and the Holocausts, (New York: Examiner Books, 1979), pp. 39-40.
  37. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 473pp.
  38. B.A. Murphy, p. xi.
  39. B.A. Murphy, p. 302.
  40. M. Schloessinger, Rashi: His Life and His Work (Baltimore: 1905). Rashi, which means “learning,” was the most authoritative interpreter of the Talmud.
  41. James Pool and Suzanne Pool, Who Financed Hitler? (New York: Dial Press, 1979, pb.), p. 309.
  42. Nahum Goldmann, Memories, pp. 216-217.
  43. Martin J. Sherwin, A World Destroyed (New York: A Knopf, 1975), pp. 230-231.
  44. Newark, NJ: Argyle Press, 1941.
  45. World Review (London), August 1942. See also: M. Weber, “Sebastian Haffner’s 1942 Call for Mass Murder,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Fall 1983), pp. 380-382.
  46. Elliot Roosevelt, As He Saw It, (New York: 1946), pp. 188-191.
  47. C. Grieb, an 138.

Bibliographic information
Author: Braun, Karl Otto
Title: Reflections on German and American foreign policy, 1933-1945
Source: The Journal for Historical Review
Date: Spring 1986
Issue: Volume 6 number 1
Location: Page 41
ISSN: 0195-6752
Attribution: “Reprinted from The Journal of Historical Review, PO Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659, USA.”
Please send a copy of all reprints to the Editor.