2. Archive
3. William Lindsey
4. Permanent Dismemberment

The United Nations (U.S.) Plans for the Permanent Dismemberment and Long-Time Occupation of Germany

The Post-war “Reconstruction” of Germany as a United States Type “Liberal, New Deal Democracy”

By William B. Lindsey

Oct. 21, 1991

Table of Contents

I. THE END OF WORLD WAR II HOSTILITIES (REIMS) 2

II. EARLIER, INTERNECINE PLANS FOR GERMANY 2

III. THE ARGENTIA, NEWFOUNDLAND (“ATLANTIC”) CONFERENCE — (“THE ATLANTIC CHARTER”) (August 9-12, 1941) 11

IV. “ARCADIA” — THE FIRST WASHINGTON CONFERENCE Dec. 22, 1941 — Jan 14, 1942 — THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION (Jan. 1, 1942) 17

V. THE SECOND WASHINGTON CONFERENCE (June 19 — 25, 1942)

VI. “SYMBOL” — THE CASABLANCA CONFERENCE (Jan. 14 — 24, 1943) 27

VII. THE THIRD WASHINGTON CONFERENCE, “TRIDENT” (May 12-25, 1943) 34

VIII. THE FIRST QUEBEC CONFERENCE, “QUADRANT” (August 17-24, 1943) 39

IX. MOSCOW FOREIGN MINISTERS’ CONFERENCE — “MOSCOW DECLARATION” — Oct. 19-Nov. 1, 1943 48

XII. THE SECOND CAIRO CONFERENCE (December 2-7, 1943) 62

XIII. The European Advisory Commission, “EAC,” Jan. 14, 1944 to Sept. 10, 1945 65

Roosevelt’s Stance 66

XIV. THE ROOSEVELT STATEMENT ALLEGING GERMAN AND JAPANESE ATROCITIES (March 14, 1944) 67

XV. HANDBOOK FOR UNIT COMMANDER (MILITARY GOVERNMENT IN GERMANY, SHAEF — Sept 1, 1944 [Lt. Gen. W. B. Smith {Gen. Eisenhower, SHAEF}, For. Rel. 1944, p. 544). 70

XVI. THE MORGENTHAU PLAN 71

A. The Fortunes of the House of Morgenthau 71

“Two of a Kind” 75

B. PRELUDE TO THE MORGENTHAU PLAN — MORGENTHAU’S POWER WITH ROOSEVELT 77

XVII. THE SECOND QUEBEC CONFERENCE, “OCTAGON” — Sept. 12-16, 1944 86

I. THE END OF WORLD WAR II HOSTILITIES (REIMS)

For Germany, the end came at 2:41 AM on May 7, 1945, when Col. General Alfred Jodl and Admiral Hans von Friedeberg, designated by President Gross Admiral Karl Doenitz as German representatives empowered to accept, on behalf of the German Government, the instruments of unconditional surrender demanded of them by the United Nations, signed the surrender document placed before them. The historic signing took place in a “little red” schoolhouse near Rheims which was being used as Eisenhower’s headquarters. Besides those who actually signed the instruments of surrender, the ceremony was attended by an array of United Nations news reporters, notables and celebrities eager to stand near, if not in, the limelight at this tragic, crucial point in world history. Among such persons were General Eisenhower’s British mistress who served further as his secretary and chauffeur (attractively dressed in the uniform of a U.S. Army 1st Lt.), Kay Summersby.

II. EARLIER, INTERNECINE PLANS FOR GERMANY

The period between the two World Wars was fraught with animosity and rancor toward Germany on the part of the victors. It was, in fact, not a period of peace as it had been hailed at the onset but one in which the victors accused and reproached one another for not having dealt more harshly with the vanquished. The Treaty of Versailles, the “Peace Without Victory” has been described by some as having been too harsh to allow a just and lasting peace and too mild to keep Germany eternally subject to the will of the victors. (In the subsequent pages, it will be seen how the victors of yet another war against Germany solved their problems of peace at the end of World War II). Although, according to Col. Mandell House (Huis), President Woodrow Wilson had never accepted the popular demand for an “unconditional surrender” as Roosevelt unilaterally did at Casablanca, he did take the stand (Oct. 14, 1918) that “If Germany was beaten, she would accept any terms. If she was not beaten, he did not wish to make terms with her.” (Luckau, Alma, The German Delegations At The Paris Peace Conference, Columbia University Press, New York, 1942. p. 11).

The difference between the two positions of the two extraordinarily ambitious presidents is probably best described as “academic.”

It was during this internecine period that every aspect of German national life, culture, religion, universities, etc. was subject constantly to the most demeaning treatment by the liberal, unforgiving opinion molding media of the victors. Although most of the black defamatory propaganda released by the Bryce Commission and other such sources (George Creel, Chairman of the [American] Committee on Public Information) was found and demonstrated to have been fraudulent, the people who had heard and had believed it in war, even in the face of later irrefutable evidence to the contarary, refused to admit they had been deceived. In their opinions, if the Germans weren’t guilty, they were at least capable of committing such atrocities, and they insisted the mass of false allied charges were to be accepted as unquestionable truth until proved false by those who contested them!

True, the guns in France had ceased firing, but if anything, the hatred between victor and vanquished, in stark contrast to the alleged doctrines of Wilson, had greatly increased, and the war continued using econonic, propaganda, and diplomatic weapons instead of guns. The Germans would continue to be “Huns” in the eyes of the victorious nations, and now being stripped of their overseas possessions to the economic benefit of the victors, Germany would be allowed to flounder around in a politico-economic morass created purposely by the victors, to be eternally at the mercy of any nationalistic, bellicose, politically-ambitious third rate neighboring power. In actuality, the victors openly gloated at first over Germany’s dilemma. Foolishly, they believed the only fears they now faced were the debts they had incurred in the United States to prosecute the war. And everyone knew of the limitless benevolence and wealth of their cousin Jonathan across the Atlantic.

For Germany, this deplorable, needless condition continued well into the 1930’s at which time a system of autarchy was initiated and developed allowing Germany to at least live within its means, but even food remained short and had to be rationed. A measure of German soverignty was tolerated by the victors not because they showed any more consideration for Germany but because they were daily having reasons to fear the designs some of the nations they had created from former German-Austrian territory were beginning to threaten the victors’ own political ambitions. The subsequent lot of the victors was to become that of typical indebted nations who chose to creat even more indebtedness to maintain, in the eyes of their taxpayers, the temporary illusion of “good times” rather than “bite the bullet” as Germany had had to do and live within their own means. It was in this subsequent internecine battle between the “haves,” for mastery of the mineral and mercantile riches of the world, and the “have nots,” who had to be content with resources which were within their borders that much of the bitterness between the former and future war allies and their same competitor-enemy, Germany arose. Quite frankly, in the supporting liberal clique, composed, as it was of impressive if not overwhelming numbers of the authors, teachers and the clergy of those nations who chose to call themselves and those they supported, “democracies,” they could do no wrong and Germany and Italy, ruled, as they said, by “dictators,” could do nothing right. The examples are too numerous to enumerate here, but, as stated above, no phase of German life however minute, was neglected by the chorus of liberal news harpies who supported their intellectual masters, and, having no meaningful opposition of consequence in the locale of their operation, they had immediate and great success in propagating their ideas which were invariably hostile to Germany. Any activity to combat this situation was immediatly branded as “German propaganda” and was immediately attacked and mercilessly extirpated. Long before the war began in Europe, mail from Germany which might contain “propaganda” was expected to be turned in voluntarily to the FBI by its receipient, and German-Americans, fearing the harassment they had received under George Creel’s World War I tenure in office as the source of “information,” hastened to turn in even letters from their relatives in Germany.

The seeds of inmity toward Germany had long been germinating in the hearts of many Americans and Englishmen. In World War I the desire to subject the Kaiser to an allied “trial” with the implied, ignominious punishment of hanging left many people on the allied side livid with rage that their enemy had escaped what in their minds was just retribution and punishment. (Perhaps they were unaware that “hanging” often tells more to later generations about the hangman than it does about the person hanged.) Some attempted, in their overwhelming fever of selfrighteosness, to take matters into their own hands and kidnap the Kaiser from his exile in Holland for “trial.” (“Tried to Kidnap Kaiser,” New York Times, May 11, 1934, p. 14) The few “war crimes trials” which were held were held by the Germans themselves and the penalties which were meted out by them were, in the eyes of those who wished to see German blood flow was at best a farce. (Leipzig Trials). Strangely, however, the accusations made by the British and French prosecutors at Leipzig contained not one mention of the massive catalog of alleged German atrocities assembled by the Bryce Committee — not one word of the Belgian child with both hands severed by the beastly Germans or children pitched in the air to be caught by German bayonettes.

These people who were so obviously bloodthirsty comprised in this country a group which for religious or other reasons felt themselves divinely led and empowered to right any “wrongs” which they might observe or acts which they might consider “wrongs” by themselves deciding when punishment was necessary and exactly what that punishment should be. These are the successors of those in the history of the United States who continuously mouthed appealing shop worn, narcistic, omniscient slogans such as “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God,” “Dare to do Right and trust the consequences to infinite wisdom,” “Let us die to make men free,” “Maske the World safe for Democracy,” etc. In the end they have always justified their own, usually more-numerous and more flagrant crimes by seeking, by savage defamatory propaganda, to make alleged acts of their declared enemies more heinous than their own although the actual specific acts may even have been legal at the time. For want of a name, this type of “ethics” and “moral” motivation might well represent the “John Brown Complex.” It allows people of almost any persuasion to exact a life for a tooth and a tooth for an alleged insult and thereafter feel completly justified.

In those affected by the “John Brown complex,” objectivity is seldom if ever a consideration by those whose thoughts are controlled by illusions which they alone dignify as “ideals.” “Tyranny,” “Freedom,” etc. are concepts defined solely as they themselves wish to define it in colors of black or white. And “death” is the penalty for those “opposing” these high principles. In their minds’ eyes, all men, regardless of their origin, who are properly educated and motivated by high moral and ethical standards, must of necessity support their causes.

It is not unusual, therefore, that, to a great extent, the section of the country which made the Civil War in the United States inevitable because of their Abolitionist intransigence should continue the “moral” and political leadership in the entrance of the United States into world politics as a world “moral,” political and military power, in many minds initially for the express purpose of toppling one European Crown after another and finally for toppling one “dictator” or “tyrant” after another. The American Civil War was of international importance then for it was here that the United States served its military apprenticeship for its conduct of modern war in Europe in the late Ninteenth Century and the Twentieth Century.

It was at this time that those who felt themselves capable of envisaging a “better world” for themselves and others rationalized their objectives into high holy, uncompromisable “principles” which had to be obtained regardless of the cost in blood and treasure. At the same time, in their zeal, these groups developed their methods of generating public support by developing within its own people the “will to fight” for these “uncompromisable principles” by a curious combination of atrocity allegations and pious rhetorical statements supported more by narcistic omniniscience of their political system rather than older mottos for the support of king, God, or Country.

Also derived from this “liberal” logic comes the U.S. propaganda principle that the United States never wages war against a people but only against a “government” which those ruled by it have, in their ignorance of “true democratic” processes, foolishly instituted as a result of not accepting U.S. leadership. If the United States is compelled by its moral and ethical position in the world to kill large numbers of any nation in the performance of its destiny and great duties and obligations to mankind as a whole, it is not “hate” per se for the people of the target country,but rather for the “government” representing them. They had better have accepted and acknowledged the enlighntened leadership of the United States and as one of its satrapies cooperated in bringing to the world the enlightened millineum of United States “peace,” “brotherhood,” etc. And who would be the final word in all of this God-decreed orgy of international equality and equivalence? No one other than the mortal progenators and enforcers of this liberal American religion.

The enmity borne Germany by large numbers of the United States citizens, many of whom were themselves of German origin, did not diminish in the period between the wars. This is obvious from the avalanche of movies, plays, articles, etc. upon which the public ravenously stuffed itself at this time. In spite of valliant attempts by numerous authors and historians to show World War I as it actually was and give some measure of objectivity to the inter-war period, Germans were continually shown and depicted popularly as brutish as they had been shown in wartime (WWI) propaganda films.

As the deep enmity and antagonism borne Germany increased and seethed in the hearts of her enemies for many reasons, the certainty grew steadily that in case of a second war, Germany would suffer immeasurably more and be penalized to a degree never before demanded in modern History. This time “We’d do the job right!” U.S. General Robert E. Wood (Not an active member of Roosevelt’s “New” Army) quotes Winston S. Churchill as having said to him in November of 1936, “Germany is getting too strong. We must smash her.” (Sargent, Porter, Getting U S Into War, Porter Sargent, Boston, 1941, p. 596) This idea prevailed not only in Britain but, naturally with a typical “American moral” twist, in the United States.

Long, even before the beginning of hostilities in 1939, voices had been heard advocating harsh measures against Germany. General John J. Pershing had in 1918 advocated marching on to Berlin in a manner reminiscent of General Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman’s march through Georgia in the Civil War (Clinton [Iowa] Herald, “Armistice Halted Secret Invasion Force,” Nov. 10, 1982, p. 31). Many believed already in 1918, General Fosche included, that France should not only be given Alsace-Lorraine but the Saar and the entire west bank of the Rhine. With the approaching end of the Second World War, those advocating such ideas and measures seemed to appear everywhere. In Nov. of 1936, no less a personage than Winston S. Churchill had confided to Robert E. Wood (Senate Hearings, Feb. 1941) that “Germany is getting too strong. We must smash her (again).” In the United States, many influential Americans leaped to support Churchill’s statement and his other policies. One of these was no other than Franklin D. Roosevelt, the President of the United States. Naturally, large numbers of those who comprised the coalition which had elected him supported this view fully with a uniquely “American moral” twist.

Others advocated still larger areas of Silesia than had been detached from Germany in 1918 as a result of armed groups such as Korfanty’s terrorist partisans, described popularly in Poland as “Patriotic Organizations,” regardless of its ethnic population (or “Right of Self Determination” or “Autonomy of Peoples,” as Wilson chose to call it) be given to Poland, regardless of any stated policies of the victors. Additional changes intended to further benefit Poland after World War II were the cession of East Prussia and at least parts of Pommerania, Brandenburg and Silesia again regardless of the ethnic population and desires of its inhabitants, to increase the Polish shoreline on the Baltic. Others believed this time, an additional part, if not all, of Silesia with its riches in minerals, agriculture and industry was also to be added to Poland, creating a dominant slavic state in east central Europe which with the slavic states created in central Europe and the Balkans (Czchoslovakia and Yugoslavia respectively) and the slavic Baltic states, Lithuania and Latvia, an impenitrable barrier between Europe and Russia would be created, and Germany would be reduced forever to vassal status, dependent upon which countries controlled these slavic states and western Europe.

Advocates for the second, greater post-war dismemberment of Germany and its lengthy occupation by the victors were apparent and loud in their demands even before the beginning of hostilities in 1939. As the war progressed, their activities increased many fold. Sometimes they advocated a permanent partition and occupation of the German remnant for an unstipulated time — until Germans could learn “democracy” from the victors. A further interesting point in the U.S. preparative discussions already at the 1940 Argentia (Newfoundland) War Council (“Atlantic Conference”) in which the U.S. participated as a (“neutral!”) senior partner was the nforced yielding of East Prussia by Germany to Poland! (Foreign Relations, 1941, Vol. I, pp. 375-377). In addition, other aspects of what was to be forced upon defeated, post-war Germany were discussed some four months before the (“neutral”) United States was officially at war with anybody! Much has been said about the idealism and principles of the Argentia War Council but as this worked out, this alleged idealism was rapidly abandoned by its progenitors in favor of the envelop of objeactives advocated and desired by the racial and other minorities which formed the liberal “New Deal” coalition which placed Frnklin D. Roosevelt in power and maintained him there.

As regards the fate of the German People, it remained for a Jewish lawyer, Theodore N. Kaufman, to propose what might be called the first published plan for post-war Germany in a book called Germany Must Perish (1941), “the book that Hitler fears.” It should be remembered that this book, as was the case with the writings of Julius Streicher against the Jews, had no official sanction by the U.S. Government. Nevertheless, unlike the writings of Julius Streicher against the Jews, this book fills an important place in all the plans for post-war Germany when it is compared with the plans which were finally developed by the victorious United Nations and were put into effect in that unfortunate, vanquished country.

In his book, attorney Kaufmann advocated the actual and complete destruction of the Germans as a race by their being sterilized by the victors. Kaufmann was supported by many persons in this conviction in this major perversion of “humanism”. He makes no distinction between “Germans” and “Nazis,” as was popular by many others of his type during his day, seeking a high moral position from which to speak down to those they were seeking to convince or cajole. Kaufman insists that the Kaiser and the Fuehrer are but manifestations of virulent German genes long absent in other peoples (and apparently also from those Germans who, for different reasons left or would eventually leave Germany). He sought to establish his logical position by extracting from the German literature and quoting, out of context, utterances of German (and other) authors. This approach is certainly not original with him. But at length, he arrives at the conclusion that “Peace” with Germany is not nor ever will be attainable so long as Germany exists, and that faced with a natural genetic perversion specifically in the German chromosomes and which are hostile to the peace-loving nations of the western democracies, there is no alternative but to destroy all Germans. The democratic nations he describes as Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Austrians, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, Frenchmen, Greeks, Englishmen, Irishmen, Scotsmen, Canadians, Australians and Americans whom he further describes as “numbering 300,000,000 of the most civilized, most enlightened on earth.” Apparently the fact that the British have fomented and participated in more wars than any other country in modern history doesn’t trouble him in the least.

In taking the trouble to list those nations comprising the “most civilized,most enlightened on earth,” he has neglected to include his own racial group which, we must presume, he did not do without some thought, since their genes, we would presume might differ much more from those of the nations mentioned than German genes would differ from their racial cousins. Long before Europe was teutonic, it was celtic. And although the Celts as a race were driven from control of the continent, their genes remain an inseparable part of the racial mix from the Bay of Biscay to the Black Sea. From the tone of his book, Kaufman obviously feels a close kinship, genetic or other with the countries he has named.

After arriving at the conclusion that the only way to deal with Germany is to physically destroy not only the Nation but her people physically. In support of this conclusion, he quotes the Mosaic Law, “ an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” which he claims all men recognize as the law of God and man. In a mental exercise worthy of the minyans (p. 28, The Jewish Paradox) of Nuernberg, he then claims the German Nation is subject to this “law” as a result of the unofficial but widespread writings of Heinrich von Treitschke.

Kaufman has selected sterilization as the painless (?) method of Germanocide. His concern about the murder of a nation is only for the trauma it might subsequently inflict upon those who might have to carry out the barbaric operation. Only German males under 60 and German females under 45 would be affected, leaving only 45,000,000 Germans to be sterilized by physicians drawn from those “most civilized, most enlightened” nations of the world. Kaufman states, “Complete sterilization of both sexes, and not only one, is to be considered necessary in view of the present German doctrine that so much as one drop of true German blood constitutes a German (emphasis mine).” Under Kaufman’s plan, all the “Halbjueden” (half Jews) and persons of mixed blood having less than half German blood who were spared by the Nuernberg Laws of the NSDAP would have been subject to sterilization by the victors over Germany. It would also seem that, in the long term, Kaufman has gone yet a step beyond the admonition of Yahweh (Deuteronomy, XX, 14-16) in regard to Germany as an enemy of the Jews.

The sterilization of Germans was to proceed at a rate of about 1,500,000 yearly and to require about two generations to be completed. Kaufman seemingly reproaches himself for his excessive humaneness in believing the process of sterilization should be painless physically and suggests the enraged “most civilized, most enlightened” would be justified in exacting a much more painful revenge.

The entire procedure was to be carried out without disorganizing the German population or causing “sudden mass upheavals and dislocations,” presumably in those who were being brought in to replace the Germans. The gradual disappearance of 70,000,000 Germans was to produce no more of an effect in Europe than the disappearance of the American Indians into “Indian Territory” had produced among the caucasian population in the U.S. A. in the mid-1800’s.

Kaufman’s plan is predicated upon Germany losing the war, presumably surrendering unconditionally and suing for peace. Thereupon, the mass sterilizaztion plan to wipe Germans out “permanently” would be put into effect.

1. Immediately and completely disarm the German Army and have all armaments removed from Germany territory.
2. Place all German utility and heavy industrial plants under heavy guard, and replace German workers by thos of Allied nationality.
3. Segregate the German army into groups, concentrate them in severely restricted areas, and summarily sterilize them.
4. Organize the civilian population, both male and female, within territorial sectors, and effect their sterilization.
5. Divide the German army (after its sterilization has been completed) into labor battalions, and allocate their services toward the rebuilding of those cities which they ruined.
6. Partition Germany and apportion its lands. The accompanying map gives some idea of possible land adjustments which might be made in connection with Germany’s extinction.
7. Restrict all German civilian travel beyond established borders until all sterilzation has been completed.
8. Compel the German population of the apportioned territories to learn the language of its area, and within one year to cease the publication of all books, newspapers and notices in the German language, as well as to restrict German-language broadcasts and discontinue the maintenance of German-language schools.
9. Make one exception to an otherwise severely strict enforcement of total sterilization, by exempting from such treatment only those Germans whose relatives, being citizens of various victor nations, assume financial responsibility for their emigration and maintenance and moral responsibility for their actions.

German territory was, according to Kaufman’s plan to be split up among its neighbors. The “Dutch” boundary was to be extended eastward to meet the new “Polish” boundary that would extend eastward from Stettin to about Witstock thence southward to about Dessau, including Magdeburg and Berlin. Here the boundary would be between “Czechia” and “Poland” meandering southeastward to a point south of Breslau. From about Dusseldorf, southeast toward Erfurt, “France” and “Holland” would have a common boundary. Southward from this point to “Switzerland” and Italy, “France would share a boundary with “Czechia.”

Russia would gain the Curzon Line as its boundary between “Poland” and itself. “Poland” would gain its long-time objective of annexing East Prussia. Switzerland and Belgium would gain small adjacent areas which had been German. Slovakia would remain essentially unchanged as would Hungary. “Poland” “Czechia,” “France,” and “Holland” would be the real winners in the division of Germany.

At this point, I believe it is significant that we point out that the boundary Kaufman proposes between his “Poland” and “Holland” is roughly twice the distance from the 1939 Polish-German Border to the present “Oder-Neisse” boundary dictated by Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta.

Although many people openly condemned all, most, or part of Kaufman’s book, it was nevertheless warmly received by the media that controlled the thoughts and positions of the United States public between the two fratricidal wars. “A sensational Idea!” trumpeted Time of the strongly anti-German Luce publications; “A Provocative Theory — Interestingly Presented,” opined the Washington Post; “A Plan for Permanent Peace Among Civilized Nations!” trumpeted the Jewish-owned, anti-German New York Times; and “Frankly Presents the Dread Background of the Nazi Soul,” proselytized the Philadelphia Record.

One may properly ask how it is possible that such deep hatred for Germany, which had never declared war against the United States, at a period relatively early in the conflict could already exist in the souls of so many persons living three thousand miles away in a neutral country. It may be that only one who lived through this period is mentally equipped to give an honest, objective answer to this question. In my estimation, the answer is itself very simple. Although the World War allegedly ceased with the Armistice in 1918, the war had not! Germany, the primary vanquished nation was regularly pilloried in the U.S. and other allied countries in the newspapers; on radio; in the movies; where people “saw” regular revelations of German bestiality; in churches; in schools; etc. In short the population was maintained at a “red hot” if not “white hot” heat against their former enemy by propaganda every weapon which had formerly been utilized in the wartime propaganda, and from time to time this was added to by the leaders of the former allies themselves.

But Kaufman’s position was not the only one that demanded inhuman treatment for the vanquished Germans. This hatred for Germany was deep seated not only in the non-German population but tragically also in many of those of German descent! In fact, the success of George Creel, Wilson’s propaganda czar was still everywhere apparent, in spite of a number of books that were beginning to appear which indicated that the people of the United States had been grossly misled and deceived by its own politicians to gain political goals and gains of an international political nature which would benefit these very same politicians. There were even indications that President Wilson had decided upon war even prior to his “He kept us out of War” election but decided to keep this a secret until a more propitious (for him) date.

Here again, however, it was the “squealers” who were roundly condemned publically rather than those who had deceived us.

It did not hurt of course, that the United States and England shared a common language, since the movies, schools, pulpits, newspapers, etc. could be filled almost at will with persons well prepared to condemn Germany for any act of which it might at any time be accused. It mattered little to the masses that the British Parliament apologized for the use of outright lies in its war propaganda as a result of Ponsonby’s monumental revelations in his book, Propaganda in Time of War. The only persons learning of this “affront” to British “honesty” were never to be heard any more than were those who learned the truth regarding the blatant deceptions involving the “Lusitania” and the “Sussex.” Those who became aware of these revelations leveled their vituperations at those who had exposed them to the truth rather than those who purposely had deceived them in the heat of war.

Coupled with these ideas in the United States was also the long-smouldering belief that the time had now come when the great Democracy of the west would take control of world politics and lead the world to an era of unparalleled peace, brotherhood, love, prosperity, and just about anything anyone else might wish for himself. This general idea was, in fact, the leading theme of the New York World’s Fair which undertook to show how the synthesis of U.S. science and political philosophy, obviously under “liberal” supervision could make the cockaigne world for which all peoples were striving. Essentially all of the coalition which regularly supported Roosevelt and his policies participated in these efforts. But of the numerous persons represented this utopic concept, no one was more vocal in the place of this country than Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, the President of the ultra-liberal Columbia University and the bellicose Chairman of the Carnegie Institute for International Peace. To this day, his utterances remain some of the best examples of this point of view. As a leading academician, dedicated to the elimination of central Europe as a source of political power in the world, he, along with John Dewey, Franz Boaz, etc., exercised tremendous, detrimental influence upon the academic life of the United States at a crucial period when the Nation needed learned men who would champion reasoned reflection and objectivity rather than provoke overt attempts to stampede it into unconsidered, precipitate action.

The U.S. newspapers were filled regularly with appeals from liberal journalists calling for the execution and/or exile by dispersal worldwide of all or most of the surviving Germans! After the sensational revelations of conditions that prevailed in German concentration camps captured by United Nation forces toward the close of the war, this was especially true, even though most if not all of these conditions would later be satisfactorily explained. Possibly the liberal “intellectualism” of the journalists had sparked in them the only level of “humanism” with which they were really acquainted and capable of writing about. The feeling grew that all Germans should be dispersed and their country given over to those chosen by the victors rather than be killed outright. Some had the cheek to suggest that mass murder was mass murder regardless of who did it. After all, the idea that “our boys” might participate in mass executions of Germans rather than merely bombard them into oblivion might make them less able to sing hymns in church loudly and preach the “horrors” perpetrated by the Germans as they had been admonished to do by their “Orientation and Education Officers,” prior to their return from Germany.

When on September 1, 1939, German troops rolled across the Polish border in what the Germans believed would be recognized by all reasonable nations as a purely punative police action against Polish raider who regularly came across the borders, the people of the U.S. were relieved that finally it had come to a military confrontation and Hitler and Germany would rapidly get what they had failed to get in World War I. In spirit they were already on the front with their proto-allies, regardless of their declarations of neutrality. Many, in the spirit of Alexander the Great almost wept that others would gain all the glory leaving none for them. But for the present, the U.S. Government contented itself with one hostile act against Germany after another up until the actual declaration by Germany that actual hostilities between itself and the United States had long since started.

In the eyes of the leaders of the United States Government, many things had to be accomplished domestically before the U. S would achieve their ambitions in Central Europe. In this, they were helped by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Although himself of German nobility, few people could be found who disliked or hated Germany more. Even Prof. Frederick Alexander Lindemann (Lord Cherwell) was not a more rabid Germanophobe! Unlike his German compatriot, King Albert of the Belgians who, as did his son Leopood, chose to remain in his Country and fight his German blood brothers rather than desert his subjects in crisis, Bernhard and Beatrix, along with mother Queen Juliana chose flight to England. In London and Washington, they witnessed the slow erosion of their empire as they accepted the largess of political high society in return for any small favors which they might be able to render.

One type of such a favor was propaganda contributions of one sort or another. It was in this single area that Bernhard made his greatest contribution to the defense of Holland. In a talk with reporters on June 12, 1941, he revealed probably as a result of his knowledge gleaned from visits to Roosevelt and others that after the war, there would be no “rebirth” of Germany and that “Old” Germany was already considered dead. (New York Times, “No German Rebirth After War Defeat, Asserts Bernhard — In Washington, Reagards Old Germany Dead,” June 13, 1941, p. 1). This was a ploy whereby any support Germany might still have in this country could be destroyed. Now, with “Old” Germany already dead, only “New” Germany, Hitler’s Third Reich was left and that must be completely destroyed at all costs. Whether Rososevelt actually had a hand in this or not is unknown, but if he didn’t, he thereby obtained one of the strongest propaganda cards he could have in his political card game. He could now go to the future councils of war with this objective paramount in his mind.

(At this point in time it would have behooved the masses of U.S. Americans to put aside their old prejudices and competitive differences with “old” Germany in dealing with “new” Germany and consider rather how day by day the Roosevelt regime was ruthlessly destroying irreversibly the “old” U.S. Constitution in favor of the “new” one which allowed him essentially limitless power to enforce his “new” domestic and international ambitions.)

As the war escalated inevitably daily in intensity and in bitterness as a result of purposeful United Nations journalistic endeavors, and as Germany’s power to defend itself militarily and to retaliate in kind to the acts of its inexhaustible, inexorable enemies decreased daily, increased calls were heard even in official United Nations circles to kill every single German. Russian show trials had already resulted in the public hangings of numerous unfortunate Germans who had been left behind in the necessary, hasty retreat of the Wehrmacht. These had been captured by the Soviet Army, forced by the Soviets to give the testimony desired, condemned to death and hanged immediately, without recourse to appeal. Now, that Germany was defenseless, totally defeated, exhausted and physically destroyed in the spring of 1945, which of the hodgepodge mixtures of rumor, newspaper demands, offical and semi-official pronouncements, etc. would be chosen by the unrestrained victors in deciding the fate of a once-great nation and its People?

Others, consumed perhaps in an orgy of what they believed to be “patriotism,” demanded the outright mass killing of every German, and during the war this hatred for Germans and the desire on the part of Americans “to do the job right this time” mounted.

Another reference!

(“Every German must be Wiped Out to Keep Peace, Paris Clergyman says in Sermon,” New York Times, Sept 5, 1944, p. 5.) As inhuman and barbaric as this idea may now sound, it must be remembered that it was not unusal for Roosevelt himself to suggest such a possibility (Diaries, 342). In August 1942 (World Review, London), a year later, Sebastian Haffner, championed the mass killing of some 500,000 young Germans from the SS in any manner the victors might find effective. Characteristically, Haffner, as an anti-NSDAP journalist in West “Germany”, assumed a leading role in the post war “reconstruction” and “reeducation” of that unfortunate country. (JHR, Vol. 4, No. 3, Fall 1983, p.380). This time, the “Peace” had to be won at all costs.

This time, as the War Councils from Argentia (see below) to Yalta and the final ominous, victorious Berlin (“Potsdam”) Conference of the victors bear open testimony, the victors did not intend to allow their hands to be stayed in any manner by what may be loosely described as “Wilsonian idealism” as had been the case in 1918 and afterward. As stated above, the victors had already precluded the possibility that any of the provisions of the “Atlantic Charter,” formulated actually as a cover for the Argentia War Council, would ever apply in any manner to Germany or Germans. Further, the soverign governments of neutral countries had been forewarned of dire consequences (threatened) should they offer sanctuary to any German wanted by them for “trial.”

III. THE ARGENTIA, NEWFOUNDLAND (“ATLANTIC”) CONFERENCE — (“THE ATLANTIC CHARTER”) (August 9-12, 1941)

The Argentia Newfoundland “Atlantic” Conference was the first of the councils of war against Germany in which the United States openly participated. We actually have very little official documentary information about the procedings of this conference, since the United States was at this point still proclaiming its “neutrality” in what it officially called the “European War” in its State Department publications, although it was becoming more evident to everyone every passing day that the United States was and had from the beginning ben far more than a silent partner in the anti-German entente.

Every attempt was made by the United States Government to make the conference (war council!) appear to have been called solely for highly moral and humane purposes — as if it had been solely for the purpose which was officially reported by the U.S. Government at the time (Beard, C. H., President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, pp. 118-124). This purpose as reported to and obediently issued by the proto-United Nations Press was given in the New York Times, Dec. 20, 1944. It stated that Roosevelt and Churchill had met in several sessions and “have made clear the steps which their countries are respectively taking for their safety in the face of these (‘German’) dangers.” Having so met in the circumstances of closest security, not likely to have been under scrutiny by anyone who might not be trusted to keep secret the topics discussed — on board the British battleship “HMS Prince of Wales,” (They wished to avoid at all costs even the remotest possibility of another expose similar to that of the Tyler Kent Affair [May 20, 1940]), they also “agreed upon the following joint declaration.” This “Wilsonesque” declaration came ultimately to be known as the “Atlantic Charter.” (But from the beginning, it was obvious that none of these provisions were to be applied af the war to Germany or Germans nor were they to encumber in any manner any way in which the proto-United Nations would, at their option choose to prosecute the war against Germany).

(There exists in fact no such document as the above which is signed by Roosevelt and/or Churchill. Some evidence exists which indicates the foregoing document was agreed upon before the sailing of the “Prince of Wales.”)

Obviously much more than the reported “declarations” had been on the agenda of the “Conference,” and of these there is very little in the official record. Obviously, much more about how the “Nazi tyranny” was to be destroyed was necessarily discussed by Roosevelt and Churchill as well as possibilities as to the form of the projected “permamanent system of general security” which was to be established after “the disarmament of such (‘aggressor’) nations…” had been accomplished by the promulgators in some as yet, unrevealed manner. For it to have been otherwise would have made the entire series of meetings analogous to the decision of the mice to “bell the cat” to counteract its danger to them without deciding how the “belling” was to have been implemented. All of this was intended to be covered up in the usual mantle of Rooseveltian secrecy. This covering “mantle” was to have been the “Atlantic Charter.”

As time progressed, however, the degree to which other subjects had been discussed became more and more apparent. The U.S. Government itself finally announced that in addition to the agreement on the “Atlantic Charter,” it had been decided that a joint message from Roosevelt and Churchill would be dispatched to Joseph Stalin offering aid against Germany along with an offer to set up a system designed to apportion essential war resources controlled by the U.S. and Britain to Russia, Britain and the U.S.

Speculation was rampant about what other subjects had been discussed at the highly secret meeting. It was difficult to believe that Roosevelt and Churchill along with their military staffs and ranking members of their Foreign Ministries and staffs (except Hull!) would travel to a secret destination using warships to travel there and spend three to four days there doing nothing more than singing the publicized Anglican hymns and formulating the eight theses of the “Atlantic Charter.” But initially these were the only information given out by the heads of the Anglo-American Governments.

In as much as there was still a sizable anti-interventionist sentiment in the United States, those opposed to the war immediately accused the Roosevelt Regime of making secret agreements with with Britain which committed the United States to come to their aid in their battle with Germany. In this, the interventionist advocates were loud in their moralizingm maudlin denunciations of such speculation which the considered little more than a scurrilous attempt to discredit Roosevelt in his world-wide attempts to attain a just peace, just for all nations.

If one reviews but a few of the numerous headlines which appeared in the New York Times in the period intervening between the Argentia Conference and the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor, one obtains an idea of the range of these speculations. The news reports cover some of the most important aspects of international mutual interest of both the United States and Britain as well as subject which of necessity had to interest both countries in the prosecution and continuance of the European War. One must conclude that it would have been almost impossible for the heads of state of both countries to meet without discussing these salient topics. Indeed, one must conclude that these topics far outweighed in importance the eight points of the “Charter” which was deisgned to cloth the entire proceding in a mask of disarming morality if not moral altruism.

Some of these topics which had to have been discussed were: future U.S. weaponry and financial aid to Britain and Russia; Just how far could the anti-Axis nations depend upon the U.S. for further aid to guarantee an Axis (German) defeat? Had Roosevelt agreed to enter the conflict actively? If so, under what conditions and when? What was to be the role of the United States in the post-war world after an Axis (German) defeat? What post-war territorial changes would be made? What about the tremendous debt owed the United States for armaments by Britain and the other anti-German nations? Would the post-war anti-Axis (German) coalition continue to exist? What about war with Japan? What were the forms in which Poland, France, Czechcoslovakia and other such countries would be “reconstituted” after the war? Etc.

If a “cause and effect” perusal of the headlines mentioned above is taken, it will be seen that it is highly likely if not, indeed, probable that these very subjects were not only discussed at the Argentia Council but secret discisions were made which resulted in the events which took place between this Conference and the outbreak of the second phase of the war on Dec. 7, 1941 -this in spite of the predictable protestations of such avowed interventionists as Clark Eichelberger and Senator Alben W. Barkley who claimed that Roosevelt was only doing what was necessary to maintain “peace.” But the actual events which did occur and are reported best represent a wilful, steady, calculated escalation of an already-existing undeclared war by the heads of state at the Conference into a war fought openly against “enemies” which these very leaders had designated as enemies already in the early 1930’s and had actively opposed violently from that time onward. This war was to be fought whether “declared” or not!

The suspicions of talks being held on the above subjects were well founded. If one now consults the few documents presented by the State Department which were given as being associated with the planning etc. for the Argentia (“Atlantic”) Conference, we find that many of these topics are again mentioned along with others (Foreign Relations, 1941, Vol. I, pp. 341-378. Of the new topics mentioned, the subject of the transfer to Poland of East Prussia after the war is poingnantly significant (pp. 375-377). Obviously, it two was either discussed or preparations were made for its discussion by the members of the Conference. Again, one must not forget that at this point, the United States was not at war with Germany openly but was stoutly maintaining its “neutrality” as well as its moral right and obligation to support Britain in any manner it saw fit in the European conflict. Nevertheless, the representatives of this Government either discussed or were prepared to discuss the post-war transfer of East Prussia, an integral part of Germany, to a country which had been conquered and occupied by Germany. This was to be done “not only as the answer to Poland’s long-standing “dream”, but also as compensation to the people for whatever loss Poland might incurr in a settlement of her Eastern frontiers” with Russia.

(A. J. Drexel Biddle, Jr.)

To make these momentous decisions, the leaders of the United States and Britain had brought with them their most trusted leutenants. For his part, Roosevelt was assisted by Harry Hopkins, his “alter ego, recently return from his first talks with Stalin in Moscow; Sumner Welles, his “man in the State Department;” (“Honest”) Averell Harriman, General George C. Marshall (sans cheval); Admiral Harold R. Stark (sans billet); General Henry (“Hap”) Arnold, Elliott Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr.,

Churchill was advised by Sir Alexander Cadogan, Permanent Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs; Admiral Sir Dudley Pound, Chairman of the British Chiefs of Staff; General Sir John G. Dill; Air Marshal Freeman.

It would be expected that each of the above gentlemen and their staffs would generate a wealth of information about the topics discussed at the Conference, but, other than that generated by Sumner Welles at the prompting of a Congressional Investigating Committee years after the fact, Prof. Charles A. Beard was unable to find records. Assuming they certainly did exist at one time, one is lead to the possibility that their disappearance is somewhat miraculous as was the disappearance of the Pearl Harbor “Winds Message.”

As stated earlier, there exists no protocal or minutes of the meeting so far as is known. What is printed in the State Department publication, Foreign Relations, 1941, Vol. I, pp. 341-378 is, as is noted on p. 3431 of this publication a report “based on notes in the Hyde Park Library dictated by the President on August 23, 1941, for historical purposes:” A footnotes explains further that “The record here given covers the political aspects of the Conference in which Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles participated as the representative of the Department of State .” Some of this information was obtained as a result of a Congressional investigation of the Conference and its agenda (Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, pp. 243-244, 412, 428, 452-482.)

The conference was, therefore, carried on in an air of extreme secrecy with no connection to the outside world which was not controlled by the two heads of state. It was, as it had been for the previous year an atmosphere of secrecy which both men prefered. Indeed, Roosevelt has been accused, properly I believe, of having had all along, two policies — one of which was faithfully reported to the press and the public, the other kept secret which was known only to his closest intimates such as Harry Hopkins, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., William C. Bullitt, etc. It was these “secret policies” which were those favored by Roosevelt, the great illuminatus, himself.

Professor Charles A. Beard (Yale) refered to this secretive, deceptive forked tongue two-fold policy system in his book (President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War) which he calls “a study in appearances and realities,” and within what was known at the time, he proceeds to do a masterful job in exposing the gross deception foisted of onto the general U.S. Public by the Roosevelt regime in regard to the events which resulted eventually in our entering the war openly after the Pearl Harbor attack.

Winston S. Churchill was no less involved in this deception or any other to achieve his ends. Some of these ends are described in the two volume Bodyguard of Lies, named apparently from a remark made by Churchill himself and A Man Called Intrepid, the alleged story of Sir William Stephenson. Stephenson was a Canadian, a friend of General William J. Donovan (since 1916!), his U.S. counterpart in the “Oh so Social” OSS and an intimate friend of Winston Churchill who appointed him to the position of his (Churchill’s) secret envoy and chief of British Security Coordination (BSC) with the code name “Intrepid” with headquarters in New York City. The activities of “Intrepid” were myriad, but one of the most famous was to produce, with Ian Fleming, the bogus map allegedly produced by Germany showing that countries’ territorial designs upon South America. At the time, the map, labeled as bogus by Germany but accepted and revered as authentic without question by Roosevelt, was used to stampede the U.S. Public into supporting military and other aid for Britain in World War II. Of course, the truth of his many nefarious escapades, about which he is obviously quite proud, was revealed only thirty years after the end of the war.

On Sept. 11, 1939, after eleven days into the “European War,” Churchill, a long known, virulent germanophobe and now First Lord of the Admiralty in the Chamberlain Cabinet received the following letter from President Roosevelt:

“It is because you and I occupied similar positions in the World War (I) that I want you to know how glad I am that you are back again in the Admiralty. Your problems are, I realise, complicated by new factors, but the essential is not very different. What I want you and the Prime Minister (Chamberlain) to know is that I shall at all times welcome it, if you will keep me in touch personally with anything you want me to know about. You can always send sealed letters through your (diplomatic) pouch or my pouch.”

Churchill states in his book (The Gathering Storm, p. 392) “ I responded with alacrity, using the signature of ‘Naval Person,’ and thus began that long and memorable correspondence — covering perhaps a thousand communications on each side, and lasting till his death more than five years later.” Professor Charles C. Tansill States that Churchill sent 950 of these (secret) cablegrams to Roosevelt and received about 800 in reply.

It is possible that it was during one of these secret communications that Churchill that should England be successfully invaded by Germany as France had been, England might obtain for itself a peace more to its liking by surrendering its fleet to Germany. Such an act would, naturally, leave Germany a very powerful naval nation for the time being, but with the building capacity of the United States and its insistence upon a “two ocean” fleet capable of withstanding any nation or combination of nations who might oppose it, the archaic fleets of Britain, France and even Japan would have at best a momentary advantage in a sea battle, if, indeed, it would have much more effect than the wartime transfer of 50 “outmoded” destroyers to Britain. If such a fleet should have appeared off the shores of the United States, it is likely it would have suffered the same fate of all modern fleets which dared venture into waters protected by land-based planes. The threat of surrender, however, served a a lever to force Roosevelt to give greater consideration to his pre-war promises of aid to various European nations, England included, in case of war. But it was a “lever” which Roosevelt never forgot nor forgave. It would be Stalin not England who would be his future ally of choice and annointed partner in the comming peace.

(Only once did it appear that the contents of these secret transmissions would be betrayed and publicized. That was the cause of the wartime Tyler Kent Affair which was thoroughly suppressed in England [May 20, 1940, Intrepid, pp. 84-84, 92-96, & 125; JHR, VI, p. 342; Kent, Tyler, “The Roosevelt Legacy and the Kent Case,” JHR, IV, pp 173-203] under the “Defense of the Realm Act!”) These secret communications between the two heads of state (after June 1940) established a close cooperating relationships and mutual objectives for the two anglo-saxon countries which is almost unique. If one had annexed the other, it is difficult to believe there could have been a more nearly perfect unanimity of purpose or “solidarity” established at the highest administrative level acting in the interests of the two governments.

Cooperation between these two leaders had led to a progressively more militant attitude on the part of the United States with respect to Germany. The secret communications had sufficed in this escalation to go from a stance of unquestioned preference for an Allied victory in the U.S. to massive revisions of the U.S. Neutrality Act to Britain’s advantage, to “all-out aid short of war.” However, none of these measures had achieved the desired objective of obtaining a defeat of Germany by the British Empire and its host of anti-German satellites and Soviet Russia. To progress beyond the existing stage of an undeclared clandestine shooting war into an open, all-out shooting war against Germany (and Japan) by the United States, declared or undeclared, a war council convened under the utmost conditions of secrecy and security was necessary to prepare the necessary plans, unified commands, unified objectives, etc.

If the Argentia Conference was, in fact, called for the purposes of involving and speeding up the entry of the United States in the European War, in addition to the above topics of discussion, it had the additional advantage from the standpoints of Roosevelt and Churchill of introducing the American and British counterparts to each other. Since they would undoubtedly be working quite closely together in a very short time, it was essential that some form of joint administrative body be set up for the coming escalation into war. For this purpose, the heads of the Army, Navy and Air Force of both countries were present at the highest level as were those of the U.S. State Department and the British Foreign Ministry.

It was then, for this purpose that the two retinues travelled by warships on a secretive distant mission to Newfoundland waters for their epoch-making meetings. It was not to frame the “Atlantic Charter” and enjoy the fellowship of singing hymns with each other as was stated at the time. In fact, the text of the “Atlantic Charter” had been agreed upon by both governments in London before Churchill and Hopkins sailed for the Conference aboard the “Prince of Wales,” a British battle ship destined to be sunk by the Japanese in less than a year!

There were a total of 117 days between the Conference in Argentia (Bay), Newfoundland and the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

IV. “ARCADIA” — THE FIRST WASHINGTON CONFERENCE Dec. 22, 1941 — Jan 14, 1942 — THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION (Jan. 1, 1942)

For those interventionists, American and British alike, who had labored without rest to bring the United States into the European War against Germany, the First Washington Conference was cause for celebration. It did, indeed, have much of the air of a victory celebration than an entry into the bloodiest war in history. Now, the entire resources of the United States were unquestionably and without reservation placed at the disposal of the forces which had labored long and arduously for the total defeat of Germany, the remnant of the central European political power union. Churchill admitted, and who would ever have doubted it, that he had hoped and prayed for this moment. Madam Eleanor Roosevelt later implied that President Roosevelt was relieved now that the nation was united in the purpose. It was, however, a purpose he himself had chosen for them to follow. From this time onward, he could and did stifle all opposition to his activities on the grounds of patriotism and/or aid to the enemy.

The celebrants in the victory of the war against “isolation” were led by the following:

ATTENDEES AND PARTICIPANTS IN THE FIRST WASHINGTON CONFERENCE (Dec. 22, 1941 — Jan. 14, 1942)

United States of America

Pressident Franklin D. Roosevelt

Secretary of State Cordell Hull

Under-Secretary of State Sumner Welles

Ass’t. Sec. of State Adolf A. Berle, Jr.

State Department Ass’t. Carlton Savage

State Department Advisor Green H. Hackworth

Harrison F. Matthews

Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr.

Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson

Under Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson

Ass’t. Secretary of War John Jay Mc Cloy

Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox

Undersecretary of the Navy James V. Forrestal

Ass’t. Secretary of the Navy Robert A. Lovett

Ass’t. Secretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard

Ass’t. Secretary of the Navy Artemus L. Gates

Harry L. Hopkins

W. Averell Harriman

William J. Donovan

Edward R./ Stettinius, Jr.

Donald M. Nelson

Leon Henderson

Sidney Hillman

William S. Knudsen

William S. Batt

General George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff

Admiral Harold R. Stark, Chief of Naval Operations

Admiral Ernest J. King, Commander in Chief, United States Fleet

General Henry H. Arnold, Chief of Army Air Forces, Commanding General, U.S. Army Air Forces

Lt. Gen. Lesly J. McNair

Maj. Gen. Edwin M. Watson

Maj. Gen. Richard C. Moore

Maj. Gen. Thomas Holcomb

Brig. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

Brig. General Leonard T. Gerow

Brig. Gen. Carl Spaatz

Brig. Gen. Raymond E. Lee

Rear Admiral John H. Towers

Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner

Rear ADmiral William T. Sexton

Commander Bertram J. Rogers, USN

Lt. Commander Ruthven E. Libby, USN

Capt. John L. McCrea, USN Aide to President Roosevelt

Capt. John R. Beardall, USN

Capt. Theodore S. Wilkinson, USN

Capt. D. C. Ramsey, USN

Capt. Frank E. Beatty, USN

Col. DeWitt Peck

Lt. Col. William G. Lyman

United Kingdom

Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill

Lord Halifax

Lord Beaverbrook (William Maxwell Aitken)

Field Marshal Sir John Dill

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Dudley Pound

Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Portal

Lt. Gen. Sir Colville Wemyss

Admiral Sir Charles J. C. Little

Air Marshal (“Bomber”) Arthur T. Harris

Brigadier Leslie Chasemore Hollis

Brigadier Vivian Dykes

Brigadier Charles Scott Napier

Commander Charles Rolfe Thompson, RN

Air Commadore William F. Dickson

Group Capt. A. C. H. Sharp

Col. Edward Ian Claude

Lt. Col. G. K. Bourne

Capt. Macdonald-Buchanan, RN

Capt. G. D. Belben, RN

Canada

Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King

USSR

Ambassador Maxime M. Litvinov

Madam Litvinov

Netherlands

Minister Alexander Loudon

China

Foreign Minister Tse Vin Soong (sic)

The proceedings of the Conference were taken up with the details and last minute changes in the very decisions which probably if not certainly were previously discussed at the Argentia War Council some five months earlier in Newfoundland. All that was possible to unify the war objectives of the anti-Germany nations was discussed and action to this end taken. The Combined Chiefs of Staff for the armed forces was established as well as other agencies to allocate war supplies and raw materials. Everything which had previously been considered and done in secret was now made official and done openly.

The world wide aspects of the second phase of the war were naturally discussed in detail, but as might be expected from previous U.S. inclinations, Germany was declared the main enemy to be destroyed first with Japan which had actually opened the new phase of the war by attacking the United States being left to last. Consequently Gen. Douglas MacArthur would be forced to limp along as best he could, with little more than “praises and promises” while Germany was being destroyed by the military coalition now assembled and supplied generously with the necessities of war by the Roosevelt Regime. The power of the coalition was to be expanded in any way possible by attempting to split the Axis powers or by forcing the still neutral nations to join the U. N. side or the other or by outright invasion if the countries were considered strategically necessary.

Secret plans by the U.S. Government to invade continental Europe with an American Expeditionary Force of 5,000,000 men in 1943 in conjunction with Britain had apparently been finished by the U.S. War Department in late 1941. Thesee plans were leaked to the press (New York Times, Dec. 5, 1941, p. 3) in a manner still not understood. Presumably these plans plus information received since these plans were formulated were used at the First Washington Conference, along with estimates of German military strength and the rate at which it and its supplies were being eroded irreplaceably, vis a vis the projected ability of the U.S. to supply its allies, to estimate the end of the european war sometime late in 1943.

The First Washington Conference was by any measure a big one, and much time and preparation had obviously been spent in its planning as the reference to its published records (Foreign Relations of the United States, The Conferences at Washington, 1941-1942, and Casablanca, 1943 United States Government Printing Office, Washington [1968]) shows. In truth, preparations for the consequences of Dec. 7, 1941 and the following conference may well have been in preparation since Roosevelt and Churchill last met at Argentia, Newfoundland on Aug. 12, 1941.

Since a propaganda document of some significance declaring the determination of the powers of “good” to continue on until final victory and punishment of the forces of “evil” was a major part of any meeting of the “Three Great Powers,” no less could be expected of the First Washington Conference. Rising to the occasion, if not actually having been prodded into action by the promise of U.S. future aid and support, the Polish Ambassador in the U.S., Mr. Jan Ciechanowsky contacted Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s Special Assistant and “suggested” a Declaration by the “entire” United Nations assembled at the First Washington Conference. This was done on Dec. 22-23, 1941 with an appeal for careful consideration of Poland’s contribution to the United Nations’ cause and for Poland’s future. In view of the “Potocki Papers,” this communication might have been a veiled threat more than mere yoeman’s labor. At any rate, it was refreshing to have a european suggesting an action which the U.S. desired to be taken than a Cuban, Nicaraguan, etc. serving this purpose. In this respect, Roosevelt at last had truly achieved international stature outside the Americas.

In the following Declaration, the wording in addition to the timing and calculated effect upon the readers of the press is pure “Rooseveltian.” It had the effect of binding the signatories to an agreement and organization which was the plaything of the man who brought it into existence, Franklin D. Roosevelt.

DECLARATION BY UNITED NATIONS

Signed at Washington January 1, 1942

55 Stat. 1600; Executive Agreement Series 236

A Joint Declaration by the United States of America, the UnitedKingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union ofSoviet Socialist Republics, China, Australia, Belgium,Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, DominicanRepublic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua,Norway, Panama, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia.

The Governments signatory hereto,

Having subscribed to a common program of purposes and principles embodied in the Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of the United Kinngndom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland dated August 14, 1941, known as the Atlantic Charter.

Being convinced that complete victory over their enemies is essential to defend life, liberty, independence and religious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands, and that they are now engaged in a comon struggle against savage and brutal forces seeking to subjugate the world,

DECLARE:

(1) Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact and its adherents with which such government is at war.

(2) Each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies.

The foregoing declaration may be adhered to by other nations which are, or which may be, rendering material assistance and contribuition in the struggle over Hitlerism.

Done at Washington

January First, 1942

The United States of America The Republic of Guatemala

by FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT by ENRIQUE LOPEX

HERRARTE

The United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Northern Ireland La Republique d’Haiti

by WINSTON S. CHURCHILL par JULIAN R. CACERES

On behalf of the Government of the

Union of Soviet Socialist India

Republics by GIRHA SHANKAR

MAXIM LITVINOFF BAJPAI

Ambassador

The Grand Duchy of

National Government of the Republic Luxembourg

of China by HUGHES LE

TSE VUNG SOONG GALLAIS

Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Kingdom of the

The Commonwealth of Australia Netherlands

by R. G. CASEY A. LOUDON

The Kingdom of Belgium Signed on behalf of theby Cte. R. v. STRATENGov’t. of the

Dominion of New

Canada Zealand

by LEIGHTON MCCARTHY

The Republic of Nicaragua

The Republic of Costa Rica by LEON DE BAYLE

by LUIS FERNANDEZ

The Kingdom of Norway

The Republic of Cuba by W. Munthe

by AURELIO F. CONCHESO Morgenstierne

Czechoslovak Republic The Republic of Panama

by V. S. HURBAN by JAEN GUARDIA

The Dominican Republic The Republic of Poland

by J. M. TRONCOSO by JAN CIECHANOWSKI

The Republic of El Salvador The Union of South Africa

by C. A. ALFARO by RALPH W. CLOSE

The Kingdom of Greece The Kingdom of Yugoslavia

by CIMON G. DIAMANTOPOULOS By CONSTATIN A.

FOTITCH

[The declaration was subsequently signed for Mexico and the Philippines (June 14, 1942), Iraq and Brazil (April 10, 1943), Bolivia (May 5, 1943), Iran (September 14, 1943), Columbia (January 17, 1944), Ethiopia (March 7, 1944). Liberia (April 10, 1944), France (January 1, 1945) Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, and Chile (February 14, 1945), Venezuela (February 20, 1945), Uruguay (February 24, 1945), Turkey and Egypt (February 28, 1945), and Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Lebanon (April 12, 1945).]

This rather short but significant document is but one of the sweet fruits of “SOLIDARITY” which had essentially already placed most of the Central and South American at the disposal of the Roosevelt Regime in its efforts to defeat Germany and Italy. Simply, it allows the small countries to “join” with the major belligerants into a unit which will then have its policies set by the major nation (e. g. U.S.) or “major nations.” of the unit. Since it was the United States who was now furnishing the necessary aid to Russia, Britain and the others to continue the war, it was also the United States (e. g. Roosevelt) which made the decisions for the entire group. In return for the “fealty,” so freely given by those nations who expected to benefit from all this aid promised by the major nations, these same nations were expected to show unflenchingly their “solidarity” behind the “common effort” as grateful receivers of largess — on cue from their benefactors.

Solidarity at the top eschelons of the United Nations was not difficult to obtain. As the single nation capable of supplying those nations which were doing the lion’s share of the fighting, Russia, China, Britain, and “France,” only France seemed less than eager to follow the lead of the United States. So long as the U.S. kept the weaponry, war supplies, food and money flowing, the others were at least temporarily content to allow Roosevelt the final say in most matters. China, which disagreed with the priority decision (made by Roosevelt) that the war should be fought first in Europe was a sometime exception.

The great significance of the system was the fact that it was so very successful. As one can see, “Free” France (De Gaulle) (and China [Chiang Kai-Shek]) had not yet been accorded the honor of membership in the august group of founding members of the United Nations, although, with the exception of Russia, France had borne the brunt of the war and was occupied by Germany, and China had suffered under years of Japanese occupation. On the otherhand, such “countries” as Cuba (Batista), Nicaragua (Samoza), Dominican Republic (Trujillo), staunch supporters and beneficiaries of the Rooseveltian policies were, however, were immediately so honored in spite of their geographic sizes, populations, and the known dictatorial policies of their heads of state.

The secret of such unqualified cooperation with the United States, a nation traditionally distrusted and feared by the countries “south of the border,” was quite simple. The Roosevelt regime had a bare faced policy of rewarding its “friends” and punishing its enemies. In addition to “loans,” Roosevelt’s “friends” received weaponry and political support from their “brother” in the north. His venevolence seemed limitless.

His enemies received nothing from the U.S. and could also expect nothing from beleagered, far away Germany. Non-cooperating countries could also count upon difficulties, if not “blasklisting,” in trading with the U.S. and those nations acting as its allies, and if they became too independant in the eyes of Roosevelt, they could receive an undisguised, meaningful “friendship visit” from a flight of sleek, new B-17 bombers as a sign of the U.S. intentions under its “good neighbor policy.” If these measusres did not suffice, subversion was another useful weapon in Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor Policy” and “arsenal of democracy” as was heavily arming adjacent countries to remove unliked heads of state by force. The general tone of U.S.-Mexican relations from at least the Mexican War (1846-1848) onward was aptly summarized in President Diaz’s, “Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States!” The sense of the statement was not wasted on the other countries south of the Rio Grande.

In a succession of conferences (Montevedeo, 1933; Buenos Aires, 1936; and Lima, 1938), the United States had been successful in obtaining the Lima “Declaration of the Solidarity of America” ostensibly to protect the western hemisphere from German attack. It had the effect, however, of giving the U.S. the effective position of deciding when the western hemisphere was in danger and what steps would be taken by all the nations of the Americas. This declaration did not go unchallenged by some of the American States, but it was nevertheless accepted.

Payment for this “solidarity” was in many forms. In addsition to those mentioned above, there were the confiscation for their own use of valuable, often extensive German property within their borders and a promise of more to come after the war. German nationals from these countries sent to Crystal City, Texas, for deportation to Germany could have their property confiscated for the benefit of the cooperating country. Mexico, after showing some initial reluctance, cooperated after being assured they would be allowed to keep the oil facilities of the British and U.S. which they had confiscated without compensation from Mexico. Compensation was finally obtined at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.

The ploy for “solidarity” was used over and over again in the years and conventions to come. The small nations would be herded and/or coerced into an agreement essentially dicated by the three (or “one”) great powers. After the agreement was signed, by the ruling clique of “democratic tripartite powers,” still others would be “invited” officially by these dominant nations to “join” in the declaration which was often mostly if not entirely the work of or at least written at the instigation of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Apparently, Roosevelt and perhaps many others, believed that the more names appearing on the document, the more likely it was the words would take on a highly permanent if not moral or ethical meaning.

It was the kind of ethics and morality in which “Right,” “Virtue,” International Morality,” etc. were inevitably insured and decided by some kind of contrived, “democratic vote” which the tripartite powers, if not Roosevelt alone, controlled. This may have been the result of Roosevelt’s early close association with Tammany Hall in New York State (City) politics. Or was it the belief that if all signatories were equally “dirty” in generating and disseminating a scurrilous document, and many were, indeed, scurrilous, no one was likely to recant at a later date and call for its elimination or modification? Certainly no one power was likely to point an accusing finger at any other power, for all had shared in the charges which in the end had brought them such riches and plunder from devastated central Europe.

The First Washington Conference, “ARCADIA,” marked the open, unqualified full scale entry into what had been the “proto-United Nations Coalition all along. From this time onward, Roosevelt need no longer carry on his bellicose activities in a clandestine manner as he had done even before the war and at the same time protest solemnly that the United States was a neutral in the European conflict. From this point onward, the war was unquestionably what it it had been from the beginning so far as the proto-United Nations were concerned, a world conflict!

V. THE SECOND WASHINGTON CONFERENCE (June 19 — 25, 1942)

The results of the optisimistic predictions in the First Washington Conference had not been realized. Russia, the partner Roosevelt had decided would run rough shod over Germany once it received a flood of American war materials was reeling backward toward Stalingrad. The resumption of Rommel’s offensive in North Africa threatened Britain with the loss of unsympathetic Egypt and the Suez Canal. Even with the supplies from the United States, the Wehrmacht still appeared to be capable of moving whenever and whereever it chose, and so did the Japanese Army in South-east Asia.

Accordingly, the Second Washington Conference was called to confront the situation. Their decision was to greatly increase the military aid sent to aid their allies. This aid would include tanks, airplanes, ships etc. In addition, if ever there had been a question about the need to use of U.S. troops in the European Theater, it had long since vanished. Now United Nations attacks varying from raids to full scale landings were considered to take pressure off Russia and Britain in North Africa. A number of these plans, “Bolero,” “Gymnast,” “Super-gymnast,” “Jupiter,” “Cannibal,” etc. were developed and evaluated as to their suitability at the moment.

One point of special note was raised by President Roosevelt during the deliberations which is destined to have a lasting effect upon the way nations wage war for a long time and the way the soldiers of a nation at war are regarded by itself, by its enemies and by those who arae neutral. It had to do with the use and sanction of guerrilla (underground or terrorist) forces by a modern nation at war. The punishment for such activity among civilized nations had, prior to World War II, been execution on the spot as oppose to recognized enemy soldiers in uniform who were given treatment prescribed by the Geneva Convention. As might be expected from his earlier behavior and support of British “unorthodox” warfare against the Germans (Readers’ Digest), Roosevelt endorsed guerrilla warfare wholeheartedly when used against the Japanese. His reasoning in this case was: “Every Japanese killed by guerrillas hastens the end of the war.” (F. R of U.S., Conferences of Washington & Casablanca, p. 451). To achieve this same end in Europe, the British established the Special Services Brigade (“Commandos”). They commenced the manufacture of gold soverigns with which to reward the headhunters of Borneo who brought in Japanese heads for bounty.

The attendees and participants of the Second Washington Conference were as follows:

ATTENDEES AND PARTICIPANTS IN THE SECOND WASHINGTON CONFERENCE

(June 19 — June 25, 1942)

U.S.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Secretary of WAr Henry L. Stimson

Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox

Harry L. Hopkins

Elmer Davis (Office of War Information)

Louis W. Douglas

Admiral Ernest J. King

General George C. Marshall

Lt. Gen. Henry H. Arnold

Lt. Gen. Joseph T. McNarney

Lt. Gen. Brehon B. Somervell

Maj. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

Maj. Gen. Mark Clark

Brig. Gen. Walter Bedell Smith

Brig. Gen. Thomas T. Handy

Vice Admiral Willson

Vice Admiral Frederick J. Horne

Rear Admiral John H. Towers

Rear Admiral Charles M. Cooke, Jr.

Rear Admiral Emory Scott Land

Rear Admiral Howard L. Vickery

Col. Albert C. Wedemeyer

U. K.

Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill

Ambassador Lord Halifax

Sir Arthur Salter

Field Marshal Sir John Dill

General Sir Alan Brooke

Admiral Sir Charles J. C. Little

Admiral Sir Andrew B. Cunningham

Air Marshal Douglas C. S. Evill

Lt. Gen. Gordon Nevil Macready

Maj. Gen. Sir Hastings Ismay

Brigadier Guy M. Stewart

Air Vice Marshall John C. Slessor

Vice Admiral James W. S. Dorling

Brigadier G. K. Bourne

China

Foreign Minister Tse Vin Soong

Yugolsavia

King Peter II

Foreign Minister Momcilo Nincic

Canada

Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King

Minister Leighton McCarthy

Australia

Minister Sir Owen Dixon

New Zealand

Minister Walter Nash

Netherlands

Foreign Minister Eelco van Kleffens

Philippines

President Manuel Quezon

After the Second Washington Conference it was apparent to everyone that with the exception of the United States, the other countries were essentially exhausted and incapable of carrying on the war much longer. Only United States funds, war supplies and now troops could offer any promise of ultimate victory to the “United Nations.”

As was usually the case, after such a conference, Roosevelt found it necessary to release a message for the benefit of the press and its continued cooperation and for the expectant public at large.

White House Press Release

Washington, June 27, 1942

JOINT STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRIME MINISTER

On the safe return of the Prime Minister to England, the following statement has been issued simultaneously in LOndon and in Washington:

“The week of conferences between the President and the Prime Minister covered very fully all of the major problems of the war which is conducted by the United Nations on every continent and in every sea.

“We have taken full cognizance of our disadvantages as well as advantages. We do not underrate the task.

“We have conducted our conferences with the full knowledge of the power and resourcefulness of our enemies.

“In the matter of the production of munitions of all kinds, the survey gives on the whole an optimistic picture. The previously planned monthly output has not reached the maximum but is fast approaching it on schedule.

“Because of the wide extension of the war to all parts of the world, transportation of the fighting forces, together with the transportation of munitions of war and supplies still constitutes the major problem of the United Nations.

“While submarine warfare on the part of the Axis now continues to take heavy toll of cargo ships, the actual production of new tonnage is greatly increasing month by month. it is hoped that as a result of the steps planned at this conference the respective navies will further reduce the toll of merchant shipping.

“The United Nations have never been in such hearty and detailed agreement on plans for winning the war as they are today.

“We recognize and applaud the Russian resistance to the main attack being made by Germany and we rejoice in the magnificent resistance of the Chinese Army. Detailed discussions were held with our military advisers on methods to be adopted against Japan and the relief of China.

“While exact plans, for obvious reasons, cannot be disclosed, it can be said that the coming operations which were discussed in detail at our Washington conferences, between ourselves and our rrespective military advisers, will divert German strength from the attack on Russia.

“The Prime Minister and the President have met twice before, first in August 1941 and again in December 1941. There is no doubt in their minds that the over-all picture is more favorable to victory than it was either in August or December of last year.”

(Foreign Relations of the United States, The conferences at Washington, 1941-1942 and Casablanca, 1943, United States Printing Office, Washington, 1968, pp. 482-3 — from “Hopkins’ Papers”)

VI. “SYMBOL” — THE CASABLANCA CONFERENCE (Jan. 14 — 24, 1943)

Even with the increased delivery of United States war material to its allies the was was going neither on schedule nor according to plan. The submarine war was slowly being won through the expedient of building ships and equipment faster than the German submarines could destroy them. In this manner, the Russians had been sent the supplies which had sapped German strength at Stalingrad leaving a tremendous German Army in danger of being totally destroyed. In North Africa, U.S. supplies, coupled with Rommel’s almost complete lack of them, had led to his defeat. On Nov. 8, 1942, United Nations troops under General Eisenhower invaded Morocco and Algiers. Opposed by well supplied British troops on his east and Eisenhower on his west, when his tanks and planes ground to a halt for lack of gasolene, Rommel surrendered his troops.

During the final phase of the destruction of the Afrika Korps, the Casablanca Conference was called by Roosevelt and Churchill. Casablanca was chosen because of it secure position in North Africa and as a sign to the Axis that the United Nations was now threatening Europe from England and North Africa. Some of the attendees are listed below:

ATTENDEES AND PARTICIPANTS IN THE CASABLANCA CONFERENCE

(Jan. 20 — Jan. 24, 1943)

United States

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Harry L. Hopkins

W. Averell Harriman

Robert D. Murphy

Vice-Consul Kenneth Pendar

Gen. George C. Marshall

Admiral Ernest J. King

Lt. Gen. Henry H. Arnold

Lt. Gen. Brehon B. Somervell

Rear Admiral Charles M. Cooke, Jr.

Lt. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

Brig. Gen. Albert C. Wedemeyer

Brig. Gen. John R. Deane

Commander Ruthven E. Libby

Maj. Gen. Mark W. Clark

Brig. Gen. William H. Wilbur

Capt. John L. McCrea USN

Lt. Col. Elliott Roosevelt

Maj. Charles R. Codman

Lt. Roosevelt, USNR

Sgt. Robert Hopkins

U. K.

Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill

Lord Leathers

John Miller Martin

Thomas L. Rowan

Sir Charles Wilson

William H. B. Mack

Harold Macmillan

Field Marshal Sir John Dill

General Sir Alan Brooke

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Dudley Pound

Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Portal

Vice-Admiral Lord Louis Montbatten

Lt. Gen. Sir Hastings Lionel Ismay

Admiral Sir Andrew B. Cunningham

Gen. Sir Harold Alexander

Maj. Gen. Sir John Noble Kennedy

Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder

Air Vice-Marshal John C. Slessor

Air Vice-Marshal Francis F. Inglis

Brigadier Guy M. Stewart

Brigadier Edward Ian Claude Jacob

Air Commodore William Elliot

Commander Charles Rolfe Thompson

Lt. Col. Hirsch

Capt Charles E. Lambe, RN

Capt. Randolf F. E. S. Churchill

France

Gen. Charles de Gaulle

Gen. Henri Giraud

Gen. Charles A. Nogues

Capt. Beaufre

Count Poniatowski

Morocco

Sultan Mohammed ben Youssef

Grand Vizier Mohammed el Mohkri

Crown Prince Moulay Hassan

Si Manneri

As with practically all of the United Nations war conferences, there was an air of “victory” which pervaded the meeting. The United Nations had, indeed, removed a threat of further German military activity in North Africa. But the war was not going well from a standpoint of schedule. Germany was still very much a military power capable of responding in kind if goaded into doing so. The meetings at Casablanca were intended to erode still further the ability of Germany to defend its territory and positions. Progress in this direction so far had been at great expense in ships, equipment and men. Although wallowing in an excess of the materials of war, the unnecessary sacrifice of men would not be accepted long by those supplying these materials. As head of the United States, President Roosevelt was in the driver’s position for the entire conference, and it was he with his staff who decided which tactics would be accepted.

As with all such conferences, the public learned of its action through a “Press Conference” at the end of the proceedings.

President Roosevelt’s Press Conference Notes

Casablanca, January 22-23, 1943

[Part A]

Notes for F. D. R.

Soon after the successful landing operations in North Africa on November 8th, the President and the Prime Minister quickly agreed that the time had come for another review of the world war situation, and the practical discussion of steps to be taken by the United Nations for the prosecution of the war. This involved a meetings of the British-American combined staffs and if possible, another personal meeting. President discussed with Mr. Stalin the possibilities of his attendance at a joint meeting someshere in Africa. It became clear that while precluded from leaving Russia because he was conducting the new Russian offensive which even at that time had begun its eminently successful operation against the Germans, along the whole long line of the Russian-German front, from the Baltic to the Caucasus.

The Russian war leader was advised that the meeting between the President and the Prime Minister would nevertheless be held, and that he would be kept fully informed of the progress of planning for the year 1943. It is of course expected that as the operations of the year develop, the four major United Nations’ military powers will continue their excellent cooperation in, and coordination of the world wide strategy which day by day is closing the net around the Axis powers.

As a result of preliminary conversations, the PResident and the Prime Minister met at an undisclosed point in North Africa about ten days ago, their Army, Navy and Air staffs having already begun studies of the world situation.

These studies, unprecedented in history in their completeness and in their total global aspect, have resulted in unanimous agreements marked by a spirit of complete understanding and cordiality, and have now been brought to a conclusion.

The combined staffs have been actuated in this by the pooling all of the resources of the United Nations and by the determination tomaintain the initiative against the Axis powers in every part of the world.

War plans have been agreed on to strike the enemy during the whole of 1943. These plans cover:

(a) United operations conducted in their areas of hostilities.

(b) All possible material aid to the Russian offensive against Germany, which is so greatly cutting down the manpower of Germany and her satellites Roumania, Italy and Hungary now opposing Russia on the eastern front, together with the continued destruction of Germanmunitions and material of all kinds.

(c) All possible aid will be given to the heroic struggle of China now in its 6th year, with the resolve to end for all time Japanese domination of the Far East.

The President anf the Prime Minister, after a complete survey of the world war situation, are more than ever determined that peace can come to the world only by a total elimination of German and Japanese war power. This involves the simple formula of placing the objective of this war in terms of an unconditional surrender by Germany, Italy and Japan. Unconditional surrender by them means a reasonable assurance of world peace, for generations. Unconditional surrender means not the destruction of the German populace, nor of the Italian or Japanese populace, but does mean the destruction of a philosophy in Germany, Italy and Japan which is based on the conquest and subjugation of other peoples.

The President and the Prime Minister are confident that this is equally the purpose of Russia, of China, and of all other members of the United Nations.

The meeting of the President and the Prime Minister with the combined staffs has come to a complete and successful meeting of the minds in r egard to all military operations, and the war against the Axis powers will proced according to schedule with every indication of a continuation of successes for the United Nations during 1943.

In view of the fact that the conference was held in North Africa and in view of the world wide desire that France be liberated fromthe Nazi yoke, the President and the Prime Minister, on arrival, took steps to bring Frenchmen in every part of the world outside of occupied France, into a unity, with one simple objective — the raising of Frenchc Army, Navy and Air forces to march with the United Nations to the liberation of France.

They therefore invited General Giraud and General de Gaulle to meet in North Africa, in order that they might discuss ways and means toward this simple objective, and if they desire to consult with the President and the Prime Minister toward the common end. General Giraud, as High Commissioner of French North Africa and French West Africa, arrived at the place of meeting within two days.

General Giraud, as High Commissioner, represents the suupreme French command in Algiers, Tunis, and the French Protectorate of the Sultanate of Morocco, and West Africa, which includes Senegal, the Ivory Coast, Dahomey and French Guinea. These territories i;nclude by far the greater part of the French overseas territory, both in area and in population. In the category of population which lives outside of France proper.

After negotiations in London which lasted six days longer, General de Gaulle agreed to come to North Africa to meet with General Giraud. He arrived on Friday morning, January 22nd. (At this point the Prime Minister will ser forth the stituation resulting from General de Gaulle’s visit.):

[Part B]

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

While in North Africa, I have visited and inspected a number of American Armu ground and air units, and in addition have talked with a number of commanders of Naval areas.

A few days agao I visited and inspected several American divisions which had tken part in the landing operations on the night of November 7-8. I found them in excellent health, high spirits and high efficiency — eager to fight again. And they will.

I had the opportunity of visiting localities where the actual landing operations, followed by severe land fighting, had taken place. I went to a cemetary containing the graves of American soldiers and the graves of French soldiers killed in the first few days before the fighting ceased.

May I say here, that the French garrisons, oebying orders to resit any landing, fought with extreme bravery and with heavy losses, but the moment peace was established, the French Army and Navy and the French civil authorities have given whole hearted assistance to the American forces in carrying out the commoon objective of peace in these areas, of the establishment of French armies to do battle in the common cause, and to improve the conditions of living in a civil population which had been subjected to grave hardships during the past two years by the demands upon them for food and other supplies by a Nazi machine which thought of itself and itself alone.

I also had the priveledge of meeting and cooperating with the Sultan of Morocco, who, as the sovereign of Morocco, is rightly interested in the welfare of his people. It is gratifying to know that at no time has he given aid or comfort to the Axis.

The American forces in North Africa maintain at the highest point their moral and fighting qualities. They seek further victories. They are ready to go. I am proud of them.

[FR of the U.S., Conferences at Washington & Casablanca, pp. 836-9]

The Communique

[Casablanca,] 24 January 1943

The President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain have been in conference near Casablanca since January 14. They were accompanied by the Combined Chiefs of Staff of the two countries, namely, for the United States :

General George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

Admiral E. J. King, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy

Lieut. General H. H. Arnold, Commanding U.S. Army Air Forces

and for Great Britain:

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Dudley Pound, First Sea Lord

General Sir Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff

Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Portal, Chief of the Air Staff

These were assisted by:

Lieut. General B. B. Somervell, Commanding General, Servicesof Supply, U.S. Army

Field Marshal Sir John Dill, Head of the British Joint StaffMission in Washington

Vice Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten, Chief of CombinedOperations

Lieut. General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief Staff Officer to the Minister of Defense,

together with a number of Staff Officers from both countries.

They have received visits from Mr. Murphy and Mr. Macmillan; from General Eisenhower, the Commander-in-Chief Allied Expeditionary Force in North Africa; from Admiral of the Fleet Sir Andrew Cunningham, Naval Commander Allied Expeditionary Force in North Africa; From General Spaatz, Air Commander Allied Expeditionary Force in North Africa; from General Clark, U.S. Army and from Middle East Headquarters, from General Sir Harold Alexander, Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder and Lieut-General F. M. Andrews, U.S. Army.

The President was accompanied by Mr. Harry Hopkins and was joined by Mr. Averell Harriman. With the Prime Minister was Lord Leathers, the British Minister of War Transport.

For ten days the Combined Staffs havae been in constant session meeting two or three times a day, and recording progress at intervals to the PResident and the Prime Minister. The entire field of the war was surveyed theatre by theatre throughout the world and all resources were marshalled for the more intense prosecution of the war by sea, land and air. Nothing like this prolonged discussion bestweesn two Allies has ever taken place before. Complete agreement was reached between the two leaders of the two countries and their respective Staffs upon the war plans and enterprises to be undertaken during the campaign of 1943 against Germany, Italy and Japan with a view to drawing the utmost advantage from the markedly favorable turn of events at the close of 1942

Premier Stalin was cordially invited to meet the President and the Prime Minister, in which case the meeting would have been held very much further East. He was, however, unable to leave Russia at this time on account of the great offensive which he himself, as Commander-in-Chief is directing.

The President and the Prime Minister realized to the full the enormous weight of the war which Russia is successfully bearing along her whole land front, and their prime object has been to draw as much of the weight as possible off the Russian armies by engaging the enemy as heavily as possible at the best selected points.

Premier Stalin has been fully informed of the military proposals.

The President and the Prime Minister have been in communication with Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek. They have apprised hi;m of the measures which they are undertaking to assist him in China’s magnificent and unrelaxing struggle for the common cause.

The occasion of the meeting between the President and the Prime Minister made it opportune to invite General Giraud to confer with the Combined Chiefs of Staff and to arrange for a meeting between hin and General de Gaulle. The two Generals have been in close consultation.

The President and the Prime Minister and the Combined Staffs have completed their plans for the offensive campaigns of 1943, have now separated in order to put them into active concerted execution.

[FR of the U.S.,Conferences at Washington & Casablanca, pp. 847-9)

Aside from the everyday concerns of war and how it was to be waged in the future, the Casablanca Conference is remembered as the conference at which Roosevelt declared that the war must continue until “unconditional surrender” by the Axis or until the United Nations “reach Berlin” Obviously the destruction of the Germans and Germany was the goal of the United Nations forces. This position first became known to the world at a press conference on January 24, 1943 at Casablanca (FR Wash. & Casa Conf. pp. 726-28) At the press conference, Churchill states “I agree with everything that the President has said, and I think it was a very happy decision to bring you gentlemen (of the press) here to Casablanca to this agreeable spot…” From the items recorded at the Casablanca Conference, “Unconditional Surrender” of Germany was not discussed but mentioned as a point he intended to discuss with Joseph Stalin, a point which Churchill himself later pointed out. Apparently this apparent complete agreement with Roosevelt at this time was no more than a tactful manoevre to show publicly how completely the United Nations heads were as one. Actually, things had progressed to the point that the helpful cousin Jonathon from the “west” had suddenly turned into the senior partner of the alliance, a position, many will maintain, he had held secretly all along.

It appears that the subject of “Unconditional Surrender” may well have originated solely with the United States prior to the Casablanca Conference. At this time, May 6, 1942 The Subcomittee on Security Problems of the Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy presided over by Mr. Roosevelt’s close friend Norman H. Davis suggested an armistice only after unconditional surrender by Germany and Japan. (See Department of State publication No 3580, Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939-1945, Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949, p. 127 & FR of U.S., Wash. & Casablanca Conf., p. 506ff).

This supports the centention tht the concept of Germany’s “Unconditional Surrender” was in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s mind at least as early as May 1942. However, in view of the numerous statements made by him publicly and privately from his first term of office onward and in consideration of the many statements made by earlier, responsible officials of the United States Government during its participation in World War I which remained rancorously festering within them in the internecine period, awaiting a day of satisfaction, this should come as a surprise to no one.

One thing was certain, from this point onward Roosevelt made no bones about assuming every word from his mouth represented the will of the other “United Nations.” On some points, he possibly would consult with Stalin, Churchill or even Chiang Kai-Shek, but on the others, he would speak and they would follow obediently. “Unconditional Surrender” especially for the Germans after the World War I Armistice Agreement, the Versailles Treaty and all the deceptive rhetoric about a “Peace without Victory,” “The Autonomy of Peoples,” etc. of World War I, plus the official statements that Germans were to be excluded from the provisions of the “Atlantic Charter,” there could be no doubt as to what Germany’s enemies were saying and had intended to do all along. And this was reflected in the bloody, bitter day by day fighting of the German forces as they saw their military power, the only thing standing between them and destruction, being slowly but surely, minute by minute, ground up by the United States-supplied, inexhaustable Russian juggernaut in the east and now, in addition, fresh, new, well-equipped United States troops pouring in from the west.

VII. THE THIRD WASHINGTON CONFERENCE, “TRIDENT” (May 12-25, 1943)

The Third Washington Conference, “TRIDENT,” was held at a time much more favorable to the United nations than any of the earlier conferences. The Afrika Korps had been swept from North Africa. Germany had suffered a crushing defeat at Stalingrad with the loss of irreplaceable men and war materials and was beginning the long bitter rear guard action toward Berlin attempting to exact the highest price in Russian casualties possible with the loss of the least possible of its own soldiers. Besides this, Germany itself was being subjected to bombing attacks which increased daily in frequency, ferocity and irreparable devastation to its essential war production facilities.

But the United Nations knew full well the capacity of Germany to wage effective war was not destroyed, and the feeling was one of reserved optimism not one of jubilation. The possibility of a repeat of the battle of Tannenberg in 1914 and of France in 1940 still properly haunted them. In their minds, so far as men and material were concerned only too much was ever enough.

Attendees and participants in the Third Washington Conference were as follows:

Attendees and Participants in the Third Washington Conference (May 12-25, 1943)

U.S.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Vice-President Henry A. Wallace

Secretary of State Cordell Hull

Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson

Harry L. Hopkins

W. Averell Harriman

Bernard Baruch

William Phillips

Lewis W. Douglas

Vannevar Bush

Adm. William D. Leahy

Gen. Georce C. Marshall

Admiral Ernest J. King

Lt. Gen. Joseph T. McNarney

Lt. Gen. Stanley D. Emblick

Lt. Gen. Brehon B. Somervell

Lt. Gen. Joseph W. Stillwell

Vice Admiral Frederick J. Horne

Vice Adm. Russell Willson

Maj. Gen. Claire L. Channault

Maj. Gen. Muir S. Fairchild

Maj. Gen. Charles P. Gross

Maj. Gen. Walter B. Smith

Maj. Gen. St. Clair Streett

Rear Admiral Charles M. Cooke

Brig. Gen. Albert C. Wedemeyer

Col. Charles P. Cabell

Col. Jacob E. Smart

Col. Marcus B. Stokes, Jr.

Maj. Frederick S. Wildman

U. K.

Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill

Ambassador Lord Halifax

Lord Cherwell (Prof. Frederick Alexander Lindemann)

Lord Leathers

John Scott Maclay

Percy Norman Harvey

Canada

Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King

Minister Leighton McCarthy

China

Foreign Minister Tse Vun

Maj. Gen. Chu Shih-ming

Czechoslovakian Government-in-exile

President Eduard Benes

Netherlands

Ambassador Alexander Loudon

Philippines

President Manuel Quezon

The attendees were well aware that if the military situation continued as it was going at the time, the military power of Germany would be so eroded that it in the end would be powerless to withstand a United Nations onslaught from the west, and the Combined Chiefs of Staff exercised this advantage in all their deliberations.

Their discussions and strategic plans ranged from global to battle zone considerations. The two main enemies were Germany and Japan with the former still considered the main enemy marked for complete military destruction after which only unconditional surrender would be accepted before an armistice would be considered. Roosevelt had not moved from this demand which he made at Casablanca withou prior consultation with his allies. Here, Roosevelt suggested that even small villages in Germany be also bombed so that no location could be considered safe from United States (“Nations”) bombardment (p. 154). Combined bombing missions of the United States and Britain were to be undertaken. One such combined undertaking was the destruction of the city of Dresden. The general policy of the United States at the time was later summarized by General Curtis Le May in its application to the Vietnamese fiasco as bombing the enemies of the United States “back into the stone age.”

The United Nations war against the submarine was being won by the expedient of building sufficient ships so as to make the limited number of German submarines ineffective in destroying them. Supplies shipped by convoy were therefore getting through to Russia and Britain regardless of extremely high losses.

Secret talks on atomic energy and sonic warfare were heard as were discussions of the policy for coming operations regarding propaganda and subversive activities (p. 163). The use of Polish troops by the British and in the Middle East was discussed. The Italians were to be offered “peace with honor,” not peace after unconditional surrender — not as a nation which had the “hand that held the dagger struck it into his neighbor’s back.” To offer Italy any less might make them fight all the harder and disrupt the time table for invading Europe (“OVERLORD”).

Not the least of their consideration was the effort to relieve the sufferings of “Refugees.” The care of refugees, of course, had been a prime consideration and point of discussion for most of Roosevelt’s moves since the Evian (France) Conference, July 6, 1938. With military disaster no longer staring them in the face, time could now be expended in the cause of “humanity” to make the plight and future of these people more tolerable. These considerations had obviously become major goals of the top United Nations policy makers.

The plan upon which United Nations victory most depended, of course, was the invasion of Europe by the western United Nations allies. It was planned that this would be accomplished after success in the Mediterranean (“peace with honor” for Italy) by an invasion of a western French peninsula, either Brest or Normandy. Such an invasion would offer the possibility of an early conquest of a supply port which would be essential for a successful military operation (pp. 101, 113, &154).

The status and plans for the war in China, Southern Asia, the Near East, the Mediterranean, and other areas were also dealt with, but the destruction and defeat of Germany always took precedence over every other plan for the war.

Tentative plans for provisional military governments in the areas recaptured from the Germans, Italians and Japanese were also considered.

Aside from the necessities of war, the subject of “refugees” (FR. pp. 336-343, 336n, 1043), a subject destined to continue from this point onward as a major consideration in the deliberations of all the western United Nations plans, was brought up. This was in connection with the Bermuda Conference on Refugees (April 19-31, 1943) (Morse, loc cit. 52-66). By most accounts the Bermuda Confernce on Refugees is counted a complete failure. From the beginning, its only purpose had been to give the Zionists a guaranteed, clear, unconditional title to Palestine in the postwar period. Too much was at stake in the form of oil and moslem unrest for even President Roosevelt to make such an open promise at this period. Such concerns, however, did not pacify those who were intended to be the beneficiaries of this gift of arab land.

The approach, which they now intended to develop and use to the fullest, would be based upon the alleged inhuman barbarity and the untold sufferings they had undergone. Historically, their abuse was at the hands of all non-Jews. Momentarily the abuse was at the hands of Germany, the common enemy, and if action was not taken immediately, all Jews would be killed by the Germans in Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec and Majdanek! After the war, the historic abuses were certain to continue to plague the “survivors” throughout the world unless the long sought-after “homeland” for the Jews was established in “Eretz Israel” (Morse, pp. 52-66). In this case, Palestine and only Palestine woudl be acceptable to the Zionists. The Zionists could already count on a large number of U.S. Governmental officials, a large segment of the U.S. population, and a majority of the members in each House of Congress for full, unwavering support in this endeavor. Indeed, this had been the case since World War I (See Fish, Hamilton, “Palestine [House] Resolution,” 1922).

The Bermuda Conference on Refugees, primarily supported by the United States (Roosevelt) then convened. Its single accomplishment was the recommendation byChairman Myron C. TAylor that the coffers of the U.S. Treasury be thrown open to assure the settlement (“resettlement”) of refugees. The implication is that if this is not done, they are in certain danger of being killed by the Germans in mass. In making this statement, he had no more supporting evidence than did Sumner Welles earlier.

As was the case with such conferences, the Third Washington Conference ended with a “Joint Statement” by the participants of their unanimity of purpose and eternal dedication to the high principles of the United Nations causes. This was followed by a “Communique.”

Draft Joint Statement by President Roosevelt and Prime MinisterChurchill

Washington, [May 25,1943]

JOINT STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRIME MINISTER

The complete destruction of the Nazi AFRICA KORPS and their Italian allies in North Africa completed one phase of the military decisions made at Casablanca. Progress on other operations, determined at that time, is proceeding satisfactorily.

Aggressive warfare, however, requires a constant implementation of strategy, based upon military events. Further operations, in addition to those determined upon at Casablanca, must be set afoot. Therefore, the President and the Prime Minister decided to meet again with their Chiefs of Staff.

They have agreed on further steps to be taken in the overall planning of a global war. The operations which have been approved include every theatre of war all over the world.

There has been a complete meeting of minds on:

(a) The war in the Pacific from the Aleutians toAustralia.

(b) The war in China and Southern Asia.

(c) The situation in the Middle East.

(d) The war in the Mediterranean.

(e) The war at sea in the North and South Atlantic.

(f) The war in Western Europe.

(g) The war in Eastern Europe — the Russian-Germanfront.

Action in all these theatres is inter-related in regard to shipping, air power and the command of the seas by our navies.

The war at this time stands far better than when the President, the Prime Minister and the Combined Chiefs of Staff met at Casablanca.

Our unrelenting anti-U-boat campaign is prospering, with the result that there are far more merchant ships available than had been anticipated. The triumphs of the Russian Army have inflicted shattering blows upon the German forces. Heroic China still stands firm. The weight and intensity of the Allied air offensive grows continually.

The vast production of munitions assures to the United Nations the weapons with which to destroy the enemy.

However the Combined Chiefs of Staff remain convinced that all plans must be based on a complete military victory without counting on any possibility of the enemy’s internal collapse.

The President and the Prime Minister also examined with the Chiefs of Staff the forms of temporary civil annd military organizations to be set up when the Nazi, Fascist or Japanese occupied territories are freed.

The fullest possible contacts have been maintained with Marshal Stalin and the Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek, to whom the final reports have been submitted.

(Foreign Relations of the United States, The Conferences at Washington and Quebec 1943, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1970, pp. 375-76).

PROPOSED COMMUNIQUE

Draft Joint Statement by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill

[WASHINGTON, May 25, 1943]

There has been a complete meeting of minds on

A. The war in the Pacific from the Aleutians to Australia

B. The war in China — southern Asia

C. War in the Near East

D. War in all parts of the Mediterranean

E. War in the Atlantic N. — South

All related to each other in reagard to transportation.

After succesful completion of N. African campaign one phase of the Casablanca plans was completed and the next phase was initiated.

The need of a further staff conference was therefore clear in order to take up further steps. Ant the C. S. of S. has agred on further steps in the overall planning.

It is important to state that these further steps include every theatre of the war.

This phase of the conduct of war affairs [is] in a more satisfactory condition than when the C. C. of S. met in Casablanca.

This integrated with anti submarine campaign which is showing greater success last month.

The Pres, the Prime Minister and the staffs also discussed in greater detail the temporary civil-military organization to bea lput into effect when and as Nazi, Fascist or Jap occupied territories are freed. (pp. 373-4)

VIII. THE FIRST QUEBEC CONFERENCE, “QUADRANT” (August 17-24, 1943)

“Quadrant” was the code name for the First Quebec Conference. It was Roosevelt’s fourth attempt to coax Stalin into a face-to-face meeting with him, if possible in the New World. (Hull, Memoires, II, p. 1252). Stalin’s reason for not attending was the pressing needs of and his preoccupation with the German advances into Russia.

At this time, things were going well, indeed, for the western United Nations allies. North Africa had been swept clean of the Afrika Korps and Italy had been invaded and was believed on the verge of surrendering. The Wehrmacht has suffered a grevious defeat at Stalingrad but was nevertheless still capable of defeating a Russian army which might be poorly led, supplied or fed. For this and probably other reasons too, Stalin refused to attend the conference or probably any conference until he could attend as a victorious leader as, he was certain, his confreres would do in Quebec.

We may safely assume that Roosevelt’s reason for attempting to bring the three leaders of the tripartite powers together was to personally assure Stalin of the lengths to which the United States would go in assisting Russia and assuring a German defeat. In this projected meeting, as at Tehran later, he wanted to show Stalin that he, Roosevelt, regarded Russia, not England as the “partner apparent” in the coming post-war world, and with this concept firmly in the mind of the master of the Supreme Soviet, he wished to usher in an era of unlimited “solidarity” between himself and Stalin which the British and French must of necessity follow. By not attending “Quadrant,” Stalin delayed the revelation of this situation some four months. He attended Tehran with all the honor and prestige due a caesar for having defeated the German Wehrmacht with the immense quantities of United States weaponry and supplies at Stalingrad.

What Roosevelt did not know was that during the times which tried Russia’s ability to remain in the war against Germany, Stalin had made a secret peace offer to Hitler without Roosevelt’s knowledge. At the time, the war was going well for Germany, and Hitler, with undying enmity for Stalin and communism, decided why should he give up anything when he had every reason to believe that with the conquest of Stalingrad and the north-south rail supply from Murmansk and the occupation of the staging area south-east of Stalingrad (supplied by the trans-Iranian Railway), everything would have to be surrendered to him shortly anyway.

This may have been folly as we see it today, but if he had treated with Stalin, there is no guarantee Stalin would have honored this treaty of peace any more than he did the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty of 1939. (See: Der Eisbrecher,) Had Roosevelt been aware of Stalin’s move, it is certain he would not have been so magnanimous in choosing Stalin over England as the future partner designate of the U.S. (But on the otherhand, Roosevevlt was rapidly running out of possible dependable “peace-loving” allies with whom he could proclaim “solidarity” among the democracies, unanimity of purpose in the world community of nations, etc. and invite nations of less importance to join in an accomplished fact. Even Chiang Kai-Shek would later threaten to treat with the Japanese because of Roosevelt’s refusal to give the asiatic war a higher priority. France had surrendered to his blood enemy and had collaborated seemingly without difficulty. Who was left? ( Cuba? Nicaragua? Panama?)

By any measure, the First Quebec Conference, QUADRANT, was a big conference as well as a very important conference. It was attended by all of the “big guns” of the western “Big Two” United Nations alliance, plus a few satellites. As can be seen from the official record (FR., The Conferences at Washington and Quebec 1943, pp. 391-848) a great amount of time was spent in preparation for the lengthy meeting.

The “QUADRANT” Conference was split into two parts. Part I was at the Chateau Frontenac. Part II, which followed the news of the impending surrender of Italy took place in Washington coupled with further discussions at Hyde Park, New York (Sept. 12, 1943).

The Attendees and participants of Part I of “QUADRANT” were as follows:

Attendees and Participants in the First Quebec (“QUADRANT,” Part I) Conference

U.S.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Eleanor Roosevelt

Harry L. Hopkins

W. Averell Harriman

Stephen T. Early

Miss Grace G. Tully

Secretary of State Cordell Hull

James Clement Dunn

Ray Atherton

Cecil W. Gray

Secretary of Navy Frank Knox

Admiral William D. Leahy

Gen. George C. Marshall

Adm. Ernest J. King

Gen. Henry H. Arnold

Lt. Gen. Brehon B. Somervell

Vice Adm. Russel Willson

Maj. Gen. Ray W. Barker

Maj. Gen. Thomas T. Handy

Maj. Gen. Mujir S. Fairchild

Maj. Gen. Lowell W. Rooks

Brig. Gen. Lawrence S. Kuter

Brig. Gen. Albert C. Wedemeyer

Rear Adm. Charles M. Cooke

Rear Adm. Oscar C. Badger

Rear Adm. Wilson Brown

Rear Adm. Ross T. McIntire

Commander Victor D. Long

Commander William L. Freseman

U. K.

Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill

Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden

Sir Alexander Cadogan

Lord Leathers

Gladwyn Jebb

John Desmond Bernal

Minister of Information Brendan Bracken

Mrs. Winston Churchill

Subaltern Mary Churchill

Gen. Sir Alan Brooke

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Dudley Pound

Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Portal

Field Marshal Sir John Dill

Admiral Sir Percy Noble

Vice Adm. Lord Louis Montbatten

Air Marshal Sir William Welsh

Lt. Gen. Sir Hastings Ismay

Lt. Gen. Gordon Nevil Macready

Lt. Gen. Sir Thomas Riddell-Webster

Maj. Gen. J. F. M. Whiteley

Brigadier W. Porter

Brigadier Minden W. M. McCleod

Brigadier K. G. MacLean

Brigadier Orde C. Wingate

Brigadier John Kirkland McNair

Air Commadore P. Warburton

Air Commadore R. M. Foster

Air Commadore William Elliot

Wing Commander Guy Penrose Gibson

Capt. Anthony Wass Buzzard

Capt. Thomas Marcus Brownrigg

Capt. Charles E. Lambe

Capt. Humphrey Douglas Tollemache

Canada

Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King

Under Secretary of State Norman Robertson

Lt. Gen. Kenneth Stuart

China

Foreign Minister Dr. Tse Vun Soong

Maj. Gen. Chu Shih-ming

The subjects discussed at “QUADRANT,” Part I were diverse, indeed, as had been the volume of documentation in preparation for the conference. The many and varied subjects discussed, often in detail, which are contained in the “Proceedings of the Conference” (pp. 849-967) and in the “Documents and Supplemental Papers” (pp. 968-1172) are obviously too lengthy to summarize here. Reference to the book itsself is essential if one is to master the mass of topics discussed at the Conference.

Atomic energy research was touched upon with no mention of the atom bomb or the Oak Ridge, Tennessee, installation. Plans were already underway for postwar cooperation with England.

The many aspects of the European War were discussed. This included conduct of the war, German fortifications on the shores of France, synthetic (artificial) harbors, bombing of Germany, “Open” cities, Rome as an “open” city, unconditional surrender of Germany, supplies to Polish guerrillas (only), U-boat war, postwar Germany, German territorial changes (pp. 730-761) and eventual unity or partition (pp. 761-788, 927), invasion of Europe in spring of 1944 (“OVERLORD”), defeat of Axis by fall of 1944, Luftwaffe, Possible use by Germans of Gas against Italians, more supplies to Russia to “kill more Germans,” possible attacks by Germans against U.S. territory, bases in Ireland and the (Portugese) Azores, etc.

The policy of the western United Nations toward each of the European nations was reviewed. Special attention was given to Italy which they expected to crumble momentarily, leaving GErmany in a bad military position. Conditions for Italy’s surrender were considered (912, 1161-1169, 1173-1196). Italy was to be offered peace if they would get rid of Mussolini and his Fascists (pp. 516-32, 561, 588, 592, 601-609). The draft instrument of surrender was considered. The Italian fleet was to be treated with “respect” when it surrendered, and Italy was to be regarded as a “future ally” (presumably as any nation which has fought honorably, nobly and heroically). The discussion of whether Italy would hold on to the territory won as a result of its World War I help to the same powers was left until later. Italian “Reconstruction” was discussed

Other European nations were also considered with a view to getting them into the war against Germany either officially or as “anti-German neutrals.” Polish forces were discussed, and the recognition and arming of French forces was discussed.

Guerrilla forces in German-occupied countries and their supply by the United Nations was discussed. Two areas where this was to be particularly important was in the Balkans and in Sardinia where the United States O. S. S. and the British S. O. E. would henceforth operate in conjunction.

Stalin stipulated that the Curzon Line as Russia’s western boundary was regarded as “the main question for us in the war.” Britain (Anthony Eden) thereupon proposed that Poland be “compensated” with Danzig, East Prussia and Upper Silesia. Here then, the official seeds of the “Oder-Neisse” were sown to Germany’s detriment. Eden recognized that Poland, although they would glady accept the “benevolence” in the west, still wanted the ancient lands in the east containing Lwow (Lemberg) if not the entire Ukraine, still longing for a land extending “from sea to sea.” He thereupon suggested that Poland be convinced of the desireability of the “trade” by concerted British and United States action. Otherwise he saw no solution to Soviet-Polish difficulties (pp.1113-1116).

Other subjects discussed which were near and dear to the heart of Franklin D. Roosevelt were:

The initiation of an official United Nations propaganda action (963, 1097-1098, 1202, 1313-1317). Here, Gen.Marshall warned that once a story had been released, itmust thereafter be supported to the bitter end.

A Palestine Statement (p. 674-679, 932, 1116)

“Dependent Peoples”- Refugees (p. 926, 1043

“War Criminals” (p. 504-506, 1052, 1120)

Postwar World Organization (pp. 681-730)

Perhaps in accord with the above intention to begin active propaganda dissemination, perhaps at the wish of President Roosevelt, or for whatever reason Mr. Alexander Loudon, Ambasador of the Netherlands to Washington and Mr. Eelco van Kleffens, Netherland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested the Conference make a declaration of German crimes in Poland. Stories of such crimes had been rampant since the beginning of the war, but in most cases, there had been reason to doubt their authenticity, and there had always been stringent protests from the German Government that they were completely false and devised as had been those charges of the Bryce Committee in World War I.

In addition, the plans for the Pacific/Far East war against Japan was discussed.

Nevertheless, as a sign of what was yet to come, the Conference, had few attendes who were legally competent to decide upon the authenticity of such a charge or who had the moral courage to refuse such a possible propaganda windfall. From the list of such attendees, they probably all acceded to this request, and the following document was the result. It would stand as a characteristic and necessary landmark for every succeeding United Nations war council and as the official policy of the entire United Nations itself, dominated as it was by the United States.

DECLARATION ON GERMAN CRIMES IN POLAND

Trustworthy information has reached the United States Government regarding the crimes committed by the German invaders against the population of Poland. Since the autumn of 1942 a belt of territory extending from the province of Bialystok southwards along the line of the River Bug hss been systematically emptied of its inhabitants. In July 1943 these measures were extended to practically the whole of the province of Lublin, where hundreds of thousands of persons have been deported from their homes or exterminated.

These measures are being ccarried out with the utmost brutality. Many of the victims are killed on the spot. The rest are segregated. Men from fourteen to fifty are taken away to work for Germany Some children are killed on the spot, others are separated fromtheir parents and either sent to Germany to be brought up as Germans or sold to German settlers or despatched with women and old men to concentnration camps, where they are now being systematically put to death in gas chambers.

The United States Government reaffirms its resolve topunish the instigators and actual perpetrators of these crimes. It further declares that, so long as such atrocities continue to be committed by the representatives and in the name of Germany, they must be taken into account against the time of the final settlement with Germany. Meanwhile the war against Germany will be prosecuted with the utmost vigor until the barbarous Hitlerite tyranny has been finally overthrown.

(Foreign Relations of the United States — The Conferences at Washington and Quebec 1943, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1970, p. 1052-1053 & 1120)

The foregoing document has all the ring of honesty and authenticity as the documents, “Blue Print For Extermination” which was hand-delivered to the White House by Rabbi Stephen S. Wise and his Pan-Jewish delegation on December 8, 1942 as well as the subsequent declarations of Sumner Welles, Maxime Litvinoff and Anthony Eden in the name of eleven allied United Nations (“11 ALLIES CONDEMN NAZI WAR ON JEWS,” N. Y. Times, Dec. 18, 1942, p. 1); the declaration of policy by the POLITICAL WARFARE EXECUTIVE CENTRAL DIRECTIVE, “EXTERMINATION OF THE JEWS,” Dec. 17, 1942; H. Wickam Steed’s “An Unimaginable Human Tragedy,” published in The Listener, published December 24, 1942 and the BBC broadcast of the Home News, Sunday, 1:00 PM., December 20, 1942.

Most, if not all, of these sources owed most, if not all, their cause for activity to the unilateral decision of Under-Secretary of State Sumner Welles, probably with the full knowledge and consent of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to accept a mass of affidavits of high moral character and honesty of Professor Paul Guggenheim, Prof. Carl Burckhardt, et al., the Swiss “round robin” purveyors of the Agudist (“Orthodox”) “Greuelmaerchen” (Finger, Seymour Maxwell, ed., American Jewry During The Holocaust,(“Orthodox Ends, Unorthodox Means,” (David H. Kranzler), March 1984, Appendix 4-3, p. 4. & Morse, Arthur D., While Six Million Died, A Chronicle of American Apathy, Random House, N. Y. pp. 10-37) ground out by the Agudist Sternbach adn other propaganda mills. In Geneva, these horror tails were seized upon by Dr. Gerhart Riegner of “RELICO,” himself a “refugee” (in collaboration with Alfred Silberstein), and passed on to his chief, rabbi Stephen S. Wise in the U.S. and Wise’s counterpart in London, M. P. Sidney Silberstein. From these two locations, they exercised their pressure upon the two western United Nations to Germany’s continual detriment. These “key” documents may have been interesting recommendations and references of high moral character and truthfulness, but they were in no way valid testimony of anything which they had seen or observed. It was all third or fourth-hand hearsay rumors at the best!

Apparently the “propaganda” activity discussed by the Combined Chiefs of Staff who were cautioned by General Marshall had already been going on for at least eight months. This would explain, of course, the participation in the conference of Elmer Davis (U.S. Chief of the Office of War Information and Mr. Brendan Bracken, British Minister of Information ( See postwar NYT article!)

But regardless of these conjectures, it is certain that from this point onward, with no more evidence than they had at this moment in hand, the charges of mass murder against the Germans, lumped into what is often refered to as the “holocaust” charges, would constitute an essential, integral part of United Nations dogma. And the sparcity of evidence did not diminish as the war continued, but this did not silence those who originated and used it so flagrantly and so successfully. As was also in the case of the Katyn forest massacre of the Polish Officer Corps capture by Marshal Timoshenko’s troops, any demand for proof of the wild accusations was immediately seized upon by the supporters, perpetrators and disseminators of the stories as a certain sign of their antagonist’s support of “German” propaganda with all the unfortunate consequences and dangers existing in a bitter war in wartime. Wartime is a dangerous time for anyone to have his patriotism called into question by even the most prejudiced adversary.

As was the case with most Roosevelt “productions,” this part of the Conference ended with a “play” to the people through the press, again giving them a story he wished them to believe and no more.

COMMUNIQUE

[Quebec, August 24, 1943]

The Anglo-American War Conference which opened at Quebec on the 11th of August, under the hospitable auspices of the Canadian Government, has now concluded its work.

The whole field of world operations has been surveyed in the light of the many gratifying events wh;ich have taken place since the meeting of the President and the Prime Minister in Washington at the end of May, and the necessary decisions have been taken to provide for the forward action of the Fleets, Armies and Air Forces of the two nations. Considering that these forces are intermingled in continuous action aghainst the enemy in severral quarters of the globe, it is indispensable that entire unity of aim and method should be maintained at the summit of the war direction.

Further conferences will be needed, probabaly at shorter intervals than before, as the war effort of the United STates and British Commonwealth and Empire against the enemy spreads and deepens. It would not be helpful to the fighting troops to make any announcements of the decisions which ahve been reached. These can only emerge in action.

It may however be stated that the military discussions fo the Chiefs of Staff turned very largely upon the war against Japan and the bringing of effective aid to China. Mr. T. V. Soong, representing the Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek, was a party to the discussions. In this field, as in the European, the President and the Prime Minister were able to receive and approve the unanimous recommendatiions of the Combined Chiefs of Staff. Agreement was also reached upon the political data underlying or arising out of the military operations.

It was resolved to hold another Conference before the end of the year between the British and American authorities, in addition to any tripartite meeting which it may be possible to arrange with Soviet Russia. Full reports of the decisions so far as they affect the war against Germany and Italy will be furnished to the Soviet Government.

[Consideration has been given during the conference to the question of relations with the French Committee of Liberation, and it is understood that an announcement by a number of governments will be made in the latter part of the week.]

(Foreign Relations of the United States — The Conferences at Washington and Quebec 1943, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1970, pp. 1157-1158).

With the issuance of the “Communique,” the Conference closed in Quebec. But a large portion of the attendees reassembled in Washington for what was to be the second part of the Conference. It is not known if this part of the Conference had been planned originally or if it came about as a result of the surrender of the Italian Army to the western United Nations. At any rate, Part 2 of the “QUADRANT” Conference began on September 1, 1943 and continued until Sept 11, 1943 with a final meeting at Roosevelt’s Hyde Park Mansion on September 12, 1943. During this part of the Conference, Prime Minister Churchill was a guest of the Roosevelts, living at the White House.

Those who attended Part 2 of the “QUADRANT” Conference are as follows:

Attendees and Participants in the First Quebec (“QUADRANT”)/Washington Conference

U.S.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Harry L. Hopkins

W. Averell Harriman

Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson

Bernard Baruch

Elmer Davis (Office of War Information)

Lewis W. Douglas

Adm. William D. Leahy

Gen. George C. Marshall

Admiral Ernest J. King

Gen. Henry H. Arnold

Adm. John S. McCain

Lt. Gen. Stanley D. Emblick

Lt. Gen. Joseph T. McNarney

Vice Adm. Russel Willson

Vice Adm. Frederick J. Horne

Vice Adm. John S. McCain

Maj. Gen. Barney M. Giles

Maj. Gen. Muir S. Fairchild

Brig. Gen. John E. Hull

Brig. Gen. Walter A. Wood, Jr.

Brig. Gen. Laurence Kuter

Brig. Gen. P. H. Tansey

Brig. Gen. Frank A. Heileman

Rear Adm. Charles M. Cooke

Rear Adm. Oscar C. Badger

Rear Adm. Ben Moreel

Rear Adm. Wilson Brown

Col. Ccclarence R. Peck

Col. Walter E. Todd

Col. Jacob E. Smart

Col. Charles R. Bathurst

Col. V. V. Taylor

Col. T. W. Hammond, Jr.

Col. James H. Stratton

Col. Frank N. Roberts

Col. Emmett O’Donnell

Col. Adrian Williamson

Col. Thomas J. Betts

Cmdr. William L. Freseman

Cmdr. C. W. McClusky

Capt. Frank L. Lowe, USN

Maj. William W. Chapman, Jr.

U. K.

Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill

Sir Alexander Cadogan

John Desmond Bernal

Brendan Bracken (Minister of Information)

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Dudley Pound

Lt. Gen. Sir Hastings Ismay

Air Marshal Sir William Welsh

Admiral Sir Percy Noble

Field Marshal Sir John Dill

Lt. Gen. Gordon Nevil Macready

Brigadier John Kirkland NcNair

Brigadier Sir Harold Wernher

Brigadier Bruce White

Col. John Jestyn Llewellin

Commodore Henry W. U. McCall

Air Commodore P. Warburton

Commander H. B. C. Gill

Lt. Commander D. A. Grant, R.N.V.R.

CHINA

Foreign Minister Dr. Tse Vun Soong

NETHERLANDS

Maj. Gen. A. Q. H. Dijxhoorn, R.N.A.

Rear Adm. G. W. Stoeve, R.N.N.

The earlier considerations were now restudied in light of the Italian surrender of the western United Nations and Italy’s acceptance by them as an “ally” (FR. pp. 1216, 1222-1224, 1225- 1226, 1257-1259, 1267-1268, 1285-1290).

Other considerations were artificial harbors for combined operations (pp. 1205 & 1243-5), U.S. massive retaliation in kind if Germans use gas against Italians (pp. 1206. 1250 & 1254), supplies for Balkan guerrillas (p. 1215), comment on Hitler’s Sept. 10, 1943 speech (p. 1234), equipping allies, liberated forces and friendly neutrals (p. 1247), “dependent peoples,” propaganda (pp. 1202, 1313-1317), etc.

A final consideration was the release and publication of the Minutes of the meetings of the “Council of Four” at the Paris Peaace Cohference of 1919 (p. 1334-5). This is a fitting tribute to President Wilson and the degree of his dedication to “open covenants, openly arrived at.” Apparently the main consideration was that all the participants must be dead before the people they were pledged to serve were allowed to know of their secret deliberations.

All in all, Part 2 of the “QUADRANT” Conference ended on a jubilant note. The western United Nations had succeeded in prying loose from Germany its single European ally which, regardless of its ability, in an attempt to save its own skin, would now, as it had in World War I, now turn its guns upon its former ally in anger, in the hope of territorial gain. Germany now stood before a threatened invasion in western France and had in addition, a battle to fight in Russia, in the Balkans against guerrillas, and in Italy, a bitter fight against its former ally.

IX. MOSCOW FOREIGN MINISTERS’ CONFERENCE — “MOSCOW DECLARATION” — Oct. 19-Nov. 1, 1943

An attempt to remove some of the “solidarity” difficulties mentioned above at the First Quebec Conference was made by calling the “Moscow Foreign Minister’s Conference.” Stalin agreed to call this conference on August 24, 1943, the last day of the First Quebec (“Quadrant”) Conference. In many ways, the Moscow Foreign Ministers’ Conference was a continuation of the Quebec “exercise” but on a broader base of United Nations “solidarity.” This time, the top three United Nations, the “Three Great Powers,” were represented, in the capital of the nation designated by the United States Government to be the second most powerful nation on earth after Germany was crushed. And it may be that it was Stalin’s desire for this to be openly recognized by the other United Nations participants which was the cause for his reluctance to participate in a conference at a small provincial city in a dying British Empire which he would soon replace as a world power.

The mass of the public information about the Moscow Conference, is as is the case with many if not most of the conferences concerning the war, previous to, during, and after, are contained in the “communiques” released to the United Nations press. These were intended to have the desired effect upon the peoples allegedly supporting this coalition, namely generate unqualified support by these peoples for the Governments, their leaders and the “objectives” and plans put forth and discussed by their leaders in the Conferences as well as generate unqualified condemnation of the enemies of the above in every aspect of their daily lives. As such, these “communiques” were nothing more than propaganda documents designed to denegrate the enemy or to decimate him as surely as were the thousands of airplanes, tanks, machine guns,, rifles, etc. produced so profusely by the United States for the entire United Nations coalition. In view of the many “secret protocols,” justified as being essential in wartime, of many of these conferences, it is obvious that the deception of their own peoples was often also an important part of the conferences. The idea of “Open covenants, openly arrived at” was furtherest from the minds of these negotiators.

These “communiques” were usually issued immediately after the “Conference.” There are indications that some or parts of these “communiques” were written even before the conference itself. The texts and minutes of the Conferences were often published much later if at all. Some of what was written was written “from memory” as the result of Congression Investigations. Often, “secret protocols” were signed during the conferences which do not show up either in the “communiques” or in published minutes of the conference published later. Often “gentlemen’s agreements” between principles were made of which there is no record at all. This was particularly the case at Yalta where Roosevelt apparently agreed to give Stalin a great deal more than is recorded. With Roosevelt’s intervining death, this resulted in numerous awkward, irritating events when Stalin attempted to “collect” that which he concluded had been promised him by Roosevelt but now was being adamantly being refused him by a former ally.

With a full cargo of (three) “Foreign Ministers” aboard which represented the three leading principles of the United Nations who always felt themselves empowered to make decisions in the names of all the remaining United Nations which were militarily and economically beholden to them, they began anew to discuss many of the important points which had been discussed earlier at “Quadrant.” The “communique” lists these deliberations under five headings:

Section (a) contains a summary of the topics and decisions reached at this conference which were revealed in the “communique.” This section states that the Foreign ministers of the three leaders of the United Nations coalition had met in Moscow with their military advisers to achieve the closest possible military cooperation between themselves, discuss ffuture military operations, and to discuss post-war economic and social welfare of their peoples. We are inform that the decisions reached were “unanimous” and that the Chinese (Chiang Kai-Shek) Government had joined in its support of the Declarations of the Conference. Part of this agreement was toinclude a system of post-war cooperation and security to include “all other peace-loving nations, great and small…”

To assist in solving European problems as the arose during the war, an European Advisory Commission was to be set up in London representing the three major United Nations but speaking for all other United Nations in unquestioned “solidarity.”

Provisions for further meetings of the “Tripartite” United Nations “elite” would be continued. An Advisory Council would be created for matters relating to Italy, composed of the tripartite powers and the French Committee of National Liberation. Future representation on this council of Greece and Yugoslavia was also contemplated.

Democracy, obviously of the type satisfactory to the tripartite powers was to be “reestablished” in Italy and Austria, but Austria was to be judged by the degree of effort it expended in freeing itsself from German domination.

This section concludes with a dire warning to all Germans and their allies, signed by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin that the United Nations “most assuredly…will pursue them to the uttermost ends of the earth and will deliver them to their accusers (emphasis mine) in order that justice may be done.”

Here again the tripartite leaders were speaking in the names of not only themselves but also in the names of the “thirty-three United Nations who had been no more consulted on these issues than France or for that matter China. It further demonstrated Roosevelt’s flair to attempt to demonstrate at least a show of universal “solidarity” or “unanimity” to support his own personal aims. Quite generally, exactly what had been demanded by Roosevelt that his allies and friends accept “secret protocols” which hea had negotiated without conditions or reservations to show “solidarity” did not become apparent to those who were expected to support them until many months if not years later.

(Hull, Memoires, I, p. 1274) — Cordell Hull, Anthony Eden, V. M. Molotov plus Chinese (participation objected to by Molotov). Treatment of Germany after war (1284-5 — Hull presents his plan) & “War Criminals,” “Unconditional Surrender.” “Moscow Declaration,” Oct. 30, 1943

Many “Secret Protocols” at this conference.

(Hull present, Telford Taylor, Vol. I. p. VIII)

IN APPENDIX!

Declaration of German Atrocities, November 1, 1943

THE UNITED KINGDOM, the United States and the Soviet Union have received from many quarters evidence of atrocities, massacres and cold-blooded mass executions which are being perpetrated by the Hitlerite forces in the many countries they have overrun and from which they are now being steadily expelled. The brutalities of Hitlerite domination are no new thing and all the peoples or territories in their grip have suffered from the worst form of government by terror. What is new is that many of these territories are now being redeemed by the advancing armies of the liberating Powers and that in their despiration, the recoiling Hitlerites Huns are redoubling their ruthless cruelties. This is now evidenced with particular clearness by monsterous crimes of the Hitlerites on the territory of the Soviet Union which is being liberated from the Hitlerites, and on French and Italian territory.

Accordingly, the aforesaid three allied Powers, speaking in the interests of the thirty-two [thirty-three] United Nations, hereby solemnly declare and give full warning of their declaration as follows:

At the time of the granting of any armistice to any government which bay be set up in Germany, those German officers and men and members of the Nazi party who have been responsible for, or have taken a consenting part in above atrocities, massacres, and executions, will be sent back to the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of these liberated countries and of the free governments which will be created therein. Lists will be compiled in all possible detail from all these countries having regard especially to the invaded parts of the Soviet Union, to Poland and Czechoslovakia, to Yugoslavia and Greece, including Crete and other islands, to Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France and Italy.

Thus the Germans who take part in wholesale shootings of Italian officers or in the execution of French, Dutch, Belgian, or Norwegian hostages or of Cretan peasants,s of who have shared in the slaughters inflicted on the people of Poland or in territories of the Soviet Union which are now being swept clear of the enemy, will know that they will be brought back to the scene of their crimes and judged on the spot by the peoples whom they have outraged. Let those who have hitherto not imbrued their hands with innocent blood beware lest they join the ranks of the guilty, for most assuredly the three allied Powers will pursue them to the uttermost ends of the earth and will deliver them to their accusers in order that justice may be done.

To achieve these ends and others presumably, the Moscow Foreign Ministers Conference had a number of “secret protocols” mentioned (but not reproduced in the “Toward the Peace Documents” issued by the U.S. State Department [publication 2298, Nov. 6, 1943]).

The above declaration is without prejudice to the case of the major criminals, whose offences have no particular geographical localisation and who will be punished by the joint decision of the Governments of the Allies.

(Signed)

Roosevelt

Churchill

Stalin

EXECUTIVE ORDER 9547

PROVIDING FOR REPRESENTATION OF THE UNITED STATES IN PREPARING AND PROSECUTING CHARGES OF ATROCITIES AND WAR CRIIMES AGINST THE LEADERS OF THE EUROPEAN AXIS POWERS AND THEIR PRINCIPAL AGENTS AND ACCESSORIES

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, under the Constitution and statutes of the United States, it is ordered as follows:

1. Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson is hereby designated to act as the Representative of the United States and as its Chief of Counsel in preparing and prosecuting charges of atrocities and war crimes against such of the leaders of the European Axis powers and their principal agents and accessories as the United States may agree with any of the United Nations to bring to trial before an international military tribunal. He shall serve without additional compensation but shall receive such allowance for expenses as may be authorized by the President.

2. The Representative named herein is authorized to select and recommend to the President or to the head of any executive department, independent establishment, or other federal agaency necessary personnel to assist in the performance of his duties hereunder and to employ such personnel and make such expenditures, within the limits of appropriations now or heareafter available for the purpose, as Representative nemed herein may deem necessary to accomplish the purposes of this order, and may make available, assign, or detail for duty with the Representative named herein such members of the armed forces and other personnel as may be requested for such purposes.

3. The Representative named herein is authorized to cooperate with, and receive the assistance of, any foreign Government to the extent deemed necessary by him to accomplish this order.

Harry S. Truman

The White House

May 2, 1945

(F. R. Doc. 45-7256; Filed, May 3, 1945; 10;57 a. m.)

X. THE FIRST CAIRO (EGYPT) CONFERENCE, ““SEXTANT” (Nov. 22 -26, 1943)

Those listed as taking part in the proceedings of the First Cairo Conference are as follows:

ATTENDEES AND PARTICIPANTS AT THE FIRST CAIRO, EGYPT, CONFERENCE

U.S.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Harry L. Hopkins

Ambassador W. Averell Harriman

Assist. Sec. of War John Jay McCloy

Ambassador John G. Winant

Ambasador Lawrence A. Steinhardt

Minister Alexander C. Kirk

Charles E. Bohlen

Robert Hopkins

Admiral William D. Leahy

General George C. Marshall

Admiral Ernest J. King

General Henry H. Arnold

General Dwight D.Eisenhower

Lt. Gen. Brehon B. Somervell

Lt. Gen. Josepyh W. Stilwell

Vice Admiral Russel Willson

Maj. Gen. Thomas T. Hardy

Maj. Gen. Muir S. Fairchild

Maj. Gen. George E. Stratemeyer

Maj. Gen. Raymond A. Wheeler

Maj. Gen. Claire L. Chennault

Maj. Gen. Albert C. Wedemeyer

Maj. Gen. Edwin M. Watson

Rear Admiral Charles M. Cooke, Jr.

Rear Admiral Bernhard H. Bieri

Rear Admiral Oscar C. Badger

Rear Admiral Ross T. McIntyre

Brig. Gen. Haywood S. Hansell, Jr.

Brig. Gen. Lawrence S. Kuter

Brig. Gen. Patrick H. Tansey

Col. Frank N. Roberts

Col. Emmett O’Donnell, Jr.

Col. William W. Bessell, Jr.

Col. Joseph Smith

Col. Reuben E. Jenkins

Col. Elliott Roosevelt

Commander Victor D. Long

Maj. William W. Chapman

Major John Boettiger

Capt. Austin K. Doyle

Capt. Forest B. Royal

Capt. William L. Freseman

Capt. Edmond W. Burrough, USN

United Kingdom

Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill

Lord Leathers (Frederick James)

Lord Moran (Charles McMoran Wilson)

Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden

Sir Alexander Cadogan

Gladwyn Jebb

John Miller Martin

Mrs. Sarah Churchill Oliver

General Sir Alan Brooke

Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Portal

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Andrew B. Cunningham

Field Marshal Sir John Dill

Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder

Lt. Gen. Sir Hastings Ismay

Admiral Lord Louis Montbatten

Vice Admiral Sir Algernon V. Willis

Gen. Sir Thomas Riddell-Webster

Lt. Gen. Adrian Carton de Wiart

Maj. Gen. Robert Edward Laycock

Maj. Gen. J. F. M. Whiteley

Maj. Gen. Richard George Lewis

Brigadier Cecil Stanway Sugden

Brigadier John Kirkland McNair

Brigadier Leslie Chasemore Hollis

Brigadier E. H. W. Cobb

Brigadier Anton Head

Brigadier Authur Terrence de Rhe-Philipe

Col. J. H. Lascelles

Lt. Col. W. A. C. H. Dobson

Maj. Desmond John Falkiner Morton

Capt. Charles E. Lambe, RN

Capt. M. L. Power

China

Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek

Madam Chiang Kai-shek (May-ling Soong)

Dr. Wang Chung-hui

Gen. Shang Chen

Lt. Gen. Lin Sen

Lt. Gen. Chou Cheh-jou

Lt. Gen. Joseph W. Stilwell

Vice Admiral Yang Hsuan-ch’eng

Maj. Gen. Chu Shih-ming

Maj. Gen. Claire L. Chennault

Maj. Gen. George E. Stratemeyer

Brig. Gen. Frank D. Merrill

Col. Liu Wei

USSSR

Commissar Andrey Yanuaryevich Vyshinsky

The first conference at Cairo, Egypt, (Nov. 22 — 26, 1943) attended by President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek was originally intended (by Churchill) to have been a meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill in which the two westerm United Nations would present a common front to Stalin at the approaching meeting of the three at Tehran, Iran. (Loewenheim, F. L. et al., Roosevelt and Churchill, E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., N. Y., pp. 11 & 12). Churchill had hoped to cement firmly the “special friendship” between the U.S. and Britain which he had always taken for granted had existed between the two “English-speaking” governments.

Although Churchill enjoyed refering to himself as Roosevelt’s “lieutenant,” perhaps “corporal” or “PFC” had become more the case, with Stalin as the actual second man of importance in Roosevelt’s idea of the post-war world. Roosevelt demured at the arrangement suggested by Churchill but suggested that the meeting should be expanded to include Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek plus some Russian representatives. He thereby crushed Churchill’s hopes for an English-speaking “love feast” and the latter his plans disintegrate into a second rate affair in which the summoned Satraps would be priviliged to meet with the “Great President” who would consult with his councilors in the deliberations concerning the post-war world, the presence of Russian observers having been successfully opposed by Churchill.

In as much as Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and his wife were present, considerations of the conduct of the war in the Asian theater were duly considered by the Combined Chiefs of staff and their aides. Future supplies to the region and suggested military plans as well as postwar aims were discussed.

The military situation in the Mediterranean and Middle East was also discussed. Much of it depended upon the Unitd Nations pursuading Turkey to abandon its neutrality and declare war upon Germany. Already there were discussions about switching United Nations’ support from General Draza Mihailovic (supported by King Peter) to Josip Broz Tito (supported by Stalin and the British) (F.R. pp. 309-10 & 361).

Discussions of the United Nations invasion of continental Europe. “Operation Overlord,” were also undertaken by those concerned.

The conference closed with the usual “Communique.”

Revised American Draft of the Communique*

President Roosevelt, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, and Prime Minister Churchill, and their respective military leaders, have completed a conference somewhere in Africa. They issued the following joint statement:

“The several military missions have agreed upon future military operations directed against Japan from China and Southeast ASia. The plans, the details of which cannot be disclosed, provide for continuous and increasingly vigorous offensives against the Japanese. We are determined to bring unrelenting pressure against our brutal enemy by sea, land, and air. This pressure is already underway. Japan will know its power.

“We are determined that the islands in the Pacific which have been occupied by the Japanese, many of them made powerful bases contrary to Japan’s specific and definite pledge not to militarize them, will be taken from Japan forever.

“The territory that Japan has so treacherously stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria and Formosa will be freed from their clutches.

“We are mindful of the treacherous enslavement of the people of Korea by Japan, and arae determined that that country, at the proper moment after the downfall of Japan, shall become a free and independent country.

“We know full well that the defeat of Japan is going to require fierce and determined fighting. Our countries are pledged to fignt together until we have received the unconditional surrender of Japan.”

The Generalissimo was accompanied by his wife, Madam Chiang Kai-shek.

The conference was attended on behalf of the United States by Admiral William D. Leahy; General George C. Marshall; Admiral Ernest J. King; General H. H. Arnold; Lt. General B. B. Somervell; Major General Edwin M. Watson; Rear Admiral Wilson Brown; Rear Admiral Ross McIntire; Mr. Harry Hopkins; Ambassador W. Averell Harriman; Ambassador J. G. Winant; Ambassador Steinhardt; Mr. L. Douglas; Mr. J. J. McCloy.

British representatives were General Sir Alan Brooke; Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Portal; Admiral Sir A. Cunningham; Lord Leathers; Lt. General Sir Hastings Ismay.

The Chinese mission included among others, General Shang Chen; Dr. Wang Chung-hui; Vice Admiral Yang Hsuan-chen [Hsuan-ch’eng]; and Lt. General Chow [Chou] Chih-jon.

* This revised draft was dictated by Hopkins to Warrant Officer Albert M. Cornelius on the morning of November 25, 1943. See FR, The Conferences at Cairo and Teheran, pp. 402-403. The British “Press Communique varies somewhat from this version. (see p. 404.

In as much as the meeting at Tehran was only two (2) days after the Cairo Conference ended, it is obvious that with Roosevelt’s pro-Stalin stance, little of world importance would be decided at the First Conference in Cairo. That was the occasion for which the meeting at Tehran had been called.

X. THE TEHRAN CONFERENCE, “EUREKA” (Nov. 28 — Dec. 23, 1943

(Cairo; Nov. 22-26, 1943 & Malta Conferences)

It was here that the plans for a catastrophic, punative treatment of Germany after the war began to take their final form. The subsequent war conferences were in many ways discussions only of how the decisions arrived at at Tehran, and in some cases even earlier, would be carried out by the victors, to the detriment of the vanquished.

It was attended by the following:

Attendees and Participants at the Teheran Conference

U.S.

The President (F. D. Roosevelt) Sgt. Robert Hopkins, AUS. Harry L. HopkinsM/Sgt. Frank Stoner, AUS.

Ambassador Harriman M/Sgt. Horace Caldwell, AUS.

Admiral William D. Leahy, USN. Chief Cook A. Orig. USN.

General G. C. Marshall, USA. Chief Steward I. Esperancilla,

Admiral E. J. King, USN. USN.

General H. H. Arnold, USA. Chief Steward M. Floresca, Lt. General B. B. Somervell, USA. USN.

Rear Admiral Wilson Brown, USN. Chief Steward M. Calinao, USN.

Rear Admiral Ross T. McIntyre, Chief Steward P. Estrada, USN.

(MC) USN. Chief Cook C. Ordona, USN.

Rear Admiral C. H. [E.] Olsen, Mr. Russell W. Barnes

USN. (O. W. I.)

Major General E. M. Watson, USA. Corp. W. E. Cru[o]mling, USMC.

Major General J. R. Deane, USA. Chief Cook A. Javier, USN.

Major General T. T. Handy, USA. Chief Cook A. Javier, USN.

Rear Admiral C. M. Cooke, USN. Chief Cook B. Cabera, USN.

Brig. General P. J. Hurley, USA. Chief Cook M. Corpus[z], USN.

Captain W. L. Freseman, USN. Sgt. D. P. Flanagan, USMC.

Captain F. B. Royal, USN. T/3 P. J. Levington, AUS.

Colonel A. J. McFarland, USA. S/Sgt. R. Morton, AUS.

Colonel Elliott Roosevelt, AUS. [M/]Sgt. E. K. Stott, AUS.

Colonel E. O’Donnell, USA. Sgt. E. E. Bright, AUS.

Commander V. D. Long, USN. T/4 H. Gambaccini, AUS.

Lt-Colonel, Frank McCarthy, USA. Y1c E. J. Maurer, USNR.

Lt-Comdr. George A. Fox (HC), USN. Y1c E. G. Peterson, USNR.

Major DeWitt Greer, AUS. Y2c L. W. Karr, USNR.

Major George Durno, AUS. Y2c D. C. Flickinger, USNR.

Major John Henry, AUS. T/3 J. J. Lucas, AUS.

Major John Boettiger, AUS. Mr. Michael Reilly (USSS)

Captain G. E. [F] Rogers, AUS. Mr. Guy H. Spaman (USSS)

Captain H. H. Ware, AUS Mr. James J. Rowley (USSS)

Lieut. J. M. Hannon, USNR. Mr. Charles W. Fredericks

Lieut (jg) W. M. Rigdon, USN. (USSS)

Lieut (jg) R. P. Meikeljohn, USNR. Mr. Vernon Spicer (USSS)

Ships’s Clerk E. F. Block, USN. Mr. Robert Holmes (USSS)

Warrant Officer (jg) John Mr. Neil A. Shannon (USSS)

Devenney, USA. Mr. W. K. Deckard (USSS)

Mr. Charles Bohlen, (State Mr. Robert Hastings (USSS)

Dept.) Mr. Walter Haman (USSS)

Std 1/c Arthur Prettyman, USN. Mr. James M. Beary (USSS)

Mr. Gerald Behn (USSS)

Mr. Frank B. Wood (USSS)

Mr. Roy Kellerman (USSS)

(Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, The Conferences at Cairo and Tehran 1943, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1961, p. 462)

As noted in this source, the following members of the U.S. party remained in Cairo:

Warrant Officer (jg) A. M. Cornelius, USA.

Mr. H. S. Anderson (USSS)

Mr. James Griffith (USSS)

Chief Steward S. Abiba, USN.

Chief Cook L. Enrico, USN.

U. K.

Prime Minsiter Winston S. Churchill

Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden

Sir Archibald Clark Kerr

Adrian Holman

Gen. Sir Alan Brooke

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Andrew B. Cunningham

Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Portal

Field Marshal Sir John Dill

Lt. Gen. Sir Hastings Ismay

Lt. Gen. Gefford Le Quesne Martel

Brigadier Harold Redman

Maj. Arthur Birse

Capt. Hugh A. Lunghi

Capt. Randolph F. E. S. Churchill

USSR

Premier Marshal Iosef Vissarionovich Stalin

Foreign Commissar Vyacheslov Mikhailovich Molotov

Marshal Kliment Efremovich Voroshilov

Charge Mikahil Alexeyevich Maximov

Vladimir Nikolayevich Pavlov

Valentin Mikhailovich Berezhkov

Iran

Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlevi

Prime Minister Ali Soheily

Foreign Minister Mohammed Sa’ed-Maragheh’i

Minister Hosein Ala

According to their opinions at the First Cairo Conference, Sir Alan Brooke and Admiral William D. Leahy, both members of the Combined Chiefs of Staff agreed that the Tehran (“EUREKA”) Conference was “primarily a political meeting at which certain points would probably be referred to the Combined Chiefs of Staff for their advice (FR, p. 337).” As Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, the U.S. being the senior partner in all cases, this meant no more nor less than that Roosevelt would make the ultimate decisions at Teheran as to what would later be put into effect. His stance vis a vis the Germans was such that the Russians would not be expected to disagree with him.

In Roosevelt’s mind, the meeting was for him to meet Joseph (“Uncle Joe”) Stalin personally and demonstrate to him the abiding respect and friendship the President of the United States had always held for the Russian Chairman of the Council of Peoples’ Commissars of the Soviet Union. Foremost in his mind was that the two should part fully trusting each other and in each others motives. The futures of the United States and Soviet Russia would then be bound together as one to build the great postwar world governed by the two super powers with the United States perhaps a little more “super” than Russia but ever mindful of Russian ambitions, desires and needs.

Again, barely one year before the U.S. Presidential election of 1944, the information given to the public was carefully controlled by allowing them access only to that information carefully fed to the United Nations press media at that time. This consisted of fewer than three pages with three “Declarations” signed by Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill. As in the case of earlier “declarations,” these were calculated to given the United Nations, “large and small,” a feeling that there was nothing for them to fear so long as they maintained their “solidarity” with the United Nations and their present course of action. The nations which were marked for destruction, on the otherhand, were to have no respite. By day and night, their sources of strength on the land, in the sea and in the air were to come under ever-increasing, ever-more-devastating attack. Nations which had not yet chosen sides in the conflict were warned and “urged” to come “into a world family of Democratic Nations, “since no power on earth can prevent our destroying the German armies by land, their U Boats by sea, and their war plants from the air.”

This “declaration ended with the standard “ode” to “solidarity,” protestation of cordiality and resolve in common purpose so characteristic of the other instances when the tripartite powers were speaking with the authority of all the “United Nations.”

A bit more information is obtained from (c) Military Conclusions of the Tehran Conference (Published March 24, 1943).

Here we learn in five short paragraphs that the tripartite heads of state have decided to recognize the (Tito) Partisans in Yugoslavia at the expense of General Draja Mikhailovitch’s “Chetniks,” Turkey was expected to enter the war against Germany during 1943, if Bulgaria responded with war against Turkey, she would be attacked by Soviet Russia, “OPERATION OVERLORD,”

the western United Nations invasion of the continent of Europe would be launched during May 1944 in concert with an attack on southern France, if available landing craft permitted, — all to be undertaken with a Russian offensive against the Germans in the east, and a statement to the effect that a false cover plan for these actions would be given out to confuse the Germans as to the real intentions of the United Nations at the time.

In correspondence following the Tehran Conference, we learn that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had here agreed with Stalin and Chruchill that the Curzon Line would become the post-war eastern boundary between Poland and Russia. Apparently the Russian success at Stalingrad had influenced Roosevelt’s decision. (For. Rel. 1944, Vol. III, p. 1269) But in a characteristic move to maintain United Nations solidarity and with the knowledge of possible Polish opposition in an approaching United States presidential election, Roosevelt requested his two partners in infamy to not make this decision public. Later, “Honest Ave” Harriman attempted to deny that Roosevelt had intended making any such an agreement with Chruchill and Stalin, but none of his known subsequent acts support Harriman’s statement. (For. Rel., “The Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945,” p. 203)

With such rampant perfidity, it is quite easy to see why the German charges and evidence of mass murder by the Russians at Katyn (also involving Harriman!) came to naught during Roosevelt’s lifetime. The allegation that Germany was responsible for the massacre of some 15,000 Poles captured by the Russians during Polish-German hostilities was accepted without question on the basis of “judicial notice” which was taken by the unyielding appointed political jurists of the Nuernberg Tribunals. This was done even after hard evidence was presented that it was the Russians, not the Germans who had committed the bloody deed. Nevertheless, the charge was accepted by the Roosevelt Government and used regularly in the United Nations War propaganda mill. Only after the end of the war (1952), was it possible for a U.S. Congressional Select Committee, to begin to force the truth upon an unbelieving American public still hostile to Germany.

At Teheran, President Roosevelt “toasted, along with Joseph Stalin, the summary execution of “49,500” Germans.

Curiously, Iran which was invaded by the British and Russian with U.S. connivance in order to obtain and guarantee an almost unencumbered “burma road” type military supply line (“the trans-Iranian Railroad” — Caspian Sea route) from the United States factories into the heart of the Russian staging area, (south-east of Stalingrad) was to be treated as an “ally.” The trans-Iranian Railroad was an essential supply line which, in the end resulted in the rebuilding of Russian armies faster than they could be destroyed by an ever-weakening Wehrmacht. The monumental German effort at Stalingrad and its defeat, was the key factor in the deciding the outcome of battles from Stalingrad to Berlin. Iran’s “cooperation” had been obtained only by the United Nations’ invasion with the subsequent capture, deposition, and exile of the allegedly pro-German (but certainly anti-British) Iranian Shah who died in subsequent British imprisonment. The entire affair was quite reminescent of the U.S. “take-over” of Iceland after its initial invasion by the British. The present Shah recognized and supported by the United Nations was Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, the son of the former Shah, a man believed to be much more under foreign domination than his father.

The State Department book, Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, The Conferences at Cairo and Tehran, were not published until 1961. Until that time, the public had to be satisfied with what little could be gleaned from the newspapers and various sources by those who were interested in the official proceedings of the conference. The official procedings of this important conference comprised some 193 pages in the above publication, hardly capable of being covered fully for for 18 years by the three pages of “Declaration of the Three Powers” (U.S. Congress, House Committee Hearings, 83d Congress, Senate Library, Vol. 1399 [1953], card 3 of 18) plus the inevitable “Communique” of about one page. (pp.638-9 &).

Indeed, a number of important subjects were touched upon and as suspected by the Combined Chiefs of Staff at Cairo, they were to be studied and solutions presented at a later (“Yalta”) time. Some of these important topics were:

Post War Treatment of Germany and other Axis nations

(Dismemberment etc. — occupation for maybe 50 years [p. 603])

Disposal of Booty from Axis Nations by United Nations

Choice between Mikhailovic and Tito in Jugoslavia

Postwar status of French Empire

Besides these topics, agreement was made upon such things as:

Acceptance of Curzon Line as Poland’s eastern boundary

Further conduct of the world-wide war

Postwar acceptance of Communism as allowed doctrine byUnited Nations

United Nations acceptance of German responsibility forKatyn Massacre

Entry of Russia into war against Japan as UnitedNations ally after Germany’s defeat

DECLARATION OF THE THREE POWERS (Communique)

We — the President of the United States, The Prime Minister of Great Britain, and the Premier of the Soviet Union, have met these four days past, in this the capital of our ally, Iran, and have shaped and confirmed our common policy.

We express our determination that our nations shall work together in war and in the peace that will follow.

As to war — our military staffs have joined in our round table discussions, and we have concertd our plans for the destruction of the German forces. We have reached complete agreement as to the scope and timing of he operations which will be undertaken fromthe East, West and South.

The common understanding which we have reached guarantees that victory will be ours.

And as to peace — we are sure that our concord will win an enduring peace. We recognize fully the supreme ressponsibility resting upon us and all the United Nations to make a peace whichwill command the good will of the overwhelming mass of the peoples of the world, and banish the scourge and terror of war for many generations.

With our diplomatic advisors we have surveyed the problems of the future. We shall seek the cooperation and the active participation of all nations, large and small, whose peoples in heart and mind are dedicated, as are our own peoples, to the elimination of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance. We will welcome them, as they may choose to come, into a world family of democratic nations.

No power on earth can prevent our destroying the German armies by land, their U-boats by sea, and their war plants from the air.

Our attack will be relentless and increasing.

Emerging from these friendly conferences we look with confidence to the day when all peoples of the world may live free lives, untouched by tyranny, and according to their varying desires and their own consciences.

We came here with hope and determination. we leave here, friends in fact, in spirit and in purpose.

Signed at Teheran, December 1, 1943

ROOSEVELT

STALIN

CHURCHILL

(The Conferences at Teheran and Cairo, pp 640-1)

There are several versions of the above document printed in the above source, but they all deal with the same subjects. The document is typical of Roosevelt’s equivocation and deception when dealing with his constituents and the press. It is an exercise in rhetoric rather than a revelation of factual material, and plays wholly upon the hearer’s hopes, prejudices and ignorance of the facts rather than upon the presentation of a logical program based upon realities. While the proceedings of the convention dealt with the everyday problems and necessities of fighting a bitter war to its desired conclusion, the sparse information to be given the public typically mentions little of this. It is no more than a panegyric promoting New Deal idealism as it is to be applied to the postwar world.

XII. THE SECOND CAIRO CONFERENCE (December 2-7, 1943)

The Second Cairo Conference followed hard on the heels of the Teheran Conference. Apparently, it was desired by Churchill but without the burdens of Chiang Kai-shek’s presence and his continuing requests for aid (which had previously been promised him but not given) in the Asian theater.

Those who attend this conference are as follows:

ATTENDEES AND PARTICIPANTS AT THE SECOND CAIRO, EGYPT, CONFERENCE

U.S.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Harry L. Hopkins

Asst. Sec. of War John J. McCloy

Ambassador Lawrence A. Steinhardt

Admiral William D. Leahy

Gen. George C. Marshall

Admiral Ermest J. King

Gen. Henry H. Arnold

Lr. Gen. Brehon B. Somervell

Vice Admiral Russell Willson

Maj. Gen. Richard K. Sutherland

Maj. Gen. Thomas T. Hardy

Maj. Gen. Muir S. Fairchild

Rear Adm. Bernhard H. Bieri

Rear Admiral Charles M. Cooke

Rear Adm. Oscar C. Badger

Brig. Gen. Lawrence S. Kuter

Brig. Gen. Frank N. Roberts

Brig. Gen Haywood S. Hansell, Jr.

Commander Victor D. Long

Maj. John Boettiger

Capt. Austen K. Doyle

Capt. William L. Freseman

U. K.

Prime Minister Winston. S. Chruchill

Foreign Min. Anthony Eden

Sir Alexander Cadogan

Sir Hughe Knatchbull-Hugessen

Alexander Knox Helm

Gladwyn Jebb

Gen. Sir Alan Brooke

Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Portal

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Andrew B. Cunningham

Field Marshal Sir John Dill

Gen. Sir Thomas Riddell-Webster

Lt. Gen. Sir Hastings Ismay

Air Chief Marshal Sir Sholto Douglas

Air Vice Marshal John Baker

Air Vice Marshal Robert Allingham George

Maj. Gen. Stanley Woodburn Kirby

Maj. Gen. Robert Edward Laycock

Maj. Gen. Montague George North Stopford

Vice Adm. Sir Algernon Willis

Air Commodore William Elliot

Rear Admiral Thomas Hope Troubridge

Brigadier Anton Head

Brigadier John Kirkland McNair

Commander Charles Rolf Thompson

Col. Arthur Thomas Cornwall-Jones

Lt. Col. G. Mallaby

Section Officer Sarah Churchill Oliver

Capt Randolph F. E. S. Churchill

Brigadier Cecil Stanway Sugden

Brigadier John Kirkland McNair

USSSR

Sergi Alexandrovich Vinogradov

Sergi Sergeyevich Mikhailov

Turkey

President Ismet Inonu

Foreign Min. Numan Menemencioglu

Sureyya Anderiman

Cervat M. Acikalin

Selim Sarper

Sadi Kavar

Torgut Manemencioglu

Union of South Africa

Prime Minister Field Marshal Jan Christian Smuts

The deliberations of the Second Cairo Conference were hardly anti-climactic, however, especially in so far as the area which was dominated militarily by the western United Nations allies.

John Jay McCloy, the U.S. Under-Secretary of War suggested that the European Advisory Commission be assigned an agenda having the following priority (p. 774):

(1) Directive for Civil Administration forFrance

(2) Directives for Civil Administration for Belgium, Norway, Holland and Denmark, in the light of the already executed Norwegian Agreement.

(3) Military Armistice for Germany.

(4) Comprehensive terms of Surrender for Germany.

(6) Terms of Surrender for Lesser Enemy States.

Discussions were carried out about the co-ordination of General Donovan’s “Office of Special Services” (O.S.S.) and the British “Special Operations Executive” (S.O.E.) under Col. Colin McVeagh Gubbins (A Man Called Intrepid, pp. 46 & 76 ). Both organizations promoted and organized underground guerrilla-terrorist activity in Axis countries (FR. 777-8).

The decisions made at Teheran were reviewed along with projected operations against southern France, Italy and other locations in Europe and Asia. Further efforts were made to pursuade Turkey to enter the war against Germany, but the Turks insisted they first be well armed with U.S. weapons. (p. 715).

Stalin had attempted to get a commitment from Roosevelt as to the officer who would command Operation OVERLORD, the United Nations invasion of Europe. At the Second Cairo Conference, it was decided that this man would be Generl Dwight D. Eisenhower (F. R. pp. 761 & 819).

A final subject brought up at the Second Cairo Conference (pp. 824-831) involves Lend Lease and Britain’s gold and Dollar balance. Mr. John Anderson reveals Britain’s liabilities are increasing at a rate 5-6 times that as are the reserves being scraped up from their overseas possessions. Sir Kingsley Wood, late Chancellor of the Exchequer had written a long letter to Henry Morgenthau, Jr. two months previously and a special Delegation was sent to Washington to discuss this problem. Morgenthau had not answered the letter and the Delegation had not received any assurances about its concerns for food and military equipment.

Finally, it is pointed out “Russia’s gold and dollar reserves ar nearly twice ours [Britain’s], and they have no liabilities against them. The Americans are not proposing to tackle the Russians with a similar proposal. We, however, are thought to be easier game.”

Mr. Anderson’s concern was very real. The cause for Mr. Morgenthau’s and that of others to arrive at an agreement anything like the one generously extended Russia by Roosevelt would be revealed to the British at the Second Quebec (“OCTAGON”) Conference by Mr. Morgenthau himself.

It was a Cairo that Churchill became aware of what should have been obvious to him for some time, the complete dependency of bankrupt Britain upon the United States and the moods and secretive aspirations of Franklin D. Roosevelt often kept from the Prime Minister, sometimes shared with Joseph Stalin. In the days to come, Churchill would experience more than once the pointed, unnecessary “tweaking of the lion’s tail” by the “Great” President into whose power he had surrendered his country in the summer of 1944. Jospeh Stalin now appeared to be steadily growing in stature, so far as anticipated postwar importance was concerned and Churchill was steadily decreasing in importance. But there was not the slightest hint publicly that any change in the usual western United Nations “solidarity,” unanimity of purposes etc. was anything but “alive and well.”

The information concerning the conference was given in the Communique below:

Text of the Communique

[Cairo, December 6, 1943]

COMMUNIQUE

Mr. Roosevelt, Pressident of the United States of America, M. Ismet Inonu, President of the Turkish Republic[,] and Mr. Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain, met in Cairo on December 4th, 5th, and 6th, 1943. Mr. Anthony Eden, His Brittanic [Britannic] Majesty’s Principal Sescretary of State for Foreign Affairs, M. Numan Menemencioglu, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, Mr. and Harry L. Hopkins took part in their deliberations.

The participation in this conference of the Head of the Turkish State, in response to the cordial invitation addressed to him by the United States, British and Soviet Governments, bears striking testimony to the strength of the alliance which united [unites?] Great Britain and Turkey, and to the firm friendship existing between the Turkish Republic, the United States of America, and the Soviet Union.

Presidents Roosevelt and Inonu and Prime Minister Churchill reviewed the general political situation and examined at length the policy to be followed, taking into account the joint and several interests of the three countries.

The study of all problems in a spirit of understanding and loyalty showed that the closest unity exists between the United Staes of America, Turkey and Great Britain in their attitude towards the world situation.

The conversations in Cairo have consequently been most useful and most fruitful for the future of the relations between the four countries there represented.

The identity of interest and the views of the American and British democracies, with those of the Soviet Union, and the traditional relations of friendship existing between these powers and Turkey, have been reaffirmed throughout the proceedings of the Cairo conference.

(Unsigned)

(FR., Conferences at Cairo & Teheran, pp. 831-2

From reading the “Communique” one would be forced to conclude that this conference as all others had been one continous “love feast.”

XIII. The European Advisory Commission, “EAC,” Jan. 14, 1944 to Sept. 10, 1945

(Foreign Relations, 1944, Vol. I, p. 17)

Roosevelt’s Stance

From the beginning of his presidency, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had been disdainful not only of Adolf Hitler and his Third Reich but of Germany and most Germans, and from before the beginning of the war, he had privately favored a drastic “tough” punitive plan for the treatment of post-war Germany by the victors. For this reason, he and his Ambassador to England, John Winant had, in contrast to the British, never held any great regard for the deliberations of the European Advisory Commission (EAC) and had on several occassions pointed out, for the benefit of the EAC, the purely “advisory character” of their activities. It was obvious that he did not wish to be in any way subject to or bound by their recommendations.

The European Advisary Commission (EAC) had been established by the Tripartite (U.S., U. K., Soviet Union) Conference of Foreign Ministers, meeting in Moscow, Nov. 1, 1943 (For. Rel. 1944, Vol. I, p. 1). Its first formal meeting was in London, at Lancaster House, St. James, Jan. 14, 1944 with John G. Winant, Roosevelt’s intimate associate and Ambassador to Britain acting not only as the U.S. member of the Commission but also its chairman. Sir William Strang, Asst. Undersecretary of State in the British Foreign Office was the British member and F. T. Gousev, Russian Ambassador to Britain was the Russian member of the Commission. Eventually, (Nov. 27, 1944) they were joined by a rather ineffectual “Continental French” representative, Rene Massigli. The purpose of the EAC was never clearly defined by the U.S., Russia, or England and such a well defined purpose was, perhaps purposely, never understood nor agreed upon by the participating principals. From the beginning, it was obvious the British on one side and the U.S. on the other, the latter often supported by the Russians but even they often had divergent views as to its objectives and duties (For. Re.. 1944, I, p. 2).

Nevertheless, the EAC undertook a tremendous load of work, much of which, in light of later unilateral policy decisions by Roosevelt, this aspect of their work was from the onset, futile. Much of their work regarding the mechanics of the coming long-term occupation of Germany was utilized. Anticipating an end of hostilities comparable at least to those of 1918 with a sterner approach to Germany under the “Atlantic Charter” than had been possible under Wilson’s “Fourteen Points,” they set about listing the complaints and claims of the various allied United Nations Governments against Germany and assessed their reactions to a long list of subjects ranging from the wording of the surrender document, (German) war criminals, through boundary changes and relocation of German populations, daily caloric allotments to German civilians, through political, economic, and religious revisions in Germany demanded by the victors in a contemplated long occupation to a distant but eventual return of self government by the “reconstructed” Germans themselves.

The EAC could by no means be characterized as a Commission striving for a “soft peace” for Germany. They discussed German dismemberment (For. Re. 1944, Vol. I, p. 164-166) and early Polish demands for German territory east of the Oder (For. Rel., 1944, Vol. I, pp. 76, 302, 2209, 518) leaving the final decision to Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta. Much of what they advised and recommended was finally accepted by the U. N. Heads of State. The hardships under which they worked and the frustrrations which they must have suffered as Europeans, however, must have been great, indeed! Winant, serving as Roosevelt’s ear and voice in London and scrupiously expressing the wishes of his chief continually pressed for tougher terms for Germany, a Germany incapable of self-support (For. Rel. 1944, Vol. I, p. 402), eternally at the mercy of even the least of its neighbors. A full realization of the immense task undertaken by the EAC can be appreciated only if one looks deeper into the many pages in Foreign Relations, 1944, Vol. I, and it must be realized here that they constitute only a portion of the actual work undertaken.

But Roosevelt, as head of the nation supplying the lions share of the weapons, supplies, propaganda and funds to its allies in the war against Germany and Japan, did not feel obligated in any way to consider EAC suggestions as to what the nature of the treatment of post-war Germany from nations dependent now and in the future upon him for sustenance. Having supplied the lion’s share of the wealth and material to fight the war, he demanded, as a condition of future assistance, the lion’s share in the say on post-war Germany. As a consequence, and since he could always count upon one-half to two-thirds of the U.S. Electorate for support, he arbitrarily and unilaterally excluded all plans except the one developed at his request by his trusted Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., the “dour Jew” he knew would, with his help, give the Germans what they had “asked for” (Diaries, 355).

For those who will inevitably arise to Roosevelt’s defense and solemnly protest he intended the post-war treatment of Germany by the victors to be otherwise, let us recall his statements on two occasions. They are typical of all of his utterances on this subject:

As for Germany, that tragic nation which has sown the wind and is now reaping the whirlwind — we and our Allies are entirely agreed that we shall not bargain with the Nazi conspirators, or leave them a shred of control — open or secret — of the instruments of government.

We shall not leave them a single element of military power — or of potential military power.

But I should be false to the very foundations of my religious and political convictions, if I should ever relinquish and hope — even the faith — that in all people, without exception, there lives some instinct for truth, some attraction toward justice, and some passion for peace — buried as they may be in the German case under a brutal regime.

We bring no charge against the German race, as such, for we cannot believe that God has eternally condemned any race of humanity. For we know in our own land how many good men and women of German ancestry have proved loyal, freedom-loving, peace-loving citizens.

There is going to be stern punishment for all those in Germany directly responsible for this agony of mankind.

The German people are not going to be enslaved — because the United Nations do not traffic in human slavery. But it will be necessary for them to earn their way back into the fellowship of peace-loving and law-abiding nations. And in their climb up that steep road, we shall certainly see to it that they are not encumbered by having to carry guns. They will be relieved of that burden — we hope, forever. (See Diaries, III,, p.????????

----- President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Germany is Our Problem, H. Morgenthau, Harper & Brothers, N. Y. 1945, front)

XIV. THE ROOSEVELT STATEMENT ALLEGING GERMAN AND JAPANESE ATROCITIES (March 14, 1944)

On, perhaps a more official note, he said the following:

FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1944, Vol. 1, p. 1230-1231

(740.00116 European War 1939/1368

Statement by President Roosevelt, March 24, 1944

The United Nations are fighting to make a world in which tyranny and aggression can not exist: a world based upon freedom, equality and justice: a world in which all persons regardless of race, color or creed may live in peace, honor and dignity.

In the meantime in most of Europe and in parts of Asia the systematic torture and murder of civilians — men, women and children — by the Nazis and Japanese continue unabated. In areas subjugated by the aggressors innocent Poles, Czechs, Norwegians, Dutch, Danes, French Greeks, Russians, Chinese, Filipinos — and many others — are being starved or frozen to death or murdered in cold blood in a campaign of savagery.

The slaughters of Warsaw, Lidice, Kharkov and Nanking — the brutal torture and murder by the Japanese, not only of civilians but of our own gallant American soldiers and fliers — these are startling examples of what goes on day by day, year in and year out, wherever the Nazis and the Japs are in military control — free to follow their barbaric purpose.

In one of the blackest crimes of all history — begun by the Nazis in the day of peace and multiplied by then a hundred times in time of war — the wholesale systematic murder of the Jews of Europe goes on unabated every hour. As a result of the events of the last few days hundreds of thousands of Jews, who while living under persecution have at last found haven from death in Hungary and the Balkans are now threatened with annihilation as Hitler’s forces descend more heavily upon these lands. That these innocent people who have already survived a decade of Hitler’s fury, should perish on the very eve of triumph over barbarism which their persecutors symbolize, would be a major tragedy.

It is therefore fitting that we should again proclaim our determination that none who participate in these acts of savagery shall go unpunished. The United Nations have made it clear that they will pursue the guilty and deliver them up in order that justice be done. That warning applies not only to the leaders but also to their functionaries and subordinates in Germany and in the satellite countries. All who knowingly take part in the deportation of Jews to their death in Poland or Norwegians and French to their death in Germany are equally guilty with the executioner. All who share the guilt shall share the punishment.

Hitler is committing these crimes against humanity in the name of the German people. I ask every German and every man everywhere under Nazi domination to show the world by his action that in his heart he does not share these insane criminal desires. Let him hide these pursued victims, help them to get over their borders, and do what he can to save them from the Nazi hangman. I ask him also to keep watch, and to record the evidence that one day will be used to convict the guilty.

In the meantime, and until the victory that is now assured is won, the United States will persevere in its efforts to rescue the victims of brutality of the Nazis and the Japs. In so far as the necessity of military operations permit this Government will use all means at its command to aid the escape of all intended victims of the Nazi and Jap executioner — regardless of race or religion or color. We call upon the free peoples of Europe and Asia temporarily to open their frontiers to all victims of oppression. We shall find havens of refuge for them, and we shall find the means for their maintenance and support until the tyrant is driven from their homelands and they may return.

In the name of justice and humanity let all freedom loving people rally to this righteous undertaking.

(Issued in connection with the issuance of the declaration ragarding Nazi persecution of Jews, see Foreign Relations — 1944, pp. 1015 ff. See also For. Rel. 1944, Vol. I, 520-22 & 528-9).

One dare not forget that these are the words of a man who from his youth (Decision in Germany, p. 5 & For. Rel., 1944, Vol. I, p.410) was an ardent Germano-phobe, a man who not only was not sympathetic to the problems of post-World War I Germany but privately actually derived open pleasure from the tragic plight of this once great nation regardless of who might head it (“The Morgenthau Diaries,” Colliers Magazine Oct. 11, 1947, p. 20). As the wealthy son of a rich, old father and a young doting mother, Roosevelt showed himself on almost every occasion to be a spoiled brat. General Clay (Decision in Germany, p. 5) states that Roosevelt’s early hatred of Germany stemmed from his early days when he had studied in Germany (considered by most as a great honor and opportunity at this time) and was offended by German “arrogance and provincalism.” Strangely, this denouncaton of Germans sounds very much like his subsequent denunciation of Head Master Peacock at Groton, the snobbish school for rich children which he later attended as did Sumner Welles. His discomfort, indeed, many of his opinions may well have stemmed rather from both his lacking as a student and a complete lack of self-discipline and self restraint, traits which he continued to demonstrate in every school he ever attended and, in later life, in every undertaking in which he became engaged.

With this statement Roosevelt had finally stuck his colors and reached his stride. As was so characteristic of the man, before he committed himself to a course of action or possssition, the great “Illuminatus” had first tried the idea widely on those who would vote either for or against him in the coming election and had cautiously evaluated its results as to whether it would injure him or assist him in his political ambitions. This he did using a large number of “testers” in the U.S. public life who were known to be close to him but seldom beholden to such a large segment of the electorate so as to be fatal to him should the contemplated move be politically disasterous to the “tester.” Examples of such men were Herbert Lehman, Fiorello La Guardia and Clark Eichelberger, but there were hundreds if not thousands more.

Already Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, a long-time fried and close political ally of President Roosevelt, and the participants in the pan-Jewish March on the White House (December [8], 1942) had declared their belief and claimed to have irrefutable proof of Germany’s intent to kill all Jews in Europe. They were followed, perhaps somewhat anti climactically by a declaration of the United Nations, controlled by Roosevelt (Dec. 17, 1942) that they accepted the position that the Germans were engaged in a cold-blooded plan to exterminate (e. g. “kill”) all the Jews in Europe. It is not the purpose of this study to review this alleged “proof.” This has been done by numerous others who have found the “proof” to have been based on very little substance but, as in the case of the Katyn charges, relied heavily upon the copious use of “judicial notice” to prop up the otherwise unsupported charges by prosecutors in the tribunals trying such cases.

But before we continue with a discussion of the provisions of the “Morgenthau Plan,” let us for a moment consider the background etc. of the man whose name the “Plan” so properly bears, for it is he more than any other who, at the instigation of his sympathetic chief over whom he exercised perhaps more control than any other, brought the written plan into existence, nurtured it, and finally with Roosevelt’s full support, “sold it”

XV. HANDBOOK FOR UNIT COMMANDER (MILITARY GOVERNMENT IN GERMANY, SHAEF — Sept 1, 1944 [Lt. Gen. W. B. Smith {Gen. Eisenhower, SHAEF}, For. Rel. 1944, p. 544).

“Exactly who wrote the Handbook for Unit Commanders, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force either individually or in collaboration may never be known. It is known, however, that this or these unknown writers certainly had access to the mass of suggestions and advice generated by the European Advisory Commission in their numerous meetings, since part of their job was to keep the U.S. State Department and the U.S. War and Navy Departments, as well as their British and Russian counterparts informed of their activities and recommendations. There is little indication that Roosevelt had any direct contact with it because of the furor it aroused when he first learned of it from Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Morgenthau’s information source was apparently Col. Bernard Bernstein, formerly of the Treasury Department but now working with SHAEF. Bernstein, without authorization, had sent a copy of the highly secret document to his former civilian ‘Chief.’“ (Zink, Harold, The United States in Germany, 1944-1955, D. Van Nostrand, Co., Inc., Princeton, 1957, p. 21)

SHAEF (“Supreme High Command Allied Expeditionary Force”) had prepared the Handbook For Unit Commanders (Germany) to guide them in their approaching occupation of Germany in the absence of any orders or policy decisions from their superiors. It was issued “By Command of General Eisenhower” under the signatures of Lt. Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, Chief of Staff, and Maj. Gen. R. W. Barker, 15 Sept. 1944.

The booklet contains twelve chapters and four items in an Appendix in some 50 pages. The first nine chapters, deal primarily with background material such as history of Germany — from World War I, the structure of the German Governmental units,

etc., and attempts to tell U.S. and other commanders something about Germany, its people, its government, its history, etc. It is hardly a benevolent document except in so far as it is compared with those plans which followed it.

In Chapter 11 (p. 34) the booklet states that “The principle aims of Military Government in Germany are: to aid and secure military operations and dispostions; to destroy Nazism and the Nazi Heiarchy; and to maintain law and order.” To accomplish these ends, other sections of the booklet indicate that members of the Party in governmental positions must be replaced, “fraternization” between Germans and United Nations personnel will be forbidden and social contacts with Germans avoided, NSDAP Courts will be expurgated and German Courts reinstated with instruction from the Military Government, etc.

Chapter 12 deals with the problems possibly faced by a unit commander and suggests that in solving these collaborators, the local priest or pastor, who most likely had been anti-NSDAP “may prove useful.” Similarly, an avowed anti-NSDAP grammar school teacher might be invaluable to the occupation forces. Law in Occupied Germany would derive from two sources: from proclamations by the Military Government and from Germans working in the employ of the Military Government, carrying out their supervisory instruction in the established German Governmental machinery.

In many ways, the “Handbook” is about what one would expect from a military source dealing with primarily military problems -with a geneflection to very powerful factions within the U.S. By comparison with what actually occurred, it was no where nearly so harsh. The maps exhibited made no mention of an “Oder-Neisse Border” between Germany and Poland nor the cession of East Prussia to Poland (and Russia). It listed Danzig-West-Preussen, Warteland and Oberschlesien, as it listed the other parts of Germany, as if little change in them was to be contemplated. In the post-war settlement, not only these states but also most of Pommern, much of Niederschlesien and part of Mark Brandenburg was yielded to Poland (and Russia [East Prussia]). Very little is said about “war criminals,” their trials and their punishment. Here the military men possibly contemplated their stand should the shoe ever be on the other foot. Since, however, those in power in the United States saw no possibility of getting what they demanded from a cessation of hostilities in this plan, it was, as Roosevelt described it to Morgenthau, “pretty bad.” Genuflection was not enough!

Since the “Handbook” was issued by command of General Eisenhower under the signatures of his Chief of Staff, General W. Bedell Smith and also under the signature of Maj. Gen. R. W. Barker, they had to know of its contents. In addition, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to whom Eisenhower reported frequently and directly, must have had some knowledge of it at least being in preparation as did Secretary Henry Stimson and his assistant, John J. McCloy. In the end, it is difficult to believe that Roosevelt himself did not have some similar knowledge, since he was never one to allow any important issue such as this escape his scrutiny and supervision. Most likely, he knew of the “Handbook,” but he also knew that his would be the last word before it would be put into effect. When he learned it was to be issued, he immediately involved his dependable, his “two of a kind” colleague, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. to see that the job was done right.

XVI. THE MORGENTHAU PLAN

The Handbook of Military Government in Germany was the result of much work in the War Department (Stimson) and was developed by them for the simple reason that with the approaching defeat of Germany, Roosevelt had given neither instructions nor suggestions as to how the defeated German should be treated by the U.S. occupation army. Lacking this, the military went ahead on its own, issuing instructions which were more or less more or less in the traditional manner. Evidently, quite a bit of difficulty had been experienced even in this relatively innocuous document, but it was finally scheduled to be issued on Feb. 15, 1945 by orders of General Eisenhower and signed by his Chief of Staff, Gen. W. B. Smith.

Before this highly secret document could be issued, however, a copy was sent to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., presumably by one of his former Treasury employees who was serving as a colonel with the Supreme Allied Expeditionary Force, “SHAEF.” There will be some who will wonder why such a betrayal of secretive information to an unauthorized person in what was no more than a private espionage system operated by Henry Morgenthau was neither investigated nor punished. Normally, the culprit responsible for such a betrayal of secret information would face a courts martial with wartime penalties!

A. The Fortunes of the House of Morgenthau

In 1865, at the end of the U.S. Civil War, Lazarus Morgenthau and his wife Babette (born Guggenheim) arrived in the U.S. from Mannheim, Germany. With the family was their son Henry who had been born in 1856. Lazarus Morgenthau had manufactured cigars in Mannheim for export to the United States, but the Civil War had ruined his business. Although he may have had some attraction to the ideas of German revolutionary Carl Schurz (and Karl Marx, his contemporary), it apparently was purely business considerations which gave cause for his decision to emigrate. Thus began the fortunes of the Morgenthau Family in the United States.

As was typical of the many Jewish immigrants at the dawn of their great exodus to the U. S, were they German-Jewish or Russian-Jewish, they settled in N. Y. City. Here, young Henry attended Public School 14 (Manhattan), worked and attended City College, an institution known for its leftist inclinations (its hallowed halls were once graced by no less a personage than Leon Trotsky, Lev Bronstein) and its predominantly Jewish make-up. He never graduated, but in 1877 was granted an LL.B. from the Columbia Law School, yet another of a growing list of liberal-leftist institutions arising at the time in opposition to established traditional U.S. colleges. He married Josephine Sykes. As a member of the law firm Lachman, Morgenthau and Goldsmith, Henry Morgenthau was a very successful lawyer, but in 1899, he gave up his practice and embarked upon a career in real estate. With his numerous contacts and background as a lawyer, he became so immensely wealthy that, at the age of 55 (1910), he decided to retire.

In the course of Mr. Morgenthau’s rise from a German-Jewish immigrant boy of limited means to an influential, rich lawyer-real estate tycoon at 55, he had made a large number of friends who were powerful in financial,, political, and Jewish circles. In the latter category were such man as Louis Dembitz Brandeis and his nephew Felix Frankfurter, Rabbi Gustav Gottheil from Berlin and his son, Zionist Richard Gottheil, also professor at Columba University, Hungarian-born Zionist Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, educated at Columbia University and head of the liberal “Free Synagogue” of New York City (which owed its financial existence to the support of Henry Morgenthau, Adolph Lewisohn, Oscar Straus, and Isaac N. Seligman [1907]) and head of the American Jewish Congress, N. Y. lawyer Samuel Untermyer, N. Y. financier (and later presidential confidant) Bernard Baruch, and the financially powerful, politically ambitious Lehman Family. History would subsequently give all these associates and many others of his acquaintance an extraordinary role in determining the fate of many peoples as a result of their influence upon the affairs of the U.S. and its subsequent power to influence world economics and therefore dominate world politics. The final triumphant success of this concept on a world scale ws not achieved by the United States until the demise of the Soviet Union as a world power in 1990-91.

In 1911, Henry Morgenthau made the acquaintance of Governor Woodrow Wilson (N. J.) and became his immediate supporter for the 1912 Presidential election. He was named chairman of Wilson’s finance committee for the Democratic National Committee which produced the necessary campaign funds for Wilson’s election in the 1912 election. His efforts were rewarded with the U.S. ambassadorship to Turkey in 1912 where, as a “neutral” ambassador, he attempted to keep Turkey from joining the Central Powers against England and France. After Turkey’s entry into the war on the side of the Central Powers, he rightly earned the undying gratitude of England and France for the manner in which he thereafter represented their interests against the Turkish authorities with the full support of the U.S. Government.

In 1916, Henry Morgenthau returned to the U.S. via Berlin where his conversations with German officials (von Jagow and Zimmermann) left no doubt in their minds where he and the Wilson Regime stood with respect to Germany. Nor did he hesitate to indicate the eagerness of his son, young Henry, Jr., to join the Allies, an eagerness which in fact seemed to evaporate the nearer he came to a recruiting office. Before leaving Berlin, Morgenthau also spoke with his old N.,Y. City Tammany Hall confederate, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, James W. Gerard, (Face to Face With Kaiserism) who (Feb. 1916) predicted a diplomatic break (war!) between Germany and the U.S. “as a matter of days, perhaps of hours.” (p. 397). In view of U.S. Ambassador Dodd’s subsequent comments (NYT, July 1, 1936, p. 10) this is particularly significant.

Back in the U.S., Morgenthau again assumed the position of chairman of Wilson’s finance committee for his 1916 “He kept us out of War” presidential campaign (see William E. Dodd’s statement, loc. cit.). In addition, he found time with ghost writer B. J. Hendrick to “write” a book, Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story (1918), published in England as Secrets of the Bosphorus. The book is typical of the virulent, anti-German, pro-Allied publications of the time and seethes with hatred for the land of his birth and for the people still living there. Only for German music and literature up to the early 19th Century did he apparently have any tolerance or appreciation at all. Particularly mean and hateful and unfortunately a sign of things yet to come was his claim that the very real massacres of the Armenians by the Turks and Kurds (a tribe still uncontrollable to this day) was in reality the fault of the Germans. In this, Morgenthau anticipated by a quarter of a century the even more horrendous charges against the Germans in World War II which would be so completely supported and utilized by his uniform-shy son, Henry, Jr., with motives which were peculiarly his own and his blood brothers. But in 1918, the world with its awareness of German Universities and respect for German culture in general was not yet sufficiently “educated” or “conditioned” to accept the thesis that the Germans were guilty of an act obviously committed by peoples living within Turkey, beyond German control.

In the summer of 1919, at Robert Lansing’s (uncle of John Foster Dulles and Allan Dulles) request, Mr. Morgenthau undertook a mission to Poland to study the alleged outrages committed there by the Poles against the Jewish population. The reestablishment of Poland was one of Wilson’s war objectives (Point 13 of Wilson’s “Fourteen Points”), but Polands postwar treatment of its numerous non-Polish minorities, which was of course completely in accord with its traditional treatment of all its minorities, was jeopardizing the popularity of this idea — especially among U.S. Jews. Polish troops sent to quell anti-Jewish outbreaks at Auschwitz, recently taken from Austria, instead of reestablishing order, had actually joined the rioters themselves and had participated in the further rioting and shedding of Jewish blood. Others also undertook such fact-finding missions as, for example zionist Israel Cohen who published his findings widely. (see: London Times, Israel Cohn, “My Mission to Poland,” Conference on Jewish Relations, N. Y., 1951, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. XIII, No. 2. None of these missions returned with encouraging news of foreseeable amicable Polish-Jewish relations and even cast doubts upon the ability of the newly established Polish Government to maintain peace and order. Of the various reports, curiously, Morgenthau’s was the least critical of Poland.

Polish-Jewish enmity in Poland did not abate after these reports. Indeed, the anti-Jewish riots or “Pograms” as they were often called, continued almost regularly through the internecine period. The last anti-Jewish riots reported were in 1946 at Kielce, where Jews were killed in a Pogrom precipitated, in the opinion of Polish primate August Cardinal Hlond, by the Jews themselves.

With the continued overwhelming American interest in the welfare of the Polish Jews and a proportionate disinterest in Polish welfare, one is prompted to wonder if the Americans were motivated by a great historic concern for the Poles or for the Jews. (In the post-World War I period, Allied sympathy for Poland certainly did not involve, much less extend to, the reestablishment of a Polish nation stretching from the Black Sea to the Baltic! Allied sympathy for Jewish rights in Poland and the establishment of a Jewish “Homeland” in Palestine was, however, very much in evidence.)

One of Henry Morgenthau’s last official undertakings for the U.S. Government was at the request of President Franklin D. Roosevelt at a conference in Geneva to “stabilize” the world price of wheat. The agreement gave the U.S. Government effective control of a good portion of the wheat produced by all the wheat-growing countries of the world and thereby increased the effectiveness of the British (-American) Blockade in World War II in which wheat and all other foodstuffs were denied such occupied countries such as France, Belgium, Holland, and Greece on the basis that, being occupied by Germany, Germany must feed them regardless of its ability to do so or not and must, regardless, be held strictly accountable if it should not do so or could not do so.

During his lifetime, Henry Morgenthau was classified by many of his Jewish associates not only as a non-Zionist but as an opponent of Zionism. As an assimilationist German-Jew, he was inclined toward the teachings of Moses Mendelsohn, who popularized the doctrine of Jewish “assimilation.” Being rich and highly influential in political and financial circles, he couldn’t possibly entertain the idea of leaving all this behind and migrating to Israel/Palestine, a land promising only untold hardship, privation and danger for those who chose such immigration — even after the billions of dollars the U.S., the billions of Marks Germany and the huge funds other nations have, so far (1990), poured into it. But “Zionist” can also be a term dependent upon the degree of dedication. Even Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, whose “Free Synagogue” Morgenthau and his associates helped establish, a man of unexceeded dedication to the zionist cause, did not leave the security of New York City for the uncertain joys of Israel as had David Ben Gurion, Vladimir Jabotinsky, Etc. Rabbi Wise, like Morgenthau, A. Einstein and others chose to stay where they were in the priviledged positions of power, wealth and influence they had attained and thereby render essential aid to the establishment of a Jewish Homeland for other Jews as it became necessary. In considering the numerous contributions of both groups toward the final establishment of Jewish control over Palestine, Israel, it is often difficult to determine whether the “Zionists” or “non-Zionists” contributed the most!

But Zionist or not, it cannot be denied that Henry Morgenthau maintained a deep hatred for Germans and almost all things German all his life inspite of professed boyhood memories “of a quiet peaceful land where kindly people were interested in fine music and literature.” He does not say when all this changed for him, but since his last interview revealed a great admiration for Carl Schurz, the German revolutionary who after fleeing Germany led a U.S. unit at the Battle of Gettysburg and subsequently became a U.S. Senator from Missouri, but was by no measure a kindly person interested in fine music and good literature, it may have been the formation of the German Reich in 1870 which made him such a lifelong, implacable enemy of Germany. At any rate, the music for his funeral, held at Temple Emanu El, conducted by Rabbi Samuel H. Goldenson, hardly an anti-Zionist, utilized music from Beethoven (9th Symphony) and Felix Mendelsohn-Bartholdy, grandson of Moses Mendelsohn, who was by no measure a Zionist but considered himself very much a “German” as did Beethoven.

Into this wealthy, influential atmosphere was born Henry Morgenthau, Jr. in 1891. His early years were not marked by any notable degree of prominence — certainly not academically. As a single son of a successful, rich Jewish businessman, he would have been expected normally to enter the family business. But inspiteof what appears to have been a deep mutual respect and genuine liking between father and son, the son’s interests were more inclined toward agriculture. In 1913, with his father’s assistance, he purchased a dairy and fruit farm a short 15 miles from the home of Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1916, Henry, Jr. married Elinor Fatman whose mother was a Lehman, a Jewish family of even greater wealth, influence and no small interest in politics. In spite of his alleged enthusiasm for the Allied cause, his active participation in World War I appears to have been limited to pursuading Herbert Hoover to transfer 1,500 tractors to France, a move in which he personally went to France.

With the continuing interests of the Morgenthaus in N. Y. and national politics and the steady emergence of the political fortunes of Franklin D. Roosevelt, it was probably preordained that the Henry Morgenthaus, Jr. and the Roosevelts being “neighbors” would become acquainted with each other. The resulting symbiotic (p. xv) relationship for both families lasted until the death of Eleanor Roosevelt in 1962. This mutual, sympathetic relationship was not just between the two men but between the two women and between each others spouses. As for the Roosevelts, they possessed unlimited political ambition in a political stance both chose to describe publicly as a “bit left of center.” The Morgenthau connections with the Lehman Family, New York City College, Columbia University, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Felix Frankfurter, to name but a few, indicated to many persons a strong leftist “liberal” inclination with an unquestioned strong pro-Jewish, anti-German undercurrent, a characteristic destined to dominate any future relations between Germany and any U.S. Government headed by Roosevelt.

“Two of a Kind”

The Morgenthau-Roosevelt “team” of “two of a kind” showed its ability to “appeal to the electorate” in the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt as Governor of N. Y. State in 1930. Thereupon Henry Morgenthau, Jr. became his Conservation Commissioner. In 1932, due in no small degree to the support mobilized by the Morgenthaus, Henry and Henry, Jr., Roosevelt was elected President of the United States. With Roosevelt as President, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. began a number of “special assignments” given him by his mentor. The first of these was as head of the Farm Credit Administration in which the Federal Government increased “loans” to indebted farmers some 10 fold. At this time, of course, with no academic credentials and experience only as a moneyed, “gentlemen” fruit and dairy farmer, who had backed the “right” candidate, he might have, if appointed initially as a cabinet officer, been more of a source of embarrassment to the new Roosevelt Regime than as a trusted, indispensable “specialist” in time of economic crisis.

Only in Jan. 1935, when Treasury Secretary, William Woodin became terminally ill, did Henry Morgenthau, Jr. attain cabinet status, a position some will maintain he was destined from the beginning to occupy as a result of his unique, preferential relationship with the crippled Roosevelt. From the beginning, he was one of the few who had access to Roosevelt’s “presence” even before the latter had left his bed in the morning where he, Roosevelt, regularly ate breakfast because of his paralysis. This prestigious position he maintained throughout much of Roosevelt’s tenure in office. Perhaps only Harry Hopkins, often called Roosevelt’s “alter ego,” who actually lived for a while in the White House enjoyed similar or, perhaps, even more prestige than the new Secretary of the United States Treasury. Morgenthau was encouraged in his new post by the fawning complements of Louis Howe that he alone of all the cabinet members had “earned” his post “by past performance.” (Diaries, Vol. I, p. 77) Is Howe referring here to Morgenthau’s work in increasing the indebtedness of U.S. farmers 10 fold while in the Farm Credit Administration and/or his performances as a result of his bedside sessions with Roosevelt, starting Oct. 25, 1933? Subsequently, he must have increased his “input” and presumably his benefit to his chief even more by lunching regularly with him each Monday.

As at trusted cabinet member, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., “Henry the Morgue,” was one of the few in the Cabinet that had Roosevelt’s full confidence in all matters. Indeed, it was not unusual for him to speak with the full force of Roosevelt’s support behind him without the necessity of first consulting his chief! (Murphy, pp. 148-149) With such confidence in his work, he was in line for a long line of important Presidential “special assignments” many of which had nothing to do with the traditional activities of the Treasury Department but were of prime importance to the plans evolving in Roosevelt’s mind for the grand entrance of the United States into international politics as a World Power. He was refered to as “Roosevelt’s legs” by some of the more envious of his colleagues. Roosevelt himself refered to Morgenthau at least once as his “right hand!” (“The Morgenthau Diaries,” Collier’s Magazine, Sept. 27, 1947, p. 80)

With the U.S. economy faltering, the newly named Secretary of the Treasury would be called upon to dedicate his primary efforts to Presidential “special assignments,” many of which were of a secret international nature while domestic economic affairs would, of necessity, be left to subalterns he had brought with him from his staff in the Farm Credit Association. Besides his private secretary, Mrs. Henrietta Klotz, these were Herbert Gaston, Herman Oliphant and William H. McReynolds. These would be joined later (1935, on the recommendation of Prof. Jacob Viner, Univ. of Chicago) by yet another appointee destined for great power, Dr. Harry Dexter White who became one of his most trusted and valued assistants in his many activities. From the relationship which developed between these two men, it may be said that as Roosevelt trusted Morgenthau completely and entrusted to him many of his favorite assignments, so Morgenthau also trusted Harry Dexter White and entrusted him with many of his (also Roosevelt’s) most favored projects, knowing full well they would be carried out as he ordered, even though they might personally be averse with some of these orders. As a consequence, Harry Dexter White (born Weit) often found himself in the position of furnishing the driving brain power for projects which Roosevelt himself had “mandated” or decreed.

Some of the “special assignments” given Morgenthau by Roosevelt for his special treatment involved some of the following general subjects. Others were not “assignments” but rather special “interests” he had even though they had nothing to do with his duties at the Treasury Department but which he nevertheless chose to bring to the attention of Roosevelt (Diaries, Vol. III, pp. 422, 426, 476):

A. Recognition of Soviet Russia

B. Establish U.S. world dominance in currency and coinage metals

C. Special attention to sanctions, tariffs, etc. with regard to Germany as a means of supporting Jewish boycott of German manufactured goods

D. World-wide rearmament of potential allies against Germany

E. Supplying U.S. weaponry to enemies of Germany on a “loan” basis if necessary (“Lend Lease”)

F. Organization of the Office of the Enemy Alien Property Custodian — Confiscation of German Assets in U.S.

G. Establishment of War Refugee Board

H. Occupation Currency for Use in Countries Occupied by the United Nations

I. Plan of occupation for post-war Germany

Of course, as Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, he was also in charge of raising the money needed to fight the war. Much of this was in floating loans which had been authorized by the U.S. Congress. This he did quite successfully upon each and every occation when required. These fund raising activities were well planned and the people well prepared beforehand by avalanches of charges against the Japanese and Germans of atrocities committed by them against the U.S. soldiers specifically and others in general. By the time the offers of the loans came around, the people were so incensed at the “animalistic” Japanese that the Treasury loans were snapped up in record time out more, perhaps out of hatred for the Japanese than out of patriotic feeling.

At this point in time, the alleged Japanese atrocities were most effective. Having been fooled so completely by World War I anti-German propaganda, the American public rightly was very cautious about believing the wild, unsubstantiated allegations of German atrocities from essentially the same sources again, a scant quarter century later. Large segments remained uncommitted to the support of these “Greuelmaerchen” (Rabbi Stephen S. Wise’s terminology for unsupported atrocity tales) until the avalanches of pictures and news articles in 1945 coupled with the unqualified support of these stories by the U.S. Government made further public non-support “unpatriotic.”

These stories were even more insidious in that the appalled German Government apparently made no effort to refute them.

Purposefully or not, the subsequent moves made by Morgenthau and Roosevelt had the over-all effect of playing a leading role in changing, “re-educating” if you will, the American public for the post-war anti-German posture the liberals and internationalists desired them to take.

B. PRELUDE TO THE MORGENTHAU PLAN — MORGENTHAU’S POWER WITHROOSEVELT

As would be expected, Henry Morgenthau, Jr’s. power with Roosevelt behind him fully was immense and far-reaching, and this power steadily increased and began to wane only upon his master’s death. There was literally no subject which Morgenthau could not bring to Roosevelt’s attention for immediate action and, if he chose, he could be pretty well certain ahead of time of obtaining the desired action. With thi;s fact fi;rmly in his mind, he could as had the Apostle Paul, knowing if He were with him, who then could be against him, proceed as if he were the President (or “God”) himself in anh of his activities. It is highly unlikely that anything transpired at a cabinet level during the Roosevelt Regime concerning appointees, policy, etc. that Henry Morgenthau did not know about, particularly in the State Department or in the War Department and express himself accordingly to his chief. In his Memoirs, (pp. 207-208), Cordell Hull complained bitterly about Morgenthau’s continual interference in the affairs of the State Department. Perhaps only Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s “alter ego” exerted more influence on the President than did Morgenthau. Presidential appointees were often the objects of his “advice.” Hull’s successor (Edward R. Stettinius) was the subject of such a conversation (Diaries, III, p. 392). Again, Hull had no say in the matter. On the otherhand, if Morgenthau disliked a person as he did in the case of Robert D. Murphey (It was mutual! Diplomat Among Warriors, p. 89), he did not hesitate to continually make his chief aware of his “shortcomings.” ( Diaries, III, pp. 156n & 348). This particular time, however, is rather unique in that Roosevelt did not take his advice!

No better example of his personal power exists than the case in which he obtained the Presidential edict establishing the War Refugee Board (Executive Order No. 9417, Jan. 22, 1944) which was dominated from its beginning by Morgenthau and his appointees, John Pehle, Josiah E. DuBois, Jr., etc. So far as the post-war treatment of defeated Germany and Germans by the U. N. victors was concerned, it was the influence of Henry Morgenthau, Jr., at this very moment which decided the fate of the defeated Country for decades to come!

Morgenthau pinpoints Dec. 1943 as the date at which he decided to respond more aggressively to the “hideous record of Nazi atrocities” (Diarys 332). This predates the establishment of the War Refugee Board (Executive Order No. 9417, Jan. 22, 1944) by one month and corresponds to the submission (Dec. 20, 1943) of a Report of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on S. R. 203, which was submitted by Sen. Guy M. Gillette (Iowa) and eleven other Zionist U.S. senators. This report supported the formation of a commission to formulate plans “to save the Jews of Europe from extinction by Nazi Germany. (Finger, 0340)” This date follows the failure (in so far as Zionists were concerned) of the Bermuda Conference in which the United Nations had failed to give zionist Jews a clear title to Palestine.

However, in Collier’s Magazine, Nov. 1, 1947, p.22, Morgenthau states, “We knew in Washington, from August, 1942 on that the Nazis were planning to exterminate all the Jews of Europe.” This was at least three months before the Pan-Jewish Manefesto was delivered to Roosevelt and fifteen months before his personal decision to “respond more aggressively.” Exactly what held him back so long remains his secret! It may be simply that he finally decided that the extermination thesis was a useful concept whose time had come, or it may be he is refering to the reports from the Agudist Sternbuch refugee rumor mill in Switzerland which regularly fed their “grindings” to Rabbi S. S. Wise (World Jewish Congress) by way of Gerhardt Riegner (Finger, 0151).

As created by Roosevelt, the War Refugee Board consisted of Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury, Cordell Hull, Secretary of State, the ageing, influental, career Congressman, dedicated follower of Woodrow Wilson, “father” of the U.S. graduated Income Tax who himself harbored presidental aspirations (a man needed urgently by Roosevelt to assure the continued adherence of the “Solid South” to his political coalition), and Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War, the anti-Japanese, anti-German, anglophilic interventionist echo from Herbert Hoover’s Cabinet.

Roosevelt’s action in forming the War Refugee Board was precipitated as a result of a long-smoldering rivalry between the Treasury Department and the State Department as to which department would have jurisdiction over certain Jewish refugee matters. The State Department had established the FRRO (Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations) with Herbert Lehman as its head to deal with primarily Jewish refugee matters, (as it turned out, the FRRO was being used as a “training function” for the UNRRA which, upon Roosevelt’s orders, would be formed later, also with Lehman as its head) but at the moment, the establishment of the FRRO by the State Department wasn’t deemed sufficient action in the right direction by Morgenthau and his supporters.

At best, Cordell Hull as Rossevelt’s Secretary of State, had never enjoyed his chief’s full confidence, and for this reason Hull had to continually bear the presence of Sumner Welles as Under-secretary of State, a man he detested, but whom Roosevelt trusted fully in matters more or less forbidden or kept secret from Hull. Having a Jewish wife (born Witz), Hull could hardly be considered callous so far as the difficulties of European Jews were concerned, but he and his appointees refused to allow their Department to be swamped by unsubstantiated zionist charges of mass murder, stories which always found believing, sympathetic listeners and supporters in the U.S. Treasury Department. In his naivete, if it may indeed be recalled that, Hull, nevertheless, still apparently was convinced that Roosevelt “almost always delivered an impartial decision” when a showdown between the State Department and the Treasury Department appeared. (Memoires, 208)

What some today proclaim as a confrontation between Roosevelt and his “two-of-a-kind” friend, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., allegedly at the prompting of Rabbi Stephen S. Wise (American and World Jewish Congresses) (Finger, 0106) was actually no more than a well-orchestrated, well publicized performance in an election year, produced by Morgenthau’s Treasury Department assistants, John Pehle, Randolph Paul, and Josiah E. DuBois, Jr. (“Report to the Secretary [of the Treasury] on the Acquiescence of This [U.S.] Government in the Murder of the Jews”) In this, they served notice on the entire U.S. Government, specifically the U.S. State Department, of the German/Jewish stance Roosevelt had decreed, and concerned officials would be expected to follow obediently in the future, without question. If they refused or hesitated, they would be dismissed or downgraded in their positions.

At this point in time, Secretary Hull himself made veiled statements concerning shipments of the Jews to the “East” with the usual, often unspoken, implication that this meant death in an unstated manner, at least for a large number, but he was not prepared to support the charges of pre-meditated mass murder of Jews brought against the Germans, and which were publicized in the Pan-Jewish Manifesto, dramatically hand-delivered by Rabbi Stephen S. Wise (World/American Jewish Congresses) and his extraordinary Jewish delegation to the White House on Dec. 8, 1942. This delegation was comprised of the heads of the most powerful Jewish political organizations in this country whose support Roosevelt needed badly in the coming 1944 presidential election. (In his Memoires, Hull indicates that he later, accepted the extermination “thesis” and the charges of German intent to exterminate the European Jews. He pointedly omits any reference to the Wise-Welles Swiss documents and mentions no other source as to how he “learned” of this. Presumably, for political reasons, he later accepted the events reported widely in the newspapers, etc. [Memoires, 1538])

Even Sumner Welles, serving in the dual role of “Man in the State Department,” for both Roosevelt and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, (World/American Jewish Congresses) showed a certain reluctance, perhaps feigned, to accept the Pan-Jewish Manifesto as true beyond question, without some sort of supporting evidence. Upon receiving from Switzerland what amounted to no more than assurances by a U.S. citizen, certain church officials, etc. of the unquestionable honesty, integrety and sincerety of the sources which had originally reported and supported the atrocities alleged in the Pan-Jewish Manifesto and elsewhere, he accepted for the U.S. Government, the charges as having been substantiated fully. In reality, these documents were at best no more than character references and testimonials, hardly constituting reliable substantiating evidence. Curiously, when it was offered to him, Welles declined the “honor” of being a sponsor of the equally authoratative and reliable Black Book of Polish Jewry which echoed these charges.

One should not underestimate Welles, or “Sumner” as the Roosevelt’s called FDR’s fellow Groton schoolmate. He, like Morgenthau, had direct access to the President whenever he wished; even though he was nominally obligated to first clear such contacts and the information to be discussed with Hull, his chief. He did this, however, only when it suited his purpose, often abusing the priviledge and the trust his superior had placed in him. It was this plus the fact that he had no hesitation about making what were major policy decisions binding the U.S. Government to new lines of foreign policy on his own or with Roosevelt himself without first consulting his chief that finally created a situation Hull, as Secretary of State could no longer endure. Roosevelt and Hull decided he must leave the State Department. For Roosevelt, it was a matter of political expediency and survival. He needed Hull’s considerable political support and influence in the U.S. Congress for his numerous political schemes more than he needed Welles’ fealty in the State Department. Hull, in his Memoires, looking back at a number of flagrant breaches of State Department etiquette by Welles, fails to mention the one in which his assistant accepted the holocaust documents from Switzerland and publicized them as constituting full substantiation of the charges of mass murder of Jews against the Germans (Memoires, p. 1227-1230).

The result of Welles’ unilateral, unwarranted, unconscionable act of accepting these raw rumors as fact without even reservations or further investigation was predictable.

On Dec. 17, 1942, nine days after the hand-delivery of the Pan Jewish Manefesto to Roosevelt, and after discussions between Sumner Welles, Maxim Litvinoff and Anthony Eden (Dec. 12, 1942), the U.S. Russia, and England announced, apparently with the full concurrence of the 11 allied United Nations (it is questionable if they were even consulted!) that Germany was, indeed, planning to kill all Jews within its occupied territory. As a result of this announcement, the Political Warfare Executive published its “Central Directive” on Dec. 17, 1942 and on Dec. 20, 1942, the BBC began its well-planned broadcasts of these joint UN declarations of German intent and guilt with H. Wickham Steed, the well-known World War I anti-German propagandist as the announcer. From this point on, such daily charges of mass murder allegedly committed by the Germans against the Jews, all without even a shred of tangible proof, accelerated at a stupifying rate to the War Refugee Board Report, issued with the imprimatur of the (Executive Office of the) President of the United States and to the final post-war disposition of Germany and Germans under the “Plan” developed under Morgenthau’s ever-watchful eye. Throughout all this, no U. N. source dared challenge these accusations for fear of being branded “Nazi,” “anti-semitic,” and/or “unpatriotic.” And later, as the head of the War Refugee Board who had had a powerful hand in the publishing of the War Refugee Board Report with the full support of Roosevelt, Morgenthau, now as the “author” of the Morgenthau Plan for post-war Germany, could confront anyone who might oppose the “Plan” as too harsh with the words, “Well, that is not nearly as bad as sending them (the German survivors of the war) to gas chambers.” (Diary, 344)

For Germans and Germany, these atrocity charges, properly considered by them to be scurrilous from the very beginning (“Unreines Mittel zum boesen Zweck!”), had the most virulent, malicious, and malevolent outcome possible as the perpetrators of these charges had, indeed, intended. It guaranteed that ultimately the plan devised by Harry Dexter White under Henry Morgenthau, Jr’s. supervision, or something very similar to it would be used as the U.S. model for the disposition of post-war Germany to the exclusion of other, markedly less radical plans being developed by the War Department and/or State Department (For Rel., 1944, Vol. I, p. 359).

C. THE MORGENTHAU PLAN EVOLVES (August 26, 1944, For. Rel. 1944, p. 544) The fact tht Morgenthau had access to what was unquestianably a highly secret document concerning the nature of the military government which would be imposed upon a defeated Germany is of itself highly significant in that it demonstrates, perhaps better than any other fact, the power of the Secretary of Treasury and his ability to gain access to any governmental plan he wished. The fact that he was able to write his letter of Aug. 26, 1944 to Roosevelt five days before it was issued demonstrates this fully. Morgenthau’s Diaries suggests that it was perhaps his “man” Col. Bernard Bernstein, of the Civil Affairs section of SHAEF, a former Treasury Department employee who was in this case, his source of information. (Diaries, ‘41-’45, p. 334) In his book, The United States in Germany, 1944-1955, Prof. Harold Zink states unequivocally that it was, indeed, Col. B. Bernstein who was the “little bird” who sent a copy of the highly secret SHAEF “Handbook” to his former chief. Morgenthau had his eyes and agents well-placed throughout the government bureaus which interested him.

Both of the U.S. Departments of War and State were in constant contact with the European Advisory Commission whose job it was to study the situation in Europe and to advise the three western U. N. principles, after due consultation with their Governments, what proposals they should make for the post-war achievements of their objectives in Enemy Countries along with a long list of other subjects. In formulating the SHAEF “Handbook for Military Government in Germany” (For. Rel. Vol. I, p. 544-46) and JCS-1067 (For. Re. 1944, Vol. I,pp. 167-72, 343-351 & 359-364) with the advice received from the European Advisory Commission (EAC), the War Department was doing exactly one of the all-important things it should have been doing in time of war! The State Department was also developing plans from the information received from the EAC. All this had transpired without any guidance whatsoever from Roosevelt as to his exact wishes in the matter. At most, he had related to these Departments the fact that he regarded the European Advisory Commission purely as an “advisory” group which he could ignore at will in making the final plans for Germany. It is possible that Morgenthau had the advantage of his opinions in this direction long in advance of Hull and Stimson. Robert D. Murphy was of the opinion that although the War and State Department plans differed, Secretaries Stimson and Hull were willing to merge them into a plan acceptable to both Departments (Murphy, 226). Obviously, such a simple merger was not satisfactory to Roosevelt and Morgenthau (Diaries, III, p. 394).

From the letters of Cordell Hull to John Winant (London, who, like Sumner Welles, had access to Roosevelt without going through his chief, Hull) Jan. 9, 1944 ( For. Rel. 1944, Vol. I, pp. 12 — 14) and to Henry L. Stimson, Aug. 24, 1944 (For. Rel., 1944, Vol. I, pp. 276 — 299), it is obvious that the United States State Department, in the absence of instructions from Roosevelt (Diaries, 365-366), was also doing as it should have and was also thinking along the lines of the work being carried on and suggested by the European Advisory Commission, with no hint or inkling that a “Morgenthau Plan” had already been given the “green light” by Roosevelt!

Hull was obviously and understandably bitter that the State Department Plan for post-war Germany (Memoirs, pp. 1278-1291 & 1602-1622) upon which which he and his staff had spent hundreds of hours was dismissed with so little consideration by Roosevelt. Seemingly, he was unaware until the Second Quebec Conference (“OCTAGON”) of the extent of destruction Roosevelt wished to reign down upon a defeated, prostrate, post-war Germany, and, in a memorandum dated Sept. 1, 1944 (Memoires, p. 1606), he gives his reasons for his decision, still ignorant of Roosevlt’s involvement in the Morgenthau Plan, to oppose it (Memoires, pp. 1605-1607).

One of the most obvious of these objections voiced by Secretary Hull was the observation the “Germany is a deficit country in foodstuffs, and it is doubtful if a plan of making Germany predominantly agricultural can be put into effect without the liquidation or emigration of X millions of Germans.” The generation of sufficient food for the German population in the territory left to it in 1922 had been a continuing problem from 1922 and all through the 1939 war. As we will see later, food for the conquered German population was of secondary interest at best in the Morgenthau Plan. Morgenthau’s book, Germany is Our Problem, in fact seeks to prove that Germany was more than capable of feeding itself and could lose the additional agricultural land with do difficulty in food production. It is, however, well known that since the end of World War I when Germany suffered the first dismemberment and lost large tracts of fruitful farmland in the east (now Poland). Scarce food had to be purchased with gold and imported into Germany to forestall the specter of starvation. It was, in fact, the promise to improve the food situation which gave the NSDAP its initial success and resultant support in Germany.

At a time when Henry A. Wallace as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, was solving the U.S. farm surplus problem by killing farm animals and letting them rot where they fell and destroying large quantities of grain to keep up prices, Richard Walther Darre in Germany was forced to send young students into the harvest fields in summer and fall and initiate huge land reclamation projects to obtain sufficient food for a bare minimal existence. Even then it was necessary use hard-to-obtain gold (because of the general boycott of German goods) to purchases large quantities of grain at prices kept high by pricing agreements reached by Henry Morgenthau, Sr. At the same time American farmers, anxious to sell their surplus products were thwarted in their attempts by the trade policies of Cordell Hull and Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Even with all the improvements in the food situation in Germany which were wrought between 1933 and 1939, it was never possible to abolish some form of rationing in the Third Reich.

The “Plan,” already having Roosevelt’s solid support, was “sold” initially to Churchill at the Quebec Conference (“Octagon”) who, inspite of his initial misgivings, could for a U.S. “loan” of $6,500,000,000 (1944) to a now bankrupt Britain, see the necessity, if not actual beauty, of such a plan. Besides the badly-needed money, Morgenthau’s “selling” of the plan to Churchill had the invaluable assistance of Lord Cherwell, Professor Frederick Lindemann, the British-born, life-long, talented, virulent germano-phobe of German origin, the accomplished scientist, educated in Berlin, who, among other things, showed Churchill and Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur “BOMBER” Harris statistically how the devastation in Germany could be multiplied many fold by bombing not Germany’s munitions factories but rather the homes of Germany’s workers. This attitude, however, was not vastly different from that expressed by both President Roosevelt and General Curtis LeMay. At “OCTAGON,” Lord Cherwell was present as Churchill intimate councellor and as the British Paymaster-General.

As noted above, of the various official plans of what to do with a totally defeated Germany, one had an overwhelming advantage. It was the one devised under Morgenthau’s careful eye at Roosevelt’s request by Dr. Harry Dexter White (born Weit), one of Morgenthau’s most trusted generals. Normally and logically, such an assignment should have been carried out by the State and/or Army Departments, but their early plans based upon traditional concepts of war crimes etc. and upon recommendations of the European Advisory Council (Foreign Relations, 1944, Vol. I, p. 409) were to be ignored by Roosevelt in favor of the one to be formulated by the Treasury Department.

In yet another “special assignment for which he had become famous in Washington, Morgenthau promptly assigned the responsibility for the plan to White and primarily two other Treasury Department anti-German stalwarts, John Pehle (of the War Refugee Board) and Ansel Luxford. As stated, it had the advantage over all others that it was specifically requested by Roosevelt as yet another “special assignment” for which Morgenthau had become well known in Washington.

Exactly why Roosevelt did not entrust Hull with carrying out his intentions to destroy Germany (Diaries, 342) but chose Morgenthau instead is not apparent. Both men shared the idea that the German leaders should be shot. Hull differed in that he would have collected them all together first, given them a secret “trial,” shot them and a day later announce the action to the world (a la Ceausceau) rather than have shot them on orders at capture as advocated by Morgenthau. (Diaries, 341) Like Morgenthau, Hull also would also accept a second (a post World War II) dismemberment of Germany (Diaries, 340 -342) although the latter had been kept in the dark by Roosevelt as to his desires and intentions.

As stated earlier, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. did not need to “start from scratch” in formulating his plan. First, he was aware of his chief’s personal feelings toward Germany. He had, besides such popular books as Theodore Kaufmann’s Germany Must Perish and the writings of many such as Sebastian Haffner, many of his close associates, innumerable newspapers and magazines (See Colliers Magazine, Life & Time Magazine, etc. of the wartime period) as well as the unofficial, semi-official and official statements of those in allied anti-German governments. Besider, Morgenthau knew the high pitch of hatred which now raged in support of the war in the American Public.

In the period before “OCTAGON,” Morgenthau had also visited Supreme Commander Dwight David Eisenhower in Europe.

Eisenhower, who had risen from General Macarthur’s “major” to a five star general under Roosevelt, and was chosen for his position without question only because his “boss” was certain he shared his views and opinions to a greater extent than any of the other available officers and that he could be trusted completely to carry out his orders. (This was also true of Gen. Marshall and all the other officers appointed by Roosevelt!)

This willing subserviance to and sympathetic support of Roosevelt’s orders even after the death of Roosevelt, he demonstrated over and over again. Examples of this may be found in his refusal to accept the surrender of German troops when offered (Robert Murphey, Diplomat Among Warriors, p. 240), his inhuman treatment of German “Disarmed Enemy Forces” (DEF’S) after “unconditonal surrender” who under this “classification” contrived by the Combined Chiefs of Staff resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of the last legitimate German Government and its former soldiers, which then had, according to the U.S. Government edict, no rights as prisoners-of-war under the Geneva Convention, since they could piously maintain the German Government no longer existed, and his surrender against every sense of reason and decency, east and central Germany to the Stalinist Russians as he had been commanded to do (a man of honor would have resigned instead!), purposely administering the occupation of Germany in such a manner after the war that the food and economic situation steadily worsened for two years in a campaign contrived to starve large numbers of surviving Germans. With such behavior, he set the pattern for the foreseeable future for the treatment of captured enemy personnel by “gentlemen of the honorable profession of arms.”

These are but three areas in which he was grossly derelict in the duty entrusted to him by his unknowing countrymen but faithful to the wrathful, secretive man who had exalted him from a relative position of oblivion. In keeping his faith with his master, he almost brought all of Europe to disaster. Ironically, in the end, however, it seemed to qualify him uniquely, in the public mind at least, for his later positions as President of Columbia University and finally as President of the United States.

Another factor which qualified Eisenhower uniquely for his “Crusade in Europe” was the well-substantiated fact that he hated Germans as a race inspite of the fact he was himself of German parentage! “Because the German is a Beast!” he proclaimed to the British Ambassador. “It is a pity we could not have killed more (Germans),” he wrote to his chief, General Marshall who doubtless, along with Roosevelt, also shared most of the latter’s views. Accordingly, he advocated the execution of 3,500 or so officers of the German General Staff as well as all leaders of the NSDAP from the mayors upward, an estimated 100,000 persons.

David Irving has suggested the possibility that the

“Morgenthau Plan” was suggested to Henry Morgenthau, Jr. by

General Eisenhower during his visit in the summer of 1944. Unquestionably, Henry Morgenthau felt very much at home in Gen. Eisenhower’s presence (Diary 335), but it seems quite unlikely that the general could provide more “inspiration” than the U.S. President. Irving also seems to ignore or subordinate the role of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the evolution of the “Plan.”

Doubtless, one reason for Morgenthau’s visit to Eisenhower was to pour oil upon any wrathful waters which might have been generated by his having successfully opposed the SHAEF “Handbook” authorized by the SHAEF commander. Although Eisenhower was completely under the control of Roosevelt, any show of anything other than “solidarity” amoung the upper eschelons was certain to be unpopular with Roosevelt as was the ongoing feud between Ickes and Hopkins. Also, Morgenthau had cause to fear for the future of his agent, Col. Bernard Bernstein, now attached to SHAEF, who had rendered him faithful service by sending him a copy of the secret “Handbook” before it had been published. Such acts of “going over one’s boss’s head” are not appreciated in the Army, and the fact that it involved top secret information made the infraction much worse. Courts martial proceedings could have been instituted in which case it could cause a messy scandal, so the charges had to be squelched if they were contemplated. Further, the Army has many means whereby it can make life miserable for anyone who has breached the code without resort to a formal courts martial. This too, Morgenthau would have wanted to avoid out of concern for his former employee and the hope that he might be of future service to him.

Throughout the preparations for the fight to gain acceptance for the Morgenthau Plan in government sources, Morgenthau, himself, as was also the case with Roosevelt, left no doubt as to his intentions regarding Germany. All members (13,000,000) of the NSDAP were to be “eliminated” — presumably, this would not involve their “relocation in the east.” (Diaries, III, p. 364), a fate which when alleged to be the impending fate of Jews, was sufficient to bring tears to the eyes of U.S. “statesmen” and quivers to their voices. As for the Ruhr, Morgenthau said, “… just strip it, I don’t care what happens to the population… I would take every mine, every mill and factory and wreck it…. Steel, coal, everything. Just close it down…. I am for destroying it first and we will worry about the population second.” (Diaries, III, p. 354). When queried by Harry Dexter White, his trusted but sometimes skeptical lieutenant, about how 15,000,000 Germans in the U.S. Zone would be fed, he suggested Roosevelt would feed them from the Army’s soup kitchen (For. Rel. 1944, Vol I, p. 544). If one may believe the reports in the U.S. newspapers, this “feeding” of the Germans would apparently be by way of U.S. Army garbage cans! Roosevelt, himself, wanted no WPA etc. for Germany and, in the presence of son-in-law John Boettinger, when asked if he wanted the Germans to starve, answered “Why not?” (Kubec, p. 297). He had already said he wished the Germans to be dependant upon a Jew (UNRRA, Lehman) for their food. And this general scheme was carried out further by his choice of Isador Lubin, a Russian Jew, to be in charge of reparations from Germany. (Diaries, III 403) Morgenthau must have been ecstatic knowing he was supported by the remarks made later by Roosevelt and Son Elliott at Teheran.

Later, in conversations (August 23, 1944, Diaries, p. 344) with Stimson and McCloy, Morgenthau seemed to be infatuated with the idea Stimson advanced of it being necessary to “take a lot of people out of Germany” to establish a reduced German population of only 40 million (as it had been in 1860). “Well,” said Morgenthau, “That is not nearly as bad as sending them to gas chambers.” (Diaries, Vol. III, p. 344) This was Henry Morgenthau’s belief long before there was anything more than the vaguest rumors that gas chambers, fumigation or otherwise, were being used in Germany.

Morgenthau, in contrast to Hull, advocated publishing a list of German “War Criminals” to be shot on sight by the capturing U. N. troops. In this, he considered the 50,000 German officers Stalin wanted killed at Teheran would be a “good start.” (Kubec, IHR, Vol. IX, p. 297) Let us not forget here that Roosevelt’s Teheran “compromise solution” to this was that only 49,500 executions of officers would suffice with son Elliott advocating many thousands more. Presumably, the complete Morgenthau list would be compiled and supplied by Dr. Harry Dexter White and Robert H. Jackson, both of whom Morgenthau had brought into the Treasury Department because of their singular abilities and devotion to his ideas. (Note: Jackson had moved on to become a Supreme Court Justice with presidential aspirations. Truman would later name him Chief U.S. Prosecutor at Nuernberg).

D. THE MORGENTHAU PLAN AS PREPARED FOR “OCTAGON” — GERMANY IS OUR PROBLEM

Now, that we have considered how and why the Morgenthau Plan came into being as well as some of its authors and supporters, let us consider the original Morgenthau Plan, comprising some three and one-half typwritten pages, as it was developed for the Second Quebec Council (“OCTAGON”) in Sept. 12-16, 1944.

Although Henry Morgenthau, Jr. was not strictly the author of the “Plan” which bears his name, perhaps “editor” is more appropriate, he, as its most public and most vehement and persitant protagonist deserves, none the less, to have his name attached eternally to the concept and its provisions which, after numerous revisions, still remained basically the “Morgenthau Plan.”

The unqualified acceptance by the U.S. Government, as represented and controlled by F. D. Roosevelt, of the unsubstantiated mass murder charges against Germany were to become the reason for and complete justification for Roosevelt’s acceptance of the provisions of the monsterous Morgenthau Plan.

As presented by Henry Morgenthau, Jr. to the assembled U.S. and British representatives, including Roosevelt and Churchill, the “Plan,” formally entitled “Program to Prevent Germany from Starting a World War III,” dealt with fourteen topics for the post-war treatment of Germany. Properly dealt with, in the opinion of the authors of the plan, Germany would be converted into a third-class power with only agriculture as its life and economy sustaining activity. Its politics would be conducted solely by those principle nations specified by the victorious United Nations. These fourteen very general topics which were dealt with were as follows:

I. Demilitarization of Germany

II. New Boundaries of Germany

III. Partitioning of “New” Germany

IV. The Ruhr Area — International Control of Part NotDestroyed

V. Restitution and Reparations by Germany

VI. (Re) Education and Propaganda

VII. Political Decentralization (Destruction of all traces of existing Government)

VIII. Responsibility of (Occupation) Military for a LocalGerman Economy

IX. (Occupation) Controls over German Economy

X. Agrarian Program

XI. Punishment (by Victors) of War Crimes and Treatment of Special of Special (German Governmental) Groups

XII. Uniforms and Parades*

XIII. Aircraft*

XIV. United States Responsibility

* These topics were specifically requested by PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt in the memorandum on Germany of 4Sept., 1944, in the preparation of the Morgenthau Plan forpresentation at “Octagon”. Roosevelt was therefore,unquestionably, atleast one of the “contributing-authors”of the document.

(Diaries, p. 351-356; For. Rel., 1944, Vol. I, pp 358-359)

From these topics and their very general nature, it will be seen that just about every phase of German life was to be affected if not, indeed dominated, and needless to say, all had the intent of closely restricting Germans in their activities to reconstitute a German Government, industry, economy, educational system, new media (propaganda!), or anything which the victors might later consider even remotely a potential threat to their future security and objectives in the occupied Country (Diaries, III, 394).

A few of the points covered were as follows: Germany, as a country, was to have its territory given over to dismemberment and plunder by the victors a second time within a quarter century and what was left then over was to be partitioned among the victors into four areas of occupation, comparable to medieval fiefs, for as long as the victors chose to remain in Germany. Any remaining German assets were to be surrendered to the victors for disposal as they wished. The Germans must surrender any German “wanted” for trial by the victors under ex post facto laws yet to be decreed by the victors. The German population was to be subject to de-Germanizing (“Reconstruction”) re-education at the hands of the victors and German collaborators. The United States was to obligate itself not only to accept the plan as presented (and if necessary pay others to do the same) but to guarantee future unswerving support of the plan as accepted originally.

Morgenthau’s book, Germany is Our Problem, (229 pages) was written, apparently by Treasury officials Harry Dexter White, Ansel Luxford and Josiah DuBois, (Diary, Vol. III, p. 381) at Henry Morgenthau, Jr’s. request and apparently also with Roosevelt’s full support and knowledge (Diaries, Vol III, p. 418) for the express purpose of supporting the “Plan” fully, to assure its acceptance by the public in its initial objectives and to assure future unlimited support from the United States and thereby, its World War II allies, the “United Nations.” An appendix contains the “Potsdam Agreement” which apparently was considered quite properly by Morgenthau as an integral part of carrying out the provisions of the generalized Morgenthau Plan.

Properly analyzed, the Morgenthau Plan, or the Roosevelt-Morgenthau Program to Prevent Germany from Starting a World War III, was divised to allow the victors to control Germany (Central Europe) permanently, for all time to come, regardless of any political, economic, or other changes which the Germans might make either of their own volition or might have forced upon them by the victorious powers. In nature they were all purposely draconian and horrendously punative and so concieved that once put into effect, they would be irreversible. Like the execution of the head of state and his regime, once carried out, they cannot be recalled to life, and to this end the full faith of the United States was pledged.

The Morgenthau Plan can be divided into the following parts:

I. Complete Military, Economic, Social, Etc. Disarmament ofGermany by the Victors.

II. Territorial Demands and Changes in Germany to Permanently Reduce the country to Dependency upon theVictors.

III. Loss of Sovereign Rights by Germany to Victors

IV. Surrender of Persons Considered to be Potential Political, Economic, Etc. Threats to Victors to beDisposed of at Their Pleasure

In this and the succeeding plans for post-war Germany, these four topics originated by the Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plan were re-presented over and over with heartless, ominous regularity.

XVII. THE SECOND QUEBEC CONFERENCE, “OCTAGON” — Sept. 12-16, 1944

As the fall of 1944 approached, the fortunes of the United nations rose steadily while the fortunes of the Axis nations waned to an even greater degree. Already, an important part of United Nations concern was just how much of the mineral wealth the Axis Nations required was no longer available to them. Their hopes were high. In this atmosphere, the Second Quebec Conference, “OCTAGON” was convened. The attendees and particiipants were as follows:

Attendees and Participants in the Second Quebec (“OCTAGON”) Conference — Sept 11-16, 1944

U.S.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr.

Harry Dexter White

Miss Grace G. Tully

EleanorRoosevelt

Admiral William D. Leahy

General George C. Marshall

Admiral Earnest J. King

General Henry H. Arnold

Lt. Gen. Brehon B. Somervell

Vice Admiral Russel Cooke

Vice Admiral Emory S. Land

Vice Admiral Ross T. McIntire

Maj. Gen. Thomas T. Handy

Maj. Gen. Muir S. Fairchild

Maj. Gen. Lawrence S. Kuter

Maj. Gen. Walter A. Wood, Jr.

Rear Adm. Charles A. Cooke

Rear Adm. Lynde D. McCormick

Rear Ad. Wilson Brown

Rear Adm. Donald B. Duncan

Brig. Gen. Frank N. Roberts

Brig. Gen. William W. Bessell, Jr.

Brig. Gen. Frank F. Everest

Brig. Gen. Richard C. Lindsay

Col. Clarence R. Peck

Col. George A. Lincoln

Col. Donald W. Benner

Commander Robert N. S. Clark

Lt. Col. H. Merrill Pasco

Capt. Edmund W. Burrough

Capt. James Fife, Jr.

Capt. Alexander S. McDill

Capt. Paul D. Stroop

U. K.

Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill

Sir Anthony Eden

Sir Alexander Cadogan

Lord Leathers

Donald MacDougall

Richard Kidston Law

Hugh Thomas Weeks

Lord Cherwell (Prof. Frederick Alexander Lindemann)

The Earl of Athlone

Lord Moran

The Earl of Athlone

Mrs. Winston S. Churchill

Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone

Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke

Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Charles Portal

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Andrew B. Cunningham

Field Marshal Sir John Dill

General Sir Hastings Ismay

Admiral Sir Percy Noble

Air Marshal Sir William Welsh

Lt. Gen. Gordon Nevil Macready

Commander Charles Rolf Thompson

Capt. Guy Grantham, RN.

Capt. Cecil Charles Hughes Hallett, RN.

CANADA

Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King

While at Quebec, President Roosevelt spoke with Archduke Otto von Hapsburg and other members of the Austrian Royal Family (FR. p. 292).

Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr. arrived on Sept 13, 1944.

It is reported that the Russians were not represented because they expressed no wish to send an observer. In general, the Russians or “Stalin” could depend upon Roosevelt keeping him informed fully of the proceedings and the decisions. The U.S. State Department was not represented, since Roosevelt had represented the conference to an ailing Hull as being purely for military purposes as its make-up might suggest, and, indeed, the conference did have military aspects. Aside from the military aspects of the meeting, which were to be, other important points of discussion were Britain’s financial plight, that former powerful nation being now completely devoid of any funds to purchase even the necessary armaments and other essential raw materials and supplies to prosecute the war which was still raging in Europe and Asia. This point had been touched upon briefly at the SecondCairo Conference but left until later for an expected amicable solution. Now, even sufficient food for its people was lacking! To the discontent of the United States, the British had been forced to buy beef from Argentia (FR. p. 394).

The Second Quebec Conference began as did the other councils of war with meetings of the Combined Chiefs of Staff who discussed the world-wide war situation, their plans, etc. and they briefed their respective Heads of State, answered questions, took suggestions and/or orders from them for future projects and operations. There were by now, many many projects, indeed, in Europe, the Mediterranean, Burma, China, etc. and the many phases of a world-wide conflagration. Certainly, one of the more significant projects was “Mulberry,” the western United Nations concept which involved the construction of artificial harbors. Without the construction of an artificial harbor to unload essential heavy military equipment, until a deep water harbor could be conquered by the invading United Nations Forces, the entire operation “Overlord” might well have been another Dieppe.

These discussions were apparently straight forward, and the British were doubtless eager to get on with the discussions on just how they would be helped by their ally so that they might be able to afford the weaponry etc. necessary for the successful conclusion of the war. It must have come as somewhat of a shock and rude awakening for them to find that at the Conference, the discussions which they had eagerly awaited would be delayed until after the presentation of Morgenthau’s Plan for Germany.

In addition to the pressing economic problems which might jeopardize Britain’s war-making capacity, Roosevelt intended to introduce discussions involving the treatment of Germany after the conclusion of hostilities. It was toward this end that Morgenthau was summoned by him to come to Quebec and present “his” plan on Sept 14, 1944. By this time, the Combined Chiefs of Staff had presented most of their material leaving them with discussions of British participation in the Pacific war, the estimated end of this war, communications with “silent partner” Chiang Kai-Shek, B-29 operations of the Twentieth Air Force against Japan, new bases in Australia, various other operations world wide and the use of various types of equipment. Significantly, the major topic of discussion remaining which concerend the main enemy, Germany, was the division of this unfortunate country up into “zones of occupation” by those nations which already considered themselves to be the victors.

Resistance to the “Plan” by Churchill, whom Roosevelt suspected of wishing a “mild” peace with Germany (FR. p. 318, 324-7, 342-3) had been anticipated even before the Conference, and in this regard, Roosevelt had said, “Give me thirty minutes with Churchill and I can correct this. We have got to be tough with Germany and I mean the German people not just the Nazis…. (Diary, 342).” In reference to Churchill, Roosevelt stated that he was going to be tough too (FR. p. 324). Resistance to the “Plan” from Churchill was quick in coming “He looked on the (U.S.) Treasury (Morgenthau) Plan, he said, as he would on chaining himself to a dead German,” Morgenthau wrote afterward. (Diary 369) Roosevelt would obviously need much more than half an hour in time and other “goodies” which he could bestow to change his attitude, a change which Roosevelt deemed was entirely necessary for the desired usual strong showing of British-U.S. solidarity and unanimity of purpose.

From Lord Moran’s account of the inital meetings between Morgenthau and Churchill, it seems likely that Churchill came to “OCTAGON” unprepared to talk about Germany in anything but future possibilities and generalities. The British believed the details of such a plan would be suggested by the European Advisory Commission (EAC) which would be submitted for the approval or disapproval of the Heads of State at a later date. Many in the United States believed this was the purpose for which the EAC was organized. Doubtless, Churchill believed Roosevelt shared these views to a degree at least not knowing Roosevelt had a different view of the Commission (FR. 1944, Vol. I, pp. 1-3).

Exactly what Churchill had in mind for postwar Germany at this moment is uncertain. Perhaps he shared Chamberlain’s ideas that after the war, Hitler and his Nationalist Socialist Regime must leave after which, presumably a “second” Versailles-type “armistice” and “peace” would be forced upon Germany. At any rate, this is the type of agreement the United Nations actually signed later with Italy after Mussolini and most of the leaders of his regime had been murdered. But obviously, Roosevelt had never entertained such a possibility for a “soft” peace in mind for Germany.

Churchill, therefore, was probably surprised and amazed to be confronted as he was with a comprehensive plan for the treatment of postwar Germany at “OCTAGON.” It was even more amazing to hi;m that it should have originated in the U.S. Treasury Department and be coupled with and made esentially dependent upon the promise of financial aid which Britain now needed desperately (Fr. p. 327). As it was, Roosevelt was well-informed on the contents and provisions of the “Plan,” having helped write it, and Churchill knew nothing of it, a situation shared to a great extent also by Roosevelt’s Secretary of State Cordell Hull. One can only inagine Churchill’s consternation and frustration when “out of the blue,” Mr. Morgenthau presented his comprehensive plan (FR. p. 325). Morgenthau himself characterizes “Churchill as inquiring with annoyance whether he had been brought to Quebec to discuss such a scheme and as stating that it would mean that England would be chained to a dead body, i.e. Germany (H. Freeman Matthews, For. Rel., Quebec Conf., 1944, p. 325). In the end, however, Churchill agreed to discuss Germany. (FR. p. 326). He protested that the British people would not stand for such a policy, certainly not one extended over the years. According to Morgenthau, he looked upon the Plan “as he would on chaining himself to a dead German.”

The “Plan,” in his opinion, was “unnatural, unchristian and unnecessary.” (FR., p. 326).

On the subject of “war criminals,” Churchill was initially also critical, being finally forced by his adversaries into the position of saying “At any rate what is to be done should be done quickly. Kill the criminals, but don’t carry on the business for years…. In five years time, when passions would have died down, [English] people, he said would not stand for repressive measures…. I agree with Burke. You cannot indict a whole nation.” Sadly for Churchill and perhaps also for Germany, he apparently had not considered the possibility that in the postwar period, no one in a position of power would care about what the British would stand or not stand. But he would be spared the ignominy of appointing British delegates to the postwar war crimes courts. That would be done by his successor Clement R. Attlee.

These initial talks on the Morgenthau Plan lasted some three hours. During the talks, Lord Cherwell (Professor Frederick Alexander Lindemann), as germanophobic as Roosevelt or Morgenthau seemed to side consistently with Morgenthau in the discussions. Noting this, Roosevelt said “Let the Professor go into our plans with Morgenthau.” (For Rel. Quadrant, 1972, p. 325).

A day after Morgenthau presented his “Plan” initially, Churchill, in an about face, declared “I will take it.” (FR. pp. 329, 343, 361). On the 15th of September, he suddenly lept into action, called for Morgenthau’s memorandum and with it in hand, dictated his own memorandum (FR., p. 361-2). Thereafter, he and Roosevelt initialed the memorandum as an indication of their joint acceptance of it. To Churchill’s credit, we may perhaps say that by so doing, he possibly avoided a still harsher plan for postwar Germany which would have been written by an ad hoc committee with Morgenthau as its chairman (F. R., p. 330).

What in the interim had caused his overnight conversion? The meanings of the “arguments” voiced by Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and Harry Dexter White, with whom Churchill were trying to negotiate the second phase of “Lend Lease” (FR. p. 327) could not be refuted. “Morgenthau asked the P. M. how he could prevent Britain starving when her exports had fallen so low that she would be unable to pay for imports. The P. M. had no satisfactory answer (FR. p. 325).” Harry Dexter White quotes Morgenthau as having ask Anthony Eden, “Do you want a strong Germany and a weak England or a weak Germany and a strong England (FR. p. 330)?” Churchill had taken what he considered would be the best “deal” he would ever get from Roosevelt!

Morgenthau, realizing the influence of the life-long- germanophobic Lord Cherwell (Professor Frederick Alexander Lindemann), British Paymaster-General and intimate friend and privy councellor to Churchill exercised upon his chief, took pains to explain his “Plan” to Cherwell and took even greater pains to explain how dependant Phase-2 of U.S. Lend-Lease aid to Britain was upon the acceptance by the British of the U.S. Morgenthau Plan for the post-war treatment of defeated Germany. (Diaries 317, 373-4) Morgenthau seems to attempt to deny this at a later date (Diaries 373), but Roosevelt signed the Lend-Lease agreement only after the British had signed the memo dictated by Churchill on Sept 15, 1944 while he held Morgenthau’s text in his hand. (Diary 370 & 374 & FR. pp. 360-363).

It was at “OCTAGON” that Eden, who was hardly pro-German, rebuked Churchill for accepting rather than opposing an inhuman concept which both had earlier publicly denounced. Churchill’s answer was, “The future of my people is at stake, and when I have to choose between my people and the German people, I’m going to choose my people” (FR. p. 362). Later, it appears that Eden himself came around to this position. (Just how this differs markedly from the often-admitted concerns of Adolf Hitler for the German People, “his people,” escapes this author!) Roosevelt’s apparent reluctance to sign the Stage-II Lend-Lease authorization for Britain brought tears to Churchill’s eyes, and at one point in the conference, he ask of Roosevelt, “What do you want me to do, stand up and beg like Fala?” (FR. p. 348). At this time and possibly for the first time, after six arduous years of war, Churchill had an inkling of what Roosevelt’s post-war plans were for Britain as well as for Germany although one is prone to believe he had any cause to expect otherwise from the conference at Cairo onward. Even a promise by Roosevelt of a British monopoly for 20-30 years in the European steel industry (by dismantling the German Ruhr) did little to comfort him (FR., p. 323). Nor did it make the acceptance of the Morgenthau Plan more palatable or more honorable.

Unquestionably, “OCTAGON” was a turning point in Anglo-American relations. Churchill, somewhat belatedly, perhaps for the first time as a “European,” had tried vainly to keep the Russians from the heart of Central Europe only to be checked at each attempt by Roosevelt himself.(FR. p. 314, 317, 350) Of the two western United Nations, he was finally brought to the realization that without Roosevelt’s support, he and Britain and their respective futures were nothing. Britain was ridiculed openly for its policies in India (FR. p. 327). The empire forged by Lord Randolf Churchill would be lost in the postwar world, and Britain considered no more than a vassal state by the man in whose benevolence they had trusted.

The British had come to the Conference hopeing for some of the financial aid so often promised in the course of New Deal “Dollar Diplomacy” hoping to thereby avoid imminent bankrupcy. In this endeavor, they had been told rather gruffly that to obtain any aid, they must first accept the U.S. Treasury Department’s post-war plans for Germany, this even before any terms for assistance were even discussed. At this point, the British were short not only of munitions but raw materials, foodstuffs, clothing, funds necessary to rebuild an industry made obsolete by the war, funds to rejuvinate British economy and foreign trade, etc. They certainly, even after accepting the Morgenthau Plan, did not get all they had hoped for and what they did obtain was given grudgingly (FR., pp. 328-330, 342-346, 348-9).

There was none of the early-war Rooseveltian charm nor magnanimity towards England or even a trace of the attitude of the “Double it” which characterized the treatment Roosevelt gave Stalin’s “want list” which was given cost free to Russia. Both Hull and Stimson who had wanted to obtain post-war trade concessions from the now hard-pressed British complained of the Phase-II Lend-Lease Agreement. Hull stated, “Roosevelt had given away the bait.” (Diary 314) In reality he had “set the hook.”

Clearly the benevolent attitude the U.S. Government had formerly held for Britain had changed markedly since the time of Dunkirque in 1940 when the U.S. armory was stripped to rearm the evacuated 300,000 British troops and those they had brought along against their wills. By this time, Russia, not Britain had, in Roosevelt’s eyes, become the “partner of consequence” for the U.S. As members of the “Old Guard” which had advocated U.S. intervention in World War I, Hull and Stimson and others of their persuasion most likely still resented deeply the fact that the British and French had not jumped at the opportunity of accepting U.S. world leadership in 1918 and thereby postponed the “American Millineum” for nearly three decades.

So far as inital success of the Second Quebec Conference was concerned, it achieved very nearly everything its New Deal participants had wished. After all, they had “held all the cards.” The United States had promised to give Britain, now reduced by war expenditures basically to the status of a beggar nation, assistance which it had to have to remain an effective force in fighting the war. Actually, there could have been no question as to whether the U.S. would give Britain at least minimal assistance, but first Roosevelt had pointedly exacted a heavy, degrading price. Britain was forced to recognize de facto U.S. preeminence in the plans for administering post-war Germany. And to obtain the money he needed desperately, pursuasive, blustery, bombastic Winston Churchill had had to “beg like Fala” with “the future of his people at stake.”

By implication and in consideration of Britain’s financial plight, France and China being even more destitute at this point would, for all practical purposes be given “honorable mention” in post-war considerations by being allowed to “join” in the decisions of the United States, Britain, and Russia. The U.S. (Roosevelt) was placed securely, permanently in the driver’s seat in the coming discussions on the occupation of that part of Germany the U.S. did not arbitrarily chose to give to the Russians (Stalin) for disposal as they saw fit.

From the beginning, the western occupation zones of Germany were in fact destined for eventual U.S. domination. The earlier charade by the great, benevolent “arsenal of Democracy” altruistically handing out arms and dollars to the enemies of Mankind to make the “world safe for Democracy” was, if not gone completely, so completely changed as to be no longer recognizable by their allies. Far from being “first among equals,” the New Deal papists of Democracy with their billions of taxpayer and borrowed dollars had crowned themselves as the final authorities on all that was to transpire in the future in all areas of the World not given over to Russian. The British, French, Dutch, Belgian, and Italian Empires lay helpless at their feet! Observed in this light, the Quebec Conference was unquestionably a resounding success for the Roosevelt New Deal Regime a success which was, however, necesary if the New Deal Regime was to realize the international goals which it had set for itsself. For the former great nations of Europe, it marked the beginning of their political-economic vassalage on a national scale.

As usual, the Conference ended with the inevitable Communique.

COMMUNIQUE TO THE PRESS

The President and the Prime Minister, and the Combined Chiefs of Staff held a series of meetings during which they discussed all aspects of the war against Germany and Japan. In a very short space of time they reached decisions on all poinnts both with regard to the completion of the war in Europe, now approaching its final stages, and the destruction of the barbarians of the Pacific.

The most serious difficulty with which the Quebec Conference has been confronted has been to find room and opportunity for marshalling against Japan the massive forces which each and all of the nations concerned are ardent to engage against the enemy.

From the press release, one gains little knowledge of the disappointment and dissention between the western United Nations allies which reigned in Quebec after the arrival of Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Nothing was said officially about the “Plan” which he brought with him.

After the Second Quebec Conference, a number of the attendees plus others assembled at Roosevelt’s Hyde Park mansion for additional talks and high level conviviality. The attendees included Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Among other things, the preparation of an atomic bomb to be used against the Japanese repeatedly until they surrendered was discussed.

Exactly what other topics were discussed is based upon a collection of articles from several other files, since no official record was kept of the talks here as was also the case in Quebec and at the other conferences. Why this was the case is not apparent, since officials serving as the secretariate are listed at all conferences except the Argentia (“Atlantic”) Conference.

The discussions at Hyde Park ended with the publication of a White House Press Release.

White House Press Release

[Washington,] September 26, 1944

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT AND PRIME MINISTER CHURCHILL

The President and the Prime Minister held further discussions Monday and Tuesday, September 18 and 19, at Hyde Park, on subjects dealing with post-war policies in Europe. The result of these duscussions cannot be disclosed at this time for strategic military reasons, and pending their consideration by our other Allies.

The present problems in Italy also came under discussion, and on this subject the President and the Prime Minister issued the following statement:

“The Italian people, freed of their Fascist and Nazi overlordship, have in these last twelve months demonstrated their will to be free, to fight on the side of the democracies, and to take a place among the United Nations devoted to principles of peace and justice.

“We believe we should give encouragement to thoses Italians who are standing for a politiccal rebirth in Italy, and are completing the destruction of the evil Fascist system. We wish to afford the Italians a greater opportunity to aid in the defeat of our common enemies.

“The American and the British people are of course horrified by the recent mob action in Rome, but feel that a greater responsibility placed on the Italian people and on their won government will most readily prevent a recurrence of such acts.

“An increasing measure of control will be gradually handed over to the Italian Administration, subject of course to that Adminsitration’s proving that it can maintain law and order and the regular administration of justice. To mark this change the Allied Control Commission will be renamed ‘The Allied Commission.’

“The British High Commissioner in Italy will assume the additional title of Ambassador. The United STates representative in Rome already holds that rank. The Italian Government will be invited to appoint direct representatives to Washington and London.

“First and immediate considerations in Italy are the relief of hunger and sickness and fear. To this end we instructed our representatives at the UNRRA Conference to declare for sending of medical aids and other essential supplies to Italy. We are happy to know that this view commended itself to other members of the UNRRA Council.

“At the same time, first steps should be taken primarily as military aims to put the full resources of Italy and the Italian people into the struggle to defeat Germany and Japan. For military reasons we should assist the Italians in the restoration of such power systems, their railways, motor transport, roads and other communications as enter into the war situation, and for a short time send engineers, technicians and industrial experts into Italy to help them in their own rehabilitation.

“The application to Italy of the Trading with the Enemy Acts should be modified so as to enable business contacts between Italy and the outside world to be resumed for the benefit of the Italian people.

We all wish to speed the day when the last vestiges of Fascism in Italy will have been wiped out, and when the last German will have left Italian soil, and when there will be no need of any Allied troops to remain — the day when free elections can be held throughout Italy, and when Italy can earn her proper place in the great family of free nations.”

(Foreign Relations of the United States, The Conference at Quebec 1944, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1972, pp. 497-98)

OCTAGON Epilogue — Post Factum

As might be expected, back in Washington, probably after having talked with Roosevelt, Morgenthau was ecstatic. He told his group of inmates, “the thing up at Quebec… was unbelievably good… As far as I went personally, it was the high point of my whole career in the Government…, and I imagine the reason he (Roosevelt) sent me was he had tried this (the Morgenthau Plan) out on Churchill and got nowhere. He then cabled me to come on up.” (Diary 373) Henry Morgenthau, Jr., had good cause for rejoicing. In one fell swoop, he had provided the means for Britian to obtain a least a minimum of the help she had to have if she was to remain an active fighting ally of the U.S. and perhaps more important to him personally, he had provided for the final devastation of a nation which at least two generations of his Family had openly detested as they had detested no other country on earth! And he had made the only country on earth which might have been a barrier to this hateful vengeance a party by threatening to withhold aid they sorely needed if they did not promise their assistance in the scurrilous plan.

In the short period between “OCTAGON” (Sept. 12- 16, 1944) and the pending Presidential election on Nov. 7, 1944, the provisions of the Morgenthau Plan became known, at least partially, as a result of “leaks” — possibly willfully done by those supporting it — to the press. The resulting reaction to the plan was immediate and mixed. Hardly a sign of the desired public “solidarity” desired for its support was realized. It was opposed by Hull who had had little if any prior knowledge of the plan, much less a part in its preparation, (and significantly was absent from Quebec, (For. Rel., 1944, Vol I, pp. 344 & 352) opposed it on the grounds that it was much too vengence oriented. Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, opposed it on the grounds that it was more or less transparently an instrument of Jewish revenge upon Germany (Clay, Decision in Germany, p. 54), an accusation Morgenthau wished, at all costs, to avoid.

Numerous national dignitaries also opposed the “Plan,” many vociferously. As things developed, a “fight” against the “Plan” was expected in Congress (Murphy, p. 270). Thomas E. Dewey, Governor of a state having a large, vocal, powerful Jewish population (N. Y.) demanding “justice” as they wished it, himself a candidate for the presidency, charged that the publication of the “Plan” had needlessly cost American lives by inspiring the German Army to fight on with renewed vigor to avoid the destruction of their homeland, comparable only to that of Carthage, threatened by the U. N. In his closing campaign rhetoric, Gov. Dewey estimated the publicizing of the Morgenthau Plan had had the effect of adding “ten fresh German Divisions” to oppose the American troops now attempting to cross the borders of Germany. (One can only wonder why he chose not instead to use the secret information concerning the Pearl Harbor attack brought him by General Marshall, on the condition it remain secret!

At any rate, and quite significantly, Dewey’s protests seem understandably more directed at the results of the “Plan” having been made been made public than at the barbaric nature of the “Plan” itself! Strangely, Felix Frankfurter also opposed the plan. Presumably, his reasoning paralleled that of Sec. Henry L. Stimson.

There is some indication that even Harry Dexter White thought the total destruction of the German mines, useful to Europe as a whole, was too much, a position Eisenhower claimed later that he too had supported, but it is possible he arrived at this position in retrospect at the writing his book, Crusade in Europe. One of the crowning blows to the “Plan” was its description by the liberal Washington Post as the “product of a fevered mind.” (Diary, III, p. 379). There were also indications that Winston Churchill who with Roosevelt had initialed a memorandum supporting much of the Morgenthau Plan, and Anthony Eden were also, after it had been publicized, having second thoughts about the wisdom of the “Plan” inspite of the 6.5 billion dollars promised by Roosevelt and Morgenthau in Phase II-Lend Lease.

Henry Morgenthau, Jr., however, was himself not without powerful, influential supporting allies and friends in seeking to sell his “Plan” in the United States. The “leak to the press” had suddenly revealed a great opposition to a policy which he and his chief had long supported and intended putting into effect regardless of the feelings of the people of the United States, England or anyone else! We must never forget he had been requested by Roosevelt, himself (“commissioned”), to formulate the “Plan” and Morgenthau had from time to time even received written instructions and advice from his chief as to what the plan should include. Roosevelt-appointed Admiral William D. Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also supported the plan, as would be expected. Firebrand Senator Claude Pepper of Florida, devoted New Deal disciple, virulent anti-German and one of the most avid early war-interventionists in the Senate also supported the plan as did his colleague, Senator H. W. Kilgore. Senator Pepper even declared himself ready for an all-out Senate fight to obtain Congressional acceptance of the “Plan.” Bernard Baruch could also be counted upon for support. Among the “intellectual” christian academics, Dr. James Bryant Conant, President of Harvard, later to be U.S. High Commissioner to occupied (west) Germany also supported the “Plan.”

Throughout this time, one might think things looked black, indeed, for the Morgenthau Plan and with those identified with it. Outside of his staff, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. received publically little official encouragement or notice. One obvious and significant exception was John J. McCloy, second in the War Department only to Henry L. Stimson and destined to be the First U.S. High Commissioner to occupied (west) Germany, In McCloy, Morgenthau found a man who was “a wise, and adaptable man, devoted to Stimson and dedicated to public service,” always a “straight shooter,” “friendly, cooperative, and patient” — a man who had had a lifetime of activity hostile to Germany. (Diaries 384-385). McCloy shared many of Morgenthau’s ideas and encouraged him to explain the Treasury’s (Morgenthau’s) attitude and the War Department’s too, to Lord Cherwell.” (diaries, Vol. III, p. 385), a rather transparent exercise in “reward and punishment,” in view of the pending Lend Lease, Phase II talks and England’s financial need.

In the continuing, pre-election, behind-the-scenes battle over the “Plan” in the halls of the Nations capitol, Morgenthau and his supporters were busy forming their battle lines in support of the “Plan” and honing their defense of and their presentations for the “Plan” in the battle to come — after the Presidential election (For. Rel., 1944, Vol. I, p. 382). Among their powerful supporters, they could already count Admiral William D. Leahy, Roosevelt-appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, John J. McCloy, Gen. John Hilldring, and Prof. James B. Conant, President of Harvard Univ. (It should be remembered that, along with Gen. George C. Marshall, John J. McCloy shared the distinction of having had the full confidence and support of both President Roosevelt and President Truman).

But all this behind-the-scenes manoevering, log rolling, horse trading, promising, threatening, cajoling, herding, etc. occurred in the hushed, “hallowed halls” of “democratic” government involving elected “actors” claiming to represent the American people. betrayed not a word of their intent or actions on these epoch making decisions which would be made shortly in the names of their constituents.

But is seems possible that the Morgenthau Plan and its “leaking” directly after OCTAGON may well have played a valuable role in the strategy of Roosevelt in attaining his final objectives regarding Germany and Germans. If the Plan revealed at OCTAGON is viewed as a “trial balloon,” it served a very useful purpose by revealing to Roosevelt at a relatively early date those who would be his supporters, those who would oppose him(FR. pp. 318), and the grounds upon which he would be opposed if he stood solidly behind the Plan, and what provisions of the Plan would not be opposed and might be expanded at will in his future negotiations. Secondly the “leaking” of the information at “OCTAGON” allowed Roosevelt to assess the degree of “shock” his ideas would have upon the American people and still give him sufficient time before the election to allow him a measure of counter-attack to allay the fears of the public that such barbarity (“…turn on the old record!” Collier’s Magazine, “The Morgenthau Diaries,” Oct. 4, 1947, p. 21) would become public policy, or he could undertake to “re-educate” the public before the election. As a result of these findings, he would find it expedient to cloak even more of his future activities in the secrecy which had always characterized his regime and had always served him so well. In the meantime, Morgenthau himself may have felt his star was in eclipse, but his objectives were never far from Roosevelt’s mind.

However, as “black” as things may have appeared to Morgenthau and his acolytes, it is extremely doubtful that Roosevelt in his frequent contacts with his intimate, “two-of-a-kind” friend had not told him of what his actual post-election position regarding the “Morgenthau Plan,” for which both were actually responsible, would be. It is also likely that Morgenthau was made aware of this at least shortly after “OCTAGON,” maybe even earlier, and was told to keep up the good work. How else can one explain Morgenthau’s pre-election actions and the remark he made to his confidante John J. McCloy (and repeated by H. Freeman Matthews) shortly before the 1944 Presidential election (For. Rel. 1944, Vol. I, p. 382) that “after the elections he intended to get back into the German ‘picture’ in a big way.”

The potential pre-election “battle” or controversy over the Morgenthau Plan was resolved masterfully, typically by Roosevelt himself. To avoid what might become an uncontrollable major confrontation potentially devastating to him personally and also to a controversial plan he supported in an election year, a plan he supported strongly, if he had not, indeed, helped to write, Roosevelt demonstrated both his legendary mastery of politics and his mastery of men. He would distance himself officially from the “Plan” until after the all-important Presidential election of Nov. 7, 1944, an election upon which his political future and the future of the “Plan” depended. He could and would not not take a chance that such an issue would arise which would threaten his plans which were already planned into the future and were already being implemented.

By “disavowing” the entire “Plan,” he would hope that the furor over the publicized Morgenthau Plan would die down in the few remaining weeks before the election so that he might obtain as great a “mandate” from the People as possible to allow him another four years essentially of complete freedom of action on an international level after the election — not forgetting, meanwhile, the indisputable fact that he had personally asked Morgenthau to draw up the “Plan,” had advised him as the “Plan” was being written as to what items he wished included in it at least as late as Sept 4, 1944 (Diaries, 354) and had in Quebec (“OCTAGON”) pressed Churchill into dictating the provisions of the “Plan” (from Morgenthau’s Memorandum). This had then been initialed bu Chruchill and Roosevelt (FR., p. 361).

At this point in time, Roosevelt must also have been plagued by the gnawing thought that at any time Gov. Thomas E. Dewey could at any time let loose with a blast which would link him with the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor and cover him and his associates with a cloak of hypocrisy and lies if not impeachment proceedings. This eventuality was circumvented by him, again secretly, by sending Col. Carter Clark, the trusted assistant of his trusted Chief of Staff, General George Marshall secretly to Dewey with papers for his eyes only to be read on the condition that he not reveal the contents. At first Dewey refused to read the letter, but then, after a telephone call to Gen. Marshall and a second letter, he fell neatly into the trap, since thereafter, he felt himself bound by shear “patriotism” not to reveal information which might result in lessening the resolve of the public or the ability of the Nation (the “Purple Code!”) to prosecute the war rather than bound by a mere “oath of silence.” (Toland, John, Infamy, Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath, Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, N. Y., pp.121-123.) Here, we become acquainted with yet another, as yet not too publicized “Marshal Plan” and become aware, so far as Dewey is concerned of the truth of Samuel Johnson’s admonition that “Patriotism, sir, is the final retreat of a scoundrel.”

The masterful albeit deceitful operation envisaged by the President regarding the Morgenthau Plan can best be described as vintage Rooseveltian. The ease with which his plan was carried out coupled with the great general success it finally attained could hardly have resulted in any great respect by those who generated the plan for the mental capabilities of those who were expected to support and did support the plan. Roosevelt’s plan was deceptively simple. He would let someone else, his “right hand,” Morgenthau, take “the heat” temporarily. He “grinned and looked naughty and said, ‘Henry Morgenthau pulled a boner’“ or words to that effect (Henry L. Stimson, Diary, Oct. 3, 1944 & Diaries, Vol. III, p. 380). Craftily, Roosevelt had previously also dissolved his (advisory) Cabinet Committee on German Policy, implying sudden reduced interest in post-war German problems, at least until most of Germany was occupied by United Nations’ Forces. Roosevelt then declared that he disagreed with portions of the Morgenthau Plan, a rather surprising revelation in view of his activity as the “Plan” was being written (Diary, 354). As it turned out, Roosevelt went well beyond the “OCTAGON” plan at Yalta.

But the two characteristic elements, the provisions of the Plan itself and the duplicity of guileful, deceptive official disavowal at the same time, had been artfully established. This trickery had been used before by the Roosevelt regime but never had it been the seed for such future barbarity. Henceforth, there was little Roosevelt could say about the future of Germany which could be accepted as truthful by the people in whose name these acts would be perpetrated by the Roosevelt Government. The occupation powers, (e. g. the United States Occupation) would seek to place the concepts of the Morgenthau Plan into force in conquered Germany and at the same time try to maintain that the Morgenthau Plan had actually been disbanded much earlier. But as we shall see from the plans subsequently used to “govern” a helpless, defeated, hungry land, little of the Morgenthau Plan was ever abandoned. To have done so would have offended one or more of the factions from which Roosevelt and his sucessors drew their political power. Newer versions were created in which logically specified that plants (already dismantled) must be dismantled, men already tried and executed as “war criminals” would no longer be subject to “trial” and execution, etc. Far from being abandoned or disavowed, the Morgenthau Plan was even expanded upon to as required by U.S. domestic politics but to Germany’s growing detriment.

XVIII. -DUMBARTON OAKS (Washington) CONFERENCE, Aug. 21-28, 1944 (Anglo-U.S.-Soviet) and Sept. 29-Oct. 7,1944 (Anglo-U.S.- Chinese), Under Cordell Hull (For. Rel. 1944, Vol. I, pp 614-980)-

As Henry Morgenthau, Jr., the United States Secretary of the Treasury, regarded “his” Program to Prevent Germany from Starting a World War III, the Morgenthau Plan as presented at “OCTAGON,” the second Quebec Conference, as the high point of his political career, so Cordell Hull, the United States Secretary of State, regarded the Dumbarton Oakes Conference as the high point of his. Secretary Hull, called the conference, obviously with the full support of his President, for the purpose of beginning “a further stage of the movement to prevent another war.” (Memoires, II, p. 1671) Again, as with all other conferences and agreements, the United Nations “Trinity,” the “Three Great Powers,” invariably speaking for the rest of the “United nations,” were involved and their “hangers on” would be subsequently given the priviledge of affixing their signatures to the decisions made by the nations which really mattered.

There was, however, not full agreement among the United Nations elite as to who mattered or not. Far from outwardly showing, as desired, the usual orgy of “solidarity,” they refused to meet with the Chinese as equals. Final resolution of the impasse resulted in a “twinned conference” in which the United States, England and Russia met from Aug. 21 — 28, 1944 and the second session with the United States, England and China met from Aug. 29 — Nov. 7, 1944. Although Stalin may be criticized for his affront to the well rehearsed attempts to show unwavering United Nations solidarity in time of war, he, in fact, did at this time what the United States finally did later when U.S. aid was abruptly withdrawn from Chiang Kai-Shek, leaving him an easy mark for the “Red” Chinese supported by Stalin. In the matter of “solidarity,” therefore, Dumbarton Oakes, from the very beginning, left much to be desired.

The American Delegation was led by Under-Secretary of State, Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., who later would be recommended to replace Hull as Secretary of State by Eleanor Roosevelt and Henry Morgenthau, Jr. The British Delegation was led by Under Secretary Sir Alexander Cadogan during the talks with Russia; Lord Halifax led the final discussions with the Chinese. (For. Rel., 1944, Vol. I, p. 849)

Andrei A. Gromyko led the Russian delegation (which left on August 28, 1944).

In addition, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. insisted that the Treasury Department should have an “observer” at the conference. In one of the few instances where Hull, not Morgenthau prevailed, Roosevelt said it “would not be possible,” (Memoires, II, p. 1676) but, with Morgenthau being a very close friend of Stettinius, it would be foolish to believe it was even necessary. That Morgenthau had the cheek to demand such an “observer” appears more as an effort to show Hull who was the “boss.”

The Dumbarton Oakes Conference was opened by Hull himself on Aug. 21, 1944 with a speech of which he obviously was quite proud. (Memoires, II, pp. 1676) Stripped of its Wilsonian rhetoric, it exorts the “Governments of all the United Nations and of all other peace-loving nations, even “those not invited to the conference, to follow the decisions of the Dumbarton Oakes Conference into a world of peace, security and economic and social cooperation.

Whereas the Roosevelt-Morgenthau plan dealt with the removal forever of any independant “German” (Central Eeuropean) political component in world political, military, or economic affairs, the Dumbarton Oaks Conference was to establish a powerful, U.S.-dominated replacement which would dominate world affairs for the foreseeable future. Since the United States, although deeply in debt itsself, represented the only country still economically capable of granting the huge foreign credits which would be necessary for post-war reconstruction, it was obvious that any post-war loans would have to come from the U.S. alone. And the United States, on its part, now although dedicated to deficit spending to accomplish its ends, made no secret of its intent to promote its new international social objectives, help its “friends” who would “cooperate” in the post-war world which was being built, and ignore the others who did not cooperate — dollar diplomacy at its very worst!

The name of the “new” international organization (apparently as opposed to the “old” League of Nations) which was to be established was to be the “new” “United Nations,” surprisingly (to some perhaps) the same as the name of the initial wartime coalition of 26 anti-German nations who, for one reason or another, had affixed their signatures to the “Declaration by the United Nations” at Washington on Jan. 1, 1942.

A major concern of those attempting to form the “United Nations” from the wartime coalition was the fear that the deliberations and decisions of the Dumbarton Oakes Conference would become a subject of wide discussion among those who, in the future, would be called upon to support it with taxes. Thomas E. Dewey, Republican Governor of New York and candidate for the Presidency stated his fears that the Dumbarton Oakes Conference “planned to subject the nations of the world, great and small, permanently to the coercive power of the four nations holding this conference.” (Gov. Dewey apparently did not consider the possiblities resulting when the “four powers” disintegrated into only “ONE” all-powerful nation!) At this point, Hull doubtless experienced all the mental disturbances which plagued Wilson when his League of Nations, the establishment of which had perhaps been his primary cause for bringing the United States into World War I was attacked publicly.

Defusing this “bomb” again delineated the difference between the dabbler, the amateur in politics and the experienced master. First, as almost always, Roosevelt made the liberal press his ally by issuing a “statement” (June 15, 1944) prepared by the State Department.

“The maintenance of peace and security must be the joint task of all peace-loving nations. We have, therefore, sought to develop plans for an international organization comprising all such nations…. It is our thought that the organizations would be a fully represesntative body with broad responsibilities for promoting and facilitating international cooperation…. It is our further thought that the organization would provide for a council, elected annually by the fully representative body of all nations, which would include the major four nations and a suitable number of other nations.”

On August 18, 1944, Gov. Dewey fell into a second “trap” in which he, in the name of bipartisan, “solidarity” if you will, accepted Hull’s offer to discuss Dewey’s fears with his aide, John Foster Dulles, a cousin by marriage to Robert Lansing. In so doing, Hull discussed his ideas about the position of “small nations” in the organiztion and the organization structure which he proposed but would not be decided upon until the final meeting in San Francisco on April 30 — June 26, 1945 in the hands of persons again not of his choosing. In the end, Dewey was placated to the extent that he was attempting to claim credit for some of the Dumbarton Oakes discussions. Clearly, his great “concern” was at not being included among the U.S. delegation. (Memoires, II, p. 1694)

At any rate, by removing the “United Nations” from the realm of “politics,” the people of the United States were denied any effective forum in which to discuss the merits or demerits of the proposed international organization and it was returned to the closed committees and councils which could be controlled by the politicians of the Potomac rushing to make a position for themselves in the “Halls of fame” about to be erected in the name of non-partisan internationalism.

Most of the decisions upon such things as the name of the organization, its organizational structure, etc. had been discussed and agreed upon by the U.S. and Britain before the Conference itself. This may account for some of the friction later generated by the Russians. In any event, it was another in a line of conferences in which the three or four top nations met and made decisions which had great significance for all nations, and then the remaining nations affected were “invited” or “allowed” to support those nations who had made these decisions by proudly (?) affixing their signatures. They could, at best, have been no more than “accessories after the fact.”

In November, 1944, primarily because of declining health, Cordell Hull resigned as Secretary of State of the United States and was replaced with Undersecretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr. by President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the promptings of Eleanor Roosevelt and Henry Morgenthau, Jr.

For the most part, the

(

XIX. 1944 Presidental Election (Nov. 7, 1944)

As pre-election concern in the Morgenthau Plan seemed to wane, officially at least, information gradually became available that work on a new plan was proceeding in the U.S. War Department. This plan was being supervised by none other than John J. McCloy, a man with a long record of antagonism for Germany and Germans, whom Morgenthau and Roosevelt knew they could trust implicitly in this function.

McCloy’s sympathy for Morgenthau’s views has been mentioned above. The new plan which would eventually “surplant” the Morgenthau Plan would be issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and would be known as JCS 1067, but for the present, the general impression was purposely allowed to grow that the Morgenthau Plan was “dead.”

As insidious as were the foregoing provisions for post-war Germany economically, politically, culturally and territorially and with respect to its own soverignty, yet another “Morgenthau Plan” was in the Treasury Department pipeline which would have the same effect on the defeated country’s future economy. It would lead, as had been planned, to the ultimate collapse of Germany’s economic system which at Germany’s surrrender, although greatly weakened, had sufficient strength so that the Reichsmark still had surprising value in the World Currency exchanges. Some U.S. soldiers had even been sending captured (plundered?) Reichsmarks home where they were exchanged for dollars which possibly came from German properties impounded by Morgenthau’s Treasury Department.

Morgenthau had been placed in charge of supplying the currency for the United Nations troops in Germany (and Japan).

Morgenthau designated Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing Co., a commercial printer, as the printer for the German occupation currency. These notes were identified by a small case “f” inserted by Forbes in the scrolling at various locations on the notes of the various denominations. Prior to this, Morgenthau had had a hand in the preparation of the currencies used by the United States troops in the other occupied (or “liberated”) countries of Europe. The flood of such curriences into the economies of the countries which had struggled under German occupation for some years also had the predictable effect upon their economic stabilities.

Seeking to guarantee itself a generous source of these occupation marks, the Russians, who paid their soldiers only once, at the end of the war — in occupation marks, for their entire service, requested the necessary equipment and supplies to print such supplies of this currency as they might need for any purpose. Perhaps as a face-saving gesture in anticipation of future criticism of the entire fiasco, Morgenthau is reported to have recommended refusal of this request (March 3, 1944). But on April 21, 1944, after reconsideration, the Russians received 23 glass positives and 23 glass negatives giving them the capacity to make as many printing plates for printing notes as they wished. Inks and paper were also surrendered. The formulations of and the necessary pigments, inks and vehicles were also yielded. I have submitted authentic Forbes and “Russian” marks to Mr. John D. Hankey of John D. Hankey & Associates in Appleton, Wisconsin. After microscopic examination of the fibers in both notes, it was concluded by Mr. Hankey, a recognized authority in the paper industry, that the papers in both notes were identical. Such would be the case only if the same mix of paper pulp was used in preparing both papers. This is extremely unlikely unless the U.S. also sent the trees for the pulping process to Russia. It is impossible for me to escape the conclusion that the paper for the “Russian” notes was also supplied by this country.

The Russians were therefore, as a result of Morgenthau’s action, unless he was overruled by Roosevelt which occurred seldom, in a position to make as many plates as they needed and to print, at any time, unlimited numbers of marks to dilute the hard pressed German economy, guaranteeing its rapid demise. I can still recall seeing the Russian soldiers in Berlin each carrying a suitcase plundered from the German populace — some carying more than one — filled with consecutively numbered marks. And each of these marks had an arbitrary value of $0.10, set by Morgenthau and Roosevelt. (It was for this reason that U.S. soldiers in Berlin regularly sent more money back to the United States each month than it drew in their payroll.) Others had suggested a rate as high as $0.20, but Morgenthau prevailed. The Reich Mark had at times had a rate as high as $0.40 before and during the war, but it didn’t take long after the introduction of “Morgenthau Marks” before the cigarettes purchased with the worthless “Morgenthau”/Reich Marks had more intrinsic value and retained their value better than did the “official” currency. By the summer of 1946, american cigarettes in the American occupied Zones had become in fact the currency with which one could buy whatever was available on the “Black Market.” The legal “currency” was of no more value than the american paper on which it was sprinted. But woe betide that German storekeeper who refused to sell any of his wares to any UN soldier for the worthless “legal” currency!

This situation grew steadily worse until the currency reform of June 20, 1948 when, abrogating the agreements of Yalta and Potsdam, the Russian Zone (Mittel Deutschland) was essentially isolated from the western zones when the western allies, led by the United States unilaterally issued new currency to replace the Morgenthau occupation currency. This was the end of “one currency for all of occupied Germany” until the summer of 1990.

As had been expected by many, the seemingly “magic” name of Roosevelt prevailed again in the Presidential election. It was an unexplainable attraction as real and as fatal as that of a moth for the flame of a candle. Thomas E. Dewey, the Republican governor from the heavily Jewish state of New York was defeated. Roosevelt had won handily, but his gripe on the U.S. electorate had slipped steadily since his all-time high in 1936. Perhaps it was his anticipation of his steady loss in prestige that restrained him form an all-out fight in the nomination convention for his favored running mate for vice-President, Henry Agard Wallace of Iowa. With this demand, he had been threatened with a party rebellion of sorts, and he had had to accept Boss Thomas Pendergast’s man from Independence, Missouri, Senator Harry S. Truman as his running mate. Doubtless, this choice had not bothered him terribly. As an appointed Secretary of Commerce and Labor, he would still have the services of Henry A. Wallace as an executive Cabinet Member, and since Truman was in the habit of taking orders from Pendergast, he would now have no allegiance troubles now taking orders from Roosevelt. And Roosevelt showed his high regard for Truman’s governmental ability by keeping his vice-President more completely in the dark about what was going on internationally than he kept Hull, his Secretary of State. Of course, his intent had been that Henry Wallace should occupy this position. (Letter to convention, July 26, 1944)

If two million more persons in an electorate of some forty-eight million had voted for Dewey, the outcome for Germany might have been different but probably not drastically different. As a Governor of New York State and a champion of Eisenhower for President in 1952, Dewey, as President in 1944, quite likely would have followed willingly in the path of the foreign agreements of Tehran etc. which had already been laid down for him by his predecessor.

The significance of the 1944 Presidential Election was that it showed Roosevelt that he had no impediments which blocked his way in doing just as he had always wished with conquered Germany.

XX. THE ARDENNES FOREST OFFENSIVE — Dec. 16, 1944 — Jan. 16, 1945 — GERMAN CAPTURE OF PLANS FOR “OPERATION ECLIPSE”

The UN predictions that Germany would be completely defeated by the end of, if not the summer of, 1944 were shattered completely by the German attack on the morning of Dec. 16, 1944. Suddenly and completely without any warning whatsoever, the sorely battered Wehrmacht by a Carthaginian effort on their part had, on Hitler’s orders, been able to assemble an army of around twenty-eight divisions, including nine panzer divisions with around 2,500 new or reconditioned and/or rebuilt tanks. Six more divisions in Alsace were allotted to support the effort after the initial break through, and Marschal Goering promised 3,000 fighter planes. Much of this army was put together by withdrawing units drawn from the Russian front. Other units were hastily put together from whatever men and materials could be found. Some of the men and materials promised for the effort doubtlessly were never delivered because they simply did not exist.

Nevertheless, “Operation Greif,” as the Germans called their Ardennes Offensive (Shirer, ff. 1090), achieved on this small sector, for a short time and for one of the very few times during the war, a military strength and offensive capacity which was more nearly equal to that which its enemy had possessed since the official entrance of the U.S. into the hostilities. Within a brief eight days, the Wehrmacht had recaptured Aachen from the U.S., had achieved several breakthroughs, and had reached the Dinant heights on the Meuse on its way to the U. N. supply port of Antwerp. In the process, however, it had expended its meagre supply of precious gasoline for its tanks and necessarily held its position awaiting more fuel and replacements for the troops which had been expended in the offensive. Not only were these necessities never delivered, since they probably never existed (Germans allegedly were hoping to capture the gasoline they required for further advance from the giant U.S. military depot — three million gallons of gasoline near U.S. headquarters at Spa). As Spa was being hurridly evacuated by the U.S. First Army [ ], the Germans were within

only eight miles of this goal, and the dump was set afire. The lack of gasoline in “Operation Greif,” played a similar role for the Wehrmacht in the Ardennes Offensive as it had previously played for the Afrika Korps in North Africa. Deprived of the common necessities of gasoline and replacements of men and materiel, the Wehrmacht was required to retreat as best it could to safe positions or surrender to overwhelmingly superior military forces.

Before retreating, however, the Wehrmacht had been able to capture copies of “Operation Eclipse,” the prepared plans for the United Nations’ invasion of Germany and the subsequent treatment of the defeated German Nation. This plan was mentioned by Gen. Alfred Jodl at Nuernberg and contained the core of the objectives of the Morgenthau Plan. This really should surprise no one since John J. McCloy, Secretary Stimson’s War Department lieutenant had long had an on-going support for Morgenthau’s objectives (See post “Octagon.”). Armed with this irrefutable evidence of U.S./U. N. intent to destroy Germany as a nation in the manner advocated by Henry Morgenthau, Jr. with the full support of President F. D. Roosevelt, inspite of his public pronouncements and pius protestations, once the draconic plan had been leaked to an unsympathetic U.S. public, the Germans were now willing to go to any lengths and make any sacrifice necessary to avoid such an inhuman fate they now knew without doubt would be that of a defeated Germany.

Aachen had been the first German city which had been captured by the victorious U.S. Army the invading victorious U.S. Army. Apparently, “Operation Eclipse” had been prepared much earlier, perhaps in part at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, or at the Carlisle Army Barracks, Carlisle, Penn. (two sites utilized for portions of the Military Government plans for defeated Germany) but certainly with the full knowledge and support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretaries of War (Henry Stimson and John J. McCloy) and Navy (“Col.” Frank Knox), and Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury. It will be noted below that these persons are the very same persons responsible for the succeeding plans which were invariably based upon the primary tenets of the “Morgenthau Plan.” Appaarently, in their haste to evacuate Spa, some person in authority had neglected to set fire to “Operation Eclipse,” a situation similar in many ways to the great haste of the Polish Government in 1939 to leave Warsaw which resulted in the Germans capturing the Potocki Papers which clearly show Roosevelt’s interest and clandestine activities in formulating the pre-war policies of Poland.

Faced with proof of such a horrendous impending fate at the hands of such a merciless invading enemy, is it any surprise that thereafter, the Germans fought with such zeal and such tenacity and such devotion to the defeat of the invading enemy which had always greatly outnumberd them both in men and material, that they were described by these enemies as “fanatical” — “FANATICAL?”

XXI. F. D. R. FOURTH PRESIDENTIAL TERM INAUGURATION (Jan. 20, 1945)

XXII. THE CONFERENCE AT MALTA (Jan. 30, Feb. 2, 1945)

Having just been inaugurated for the fourth term as President, Roosevelt could bargain from a unbelievably strong position of strength in the knowledge that he had another irrevocable mandate to do just about anything he chose on an international scale, with the support of the U.S. populace for the coming four years. His navy and air force was, as he had planned, stronger than any other or combination of others on the earth. His land army was exceeded in numbers only by Russia and, in so far as equipment was concerned, and in consideration of his ability to produce the weapons of war for his own land troops, he also excelled all other nations in the ability to kill masses of any enemy he should choose. In this position, he had finally achieved the puritanical dream first enunciated in this country in the early Nineteenth Century. At the middle of the century, it was given a somewhat mystic, religious status in this country by the violent Republican Abolitionists and made “immortal” in their bloodthirsty Battle Hymn of the Republic — “let us die to make men free.” In the early part of the Twentieth Century, in the minds of the international “moralists” and “liberals” it had crystallized as “let us kill to make men free” (“the war tomake the world safe for Democracy!”) and with the dream of combining their unlimited supplies of weapons from the United States and the unlimited supplies of men from the British Empire and Russia, with a momentary set back at the Battle of Tannenberg, they proceeded to pursue relentlessly their political international objectives throughout the world.

The Conference of Malta was held as another step in the final phase of destroying Germany as a significant site of political power in Europe. It was a short conference and had the importance of ironing out any last-minute differences the western United Nations allies might have between themselves as to overall policy as well as to brief those who would afterward participate in the Crimean (“Yalta”) Conference on last minute developments in the world-wide war.

The Conference at Malta was held under the top security conditions which could prevail an a war zone. It was attended by the political heads of state and the “Combined Chiefs of Staff” which apparently had been operating since the Argentia, Newfoundland (“Atlantic”) Conference of Aug. 9-12, 1941. These heads of the Navies, Armies and Air Forces of the United States and Britain (numbering 14 and 12 respectively)

discussed eight items concerning the prosecution of the war and the supply of war materials by that “great arsenal of Democracy, the United States.” Apparently, the heads of state were present to settle any disputes or decisions as to allocation of tight materials which might arise during the discussions.

Those who attended were listed in Foreign Relations, The Conferences at Malta and Yalta 1945, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1955 as follows:

Attendees and Parrticipants in the Malta Conference, Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 1945

U.S.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr.

Charles E. Bohlen

H. Freeman Matthews

Alger Hiss

Mrs. Anna (Roosevelt) Boettiger

Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy

General of the Army George C. Marshall

Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King

Gen. John R. Deane

Lt. Gen. Brehon B. Somervell

Lt. Gen. Walter Bedell Smith

Vice Admiral Charles M. Cooke, Jr.

Maj. Gen. Lawrence S. Kuter

Maj. Gen. Harold R. Bull

Maj. Gen. John E. Hull

Maj. Gen. Walter A. Wood, Jr.

Maj. Gen. Frederick L. Anderson

Rear Adm. Donald B. Duncan

Rear Adm. Lynde D. McCormick

Brig. Gen. Joe L. Loutzenheiser

Brig. Gen. Richard C. Lindsay

Brig. Gen. Charles P. Cabell

Col. Clarence R. Peck

Col. Fred M. Dean

Col George A. Lincoln

Col. Hamilton Twitchell

Col. John B. Cary

Lt. Col. Harper L. Woodward

Lt. Col. William A. McRae

Capt. Paul D. Stroop

U. K.

Prime Minister Winston Churchill

Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden

Sir Alexander Cadogan

Nevile Montague Butler

Pierson Dixon

Mrs. Sarah (Churchill) Oliver

Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke

Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Charles Portal

Admiral of the Fleet Sir John Cunningham

Field Marshal Sir Henry Maitland Wilson

Field Marshal Sir Harold Alexander

Air Marshal Sir James Robb

Gen. Sir Hastings Ismay

Gen. Sir Thomas Riddell-Webster

Admiral Sir James Somerville

Maj. Gen. Robert Edward Laycock

Even though the war was going extremely well for the United Nations, the conferees nevertheless had a number of topics which they discussed. Among these were the strategies in Europe, the Mediterranean, the Pacific and south eastern Asia. Almost every country in Europe was discussed as to what role it would play in the war and in the post-war world. Some worries were expressed about the behavior of Russia in Rumania as to the U.S. oil assets there. Equipping of Allied and “Liberated” forces was discussed. Among these were the guerrilla forces in the Balkans. Marshal Tito in Yugoslavia will be supported to the exclusion of all other such forces (pp. 262-3).

The U-Boat war as well as the effect of V-1 and V-2 weapons which were being used by Germany were discussed, but obviously, Germany’s ability to reply in kind was slowly being destroyed and the concept of “bomb for bomb” had long since become quite impossible. Much of this was due to the United Nations bombing offensives. Their planes could often fly unimpeded to their targets in Germany and back with only anti-aircraft batteries to oppose them.

As for the European War, its end was again estimated to be between July 1 and Dec. 31, 1945 (Gen. Marshall) or June 30- Nov. 1, 1945 with a possibility of a German military collapse in mid June, 1945 (British Chiefs of Staff). The occupation of Germany and the role played by the European Advisory Commission in this respect was discussed. Germany’s future was to involve loss of territory to its neighbors, primarily Poland, and then dismemberment of the remainder. Occupation of the partitioned countries by the three victors (pp. 498-9, Map p. 612) would follow for an undetermined period.

There was also some discussion of what the Russians might wish out of the Crimean Conference. These topics included a warm water port in the Far East and rights to use the Dardanelles.

Some time was also spent in discussing the Dumbarton Oaks Conference and the coming organization of the United Nations Organization. Points of interests were who was to be invited, method of voting, etc.

The war against Japan was discussed, but nowhere to the extent of the war against Germany. Obviously, every attempt would be made to encourage Russia to attack Japan. Sakhalin and Hokkaido plus other good and valuable consideration were to be the bait (p. 362).

It is strange perhaps that there was no “Communique” issued at the end of this Conference. It is even more surprising when one is aware that on January 19, 1945, Ass’t. Secretary of State Archibald MacLeish in Washington, was already considering the wording of the “Communique” to be issued at the end of the Crimean (“Yalta”) Conference.

XXIII. THE CRIMEAN (“YALTA”) CONFERENCE, “Magneto”/”Argonaut” (Feb. 4-11, 1945)

The Crimean (“Yalta”) Conference had the distinction of being the very last conference which was carried out during actual hostilities. Only 85 days later, a prostrate, decimated Germany would have no choice but to surrender to its enemies, “unconditionally” as Roosevelt had demanded at the Press Conference following the Casablanca Conference.

The Crimean Conference was undertaken in a spirit of vindictiveness and certainty that Germany could not withstand the combined military might of the United Nations much longer. Actually, in fewer than ninety days, Col Gen. Jodl would surrender the destroyed, shattered country’s military forces at Reims. The Conference was convened for the purpose of summarizing all the studies which the United Nations had been assembling since even long before the war which had, in their minds at least, resulted in their enmity toward Germany. It was a day of doomsday, the “dies irae” of the United Nations hymn so far as they were concerned, and the topics to be discussed would thereafter be “chiseled in stone” by some as unassailable truths and agreements which must be respected and honored by all nations at all costs for some as yet unexplained reason. A common reason given at the time was “to prevent ‘World War III.’“ These agreements would subsequently be immortalized by thier being accepted at the following Berlin (“Potsdam”) Conference.

The Crimean Conference was attended by the following dignitaries:

Attendees and Participants in the Crimean (Yalta) Conference

February 4-11, 1945

U.S.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr.

Harry L. Hopkins

W. Averell Harriman

H. Freeman Matthews

Charles E. Bohlen

Alger Hiss

Edwarad J. Flynn

Wilder Foote

Edward Page, Jr.

Stephen T. Early

Mrs. John (Anna Roosevelt) Boettiger

Miss Kathleen Harriman

Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy

General of the Army George C. Marshall

Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King

Lt. Gen. Brehon B. Somervell

Vice Admiral Charles M. Cooke, Jr.

Vice Admiral Ross T. McIntire

Maj. Gen. Lawrence S. Kuter

Maj. Gen. John R. Deane

Maj. Gen. Harold R. Bull

Maj. Gen. John E. Hull

Rear Adm. Donald B. Duncan

Rear Adm. Lynde D. McCormick

Rear Adm. Clarence E. Olsen

Brig. Gen. Andrew J. McFarland

Brig. Gen. Frank N. Roberts

Brig. Gen. Joe L. Loutzenheiser

Brig. Gen Richard C. Lindsay

Brig. Gen. William W. Bessell, Jr.

B. Gen. Frank F. Everest

Commodore Edmund W. Burrough

Col. Clarence R. Peck

Col. William L. Ritchie

Col. George A. Lincoln

Col. John B. Carey

Capt Alexander S. McDill, USN.

Lt. Col. William A. McRae

Commander Robert N. S. Clark

U. K.

Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill

Foreign Minister Anthony Eden

Lord Leathers

Sir Alexander Cadogan

Sir Archibald Clark-Kerr

Sir Edward Bridges

Geoffry Masterson Wilson

Pierson Dixon

Gladwyn Jebb

Geoffry Wedgewood Harrison

Denis Allen

Frank Roberts

Section Officer Mrs. Sarah (Churchill) Oliver

Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke

Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Charles Portal

Admiral of the Fleet Sir John Cunningham

Field Marshal Sir Harold Alexander

Field Marshal Sir Henry Maitland Wilson

Gen. Sir Hastings Ismay

Admiral Sir James Somerville

Maj. Gen Robert Edward Laycock

Brigadier Arthur Thomas Cornwall-Jones

Rear Admiral Ernest Russel Archer

Maj. Arthur Birse

USSR.

Marshal Iosef Vissarionovich Stalin

Foreign Commissar Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov

Lavrenty Pavlovich Beriya (Beria)

Andrey Yanuarevich Vyshinski

Andrfeyu Andreyevich Gromyko

Ivan Mikhailovich Maisky

Fedor Tarasovich Gusev (Gousev)

Vladimir Nikolayevich Pavlov

Sergey Alexandrovich Golunsky

Chief Marshal of Aviation Alexander Alexandrovich Novikov

Fleet Admiral Nikolay Gerasimovich Kuznetsov

Marshal of Aviation Sergey Vladimirovich Khadyakov

General of the Army Alexey Innokentyevich Antonov

Lt. Gen. Anatoly Aleksegevich Gryzlov

Vice Admiral Stepan Grigorgevich Kucherov

Commander Mikhail Ilyich Kostrinsky

As was the case in other meetings with the Russians, a number of others were present who acted as interpreters. All conferences also had a number of unlisted attendees who served as the secretariate for the conference.

For the past eight days, Winston S. Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, and Marshal J. V. Stalin, Chairman of the Council of Peoples’ Commissars of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have met with the Foreign Secretaries, Chiefs of Staff and other advisors in the Crimea.

In addition to the three Heads of Government, the following took part in the Conference:

For the United States of America:

Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States ofAmerica — Head of Delegation

Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., Secretary of State

Fleet Admiral Wlliam D. Leahy [*], U.S. N., Chief of Staffto the President;

Harry L. Hopkins, Special Assistant to the President;

Justice James F. Byrnes, Director, Office of War Mobilization;

General of the Army George C. Marshall [*], U.S. A., Chiefof Staff, U.S. Army;

Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King [*], U.S. N., Chief of NavalOperations and Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet;

Lieutenant General Brehon B. Somervell, Commanding General,Army Service Forces;

Vice Admiral Emory S. Land, War Shipping Administrator

Major General L. S. Kuter, U.S. A., Staff of Commanding

General, U.S. Army Air Forces;

W. Averell Harriman, Ambassador to the U.S. S. R.

H. Freeman Matthews, Director of European Affairs, StateDepartment;

Alger Hiss, Deputy Director, Office of Special PoliticalAffairs, Department of State;

Charles E. Bohlen, Assistant to the Secretary of State,

together with political, military and technical advisors.

For the Soviet Union:

Joseph V. Stalin, Chairman of the Council of PeoplesCommissars of the Soviet Union of Soviet Republics,Head of Delegation

V. M. Molotov, People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of theUSSR

Admiral Kuznetsov, People’s Commissar for the Navy

Army General Antonov, Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Red Army

A. Ya Vyshinski [Andrei Y. Vishinsky], Deputy People’sCommissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR

I. M. Maisky, Deputy People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairsof the USSR

Marshal of Aviation Khydyakov

F. T. Gousev, Ambassador in Great Britain

A. A. Gromyko, Ambassador in U.S. A.

For the United Kingdom:

Winston S. Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain, Headof Delegation

Anthony Eden, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

Lord Leathers, Minister of War Transport

Sir A. Clark Kerr, H. M. Ambassador at Moscow

Sir Alexander Cadogan, Permanent Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

Sir Edward Bridges, Secretary of the War Cabinet

Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial GeneralStaff

Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Charles Portal, Chief ofthe Air Staff

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Andrew Cunningham, First Sea Lord

General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the Minister of Defense,

together with

Field Marshal Alexander, Supreme Allied Commander,Mediterranean Theatre

Field Marshal Wilson, Head of the British Joint Staff Mission at Washington

Admiral Somerville, Joint Staff Mission at Washington

together with military and diplomatic advisors.

(The Provisional French Government headed by General De Gaulle was not recognized by the three great powers as competent to represent the French Nation at this Conference)

([*] Member U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff)

The atmosphere which prevailed at the Yalta Conference can best be understood by considering a remark Roosevelt made to Stalin at their first meeting each other at Yalta. It was heard and reported by Charles E. Bohlen, Roosevelt’s Russian translator there. (Bohlen, Charles E., Witness to History, 1929-1969, p. 173) Roosevelt greated Stalin with the words, “I’m more bloodthirsty than a year ago.” It will be remembered the two had met in truest “democratic unity and brotherhood” some seven months earlier at Teheran where the policies were proposed which were later to be discussed further and accepted at Yalta.

Lest one think the feeling was not held by the other two heads of state, let us not forget that Winston Churchill, perhaps in an attempt to curry Roosevelt’s favor in somewhat of a support of Roosevelt’s Teheran desire to see 49,500 Germans executed, sstated at Yalta, “We have killed six or seven million (Germans) and probably will kill another million before the end of the war(FR. p. 720).” When questioned by Stalin about the “million” not yet killed, Churchill hastened to add, “Oh I am not proposing any limitation on them. So there should be room in Germany for some (German refugees from the east) who will need to fill the vacancy.”

While Churchill at Tehran had protested vigorously and in horror when Stalin, who considered all Germans savages (FR. 571), proposed a toast to the execution of 50,000 German officers, F. D. Roosevelt, the eternal “humanist,” to the delight of the Russians proposed the toast be modified to involve only 49,500 German officers. (Son, Brigadier General Elliott Roosevelt went even farther and offered another toast, “not only those fifty thousand …but many thousands more Nazis as well.”) At Yalta, Roosevelt apparently still thought executing 50,000 German officers was a good idea and declared he hoped Marshal Stalin would again propose the toast! (FR. p. 571) {It is difficult to believe that either of these statements could be construed, as Charles E. Bohlen suggests (p. 147), as a joke in bad taste. Churchill, who was present, certainly did not!}

Bohlen mentions the “joke” which so infuriated Churchill at Tehran — the toast to the execution of 50,000 German officer and Roosevelt “expressed the hope that he (Stalin) would offer the toast again.” (Bohlen, p. 180 &FR, p. 571) Roosevelt’s warm, sympathetic greeting to Stalin not only assured full, continuing U.S. support for any demands Russia might make against theGermans. As the head of the greatest military force on earth, or ever to have existed on earth, Roosevelt’s greeting guaranteed the harshest possible treatment of Germany in the post-war period.

Yalta was eighteen months after the presentation of Morgenthau’s Plan at Quebec, [“OCTAGON”]. With the Morgenthau Plan as first presented at “OCTAGON” being, at least in some cases, perhaps even milder than the terms which now would be exacted by the victors.

Many today seek to excuse Roosevelt’s division of the World between himself and Stalin as the act of a man basically overwhelmed physically by approaching death. His interview with his strong supporter Cardinal Spellman (Gannon, Robert I., The Cardinal Spellman Story, p. *) apparently refutes this, since Roosevelt, on Sept. 3, 1943, eighteen months prior to the Yalta meeting, basically outlined to Bishop Spellman exactly what was to take place there! It is difficult, then, to think that anything “was put over on him.” Rather, it seems likely that he, after consultation with trusted advisors, perhaps “Garry Gopkins,” he went to Yalta fully briefed and fully prepared, and after much thought and consideration, to make the concessions to Russia (Stalin) which he had long intended to make. He had continually pressed the EAC and the U.S. War Department for harsher and harsher treatments of Germany in his demands for a post-war plan for Germany. When he got to Yalta, he went even farther in so far as the boundary between Germany and Poland was concerned than the “OCTAGON” version of the Morgenthau Plan had advocated.

From the bloodthirsty stance taken by Roosevelt at Yalta, one might surmise that the U.S. had suffered long and greatly at the hand of Germany. This is not the case. The personal aggrievance of the United States President predates his inauguration in 1933 at which time Germany and its Government was attempting by every means to encourage trade and good relations with the U.S. All of these overtures were consistently rebuffed on grounds which had nothing to do with the traditional international affairs. They were, in fact, overt attempts by the Roosevelt regime to influence the internal affairs in what was officially recognized as a friendly nation! Roosevelt seemed particularly incensed that the Government of Germany after its defeat in 1918 would still have the audacity to continue to assert its right to exist as a soverign nation. A state of war with the United States government was finally recongnized by Germany only after years of continuous, almost daily esculation in provocation by the Roosevelt Government, in time of war, with the last straw being the Roosevelt order for U.S. naval forces to fire at German ships on sight (Sept. 11, 1941). Of course, those who had been following the news closely found that here again, the order had in fact been issued only after the U.S. Armed Forces had been indulging in the stated offensive acts for some months previous to its issuance.

The provisions of the Yalta Agreement are contained in the “Protocol of the Proceedings of the Crimea Conference (Appendix) and are signed by E. R. Stettinius, Jr., newly named at Henry Morgenthau’s (and Eleanor’s) prompting as Hull’s replacement as Secratary of State (Diaries, III, p. 392), V. Molotov and Anthony Eden. In all there are fourteen parts (about eight pages) to the Protocol which dealt with the following subjects:

I. WORLD ORGANIZATION

Item I dealt with the mechanism of the formation of the United Nations Organization already discussed and to some extent already accepted by the three major powers at Dumbarton Oaks. The “Charter” of the organization was to be written by the “Three Great Powers” and their invited guests at the San Francisco organizational Conference. There were still problems as to the voting procedure which apparently could be resolved here as problem as to how the “Three Great Powers” would maintain effective control over all the other nations. The nations to be invited were discussed (F. R. pp. 747-8, and 886).

II. DECLARATION ON LIBERATED EUROPE

Item II dealt with future and existing promises implied or made by the United Nations to German-occupied countries during the course of the war and future promises for future support for the “Associated Nations” of the United Nations which had declared war on “the common enemy” at the behest of the three major powers. Most often, this help was coupled with the promises of aid by some representative from the country for the United Nations in the form of guerrilla activity etc. This declarations apparently owes its existence to U.S. efforts at the conference (FR., pp. 862-863, 918).

III. DISMEMBERMENT OF GERMANY

The nations which conquered Germany in World War I believed mightyly in the dismemberment of Germany and Austria in 1918 and practiced it widely as can be seen from the awards of Elsass-Lothringen to France, Eupen-Malmedy and Moresnet to Belgium,

South Tirol to Italy for abandoning the Central Powers and joining the Allies against their former allies, formation of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, and the loss of Danzig-West Prussia and parts of Silesia to Poland. Now, they proposed an additional partition at Germany’s expense followed by the division of the remnant of the country into four parts to be occupied and governed for the foreseeable future by the victors.

Dismemberment of Germany after World War II was primarily concerned with pacifying the desires of Poland for the German states of East Prussia, Pommerania, Brandenburg and Silesia.

Churchill foresaw no great problem in this dismemberment, up to a certain point, since with six or seven million Germans already killed in the war and another million or more to be killed before war’s end, the Germans wouldn’t need so much land any more (FR. p. 720). He did voice fears, however, that if the Poles became too greedy for German territory the over-stuffed “Polish goose” might well die of “German indigestion.(FR. pp. 717, 720, & 911).” Perhaps here he realized the foolishness of his Country and others in 1919 in allowing Poland, a nation of some 32,133,000 to take ravenously some 6,000,000 Germans, to expand itself in the west and in the east, another large number of non-Poles to form a nation with 149,960 sq. mi. Even this feast on neighboring territory did not satisfy Polish appetite. They continually expressed desire for colonies which Germany had helf before the Versailles treaty and demanded not only control of Danzig but soverignty over East Prussia and additional parts of Silesia and Pomerania.

Stalin concurred in the dismemberment of Germany since he desired the city of Koenigsberg and the northern part of East Prussia. Besides, he said, “There will be no more Germans there for when our troops come in the Germans run away and no Germans are left.” Doubtless this was the result of the depraved behavior of Russian troops whipped into and maintained in a blind rage for murder, rape, destruction and pillaging by the “poetry” and writings of Ilya Ehrenburg, one of Russia’s top “black” defamatory propagandists.

Roosevelt’s mind, however, had apparently been made up long before he left Washington (Gannon, Robert Ignatius, The Cardinal Spellman Story, Doubleday & Co., Garden City, N. Y. 1962, p. 222-223.) He favored giving the Poles whatever they wanted of German territory in return for their accepting the Curzon Line as their eastern boundary with Russia. The detachment of East Prussia from Germany for Poland’s benefit had been discussed in the preparation for the Argentia (“Atlantic”) Conference with Churchill in 1941 (FR, 1941, Vol. I, General and USSR, pp. 373-377,)

The “Three Great Powers” shared very nearly equally in formulating the policy on Germany which remains to this day a blotch upon those participating countries which call themselves “civilized.”

Items III through VII are essentially the same material covered by the Morgenthau Plan. They deal with the second Dismemberment of Germany, even more drastic, flagrant and unjustifiable than in 1918 and provide wide guidelines for the creation of occupation zones in terriitory thereafter to be known as “Germany,” reparations involving annual deliveries of national wealth from Germany in addition to the use of German slave labor by the United Nations victors. It is here that the term “slave labor” (my terminology!) is finally used accurately. The German prisoners-of-war which disappeared into Soviet Russia or into the

U.S. classification of “Disarmed Enemy Forces” (“DEF’s”) were all worked unmercifully by their masters without proper lodging, food, clothing, and certainly no pay for their labor. To these must also be added the German civilians who were kidnapped by one or more of the United Nations to do work in the territory of the kidnapping state. The “Fremdarbeiter” or “Ostarbeiter” in contrast were so desperately needed by wartime Germany that they usually got better treatment and pay than the Germans themselves!

IV. ZONE OF OCCUPATION FOR THE FRENCH AND CONTROL COUNCIL FOR GERMANY

Stalin opposed including the French in the postwar occupation of Germany. He pointed out that The Poles and Tito both had more troops committed on the United Nations side than did General Charles de Gaulle. But Roosevelt pointed out that France was already a functioning member of the European Advisory Commission (FR. p. 618) and later France was accepted by Stalin (FR. p. 707) as an occupying Power.

V. REPARATION

The “Protocol on German Reparation,” (Appendix) signed Feb. 11, 1945 and released to the public on March 24, 1947. Like all other agreements made by Roosevelt, it was a general enabling document which gave only a vague idea of what was to come. It was an open-ended protocol which placed Germany eternally at the mercy of the (“Three”) occupying powers. Some of the more interesting stipulations were that Germans would be used by the victors for labor as they saw fit, and a Moscow Reparation Commission was established with its “initial studies as a basis for discussion…that the total sum of the reparation… should be 20 billion dollars and that 50% of it should go to the Soviet Union .”

This section also provided for the dismantling of German industry, equipment, machine tools etc. for transport to United Nations allies and for the use of German slave labor for use in various countries. Here German POW slave labor, labor without remuneration is used in the truest sense of the term. Such labor was not restricted to former prisoners of war, however, since the occupying powers were not above kidnapping those Germans believed useful to them. Many Germans were sent to labor camps such as Sachsenhausen and Buchenwald at which time these camps experienced their most inhuman histories.

VI. MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS

Threats and declarations to punish those responsible for wartime United Nations allegations had increased in frequency and fierceness from the very beginning of German-Polish hostilities. At this point, with the Germans capable of doing very little but offer effective rear guard action to invaders, the official accusations reached a peak as did the declarations as to how they would be punished. Now Churchill declared that he personallyhad dafted the Moscow Declaration on German “War Criminals.” He thought these men should be listed and executed on the spot when captured and identified (FR. p. 849-850). Churchill quickly aded that they were currently only voicing opinions which should not be publicized. One is tempted, however, to conjecture that this may have happened to Heinrich Himmler who was captured by the British. Or, was this how Rudolf Hess met his end in 1987 while in British custody in Berlin-Spandau?

VII. POLAND

The Polish problem was one which had long troubled the western United Nations allies. It had continually been put off because of the sensitivity of the large American Polish minority and their usual tendency to support Roosevelt in these elections. At the Teheran Conference, Roosevelt had agreed to the Curzon Line as the Russian-Polish eastern boundary but had requested that it be kept confidential to avoid irritating those whose support he needed in the coming election. Now, the election was over, and he had a free hand.

Poland has long dreamed of the day when it again would be a nation extending from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea as it once did as the Kingdom of Lithuania and Poland. Now Roosevelt was asking them to forget Lwow and the entire Ukraine. Polish Dreams do not die easier than do Zionist dreams of a Jewish realm from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates River.

The Poles did not consider themselves in a poor bargaining position with the United States. They knew of the bargaining which had taken place between Polish Ambassador Count Jerzy Potocki to Washington and the U.S. Government. These documents were captured by the Germans in Warsaw along with collaborating and supporting documents in Paris and publicized, but the personal popularity of Roosevelt had been able to result intheir suppression. In a like manner, the Katyn massacre perpetrated by the Russians as the Poles well knew, was also squelched by Roosevelt’s control over the press. Other documents had been found by Tyler Kent, a U.S. cryptographic clerk at the U.S. Embassy in London, where his diplomatic immunity was lifted, and he was imprisoned by the British until after the end of the war. The Poles also had an agreement which they had signed with the British which guaranteed Poland’s reconstruction. A book, Great Britain’s Obligations Towards Poland, by Ignacy Matuszewski and published by the National Committee of Americans of Polish Descent indicated that Poland finally wanted satisfaction.

Roosevelt’s solution and the one accepted finally by his United Nations allies was to give the Poles as much German territory as they wished in return for losing the relatively poorly developed land east of the Curzon Line. Thereby, however, they placed themselves in future jeopardy from trying to digest too much German territory (FR. p. 720). It is a bomb awaiting to be exploded by whatever large, powerful country which will wish to gain industrialized Germany’s support at the expense of agricultural Poland.

Here, the U.S. acquiesced to Stalin’s demand for the 1918 (British-supported) Curzon Line, with minor changes, as the Polish eastern boundary, stating that Poland would receive compensation in the form of German territory in the North and West but that the final decision would be made at the Peace Conference. In addition, the London Poles, much against their will, were forced into a hostile fusion government with the Stalinist Lublin Committee, but Roosevelt had anticipated and agreed to this before he even left Washington, D. C. for Yalta. In agreeing to this, he, acting on his own, went far beyond the territorial changes suggested by the “OCTAGON” Morgenthau Plan.

VIII. YUGOSLAVIA

For some time, the leadership of the western United Nations allies had been dissatified with General Draza Mihailovic (Mikhailovich), the designated (by King Peter II of Yugoslavia) as the leader of the Guerrilla Yugoslav forces. Accusatiions of no desire to fight the Germans to outright charges of collaboration with the Germans were made against him. In spite of what appears to have been King Peter II’s unconditional support, of General Mihailovic, a Serbian, it was decided to replace him with Marshal Tito (Josip Broz), a Croatian of questionable background. He had definate leftist leanings but appears to have traveled with a British passport (Stevenson, William, W., A Man Called Intrepid, p. 228).

At Stalin’s further request, British and American support and recognition was withdrawn from Gen. Draja Mikhailovitch and awarded instead to Stalinist Tito.

IX. ITALO-YUGOSLAV FRONTIER/ITALO-AUSTRIA FRONTIER

No sooner had Tito been recognized as the legal government in Yugoslavia than he began attempting to expand his borders. Item IX deals with Italo-Yugoslav and Italo-Austrian frontiers.

X. YUGOSLAV-BULGARIAN RELATIONS

Item X deals with desireability of a Yugoslav-Bulgarian pact of alliance.

XI. SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE

Item XI deals with British oil equipment in Rumania, Greek claims upon Bulgaria and the occupation Control Commission in Bulgaria.

XII. IRAN

Item XII deals with the Russian occupation of northern Iran.

XIII. MEETINGS OF THE THREE FOREIGN SECRETARIES

Item XII promises future meetings of the three foreign secretaries of the three major powers on a permanent basis.

XIV. THE MONTREUX CONVENTION AND THE STRAITS

Item XIV deals with Russian concerns over the Montreux Convention. This convention limited the use of the Dardanelles by the Russian Navy.

The foregoing Protocol was signed Feb. 11, 1945 by the three foreign ministers of the three major powers represented at Yalta. The contents of this Protocol were not made public until March 24, 1947 by which time most of its provisions had been put into effect.

At the end of the Yalta Conference (Feb. 11, 1945), the three Heads of State, Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill signed and released a “Communique” (Appendix) listing the persons participating in the Conference and giving nine points which had been discussed during the Conference over which they as heads of the United Nations, had achieved unanimity of thought and purpose for all the United Nations. The “Communique” which was to serve primarily as a propaganda cover for the real decisions which had been made spoke in the usual uncertain, grandiose, equivocating terms. Its purpose was to soothe the people in the United Nations who thought the leaders of the United Nations were demanding too harsh a peace without tying their hands later and to attempt to deceive the Germans into believing that an unconditional surrender to the United Nations would not mean instant catastrophe. Consideration as to the wording of this “Communuque” was undertaken by Ass’t. Secretary of State Archibald MacLeish in Washington in a Note to Ass’t. Secretary of State James C. Dunn on January 19, 1945.

Much of the real meaning of the Yalta Conference was contained in secret agreements and protocols which would not come to light for more than two years after the Conference. One of these was the “Protocol on German Reparation” (Appendix).

Yet another secret protocol was the “Agreement Regarding Entry of the Soviet Union Into the War Against Japan” (Appendix).

In this, Roosevelt obligated himself to obtain Chiang Kai-shek’s concurrence to Russian demands on China and bribes Stalin to join in the plunder of the Japanese Empire by offering him the Kurile Islands, southern Sakhalin and adjacent islands etc. All of this is reminiscent of the bribes of Bozen to Italy by the British in WW I, and the second dismemberment of Germany for Poland’s and Russia’s benefit in 1945.

An interesting “Gentlemen’s Agreement” was the decision by Roosevelt and Stalin that the three big powers alone should dictate the peace. Churchill replied, “The eagle should permit the small birds to sing and care not wherefore they sang.” (Bohlen, p. 181) (Churchill apparently was not yet aware that he was no longer an “eagle” but a “small bird” between two rather rapacious “eagles.”) Roosevelt seconded Stalin by saying, “the peace should be written by the Three Powers represented at this table.” (FR. p. 589) It was this principle which had previously prevailed and which continued to prevail not only at Yalta but also at the later Potsdam Conference at which the Chinese and French would be invited to accept the decisions (already made by the “Three Governments”) in a grand show of unanimity.

Other things discussed at Yalta were the military situation in which the consensus of opinion was that the Germans couldn’t last much longer. Jewish problems, in which Roosevelt declared himself to be a Zionist (FR. p. 924).

Finally, the United States signed a bilateral agreement with the Soviet Union obligating both signatories to return of all Liberated Prisoners of war and civilians to their own countries. Significantly, Article 2 of the agreement specifies that in the camps used for such repatriation, “Hostile propaganda directed against the contracting parties or against any of the United Nations will not be permitted.” It was apparently this or some other similar agreement which gave legality to such atrocities as “Operation Keelhaul.”

Charles E. Bohlen who was Roosevelt’s interpreter at the Crimean Conference describes the Crimean Conference as the most controversial conference in United States history (p. 182) and he then states (p. 201) “The fault was not the agreements at Yalta, but something far deeper. Regardless of all that was said or not said, written or not written, agreed to or not agreed to at the Yalta Conference, there was nothing that could have prevented the breakup of the victorious coalition and the onset of the cold war once Stalin set his course.”

But the truth was that the problem with Yalta was very definately the agreements consumated there, written or unwritten, spoken or unspoken, implied or not implied, and these agreements were very definately the fault of the U.S. delegation selected and led personally by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Here, they had made many agreements, some written, some secret, some “understood” which the Russians fully expected the U.S. to fulfill and which I believe Roosevelt fully intended to fulfill. After Roosevelt’s death, the Truman regime could not in good conscience honor all these agreements which were intended to make Russia a full partner in post war power comparable to the U.S. Even though urged to do so by many powerful people such as Sumner Welles, Henry A. Wallace, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, a disappointed, furious Stalin, feeling himself deceived and betrayed by a nation he had never thoroughly trusted anyway, reacted entirely predictably and what came to be called the “cold war” resulted.

It is lamentable that no person in public service at that time had the backbone to stand up and publicly renounce the agreements of the Crimean and later Berlin Conferences for what they were, inhuman documents bent wholly on blind vengence and rage, and call for yet a new meeting of all parties concerned — especially European parties — when tempers had cooled. Now, the world is doomed to suffer discontent until the afflictions of these two conferences are renounced and rectified. Will it be Russia or the United States who gains the international political advantage by doing this?

Perusal of the “Protocol” will show that, with minor exceptions, the Yalta document represented basically a fusion of the Dumbarton Oaks Agreement and the “agenda” established at Tehran. These contained the basic principles of what has been called the “Morgenthau Plan” up until Section VII. Poland.

How, is it possible for one to claim that anything was “put over” on a “dying” President? At Yalta, he accomplished exactly what he had set out to accomplish. He accomplished what he had been planning from the Argentia (“Atlantic”) Conference onward! His alleged concern for a Polish Lwow is as fanciful as is the belief that he did not know what had transpired at the Katyn forest. Equally fanciful is the belief that shortly before he died, he realized the Russian threat and resolved to combat it, but that he died before he could begin his opposition. His only real single concern was to hold his Three Power wartime coalition together at all costs to assure the defeat of Germany and Japan and present an outward appearance of United Nations “democratic solidarity,” regardless of which countries had to be sacrificed in so doing. One of his last acts was an attempt to subvert General Franco (Spain) to Russia’s additional advantage in Europe.

XXIX. ROOSEVELT’S DEATH (April 12, 1945)

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s personal support and participation in the furtherance of the principles of the Morgenthau Plan were cut short as were his further objectives and ambitions by the events which transpired in Warm Springs, Georgia, on the night of April 11, 1945 and the following morning. In the camelot-like atmosphere of his favorite “home-away-from-home,” where he went quite often to escape the strain and stress of life in Washington and, for a time to observe the results of past political moves and to recuperate and return rejuvinated for the next step in his continuing adventures in international politics, he was in the company of his cousin, Miss Delano, Daisy Suckley and his long-time paramour, Mrs. Lucy Mercer Rutherford. (Henry Morgenthau mentions four ladies as being present!) It was here that the “right hand” saw its chief for the last time in the customary “two-of-a-kind” fellowship and on one of their mutually favorite subjects, the fate of conquered Germany. (Diaries, III, p. 419)

Roosevelt never ceased to support concepts included in the Morgenthau Plan of which he was at least “godfather” if he had not, in fact, made his “right hand,” Morgenthau his scribal cuckold, regardless of the name given to the “Plan.” At times, Roosevelt’s support may have publicly appeared minimal or non-existant as the political necessities of the moment required, but in fact, this support really never waned. It was Roosevelt who had willed it into being, it was he who supported it doggedly, although perhaps sometimes in silence, against expected Congressional opposition until after the Presidential election, and it was he who, after a final discussion with Henry Morgenthau, Jr. about the “Plan” and the “book” at Warm Springs, said, “Henry, I’m with you 100%.” (Diaries, III, 419)

Henry Morgenthau, Jr. then made a telephone call and said “good-bye to Roosevelt and his company” of women. He reports further “when I left them they were sitting around laughing and chatting, and I must say the President seemed to be happy and enjoying himself.”

Roosevelt certainly had every reason to be in good spirits. As the leader of the strongest military nation ever to have existed on earth, rapidly eradicating any and all resistance to the further extension of his world power, he had, at Yalta, just made what he considered to be a satisfactory, lasting agreement with Stalin, his partner of choice in the approaching new, world politics, much of which remained to be revealed but all of which, he and Stalin had apparently agreed upon. In Stalin Roosevelt believed he had found a man he could personally sway at his will by offers of “help” or by the magic of his own dynamic personality. Plans had been made to cement the war-time anti-axis coalition dominated by the U.S. and the Soviet Union into a permanent organiztion by the up-coming San Francisco Conference to found the United Nations Organization. Finally, Roosevelt was in the company of women he much prefered to any which he might encounter in the White House. Of interest is the topic of conversation which was so entertaining to him. It is significant also, because it is the last indication of what Roosevelt actually intended as his next adventure in international politics! He stated without smiling, “I’m going to resign from the presidency.” When one of his “court” asked, “What will you do?” he replied, “If I can get the job, I’ll head the United Nations.” (Fish, Hamilton, F D R, The Other Side of the Coin, Vantage Press, Inc. N. Y. C., N. Y. 1976, p. 198-0199). If his wishes had prevailed at the Democratic Presidential Convention in 1944, Henry Agard Wallace, not Harry Truman, would then have been President of the United States.

It is all conjecture, but I believe it to be reasonable and valid conjecture that Roosevelt must have believed at that time that all he had striven for in his life was finally within his grasp. As “King of Kings,” “Lord of Lords,” “President of Presidents,” of the United Nations, the nations of the world would now would now be no more than his satrapies with a Stalin, dependent upon his largess, as his viceeroy and only possible competitor. Perhaps the “dynasty” he, as the “Prince of Wales,” had founded with his cousin Eleanor would inherit his empire and rule it for the coming American millenium! Ten minutes later, Roosevelt suffered a massive stroke and became unconscious (FDR, The Other Side of the Coin, pp. 198-199).

Next day, Roosevelt died, but the “Plan” he and Morgenthau had developed was still very much alive in the minds and wishes of those who continued to control the U.S. Governmental Bureaucracy until long after his death! Thousands of copies of Morgenthau’s book, Germany is Our Problem were printed to explain the “idealistic” objectives of the three and one-half page “Top Secret” “Program to Prevent Germany from Starting a World War III” and given to members of the U.S. Military Government as guides for U.S. behavior in Germany which would be known officially as the revised, rewritten JCS 1067 (For. Rel., 1944, Vol I, p. 425).

After Roosevelt’s death, it was Henry Morgenthau, Jr. who, as the true representative of the Roosevelt spirit and genius, would keep up the steady pressure on Truman and others to guarantee the eventual acceptance of most of the principles of the original Morgenthau Plan into JCS 1067/6 (Joint Chiefs of Staff 1067/6) which was the final form of the plan used by the U.S. occupation forces in governing the Western “Zone” of defeated Germany.

What type of a “Plan” had Roosevelt really wanted for post-war Germany? The moment he excluded the European Advisory Commission and their immense amount of labor which had been performed by men in good faith who were far more knowledgeable and capable than he ever had been, it became obvious that on certain points, at least, he wished to direct the development of the “Plan” for Germany personally without the encumberances or interferences of his allies. He wanted an enabling document which would give him the freedom to act in Germany in the name of all his allies with the appearance of solidarity with his allies but as he personally was inclined to act. A “Plan” written in terms broad enough, equivocal enough so that he would never be restricted from any action he might wish to take in the future. Specificially, he did not want interference in his actions from his Russian, British or French allies or from language in the document which might later, through interpretation, be used to plague or thwart him as the provisions of the “Fourteen Points” had sometimes done to President Wilson and his successors.

The three and one-half page Morgenthau “Program to Prevent Germany from Starting a World War III” was ideal for this purpose. He could be as tough on the Germans as he wished at any time, for the “Plan” could readily be re-read to allow virtually any action, regardless of its capriciousness, against the former enemy, and the i’s were not dotted and the t’s not crossed which allowed him, as he desired, virtual a free hand in any future decisions on Germany (For. Rel., 1944, Vol. I, p.409 -410), on any issue which might arise in the future. And at Yalta, he had basically fused the provisions of an expanded Morgenthau Plan with those of the Dumbarton Oaks Pact and several minor issues into the “Protocol of Proceedings.” Particularly, it should be noted that at Yalta Roosevelt had gone way beyond the excesses demanded in the original Morgenthau Plan especially in the case of Poland’s boundaries. He had agreed to give Poland not only upper Silesia and that part of East Prussia not taken by Russia but all Silesia and Pommerania up to the so-called “Oder-Neisse” (more properly called the “Roosevelt-Stalin”) line.

In this connection, it is interesting, for the moment, to also trace the development of the United Nation war aims, so far as Germany is concerned, from Chamberlain’s statement a few months after the beginning of the war that no peace would be made with Hitler (a statement entirely analogous to the World War I Allies’ refusal to treat with the Kaiser or his Government) to the demand of President Roosevelt at the Casablanca War Council to the surprise and consternation of Churchill, at the time his closest ally, who obviously had not been consulted on this, that Germany must surrender “unconditionally,” to the victors, with him at their head. This, of course, meant the institution of the Morgenthau Plan by the victors, under one of the names under which it sought to hide itself plus any other decisions which they might entertain and put into force at any future date.

(Note: Exactly what was the spur which prodded Roosevelt’s extreme anti-German attitude is not at once apparent. It was certainly not his “two-of-a-kind” relationship with Henry Morgenthau, Jr., since he had shown an extreme dislike for all things German long before he had met his bosom comrade. Indeed, such anti-German feeling pervaded the blood of both the “Oyster Bay” Roosevelts and the “Hyde Park” Roosevelts. Although Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. opposed F. D. Roosevelt in 1936 on domestic policy and later on entering the war, his dislike for Germany was shared with his distant cousin. In 18** Theodore Roosevelt in a series of steps designed to place the U.S. on the map internationally had whipped up U.S. sentiment against Germany by using the Samoan incident which brought the U.S. and Germany to the brink of war at that time. It was avoided only when the Kaiser backed down, deeming Samoa of too little importance to provoke war with what he deemed an otherwise friendly country. In 19**, in a futile attempt to promote peace between Germany and the U.S., German Prince Heinrich visited, New York City and was subject to the still-existing fury of New Yorkers. In preparing for the official welcoming speech, Theodore Roosevelt admitted he could think initially only of the words, “Damn the Dutch!”. But if it suited his political purpose, Thoedore Roosevelt could be cozy even with the Kaiser. However, in World War I when he again sought the U.S. Presidency, the Kaiser again became his mortal enemy. In the Roosevelt Family as well as the U.S. public, the hatred of Germany, for whatever reason, never subsided much less died!)

What kind of Germany did Franklin Roosevelt want? Obviously, he wanted a gigantic reduction in the political and economic power of the dominant power in central Europe. First, Germany was to surrender “unconditionally,” and throw itself upon “his mercy”. (For. Rel., 1944, Vol. I, pp. 493-4, 528-29) [Note: Germany had already in 1918 experienced what the “Wilsonian” terms “mercy” and “fairness” “autonomy of peoples,” “peace without victory,” etc. meant when used as propaganda in attempting to gain a German surrender] Germany was thereafter to cease forever, to be either an economic or political factor. The German Reich was to be dismembered and the three parts placed at the disposal of the victors with East Germany, the eastern remnant, to be ceded outright to Poland for services rendered — as Austrian Bozen was awarded Italy at the end of World War I. Middle Germany was to be occupied by Russia, and West Germany was to be occupied by the allied western United Nations dominated by the U.S. The area which constituted Germany at the pleasure of the victors was to be occupied by them until they noted a change in German philosophy had taken place “and (that) may take two generations.” (For Rel., 1944, I, pp 501-502). Everything reminiscent of modern Germany was to be destroyed ruthlessly, even unto the use of the word “Reich.” Apparently the formation of the German Reich in 1870 was an affront to him as well as his two-of-a-kind confederate, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. (For. Rel., 1944, I, p. 502). Prussia also was to disappear forever as a state of Germany.

What kind of a Europe did Roosevelt envisage? Of the nations occupied by Germany, only Holland, Norway, Denmark and Czechoslovakia which had done yeomans’ work for the anti-German coalition would be reconstituted with the same government it had had before the war with minor border changes for the latter country to benefit Russia and Poland. Czechoslovakia was destined to fall prey to Soviet hegemony. All would continue to do yoemans’ work for the two new “super powers.” France would be reconstituted but the “Fourth Republic” with its “defeatist” Daladiers, Lavals, and Reynauds, reluctant to accept U.S. leadership and refusing to accept the enlightened leadership of Leon Blum would not be reconstituted. The (London) Polish Government too with its Pilsudski, its Smigly-Rydz, and its Sikorski, all of whom were an embarassment to the “Atlantic Charter” as well as a liability to the Yalta Agreement, all with a history of almost violent anti-Jewish activity would certainly not be reconstituted by a coalition so much under the influence of zionists. Rather, a “Polish Provisional Government of National Unity, dominated by Russia, would be its replacement. No one should have been surprised when the subsequent bloody events came to pass! As compensation and in a gesture to placate Poland for its pre-war refusal to arbitrate its excessive post- World War I appetite for German territory with the Third Reich, it would be awarded (“rewarded!”) all of East Germany but would be forced to accept the World War I Curzon Line as its eastern boundary as the British had wisely recommended in 1918. Poland, as well as all eastern European countries were to again accept Russian peonage. Ethnic Germans unfortunate enough to be caught in this monsterous, arbitrary, latter-day division of the world between Roosevelt and Stalin would be forced to run the gauntlet of slavic wrath in an attempt to return to the remnant of Germany, occupied by the victors but still designated by them as “Germany.”. All nations of Europe were to assume the international status of an “Austria” or a “Belgium” oweing fealty either to Russia or the United States, the two “super powers” designated by Roosevelt himself. The proud British Empire would disappear to be replaced by basically the same group of nations led this time by the “princes of the Potomac.”

What kind of a United States did Roosevelt envisage? It certainly did not involve returning to the pre-war concept of “Americanism” or “Democracy.” He had made many too many promises on domestic policy to his myriad supporters — all of whom wanted much in return for their unswerving, unquestioning devotion to his international ambitions, both before and during the war. And realizing the political importance of the wartime powers he had assumed with little opposition, he resolved to use them to obtain what he hoped would be the irreversable changes he sought domestically and internationally before opponents, those who he would consider as obstructionists, could mount any opposition or successfully deprive him of the powers he had assumed. Actually, Roosevelt and succeding presidents would keep these powers to use themselves even in time of peace. Roosevelt therefore wanted the domestic action he sought while U.S. public opinion was at the war-time (Bohlen, pp. 158-59) white hot level which he and his thought manipulative agents and agencies had created so successfully before they would have time to reflect upon their brashness in a saner, more objective, more reasonable post-war period without the daily escalation of war propaganda allegations, ever-greater, ever bloodier atrocities committed by the Germans. What he envisaged would become a stampede of the masses into absurdity.

What kind of a world did Roosevelt envisage? Simply, it was a world dominated politically, economically and militarily by Stalin and himself in which he functioned as head of the United Nations Organization as he had, indeed, functioned as head of the anti-German war-time United Nations coalition. Vis a vis Stalin, he considered himself the “Senior Partner,” and he would therefore decide the future of all the nations. England as a member of the “Security Council” but economically dependant upon the U.S. would be expected to obediently follow the lead of the U.S. and break any “ties” — in favor of the U.S. — which might arise should Roosevelt not be able to prevail upon Stalin. France, having been made destitute by the war and the loss of its colonies would follow suit likewise to continue to obtain the largess of Washington. China was in an even more difficult position being bankrupt with an impending civil war.

XXX. JCS 1067/6-7 (April 27, 1945)

As an indication of things to come, the Civil Affairs Division of SHAEF in London had already determined that the U.S. Occupation Zone would be administered with very little attention paid to the directions of the Allied Control Council in Berlin. (Diaries III, p. 383). Officially, Morgenthau and the State Department (Hull) were to work with McCloy in its preparation. In his endeavors to this end, Morgenthau obtained service above and beyond the call of duty from Col. Bernard Bernstein and Col. David “Mickey” Marcus. The former later had a great influence in the post-war German economy, while the later exercized great influence as Chief of the Planning Branch of the Civil Affairs Division, War Department. Still later, Marcus was head of the War Crimes Division, War Department. His life ended in 1948 as “Mickey Stone,” commanding Jewish troops against the Arabs in Palestine with the blessings of the U.S. Military.

We have noted above that at Morgenthau’s instigation and prompting, Roosevelt had killed (not just “disavowed” but “killed”) the SHAEF plan of administering a defeated Germany as outlined in a Handbook for Military Government in Germany (Civil Affairs Handbook on Germany, For. Rel. 1944, Vol. I, p. 353). Thereupon, he had “commissioned” Morgenthau to produce a “Plan” satisfactory to them both. This “Plan,” presented and initial by both Roosevelt and Churchill at Quebec, had somehow leaked to the Press and was generating considerable opposition in a critical period prior to a Presidential Election. The knowledge of the “Plan,” available to the Public at this point was causing even Churchill, who had since Dunkirk been beholden to Roosevelt’s largess, to have second thoughts about supporting it even though the award of some six billion dollars Lend-Lease to England was involved in that country’s acceptance of the “Plan.” (Diaries III, 374) In a move which purely political, one designed to take the pressure off Roosevelt before the presidential election, avoid the appearance of British-U.S. disunity, and reduce German accusations and protests of United Nations barbarity, he “disavowed” the Morgenthau Plan and took measures to convince (deceive) the public that it was a dead issue.

It was in this critical period after the 1944 Presidential election that Morgenthau began making good on his pre-campaign promise “to get back into the German picture in a big way.”

And with the widely-known full support of Franklin D. Roosevelt, he did so “in a big way.”

Early in November, 1944, Morgenthau learned from Mc Cloy of Roosevelt’s strong feelings that questions of partition, reparations and deindustrialization of the Ruhr should be deferred until Germany’s surrender (Diaries, III, p. 384). This merely delayed decisions which he had already made in these areas, decisions which might be controversial but which after Germany’s defeat could be instituted on Eisenhower’s (“his”) orders without difficulty.

The writing of the original document JCS 1067 issued initially was presided over by John J. McCloy of the War Department (Stimson) and advocated a relatively moderate post-war policy toward Germany (Diaries, III, 383) with regard to what was finally dictated by Roosevelt. In view of its later significance, its contents are of little interest. Now, after their view of the American Plan written by Morgenthau and his Department, the British had also submitted a plan not unlike the original JCS 1067. (Diaries III, pp. 383 — 385). p. 92; Thorwald, Juergen, Defeat in the East, Bantam Books, ). It was obvious that Roosevelt and Morgenthau demanded a much harsher occupation policy for Germany than their British counterparts, one firmly under their control than had been heretofore expected. And with the widely trumpeted, implied demise of the Morgenthau Plan, they resolved that the American JCS 1067 must be modified until it conformed to their intents. JCS 1067 is mentioned on Sept. 21, 1944 (Foreign Relations, 1944, Vol. I, pp. 341 and 359) as a document “prepared by the War and State Departments and concurred in by the Treasury Department.”

It was in the mutual criticisims of the British Plan for the occupation of Germany that Morgenthau and McCloy continually found a great deal of common ground. They felt it was entirely unsatisfactory even as an interim plan, since it preserved too much of the exsting German State, did not concentrate sufficiently upon the arrest and punishment of members of the NSDAP, and perhaps more important than these, did not close German schools until they could be purged of any NSDAP influence by agents of the United Nations. The Germans who would be allowed any hand in German affaires would be hand picked by the victors and would be responsible for directing the economics of the conquered nation also according to the wishes of the victors. McCloy was of the opinion the British Plan was no more than an “armistice” rather than the “unconditional surrender” demanded by Roosevelt. (Diaries III,p. 385) As a result, Lord Cherwell, who represented the British Plan, still trying to talk about British needs for a Phase II of “Lend Lease,” was told the Plan was “too lengthy” and (signifcantly from Roosevelt’s point of vew) too detailed and that it was not in line with the principles of JCS 1067 (which after many revisions and re-revsions was still not finished!). As at “OCTAGON,” as a consequence of Britain’s dire need of assistance in the form of “Phase Two” of Lend Lease, Cherwell acquiesced and promised to deliver JCS 1067 to the British for their further consideration. From that time onward, the British and the U.S. War Department continued their (mostly unsuccessful) attempts to soften the portions of JCS 1067 which came from the original Morgenthau Plan, (Diaries III, 386) but, as could be expected, their weaponry was little compared to that of Morgenthau.

In his crusade to make Germany a “happy land” (vintage of 1860) again, as Morgenthau’s father put it, JCS 1067 was revised continually thereafter until a draft version was finally produced on Dec. 7, 1944 which Morgenthau believed showed progress in the direction he wished. (Diaries, III, 386) This draft stated, “that no effort will be made to rehabilitate or succor the German people. Rather, the sole aim of (United Nations’) Military Government is to further (their) military objectives.” The United Nations forces would “come as conquerors. Germany was to be treated as a defeated, occupied nation. All fraternization between occupying troops and the defeated Germans was forbidden. As a further accession to Morgenthau’s desires as Roosevelt’s annointed envoy, the following was included, although both Stimson and McCloy opposed it (Diaries III, p. 388): “No steps will be taken looking toward the economic rehabilitation of Germany nor designed to maintain or strengthen the German economy except those needed to prevent epidemics or serious diseases and serious civil disorder which would endanger the forces and to prevent the dissiipation or sabotage of German equipment required for Allied countries.” (Diaries 387) Perhaps in order to explain his objectives, Morgenthau said, “I don’t want to destroy Germany, I want them to take care of themselves as we leave it.” (Diaries, III, 388). Morgenthau’s “policy” had the further advantage of helping to pare down the German population which would be excessive in the territory now allowed them by the victors.

By mid-December, it was obvious as to what Morgenthau had meant when he stated that after the election, “he intended to get back into the German picture in a big way.” (For. Rel. 1944, I, p. 382) The likely reason for not accepting the original Morgenthau Plan officially by the Roosevelt Regime probably resulted from the public uproar it caused in a period before an election. Now, Morgenthau, not the Roosevelt-appointed Joint Chiefs of Staff, was, for all practical purposes, in charge of the continuing revisons of JCS 1067, although now, the “Plan” would be characterized as coming from the U.S. War Department (Henry L. Stimson and John J. McCloy) rather than from the Treasury Department (Morgenthau). This was accomplished and could only have been accomplished with Roosevelt’s full agreement and by the dogged persistence which characterized Morgenthau in this, his most outstanding obcession, and only after numerous revisions of the original JCS 1067 (For. Rel., III, p. 425-426)

The often revised Army (Stimson) Department plan JCS 1067 (Joint Chiefs of Staff — 1067 [formulated by Roosevelt appointees: Admiral William D. Leahy, Admiral Ernest J. King, Gen Henry H. Arnold, and Gen. George C. Marshall]) was deemed acceptable to Morgenthau only after being extensively changed from its original form and reworked by Treasury Department stalwarts (e. g. Dr. Harry Dexter White et al. For. Rel. 1944, Vol. I, p.425; Diplomat Among Warriors, p. 270) to incorporate most of the ideas of the original Morgenthau Plan presented at the Quebec Conference on Sept. 14, 1944. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had previously had the advantage of information they had received from the European Advisory Commission which at the time was trying to decide on how Germany was to be treated in the post-war era and make recommendations to the U. N. principles. In view of what actually happened, these early recommendations were surprisingly mild, perhaps, even chivalrous. Both the Soviet and U.S. proposals were, except perhaps for East Prussia, based initially upon the boundaries of Germany and Poland in 1939. (Foreign Relations, 1944, Vol. I, pp. 100-483) But with each succeeding revision demanded by Morgenthau and his acolytes, it became more a case of JCS-1067 serving merely as the War Department-State Department “carrier wave” with the important modulations calculated to punish and control Germany stipulated as desired by Roosevelt, Morgenthau and his Treasury assistants.

XXX. JCS 1067/6-7

JCS 1067 began as a program of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the governing of defeated Germany by the United States Army of Occupation. It assumed significance after the original Morgenthau Plan was presented at “OCTAGON” and resulted in loud complaints and threats of disruptive opposition within not onoy the U.S. but also between the U.S. and England. For Roosevelt, it was much better politically for the Morgenthau Plan, of which he was partial author, to develop further as a super secret document to be produced by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

For the development of JCS 1067, John Jay McCloy second in the War Department only to Secretary Henry Stimson was placed in charge. McCloy who sometimes gave every indication of being

Morgenthau’s “man in the War Department,” associated with the (Rockefeller) Chase Manhattan bank, famed along with Judge Owen J. (“Pearl Harbor”) Roberts for the bitter, anti-German inter-war litigation regarding alleged German WW-I sabotage of the Black Tom munitions pier, and future U.S. High Commissioner for Germany was questionably the best man for deciding the post-war fate of his life-long adversary. His chief might be described as a man whose hatred for Germany was exceeded only by his hatred for Japan. General Hilldring who had opposed peace with Germany in 1918 was also involved with JCS 1067.

The final plan for Germany which, in fact, was to be used as a skeletal plan for conquered Germany, JCS-1067/6-7 had gathered momentum and increased greatly in breadth of coverage and harshness respective to Germany by the snowballing of those plans formulated in the United States and abroad by those who hated Germany with no bounds. In this manner, the objectives of all the pan-germanophobes would be realized. They were ever eager to expand their mental plans and penalties to include any new ideas which others might have.

Since JCS-1067/6-7 was a product of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it is necessary to consider just who these Joint Chiefs of staff were. They were an interesting array of newly-created Rooseveltian brass indeed: Admiral William D. Leahy, General George C. Marshall, Admiral Ernest J. King, and General Henry H. (“Hap”’) Arnold. They met with him (Roosevelt) regularly to discuss the progress of the war and any any other projects which might interest him. They were nominally under the supervision of Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and John Jay McCloy, a long-time anti-German intimate of the Rockefeller interests and Stimson’s Assistant Secretary of War. All of these were also Roosevelt appointees and they, like all the others shared a common hatred of Germany. In addition, Mr. McCloy had made a career for himself in the internecine period by prosecuting the alleged acts of German sabotage in this country useing questionable evidence and procedures prior to its declaration of war on Germany. In this, he was ably assisted by the Judge, Judge Owen J. Roberts, a role which unique qualified him in Roosevelt’s eyes to carry out the later Roosevelt-sponsored Pearl Harbor attack investigation. McCloy, of course was building up “Brownie Points” to become the future U.S. High Commissioner for Germany.

It should come as no surprise that McCloy, later as U.S. High Commissioner in Germany, General Lucius Clay’s successor, was so sympathetic to Morgenthau’s Plan and was so successful in explaining it to Lord Cherwell and other members of the British Delegation at the “QUADRANT” Conference in Quebec. Further, after Roosevelt’s tactical public refutation of the “Plan,” it was McCloy’s capable hands into which the rewriting of the Morgenthau Plan as the “new” Joint Chiefs of Staff 1067 was entrusted. Obviously, Roosevelt was aware of what was going on daily with a plan so near and dear to his heart and was completely in agreement as was his like-thinking intimate, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. There is no reason, therefore, that one should be surprised at the similarities of the two documents. Although J.C.S. 1067/6-7 is longer, it is but another case of “La plus la change, la plus la meme chose.” And those who had opposed the Morgenthau Plan when it was leaked to the press could be hoodwinked, perhaps, into believing the statements of the Roosevelt Regime that the “old” Morgenthau Plan had been scrapped in favor of a “new” plan. Actually, at the Crimean (“Yalta”) Conference, Roosevelt had gone far beyond several of the recommendations in Morgenthau’s Plan, making it even more harsh than had Morgenthau himself.

JCS-1067/6-7 did not begin with the Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plan or tentative suggestions to which Roosevelt felt himself bound in no way any more than JCS 1067/6-7 was to be the sole postwar “Plan” by which Germany was ruled by its victors. The formulation of JCS-1067 began in the minds of many U.S. officers at least as far back as World War I (e.g. Gen. John J. Pershing, Gen. George C. Marshall, & Maj. Gen. John H. Hildring).

Until JCS 1779 was issued (May 17, 1947), the skeletal plan, JCS-1067/6-7 could be changed or expanded upon at the victors’ wills by little more than a telephone call by the proper persons to the Military Governor (s) of the occupied nation. As can be seen, JCS 1067 had already been subject to six revisions before it was enforced in Germany. In the course of its life in Germany, it was subjected a seventh revision in its wording.

(The draft of J.C.S. 1779 on 19 May, 1947 already was subject to) (numerous changes on 20 May 1947. — Under J>C>S> 1779)

In the meantime, the U.S. populace would be thoroughly “re-educated” by daily releases the news media, schools, churches, movies, etc. dominated as they were by the Roosevelt-established agency, the Office of War Information, aptly headed by Germano-phobe Elmer Davis who would be fed a steady diet of “Greuelmaerchen” by the Roosevelt-established War Refugee Board and other sources such as Sumner Welles in the U.S. State Department, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of the World Zionist Congress, and liberal United Nations propaganda elitists who specialized in such black defamatory propaganda. As a result, by the end of the war, the U.S. citizenry were so inflamed against Germany and Germans that they were, for the most part, ready to slaughter all Germans and surrender all their historical territory to anyone on any pretense so long as no Germans would ever again hold dominion over it. Roosevelt almost always was capable of evaluating his ability to pursuade his Americans “constituents” into stampeding in the direction predetermined by him. In this instance, he had been preiminently successful.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff were a group created by Roosevelt to function as a kind of “Pentagon “think tank” and also to keep him apprised of the wartime military situation by his chief lieutenants as well as any of the “projects” on policy etc., which he wished them to work out. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were headed by Admiral William D. Leahy. Other members were General George Catlett Marshall; Admiral Ernest J. King, Chief of Naval Operations; and General Henry “Hap” Arnold, Chief of the Army Air Force. All had the distinction of being named to their influential positions and ranks by Franklin D. Roosevelt, a distinction shared equally by Henry Morgenthau, Jr.

From January 23, 1942 onward to the end of the war, the Joint Chiefs of Staff met regularly every Friday. Thereafter, it was Admiral Leahy who met with Roosevelt to brief him fully on their deliberations, although sometimes the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff met with him in his private study. With the obvious opportunities for privacy and secrecy, both essential ingredients in all of Roosevelt’s activities, one can only conjecture as to what minutes of these important conferences might have contained which would have been of interest to the people in whose name these men were taking action.

________________JCS 1067/6 actually JCS 1067/6-7 (Murphy, p. 250), April 26, Amended on May 10, Approved by Truman & issued May 14, 1945, Classified as “Top Secret;” reclassified as “Unclassified” and made public Oct. 19, 1945_________________________________

JCS 1067/6 was intended as a memorandum for the commanding officer of the American Zone (and eventually “west Germany) as to what was to be undertaken and done in the U.S. Occupation Zone. Just to be sure and certain that the Commander-in-chief’s subordinates did not labor under some misapprehension of Wilsonian “Peace Without Victory” or forgive-and-forget, copies of Morgenthau’s Plan in the form of his book, Germany Is Our Problem, was generously distributed to the U.S. staffs by the U.S. War Department at the end of 1945 (NYT, Dec. 30, 1945, p. 10).

Morgenthau’s dedication to his vengeful “Plan” seems never to have waned or abated! Even after it was obvious that the Morgenthau Plan, in its JCS 1067/6 reincarnation, was working to the detriment of the United States in Germany, attempts were made in Roosevelt’s name by his faithful followers (e. g. Eleanor Roosevelt, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Sumner Welles, etc. — NYT, Feb. 4, 1947, p. 10 and NYT, 7, 1947,, p. 11) to rescue and preserve its monsterous provisions by public appeals to the wartime prejudice of the American People. But for the post-war cooling of tempers, they might well have succeeded!

XXXI. “UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION” ORGANIZATIONAL CONFERENCE, SAN FRANCISCO, April 30 (?) — June 26, 1945)

In the minds of those persons concerned with the future of defeated Germany, it had to be obvious that any successful punative plan for the future of Germany had to be one which would at least be partially acceptable to the other nations of the world. Otherwise, the plan would be branded as no more than brutal vengeance on the powerless defeated taken by a merciless victor. If one neutral nation spoke up forcefully against the plans and objectives of the powerful allied “United Nations” (consisting at this point of the “Three Great Powers,” France, recognized provisionally by them, and minor countries and “hanger-on-governments persuaded one way or another to join the war against the Axis powers) the entire effort could easily be shown to be farcical and might fail miserably.

The answer to such a dilemma, of course, was to somehow isolate Germany from the rest of the world so that no nation would dare to defend her and/or demand proof or objectivity in the judging of the accusations which were to come. To this end, the numerous wartime atrocity charges had been at least partially successful, but they were based upon such questionable evidence that they might easily be disproved if any determined effort at an objective investigation were undertaken by a neutral source. Also, the formulation of a successful vendetta against Germany could best be accomplished by making the former neutrals active partners in the formulation and/or demands for such action. The answer lay in the foundation of an organization which would speak for all nations and continually be controlled by the victors to carry out their objectives. As a consequence and in preparation for this, the San Francisco Conference was called in 1945 shortly before Germany was defeated. Under the guidance of Alger Hiss of the United States State Department who had attended the Crimean Conference in Yalta, the plans of Cordell Hull and the State Department were to bear the desired fruit. The few remaining neutral countries were to be “persuaded” to join the “non-partisan” United Nations Organization. These neutrals had already been intimidated by the United Nations into refusing asylum to Germans accused of “war crimes” defined by these same nations, “crimes” not universally recognized as such by the Geneva Convention. These neutrals would now be “persuaded” to join the wartime coalition against the Axis nations by an intinsification of the same methods which had already “persuaded” many of those which had earlier declared war in deference to the appeal of one of the democratic “three Great Powers.” These methods included outright threats if they refused to join, promises of bribes in the form of “loans,” promises of weapons, promises of permission to confiscate local German assets, etc. if they did.

Although Roosevelt, early in his regime had stated no “dollar diplomacy” would be used by him, he continued to use it openly and flagrantly whenever it would achieve his purpose of constucting an economic or military alliance against the Axis. It was particularly successful before and during the war in the Latin American Countries, but after the war it was extended unashamedly to the rest of the world. And it still to this day (1991) is regularly used in American foreign policy, under the name of “foreign aid” etc. as a viable weapon in influencing the attitude of foreign nations. Sometimes this is done by laws passed by the U.S. Congress, sometimes by U.S. Executive Order.

It is difficult for me to escape the feeling that the thrust of U.S. foreign policy at least from 1932 onward has been a policy to support if not to origanate the shatter ing of all other nations of the world into inconsequential states which it can thereafter control individually as it chooses. In so doing it ignores completely the vulnerabilities, the deadly possibilities and weaknesses within its own borders which resulted in the haunting American holocaust of 1860-1865.

Ironically, the first priority of the “United Nations Organization,” organized by the victors, the United Nations, to perpetuated the “peace” which they intended thereafter to dictate by force of arms was to destroy the League of Nations, the organization formed at the end of World War I to perpetuate the peace won in the “war to end wars.” Time would show that the “idealism” of Woodrow Wilson concerning the basis of the League of Nations was several orders of magnitude ahead of the vindictive political pragmaticism which served as the basis of the United Nations as well as the “United Nations Organization.”

In looking at the make up of the “United Nations Organization,” with the exception of the first six words in the Charter of the United Nations, one is struck by the greater similarity of its structure to the structure of the Soviet Union than in any way to the United States Constitution. The “United Nations Organization” would be a massive attempt at producing a world wide government which would be the utopian multinational, multilingual, multiracial, multicultural state those calling themselves internationalists,” “idealists,” etc. had been championing for years. It was, in fact, the utopian perfection sought in the minds of leading socialist philosophers for decades in which differences between nations and races would disappear leaving a world filled with brotherly love and utopian socialism. For years, the liberal “New Deal” had been pointing to Russia as the ideal country in which many races “lived together in peace and harmony,” a nation which the post-war U.S. Government should, as a nation, attempt to emulate in this respect. At numerous times, Frankin D. Roosevelt himself had stated that the multiplicities of cultures, races, ideas, etc. in the “American way” was the very basis of American strength. Here, we must assume he held the vast American sources of mineral wealth, raw materials and industrial potential rated for very little by comparison. Apparently these soothsayers and clairvoyants also did not foresee the nationalistic and racial events which rent Russia asunder in 1991.

The structure of the “United Nations Organization” consisted of a “Secretary General” (Premier) to execute the edicts of the “Security Council” (Politbureau) and the “General Assembly” (Supreme Soviet) which the former controlled by vetoes, economic policies and by individual expulsion of uncooperative members if necessary. The Security Council was to consist of the eleven members, five of which were “permamanent members” representing the five major victorious members of the wartime coalition and another six non-permanent members which were to be elected by the General Assembly for a term of one year. Unquestionably, in such an arrangement the wartime victors would, so long as they were in agreement, always prevail by exercising their “influence” upon the non-permanent members.

Although the Secretary General and his “Secretariate” ddo not appear to be invested with the great power of a premier, it is this very position to which President Franklin Roosevelt apparently aspired according to Congressman Hamilton Fish ( Fish, Hamilton, The Other Side of the Coin, Vantage Press, N. Y. 1976, p. 198-9.) According to Congressman Fish, some ten minutes before his death, in the presence of Miss Delano, Daisy Suckley and Lucy Rutherford (his long-time mistress) he stated without smiling, “I’m going to resign from the presidency. If I can get the job, I’ll head the United Nations.” Knowing and accepting his demonstrated ability to “liberally” interpret any statuatory limitations to his power, to spread financial support around to achieve his purposes, to bring tremendous political pressure to bear on those opposing him, there seems to be little doubt that the position of Secretary General would have shortly made him, if not “King of Kings’ certainly “President of Presidents.”

Such, however, was the general structure of the supernational government Roosevelt’s leftist hoplites concieved, brought into existence in San Francisco, and presented to the U.S. Senate for ratification. In as much as ratification entailed the surrender of an undefined portion of this Nation’s soverignty and that of its component states as well as provided in some instances for the subjection of some of its citizens directly to this supernational creation, it would have been more fitting if it had been submitted to the American people U.S. the San Francisco delegates claimed to be representing in their actions. For such a revolutionary document and surrender of soverignty of soverign states, was it not rather incumbent upon the U.S. Senate to submit the ratification the of document to the affected states as a Constitutional Amendment to be adopted only if accepted by three quarters of those states to be hereafter affected and governed in part by it? But, unlike the illegal League of Nations charter (?), it was manuevered through the Senate with no serious opposition in a well-controlled Congress.

XXXII. THE END OF GERMANY AS A NATIONAL STATE

A. SURRENDER OF GERMANY (May 7 & 8, 1945)

Rheims, May 7, 1945

1. We the undersigned, acting by authority of the German High Command, hereby surrender unconditionally to the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and simultaneously to the Soviet High Command all forces on land, sea, and in the air who are at this date under German control.

2. The German High Command will at once issue orders to all German military, naval and air authorities and to all forces under German control to cease active operations at 2301 hours Central European time on 8 May and to remain in the positions occupied at that time. No ship, vessel, or aircraft is to be scuttled, or any damage done to theirhull, machinery or equipment.

3. The German High Command will at once issue to the appropriate commanders, and ensure the carrying out of any further orders issued by the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and by the Soviet High Command.

4. This act of military surrender is without prejudice to, and will be suuperseded by any general instrument of surrender imposed by, or on behalf of the United Nations applicable to GERMANY and the German armed forces as a whole.

5. In the event of the German High Command or any of the forces under their control failing to act in accordance with this Act of Surrender, the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and the Soviet High Command will take such punitive or other action as they deem appropriate.

Signed at Rheims at 0241 on the 7th day of May, 1945.

France

On behalf of the German High Command.

JODL

IN THE PRESENCE OF:

On behalf of the On behalf of the

Supreme Commander, Soviet High Command.

Allied Expeditionary SOUSLOPAROV

Force.

W. B. SMITH

F. SEVEZ

Major General

French Army

(Witness)

(Pollock, James K., et al., GERMANY UNDER OCCUPATION, George Wahr Publishing Co., Ann Arbor, Mich., 1949, p. 5).

It is interesting to note that the British were not even represented much less parties to this surrender. The best the “Free French” could obtain was a position as “witness.” The nations of the future which counted were the U.S. and Russia!

After the surrender at Rheims, France (May 7, 1945), Col. General Jodl was allowed by his captors to make a statement: “With this signature the German People and the armed forces are for better or worse, delivered into the victors’ hands. In this war, which has lasted more than five years, both have achieved and suffered more than perhaps any other people in the world.” (NYT, May 8, 1945 — differs slightly from Shirer’s version, p. 1139)

[“Mit dieser Unterschrift sind das deutsche Volk und die deutschen Streitkraefte auf Gedei und Verderb der hand des Siegers ausgeliefert… Ich kann in dieser Stunde nur die Hoffnung ausdruecken, dass der Sieger sie mit Grossmut behandeln wird.”]

General Jodl and Admiral von Friedeburg had arrived in Reims in an attempt to salvage as much of a German Nation from United Nations occupation (and vengence) as possible by offering to surrender to the western United Nations allies rather than to the entire United Nations which included the Russians. The Germans were still trying hard hold the Russians back with the sacrifice of as few soldiers as possible to allow the rescue of as many German nationals from the east and allow them to come under western United Nations dominion as possible to save them from Russian serfdom. For the last months of the war, the German strategy had been to try to hold the Russians back and allow the western United Nations Powers to advance into Germany in an attempt to deprive the Russians of as much German territory and as many Germans as possible. Apparently there was reason enough to believe such an arrangement might be made if one is to believe the reports of Charles E. Bohlen (Witness to History, pp. 208-209) At any rate, many U.S. lives and many post-war U.S. problems which now plague the country would have been avoided if such an arrangement had been made. (Even after the German surrender, the Russians had good reason to suspect the motives of the British who maintained armed, captured German units for some time after their surrender. They suspected these armed Germans were to be used by the British in action against the Russians in eastern Europe. The Russians also demanded to see the body of F. D. Roosevelt, suspecting he had been poisoned by the British)

As it was, and as General Eisenhower put it later (Crusade in Europe, p. 426), “I told General (W. B. “Bedell”) Smith to inform Jodl (Eisenhower disdained the German officers and refused to speak with them — an example of American chivalry in its flower!) that unless they instantly ceased all pretense and delay I would close the entire Allied front and would, by force prevent any more German refugees from entering our lines. I would brook no further delay.” Faced with the certain escalating inhuman treatment of millions of Germans still attempting to flee the rape, murder and plunder of Russian troops crazed with the “philosophic poetry” of Ilya Ehrenberg as well as their cooperating allies the Poles, etc., the actual cause of the offer to surrender in the first place, and knowing the futility of further military resistance under such an inexorable victor, President Gross-Admiral Doenitz had no choice but to accept the Eisenhower ultimatum. If ever there had been a doubt in German minds that the demand for total, unconditional surrender for Germany had been no more than a machination in the mind of Franklin D. Roosevelt and did not represent the feelings of the mass of United States feeling and would disappear or become less demanding upon his death, it therewith, forever disappeared.

On May 8, 1945, a similar document was signed in Berlin-Karlshorst for the gratification of the Soviet Russians, now, by the grace of the United States, designated as one of the two “super powers” of the world. It was here at this second ceremony, for the aggrandizement of the Russians and further denegration of the defeated Germans that Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel was manhandled by Soviet troops and robbed of his Marshal’s baton after signing the surrender document. This was an evil omen for Germany, but it foretold a measure of the draconian measures yet to come which were uniformly calculated to completely finish during the long post hostilities armistice the destruction of a now defeated nation which its enemies had begun in war.

Berlin, May 8, 1945

1. We the undersigned, acting by authority of the German High Command, hereby surrender unconditionally to the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and simultaneously to the Supreme High Command of the Red Army all forces on land, at sea, and in the air who are at this date under German control.

2. The German High Command will at once issue orders to all German military, naval and air authorities and to all forces under German control to cease active operations at 2301 hours Central European time on 8th May 1945, to remain in the positions occupied at that time and to disarm completely, handing over their weapons and equipment to the local allied commanders or officers designated by Representatives of the Allied Supreme Commands. No ship, vessel, or aircraft is to be scuttled, or any damage done to their hull, machinery or equipment, and also to machines of all kinds, armament, apparatus, and all the technical means of prosecution of war in general.

3. The German High Command will at once issue to the appropriate commanders and ensure the carrying our of any further orders issued by the Suupreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and by the Supreme High Command of the Red Army.

4. This act of military surrender is without prejudice to, and will be superseded by any general instrument of surrender imposed by, or on behalf of the United Nations and applicable to GERMANY and the German armed forces as a whole.

5. In the event of the German High Command or any of the forces under their control failing to act in accordance with this Act of Surrender, the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and the Supreme Hi;gh Command of the Red Army will take such punative and other action as they deem appropriate.

6. This Act is drawn up in the English, Russian and German Languages. The English and Russian are the only authentic texts.

Signed at Berlin on the 8. day of May, 1945

FRIEDEBURG KEITEL STUMPF

On behalf of the German High Command

IN THE PRESENCE OF:

On behalf of the On behalf of the

Supreme Commander Supreme High Commander

Allied Expeditionary Force of the Red Army

A. W. TEDDER G. ZHUKOV

At the signing also were present as witnesses:

F. De LATTRE-TASSIGNY CARL SPAATZ

General Commanding General, Commanding

in Chief, United States Strategic

First French Army Air Forces

(Pollock, James K., Meisel, James H., and Bretton, Henry L., Germany Under Occupation, Illustrative Materials and Documents, George Wahr Publishing Co., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1949., p. 6)

For a second time within a generation, Germany had been defeated by essentially the very same powers. This time, they were greatly reinforced over what they had been in 1918 and each of the major victors at least were possessed of an over all conviction that this time they would finish the job which they had set out to do in 1914. This time, without question, the United States had ended the war as the dominant nation of the world with the USSR as its partner designate. This time, without question, Germany had been totally destroyed, militarily, politically, morally and economically as her enemies in 1918 had sought to accomplish. The thoughts uppermost in the minds of victor and vanquished alike were basically what the victors would do this time to Germany which they had not already done in 1918?

The Germans had, indeed, every reason to be fearful and apprehensive. In 1918, they had surrender to essentially the same victors, believing they would be treated chivalrously if not magnanimously under the Wilson “Fourteen Points.” Instead, they were subjected to the ignominy of complete disarmament by the Armistice Agreement. Being then helplesss and incapable of further resistance, they had then stripped of fertile agricultural lands for the benefit of fraudulent political units constituted by the victors solely to weaken the vanquished and then further reduced to the status of national paupers by levies of reparations and humiliated by the Versailles Treaty. Thereafter, the British “Hunger Blockade” had replaced killing by guns on the field of battle with every-day, less-obvious starvation in the streets of Germany and Austria. In Germany, some 763,000 had perished of starvation during this period, and most adults today can remember that shortages of food had continued in Germany into the 1939-45 war and after.

This time, the war had been longer, more bloody and more bitter by several degrees of magnitude, and the victors were openly howling for German blood and revenge. There was not even a trace of possible future magnanimity in the demands for Germany’s surrender, only “unconditional surrender” as Roosevelt had demanded, speaking for the entire United Nations at Casablanca, with no promises of mercy or assistance. (The) “Reich (was) a ‘Nation of Fools,” Gertrude Aetherton says (“There Must be no Mercy Shown Them.”)” (New York Times, Oct. 31, 1944, p. 1-7) The provisions of the “Atlantic Charter,” Roosevelt’s, (the Germans themselves considered Roosevelt a “Wilson, quicker on the trigger,”) and Churchill’s version of Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” had already been declared to be inapplicable to the Germans and Germany by the United Nations. In the minds of those dedicated implacable enemies of Germany, the “mistakes of World War I” were not to be repeated!

B. THE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT PENDING TRIAL ON WAR CRIMES CHARGES OF THE LAST DE JURE GERMAN GOVERNMENT (May 23, 1945)

On May 23, 1945, the last de jure German government formed constitutionally by Gross Admiral Karl Doenitz under the still-operative Weimar Constitution was arrested by the victors in Kiel, Germany and forcefully removed from office, ending a series of German governments which had existed continuously for many centuries. The members of this government were then imprisoned by their captors to await trial for “war crimes” and any other disposition at the pleasure of the victors at the Nuernberg Tribunals which might be decided upon. It was at this instant that the Weimar Constitution and the Government which it authorized was destroyed by the victorious invading forces of the United Nations. From this date onward, the fates of the German Nation and its populace have been solely, completely in the hands of the United Nations victors to the degree which these victors themselves have decided at the time was desireable or necessary for them to achieve whatever aims they might subsequently decide upon.

C. UNITED NATIONS ASSUMPTION OF TOTAL GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY IN GERMANY

June 5, 1945

DECLARATION

regarding the defeat of Germany and the assumption

of supreme authority with respect to Germany by the

Governments of the United States of America, the

Union of Soviet Socialist Repuublics and the United

Kingdom and the Provisional Government of the French

Republic.

The German armed forces on land, at sea and in the air have been completely defeatedd and have surrendered unconditionally and Germany, which bears responsibility for the war, is no longer capable of resisting the will of the victorious powers. The unconditional surrender of Germany has thereby been effected, and Germany has become subject to such requirements as may now or hereafter be imposed upon her.

There is no central Government or authority in Germany capable of accepting responsibility for the maintenance of order, the administration of the country and compliance with the requirements of the victorious Powers.

It is in these circumstances necessary, without prejudice to any subsequent decisions that may be taken respecting Germany, to make provision for the cessation of any further hostilities on the part of the German armed forces, for the maintenance of order in Germany and for the administration of the country, and to announce the immediate requirements with which Germany must comply.

The Representatives of the Supreme Commands of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the French Republic, hereinafter called the “Allied Representatives,” acting by authority of their respective Governments and in the interests of the United Nations, accordingly make the following Declaration:-

The Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, hereby assume supreme authority with respect to Germany, including all the powers possessed by the German Government, the High Command and any state, municipal, or local government or authority. The assumption, for the purposes stated above, of the said authority and powers does not affect the annexation of Germany.

The Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, will hereafter determine the boundaries of Germany or any part thereof and the status of Germany or of any area at present being part of German territory.

In virtue of the supreme authority and powers thus assumed by the four Governments, the Allied Representatives announce the following requirements arising from the complete defeat and unconditional surrender of Germany with which Germany must comply:-

ARTICLE 1

Germany, and all German military, naval and air authorities and all forces under German control shall immediately cease hostilities in all theatres of war against the forces of the United Nations on land, at sea and in the air.

ARTICLE 2

(a) All armed forces of Germany under German contnrol, wherever they may be situated, including land, air, anti-craft and naval forces, the S.S., S.A. and Gestapo, and all other forces of auxiliary organizations equiipped with weapons, shall be completely disarmed, handing over their weapons and equipment to local Allied Commanders or to officers designated by the Allied Representatives.

(b) The personnel of the formations and units of all the forces referred to in paragraph (a) above shall, at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Allied State concerned, be declared to be prisoners of war, pending further decisions, and shall be subject to such conditions and directions as may be prescribed by the respective Allied Representatives.

(c) All forces referred to in paragraph (a) above, wherever they may be, will remain in their present positions pending instructions from the Allied Representatives.

(d) Evacuation by the said forces of all territories outside the frontiers of Germany as they existed on 31st of December, 1937, will proceed according to instructions to be given by the Allied Representatives.

(e) Detatchemnts of civil police to be armed with small arms only, for the maintnance of order and for guard duties, will be designated by the Allied Representatives.

ARTICLE 3

(a) All aircraft of any kind or nationality in Germany or German-occupied or controlled territories or waters, military, naval or civil, other than airccraft in the service of the Allies, will remain on the ground, on the water or abroad ships pending further instructions.

(b) All German or German-controlled aircraft in or over territories or waters not occupied or contnrolled by Germany will proceed to Germany or to such other place or places as may be specified by the Allied Representatives.

ARTICLE 4

(a) All German or German-controlled naval vessels, surface and submarine, auxiliary naval craft, and merchant and other shipping, wherever such vessels may be at the time of this Declaration, and all other merchant ships of whatever nationality in German ports, will remain in or proceed immediately to ports and bases as specified by the Allied Representatives. The crews of such vessels will remain on board pending further instructions.

(b) All ships and vessels of the United Nations, whether or not title has been transferred as the result of prize court or other proceedings, which are at the disposal of Germany or under German control at the time of this Declaration, will proceed at the dates and to the ports or bases specified by the Allied Representatives.

ARTICLE 5

(a) All or any of the following articles in the possession of the German armed forces or under German control or at German disposal will be held intact and in good condition at the disposal of the Allied Representatives, for such purposes and at such times and places as they may prescribe:-

(i) All arms, ammunition, explosives, military equipment, stores and supplies and other implements of war of all kinds and all other war materials;

(ii) All naval vessels of all classes, both surface and submarine, auxilairy naval craft and all merchant shipping, whether afloat, under repair or consttruction, built or building;

(iii) all aircraft of all kinds, aviation and anti-aircraft equipment and devices;

(iv) All transportation and communications facilities and equipment, by land, water or air;

(v) All military installations and establishments, including airfields, seaplane bases, ports and naval bases, storage depots, permanent and temporary land and coast fortifications, fortresses and other fortified areas, tegether with plans and drawings of all such fortifications, installations and establishments;

(vi) All factories, plants, shops, research institutions, laboratories, testing stations, technical date, patents, plans, drawings and inventions, designed or intended to produce or to facilitate the production or use of the articles, materials, and facilities referred to in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v) above or otherwise to further the conduct of the war.

(b) At the demand of the Allied Representatives the following will be furnished:-

(i) the labor, services and plant required for the maintenance or operation of the six categories mentioned in paragraph (a) above; and

(ii) any information or records that may be required by the Allied Representatives in connection with the same.

(c) At the demand of the Allied Representatives all facilities will be provided for the movement of Allied troops and agencies, their equipment and supplies, on the railways, roads and other land communications or by sea, river or air. All means of transportattion will be maintained in good order and repair, and the labour, services and plant necessary therefor will be furnished.

ARTICLE 6

(a) The German authorities will release to the Allied Representatives, in accordance with the procedure to be laid down by them, all prisoners of war at present in their power, belonging to the forces of the United Nations, and will furnish full lists of these persons indicating the places of their detention in Germany or territory occupied by Germany. Pending the release of such prisoners of war, the German authorities and people will protect them with adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical attention and money in accordance with their rank or official position.

(b) The German authorities and people will in like manner provide for and release all other nationals of the United Nations who are confined, interned or otherwise under restraint, and all other persons who may be confined, interned or otherwise under restraint for political reasons or as a result of any Nazi action, law or regulation which discriminates on the ground of race, colour, creed or political belief.

(c) The German authorities will, at the demand of the Allied Representatives, hand over control of places of detention to such officers as may be designated for the purpose by the Allied Representatives.

ARTICLE 7

The German authorities concerned will furnish to the Allied Representatives:-

(a) full information regarding the forces referred to in Article 22 (a), and in particular, will furnish forthwith all information which the Allied Representatives may require concerning the numbers, locations and dispositions of such forces, whether located inside or outside Germany;

(b) complete and detailed information concerning mines, minefields and other obstacles to movement by land, sea or air, and the safety lanes in connection therewith. All such safety lanes will be kept open and clearly marked; all mines, minefields and other dangerous obstacles will as far as possible be rendered safe, and all aids to navigation will be reinstated. Unarmed German military and civilian personnel with the necessary equipment will be made available and utilized for the above purposees and for the removal of mines, minefields and other obstacles as directed by the Allied Representatives.

ARTICLE 8

There shall be no destruction, removal, concealment, transfer or scuttling of, or damage to, any military, naval, air, shipping, port, industrial and other like property and facilities and all records and archives, wherever they may be situated, except as may be directed by the Allied Representatives.

ARTICLE 9

Pending the institution of control by the Allied Representatives over all means of communication, all radio and telecommunication installations and other forms of wire or wireless communications, whether ashore or afloat, under German control, will cease transmission except as directed by the Allied Representatives.

ARTICLE 10

The forces, ships, aircraft, military equipment, and other property in Germany or in German control or service or at German disposal, of any other country at war with any of the Allies, will be subject to the provisions of this Declaration and of any proclamations, orders, ordinances or instructions issued thereunder.

ARTICLE 11

(a) The principle Nazi leaders as specified by the Allied Representatives, and all persons from time to time named or designated by rank, office or employment by the Allied Representatives as being suspected of having committed, ordered or abetted war crimes or analogous offences, will be apprehended and surrendered to the Allied Representatives.

(b) The same will apply in the case of any national of any of the United Nations who is alleged to have committed an offence against his national law, and who may at any time be named or designated by rank, office or employment by the Allied Representatives.

(c) The German authorities and people will comply with any instructions given by the Allied Representatives for the apprehension and surrender of such persons.

ARTICLE 12

The Allied Representatives will station forces and civil agancies in any or all parts of Germany as they may determine.

ARTICLE 13

(a) In the exercise of the supreme authority with respect to Germany assumed by the Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the four Allied Governments will take such steps, including the complete disarmament and demilitarization of Germany, as they deem requisite for future peace and security.

(b) The Allied Representatives will impose on Germany additional political, administrative, economic, financial, military and other requirements arising from the complete defeat of Germany. The Allied Representatives, or persons or agencies duly designated to act on their authority, will issue proclamations, orders, ordinances and instructions for the purpose of laying down such additional requirements, and of giving effect to the other provisions of this Declaration. All German authorities and the German people shall carry out unconditionally and requirements of the Allied Representatives, and shall fully comply with all such proclamations, orders, ordinances and instructions.

ARTICLE 14

This Declaration enters into force and effect at the date and hour set forth below. In the event of failure on the part of the German authorities or people promptly and completely to fulfill their obligations hereby or hereafter imposed, the Allied Representatives will take whatever action may be deemed by them to be appropriate under the circumstances.

ARTICLE 15

This Declaration is drawn up in the English, Russian, French and German languages. The English, Russian and French are the only authentic texts.

BERLIN, GERMANY

June 5, 1945

Signed at 1800 hours, Berlin time, by DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, General of the Army, USA; ZHUKOV, Marshal of the Soviet Union; B. L. MONTGOMERY, Field Marshal, Great Britain; DeLATTRE de TASSIGNY, General d’Armee, French Provisional Government.

With the issuance of the above document and the arrest and imprisonment of the legally designated heads of the defeated German Government, the “Weimar Republic” as constituted by the Weimar Constitution and the subsequent modifications and amendments made to that Constitution ceased to exist. This Government and its Constitution had not terminated in any matter at all by the assumption of power by the NSDAP, since the “Third Reich” was created only by changes in the existing Constitution achieved legally and as stipulated by the Constitution. The final destruction of the Weimar Constitution and the last of its resultant Governments was accomplished by the refusal of the invading powers which had invaded Germany to recognize it as a govenrnment. It was therefore declared by them to be null, void and ineffective, and Germany was eliminated as a political power in central Europe in 1945, since there remained no power to stand against the barbarity of the victors. In this manner, it was similar to the destruction of the Holy Roman Empire by Napoleon.

As might be expected, with the victors firmly in control of every phase of German life, they immediately set about reinforcing their position and preparing for their “Reconstruction” of Germany into the kind of political state they had long desired. With this military power firmly in hand and with the ligalistic mumbo-jumbo of the legal-sounding edicts with which they sought to cloak their further acts, they issued under their provisions the first “proclamation.”

Proclamation No. 1

Establishing the Control Council

To the people of Germany:

The Commanders-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in Germany of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, acting jointly ass members of the Control Council, do hereby proclaim as follows:

I

As announced on 5 June 1945, the supreme authority with respect to Germany has been assumed by the Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic.

II

In virtue of the supreme authority and powers thus assumed by the four Governments the Control Council has been established and supreme authority in matters affecting Germany as a whole has been conferred upon the Control Council.

III

Any military laws, proclamations, orders, ordinances, notices, regulations and directivevs issued by orunder the authority of the respective Commanders-in-Chief for their respective Zones of Occuupation are continued in force in their respective Zones of Occupation.

Done at Berlin, 30 August 1945.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

General of the Army

B. H. Robertson

Lt. Gen.

Deputy for:

Bernard L. Montgomery

Field Marshal

L. Koeltz

General de Corps d’Armee

pour P. Koenig

General de Ccorps d’Armee

G. Zhukow

Marshal of the Soviet Union

(Pollock, James K., et al., George Wahr Publishing Co, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1949, p. 34).

Of interest here is the fact that numerous military laws, proclamations, etc. (Section III) have already be decreed in the various occupations zones and are to be continued in force under the “Control Council.”

In assumming total power in Germany, the occupying powers, perhaps unknowingly but nevertheless inescapably, assumed total responsibility for the care and welfare of the entire country. This consequence is recognized in the Geneva Convention to which all parties except Russia were signatories. In addition, all the occupying powers recognized it in that they, as victors, now held Germany fully responsible for, for every alleged act of negligence and abuse which occurred in territories occupied by Germany in wartime, they, in the post war period, must now be held responsible for every alleged act of negligence and abuse committed under their occupation against the vanquished!

The act further provoked many issues not yet answered or resolved or likely to be in the near future. The following questions represent only a partial list of the unresolved international problems raised by the two world wars. Does a victorious power have the right to dissolve the de jure government of a vanquished nation and thereupon create a puppet government to its own liking? Apparently, the victors did not believe so in the case of Germany’s conquests but found it quite ethical to do so themselves. Do conquering powers have the right to declare a signatory to the Geneva Convention defunct and non-existant and thereupon create a category for its citizens and soldiers to its citizens satisfactory to it in remodling the vanquished nation into one to their (its!) own liking if, indeed, not in its own image? Is world government and diplomacy a rule by laws agreed upon previously by nations at peace with the laws applying equally to all or is there a double standard whereby victorious nations may, at their option, run rough shod over the vanquished, deprived of any representative government and regardless of the merits of the latter’s protests and arguments? May victorious nations promulgate edicts on their own which have the force of ex post facto law (or international “agreements”) and thereupon subject the vanquished to tribunals and edicts of their own making or does the law agreed upon by all nations prior to the war apply and preclude such unilateral acts? What exactly is the status of a “partisan,” dressed as a civilian who kills by stealth and in secret as opposed to the soldier, wearing the uniform of his country, who kills in the course of battle? When a de jure government surrenders to another, what are the respective responsibilities of victor and vanquished? In a surrender involving both signatories and non-signatories to the Geneva Convention, what are the rights of the respective nations? In cases of coalitions between signatories and non-signatories in war with signatories and/or non-signatories to the Geneva Convention what are the rights of the various nations? In conflicts of interpretation as to the meanings of conventions agreed upon in the Geneva Convention, who or how shall they be resolved? How exactly is the term “Neutral” to be interpreted? Is it possible to be a “benevolent” neutral and actively or clandestinely support one belligerant at the expense of the other? In any post-war tribunal designed to assess guilt for pre-war or war-time acts, is it possible that the victors may arbitrarily ignore or pardon all alleged acts done by their citizens, heads-of-state downward, and, at the same time, not do the same for the vanquished? May citizens and heads-of-state of the victors be excused from testimony under oath wholesale by any such tribunals while the corresponding citizens of vanquished nations may be forced to testify even on threat of torture or after torture to alleged incidents? At the end of active military operations, may the victorious powers deny access to the conquered country to neutral countries — especially the neutral international relief agencies — in legitimate business and for purposes of assessing mobilization of welfare assistnce etc.?

In cases of war, what is the status of a “neutral” who, under the guise of operating humane relief organizations for the benefit of needy refugees, etc. is actually using his priviledged “humanistic” position to organize intelligence-collecting systems or to collect intelligence later to be used by him and the other enemies of the host country and/or indulging in espionage, sabotage, assisting prisoners-of-war to escape, etc. to the detriment of the host country? In the event territories are promised and awarded to an allied country for participation as an ally in a war against another, do these real estate “bribes” take precedence over the rights of peoples who have historically lived in these areas? Do victor nations have the right to disposess nationalities of vanquished nations from their historic homeland for any reason at all? In the course of military altercations, declared or undeclared, when a belligerant nation finds its resources exhausted beyond possible payment upon receipt a friendly, “neutral” nation undertakes to assist it by extending “credits’ etc., is the belligerant nation obligated to pay the “benevolent neutral” beyond the point at which it can pay cash for goods and materials prior to shipment? If shipment is made beyond this point, may the grantor of credit continue to claim the rights of a neutral? In the sense of a nation having to submit itself completely to the will of an invading victor, is such a thing as an “unconditional surrender” in the sense that Germany surrendered and subsequently suffered as a result thereof allowable in a non-barbaric world? In a nation in which the military is subservient to the civil government, is it allowable that the military may surrender body and soul of its nationals, soverignty, territory, and anything else demanded of them by the victors unconditionally? Is not a government once recognized by an eventual belligerant not obligated to maintain enough residual “recognition” so that it must be treated with at the end of any

eventual hostilities?

All of this and much more was deftly “swept under the rug” at the Nuernberg Tribunals by Sir Hartley Shawcross who, after the German Defence made reference to International Law, told the Tribunal that “it,” the Tribunal, would decide what was international law. Unfortunately the only thing this “International” Tribunal did was impress upon the minds of all that if a nation ever loses a war, regardless of which nation starts it, the leaders of the vanquished nation and most of its higher military officers are destined most likely to hang as the result edicts and of an “international” tribunal instituted by moralizing victors. (Butz, p. 26) If ever there was a war which ended in a victory in which the victors bestowed godliness upon themselves, it war World War II.

One of the most immediate consequences of the United Nations assumption of total power in conquered Germany was the fact that the initial attempts of the German (Doenitz) Government to investigate the allegations of mass murder in concentration camps were squelched and taken over completely by the victors who were bound and determined to force their will upon Germany. The so-called “holocaust” charges were thereafter investigated by those who used these very allegations as the justification for their future actions to Germany’s detriment. To have allowed the Germans to investigate these charges would have resulted in many denials of these charges in addition to counter charges. As the charges were presented to the world by the United Nations presses, it was made to appear that there was no defense of the alleged acts by even the Germans themselves, forcing them to stand silent before the avalanche of uncontested, uncontestable charges.

Similar charges against Germany were revealed in the Bryce Committee Report in World War I. In the 1920’2 and 30’s these charges were studied extensively by scholarly men with documentation released by the Central Powers and the Allies. They came to the conclusion that the charges were basically completely false or gross exaggerations of the truth. As a result, many Americans and Englishmen properly were extremely wary of wartime atrocity charges. They had backfired in the First World War leaving a deep distrust by the people in the honesty of their own government! This distrust of government and governmental offials had grown steadily between the wars to the extent that in the U.S. the Ludlow Amendment was offered requiring a referendum on the initiation of war. Needless to say, the politicians combatted this move aggressively since they wished no interference of the people they claimed to represent in the affairs which they sought to run as they saw fit.

This “counter productive” movement had no sooner started than the world was faced with a second maelstrom of the same type accusations, in many cases from the same people (George Creel* & Henry Wickham Steed), at any rate from the same countries! After nearly seventy years of life, hearing daily of the malevolence of Germans and after much research, reading, and personal experience, I am convinced that any infractions which might have been committed by the Germans were also committed many times over by the subsequent victors if for no other reason than the fact they had the capacity to retaliate in kind to a greater extent because of a superiority in men, machines and munitions and they knew such a position must ultimately end in the defeat of Germany and her allies. Germany, on the otherhand, as it lost its ability to retaliate in kind, realized its only hope at war’s end was to not be guilty of the “crimes” stipulated as the war progressed, by the victors, and their officers, even Himmler himself, sought to avoid acts which subsequently could be considered “war crimes” by the victors.

(*See George Creel’s “The Guilty” series in Colliers’ Magazine of the war period and Creel, George, War Criminals and Punishment, National Travel Club (Robert M. McBride & Co.), N. Y. 1944 for examples of the type of trash which showed propagandist Creel at his intellectual best.)

The myriad pictures showing hundreds if not thousands of corpses which were the alleged victims of Germans are not scenes from Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek, Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor nor Belzec, the alleged “murder camps.” Rather, they are scenes from other camps, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, Mauthausen, Dachau, etc., which are now known never to have been “murder camps.” These camps, with their thousands of corpses dead of hunger and disease, are therefore more a testimonial of the deplorable conditions to which the Germans were reduced by United Nations military action so that they could not properly supply their prisoners (they couldn’t even supply their troops on the front!) rather than proof of German bestiality toward their prisoners. Many of the corpses shown at places like Mauthausen were actually those of the SS guards who, after being forced to exchange clothing with their former inmates were then massacred by the armed inmates after the camp was captured and was supposedly under the control of the U.S. Army. Other pictures in which corpses were misrepresented were in the “Death Mill” in which a movie is shown of German victims dead from the Dresden bombings being cremated on pyres. The captions and monologue accompanying the film indicate the corpses are those of concentration camp inmates, killed by the Germans and being cremated in the streets on pyres made of steel rails. Many corpses shown in the alleged “Death Camps” may well be the corpses of Germans or Poles, etc. those killed by the Soviet Army in their sweep across Poland. As a matter of fact, murders by the Soviets of Poles Germans and many others continued in the captured former German camps (e. g. Sachsenhausen and Buchenwald) until well after the war was over. The esteem in which the Soviet Army was held by Jewish inmates is best attested to by the fact that Elie Wiesel, his Father and many others at Auschwitz-Birkenau elected to remain with their German guards and take a chance on evacuation (which succeeded) by walking back into Germany than wait (as did Primo Levi) for Russian capture.

Significantly, I believe, the only exceptions to the acts which likely were committed on both sides are the so-called “holocaust” charges which, of course, have a meaning only when used in conjunction with the alleged German intent of murdering all Jews in Europe. It is my conviction along with numerous others, after many years of study, that these charges are mere machinations in the minds of those who support them for any of the multitude of apparent reasons for which they do this. If anyone were to bring such charges into court today without the sanctifying protection of the legalistic gobble-t-gook of “judicial notice,” they’d be laughed out of the court house. Aside from the edict of “judicial notice” set by those who themselves established the war crimes tribunals, knowing fully the weaknesses of their arguments but nevertheless commissioned to sustain the war-propaganda myths of the United Nations, there is no reputable evidence from any responsible source which could be sustained or verified in a reputable western court.

The only possibility of “conviction” of the accused was the one seized upon by those who organized the tribunals, using Soviet jurisprudence combined with Anglo-American “judicial notice” as proof positive a crime was in fact committed, in which the accused was thereby presumed guilty (as per “judicial notice”) and the court had merely the function of publicizing the “crime” for propaganda and “teaching” purposes for the public at large, before passing the judgement specified by those who had ordered the “court” convened.

Prior World War II, the best example of such political courts convened by an authoritarian regime for a specific political purpose had been the “Moscow Trials” in which Andrei Vishinsky had been chief prosecutor. At Nuernberg, Robert H. Jackson (TMWC, Vol. Im p. 323), the Chief American Prosecutor, paid fitting tribute to the man from whom he had learned so much in stating, “Let the record show Mr. Vishinsky is present in the Tribunal.” Now, the Nuernberg Tribunals have supplanted the Moscow Trials as the best example of a politically motivated and controlled tribunal.

XXXIII. THE BERLIN (“POTSDAM”) CONFERENCE (July 17-Aug. 2, 1945)

Already before the Berlin (“Potsdam”) Conference was held, large, if not all, important portions of the “Morgenthau Plan” were faites accomplis. The entire eastern portion of Germany had been detached from the rest of the country and placed “for administrative purposes” in the hands of the Russians and the Poles. Those unfortunate Germans in this area who had not already fled while the Wehrmacht was trying desperately to hold back the Ilya Ehrenberg-crazed hordes would be murdered brutally by the invading armies of Russians and Poles or, failing this, they would be forced to leave all their possessions and be deported with no more than the clothing on their backs to a mere remnant of Germany under the most inhuman conditions imaginable. They would be forced to run the gauntlet of wrath-crazed Poles, Czechs, Jugoslavs, Rumanians, etc. who with impunity killed, robbed, raped, and pillaged the pitiful groups every step of their tortured way. Their treatment was in no way better than that accorded the Christian Armenians by the Turks and Kurds in 1915. Rather, it was magnified many many times even though the United Nations proclaimed it to be and declared it must be a humane and orderly “re-location.”

It should be remembered, however, that at in 1915, the Turks were allies of the Germans and Henry Morgenthau (father) spoke loud and long about German responsibility in the massacres. In 1945-46, it was Christian Germans who were massacred wholesale by anyone who wanted to amuse himself in that manner, and a strict U.S.-journalist cooperation kept most of the news from the world! Only toward the end of the atrocity did U.S. newspapers begin to report the acts and show actual pictures of the victims as they arrived at Anhalter Bahnhof etc. in Berlin.

In addition to the loss of the above territory by indigenous Germans, the Czechs insisted on expelling the Sudeten Germans which, in 1918, comprised some one-fourth of the country’s entire population. Such a draconian move was taken as a warning by the Slovakians and other slavic minorities who would now be even more at the mercy of President Benes and his Czech majority.

In the west, France was again in firm control of the Saar which, rich in coking coal, they had wanted to gain in 1918 but had failed on the basis of open resistance by the germanic population. In the end and in this instance, although it was now encouraged to annex the entire territory by Konrad Adenauer, France would be almost unique in not obtaining the territory it wanted from Germany. Apparently France, already with Alsace/Lorraine, taken by force from Austria by Louis XV, believed it had not added enough German speaking citizens to the French Nation.

After the post-war Potsdam Conference which was carried out under the utmost secrecy (Murphy, p. 271), it became clearer as to what the victors had in store for their defeated enemy. As had been stated in the Act of Surrender, the victors could at any time change the terms of surrender as they wished. As soon as the last legal German Government, still functioning although with difficulty, but still functioning effectively under Chancellor Gross-Admiral Karl Doenitz was seized and deposed by the occupying powers, and its former German Governmental officials were arrested and imprisoned by the U. N. troops, it became obvious that a lengthy military draconian occupation (“Reconstruction”) government of Germany had long been planned, one in which the Germans themselves would have no say whatsoever — certainly not the Doenitz Government. The U.S. personnel for this latter-day “Reconstruction” had been trained carefully in U.S. colleges (e. g. Univ. of Va., Charlottesville etc.) and were merely waiting for the end of hostilities in a given area before moving in to do their assigned tasks of dismantling Germany morally, economically, and politically as well as militarily and then, at some future date, “rebuilding” it as nearly as possible in their own image or at least in the image of their choosing.

Their activities had begun as soon as the German borders were crossed and accelerated as Germany’s end drew near. The personnel chosen for these positions were often, if not usually, as R. H. Jackson described his “minyans” (Goldmann, p. 28) at Nuernberg, men who had grown up speaking German. They might have been described better as emigres bent on revenge, seeking to wreak sweet, bitter vengence upon a nation which had forced them to leave against their wishes. Their activities were to be based upon what was originally refered to loosely as the “Morgenthau Plan.” It’s draconian provisions were always warmly, strongly supported by President Franklin D. Roosevelt apparently to the exclusion of all others, and after his death, the Public was passionately implored by those who had zealously supported the dead former president’s policies to continue the work he had begun and honor the commitments (many of which were then still secret) the “great man,” the New Deal illuminatus, had made in their name as the only means to avoid a “third world war,” which otherwise would most certainly be instigated again — again unquestionably by Germany (as opposed to Hitler himself!).

Morgenthau, in his notes (Diaries, III, p. 465-467) implies that he was dropped by Truman because of their differences over the Morgenthau Plan and existence of Truman’s “uncertainty” over him. Some have suggested that, since Truman and James F. Byrnes were leaving the country for the Potsdam Conference, a plane crash could have resulted in the first Jewish U.S. President, if Morgenthau had remained in office, and to avoid this, Morgenthau was asked to resign. It seems every bit as likely, however, that Morgenthau refused to recognize that his days of wheeling and dealing as the unincumbered “right hand” of the man in the White House, a concept not about to be accepted even remotely by Truman, and that this was the cause. This reason is supported strongly by Robert Murphy in his book Diplomat Among Warriors (p. 270) who states Morgenthau resigned forthwith when Truman chose to take Vinson, Morgenthau’s successor in the Treasury Department, to Potsdam for the up-coming Potsdam Conference and not him!

Officially, the future and destiny of conquered Germany was decided by the victors among themselves at the Berlin (“Potsdam”) Conference. These “victors” were the United States (Truman), Britain (Churchill/Attlee) and U.S. S. R. (Stalin). This conference was the culmination of years of planning for the ultimate destruction of the political power base in Central Europe which had existed from the Congress of Vienna (Sept. 1814-June 9, 1815) until World War I. Besides the obvious great difference in the mental and diplomatic capabilities and political objectives of the men involved in the two convocations, the meetings had, from beginning to end, totally different objectives. The Congress of Vienna was concerned with the establishment of boundaries and treaties between the nations of Europe with which they could all live in peace with reasonable satisfaction without feeling deprived or threatened by war from their neighbor. The Berlin (Potsdam) Conference at the end of a bitter, in every sense religious, war assumed the only reason the peace had been disturbed was the result of German (“Nazi”) militarism which had without cause embarked twice within three decades upon a needless, ruthless campaign of “aggression” against its neighbors and the “world community of nations.” Their objective, therefore, was to so weaken Germany by various means which they had been contemplating openly for at least half a decade so (perhaps decades clandestinely) that the European heartland would forever be so debilitated by comparison to the victors, that it would have no choice ever but to accept their decisions as final and to acquiesce in eternal vassalage to their slightest future demand.

The method by which the victors sought to achieve this is outlined in the “Protocol of the Proceedings of the Berlin (Potsdam) Conference,” signed at Berlin on August 1, 1945, but significantly released to the public on March 24, 1947 (Appendix). Immediate information as to the decisions of the Conference was obtained from the “Communique” which was released on August 2, 1945 to the press. The two documents differ in some ways. The “Protocol” contains more information and more details of the intent of the victors toward Germany which might, if they had been released at the time, offend the democratic ideals of some people in the United States — especially those who had put any faith at all in the “idealism” of the so-called “Atlantic Charter” — and elsewhere and initiate resistance to some of the further moves intended but not as yet publicized.

The “Protocol” of the Berlin (“Potsdam”) Conference was generated by the following delegations of the the victorious powers:

LIST OF DELEGATIONS, BERLIN CONFERENCE, 1945

For the United States

The President: Harry S. Truman

The Secretary of State: James F. Byrnes

Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, U.S. N., Chief of Staff to the President

Joseph E. Davies, Special Ambassador

Edwin Pauley, Special Ambassador

{Ambassador Robert D. Murphy, Political Advisor to the Commander-in-Chief, United States Zone in Germany}

W. Averell Harriman[,] Ambassador to the U.S. S. R.

General of the Army, George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff, United States Army

Fleet Admiral, Ernest J. King, U.S. N., Chief of Naval Operations and Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet

General of the Army, H. H. Arnold, U.S. Army Air Forces

Lieutenant General [sic] Brehon B. Somervell, Commanding General, Army Service Forces

Vice Admiral Emory S. Land, War Shipping Administrator

William L. Clayton[,] Assistant to the Secretary of State

James C. Dunn[,] Assistant Secretary of State

Ben Cohen, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State

H. Freeman Matthews, Director of European Affairs, Department of State

Charles E. Bohlen[,] Assistant to the Secretary,

(together with political, military and technical advisers).

For the United Kingdom

The Prime Minister: Mr. Winston S. Churchill, M. P. — Mr. C. R. Attlee, M. P.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs: Mr. Anthony Eden, M. P. — Mr. Ernest Bevin, M. P.

Lord Leathers[,] Minister of War Transport

Sir Alexander Cadogan, Permanent Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

Sir Archibald Clark Kerr, H. M. Ambassador at Moscow

Sir Walter Monckton, Head of the U. K. Delegation to Moscow Reparations Commission.

Sir William Strang, Political Advisor to the Commander-in-Chief, British Zone in Germany.

Sir Edward Bridges, Secretary of the Cabinet

Field Marshal Sir Alan Brook, Chief to the Imperial General Staff.

Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Sir Charles Portal, Chief of the Air Staff.

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Andrew Cunningham, First Sea Lord.

General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the Minister of Defence.

Field Marshall Sir Harold Alexander, Supreme Allied Commander, Mediterranean Theater.

Field Marshal Sir Henry Maitland Wilson, Head of the British Joint Staff Mission at Washington.

and other advisers

{For the Soviet Union}

{The Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars: J. V. Stalin

People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs: V. M. Molotov

Fleet Admiral N. G. Kuznetsov, People’s Commissar, the Naval Fleet of the U.S. S. R.

A. .I. Antonov, Chief of Staff of the Red Army

A. Ya Vyshinski [Andrei Y. Vishinsky], Deputy People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs

S. I. Kavtaradze, Assistant People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs

I. M. Maisky, Assistant People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs

Admiral S. G. Kucherov, Chief of Staff of the Naval Fleet

F. T. Gusev, Ambassador of the Soviet Union in Great BRitain

A. A. Gromyko, Ambassador of the Soviet Union in the United States of America

K. V. Novikov, Member of the Collegium of the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs, Director to the Second European Division

S. K. Tsarapkin, Member of the Collegium of the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs, Director of the United States Division

S. P. Kozyrev, Director of the First European Division of the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs

A. A. Lavrishchev, Director of the Division of Balkan Countries, Commissariat for Foreign Affairs

A. A. Sobolev, Chief of the Political Section of the Soviet Military Administration in Germany

I. [M.] Z. Saburov, Assistant to the Chief of the Soviet Military Administration in Germany

A. [S.] A. Golunsky, Expert consultant of the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs

and also political, military, and technical assistants.}

(At the time the “French Provisional Government, headed by General Charles De Gaulle was not recognized by the “Three Powers” as a competent representative of the French Nation)

The “Protocol of the Berlin Conference” contains twenty sections which deal with the fate of Germany under the victors’ occupation as well as the future of the rest of the nations of the world:

I. Establishment of a Council of Foreign Ministers

II. The Principles to Govern the Treatment of Germany in the Initial Control Period

III. German Reparation

IV. Disposal of the German Navy and Merchant Marine

V. City of Koenigsberg and the Adjacent Area

VI. War Crimes

VII. Austria

VIII. Poland

IX. Conclusion of Peace Treaties and Admission to the United Nations Organization

X. Territorial Trusteeship

XI. Revised Allied Control Commission Procedure in Roumania, Bulgaria and Hungary

XII. Orderly Transfer of German Populations

XIII. Oil Equipment in Rumania

XIV. Iran

XV. The International Zone of Tangier

XVI. The Black Sea Straits

XVII. International Inland Waterways

XVIII.European Inland Transport Conference

XIX. Directives to Military Commanders on Allied Control Council for Germany

XX. Use of Allied Property for Satellite Reparations or “War Trophies”

“La Plus La Change La Plus La Meme Chose”

Of the above sections dealt with by the Berlin (“Potsdam”) Conference, sections II., III., IV., V., VI., VII., VIII., XII., XVII., XVIII., and XIX. incorporate the objectives of the original Morgenthau (“OCTAGON”) Plan which continued its very active life after its initial general pre-victory unpopularity as the basis of the Crimean Conference.

Section II is divided into two subsections “ Political Principles and Economic Principles.” In many ways, this is the “meat” of the Morgenthau Plan which provides not only for the military destruction of Germany but also for the mechanics of the political and economic as well as moral destruction of the German Nation. The Allied Control Council is given supreme authority over every phase of German life. Their directions are purposefully very general in nature and list ultimate objectives the victors hope to achieve in the German occuupation rather than specific directives. To this end, nineteen (19) paragraphs are used to empower the Control Council to control:

Political Principles

l. The establishment of occupation zones in occupied German territory (including the French Army) for the effective control of every segment of Germany by the victors.

2. Establish equal treatment by the victors of all Germans throughout Germany.

3. General purposes set for occupation of Germany by which the Allied Control Council was to be guided.

4. Revocation by victors of all NSDAP laws which established NSDAP government or established legal discrimination based upon “grounds of race, creed or political opinion.”

5. Provides for arrest, detention and trial of Germans accused by victors of “war crimes,” yet undefined, as well as those Germans who supported (Party members or not!) the NSDAP or any one else deemed a threat to the stated policies and objectives of the occupation.

6. Provides for dismissal of all Germans in public, semi- public office or in positions of responsibility as defined in “5.” above and their replacement by persons acceptable to the victors.

7. Provides for rigid control of German education facilities by victors.

8. Victors to reorganize German Judicial System to their satisfaction guaranteeing “equal rights for all citizens without distinction of race, nationality or religion.”

9. Dissolution of central German government in Germany by victors. Individual “state” government to be established in its place by decree of the victors.

10. Statement by victors of their intent to respect freedom of speech, press and religion so long as it does not endanger the policy, objectives and security of the occupation forces. Labor union activity to be allowed.

Economic Principles

11. Destruction and/or removal as reparations of any plants deemed by the victors as unnecessary to the German “peace-time” economy

12. Decentralization of German economic measures except in so far as needed by the victors.

13. German economy to be reorganized by victors with emphasis on “peaceful domestic industries” and agriculture.

14. All zones of Germany to be treated by the victors as a single economic unit with uniform policies in seven categories of activities important to the occupation authorities.

15. Declaration by victors that their controls over Germany will be imposed only to extent necessary to achieve their ends. Five categories listed.

16. Creation of victors of German-manned administrative machinery to assume administration of dictated controls which shall be responsible, along with the German populace, for any breakdown of occupation decrees.

17. Measures necessary to success of the occupation which Germans must undertake immediately. Four areas listed.

18. Control Council to take measures to obtain German external assets not already confiscated by a “UnitedNation.”

19. Victors assume that after reparations are paid, enough German assets will remain from current production to pay for necessary German imports and that no external financial assistance will be required.

Section III. deals with German reparations in ten (10) paragraphs.

1. Stipulates that Russian claims on Germany for reparations will be taken from the zone,presumably also from the area occupied by Poland, occupied by the Russians and from “appropriate external assets.”

2. Russia is empowered to settle all Polish claims against Germany.

3. Reparation demands by the western U. N. allies are to be settled by levies against German property in the “Western Zones” and against “appropriate German external assets.”

4. Additional reparations to benefit Russia to be obtained from the “Western Zones” in the form of “complete industrial capital equipment” etc. Some of this to be traded for commodities (presumably from the agricultural eastern part of Germany), some without any “payment or exchange of any kind in return.”

5. Time limits set upon the removals of reparations from the Western Zones by Russia.

6. Conditions under which removals of reparations from “Western Zones” will be removed by Russia.

7. Value limit of total removals of reparations from “Western Zones” to be set by Allied Commission on reparations with final approval of occupation Zone Commander required.

8. Renunciation of Russia of all other claims for assets in “Western Zones.”

9. Renunciation of U.S. A. and England to all German assets in Eastern Zone of occupation and eastern Europe

10. Russia renounces claim to any gold captured by western U. N. allied troops.

Section IV. deals with the United Nations’ disposition of the captured ships etc. of the German Navy and the German Merchant Marine.

German Navy

1. Ships to be divided equally among Russia, Britain and U.S. A.

2. Disposition of ships under construction or repair by victors

3. German submarine fleet to be sunk excepting no more than thirty to be divided among U.S. A., Russia and Britain.

4. All stocks of Navy to be surrendered to victors.

5. The “Three Governments” define procedure for inspection and allocation of German Navy vessels to be divided among themselves.

6. The victors (“Three Governments”) set time limit on transfers of captured German ships to one another.

German Merchant Marine

1. Ships of German Merchant Marine to be divided equally among victors (“Three Governments”).

2. Allocation, manning and operation of captured German merchant ships for duration of Japanese War to be under Combined Shipping Adjustment Board and the United Maritime Authorty.

3. Actual title to ships to be delayed to end of Japanese War but Tri Partite Shipping Commission, in anticipation of final settlement, to inventory, assess value and recommend specific distribution.

4. Allied Control Council of Germany shall have right to exclude from allotment surrendered inland and coastal ships deemed necessary by them for a “basic peacetime German economy.”

5. Victors (“Three Governments”) agree to constitute a tripartite merchant marine commission to make recommendations on specific German merchant ships and work out details for their transfer.

Section V deals with the transfer of Koenigsberg and the northern portion of East Prussia to the Soviet Russia and obligate the President of the United States to support the permanent transfer of this territory at the “forthcoming peace settlement.”

Section VI reaffirms the support of the victors of the Moscow Declaration on German war crimes (Oct. 1943) and warmly support contemporaneous to the as-yet-unconcluded and unpublished results of the London Protocol (French included!).

Section VII proposes to restore Austria to its pre-1938 boundaries with no demands against it for reparations.

Of the two Paragraphs of Section X which deals with Poland, Paragraph B deals with the western boundary of Poland with Germany, but the “three Heads of Government” stipulate unequivocally that the final settlement of the boundary “should await the peace settlement.” The territory south of that in East Prussia not taken by Russia, the City of Danzig, and eastern Germany up to the “Oder-Neisse Line” would until the final peace settlement “be placed under the administration of the Polish State and for such purposes should not be considered as part of the Soviet Zone of occupation in Germany.”

Section XII. gives assent of the “Three Governments” for the expulsion of Germans from areas in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. The so-called “orderly transfers” of these millions of Germansis justified on the basis of the situtaions in the countries involved. Their concern that the expulsion be “orderly and humane” springs from fear that the resources of their occupation authorities will be overtaxed. The expelling government is therefore requested to give the occupation Control Council time to prepare for their reception into the remnant of Germany.

(Note: The [Benes] Czech Government had long been advocating such a move as a means of ridding itself of a large non-slavic, embarrassing minority of 3-4 million Sudeten Germans [at war’s end 2-2½ million estimated by the Czechs]. With the long-time sympathetic support of the U.S. Government for the Czechs, it would have embarrassed the U.S. not to have supported the similar and equally “valid” Polish wishes in the end although they were initially opposed [For. Rel., 1944, I, p. 302] by the European Advisory Commission for obvious reasons of inhumanity.

Already at the end of World War I, the Poles had demanded and received areas to which they were not entitled by virtue of their population.

By ridding itself of these millions of Germans born in territory now claimed by Poland, the Poles finally accomplished by expelling the Germans what they had sought to do prior to the war by expelling 3½ million Jews and in the process had finally obtained, as they had already sought to do in 1918, dominion over some of the richest, most fruitful farmland existing in Europe.) At the end of World WAr I, Poland had also gorged itself on territories occupied by hostile Ukranian, Czech, Hungarian, Russian, Lithuanian, Ruthenian, Etc. minorities.

Sections XVII and XVIII pertain to the intention of the victors (“Three Governments”) to exert rights in the future to the use of “International Inland Waterways” (rivers and canals) in Germany.

Section XIX indicates agreement between the “Three Governments” to instruct its representative on the Control Council of the decisions of the Berlin Conference and his duties as a result of these decisions.

The Berlin (“Potsdam”) Conference “Protocol” was, therefore a composite of the Dumbarton Oaks-United Nations Organization, the “Morgenthau Plan” and such individual wishes as the “three Heads of Government” might wish to mention. In this, it merely implemented the “principles” stated in the Crimean (“Yalta”) Conference except that with the end of hostilities, there was no longer any need for as much secrecy as to true intent as there had been at Tehran or Yalta in an attempt to decieve the Germans as to their impending fate. The Japanese were now faced with such an overwhelming assemblage of hostile military powers, that the United Nations had no reason to attempt to hide from them what their ultimate fate would be, and they hadn’t even hinted that the Japanese were about to be devastated by two atom bombs.

(Note: But we should not ignore the fact that Dresden in one night suffered more deaths and casualties from conventional aerial bombardment than did either Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Some statistics indicate the devastation and death at Dresden exceeded that of both Japanese cities together!)

Neither Roosevelt nor Truman had felt himself restrained by the suggestions of the original Morgenthau Plan, and at Potsdam, the latter, apparently attempting to continue on as he believed Roosevelt would have done, exceeded the nefarious document generated as a “trial balloon” for “OCTAGON,” as Roosevelt had already exceeded it at Yalta, whenever he desired. Nowhere is this more apparent that in the consignment of large portions of eastern Germany to Polish domination if not soverignty with the certainty that the German populations which had lived there for generations would be subjected to even more hardship and brutality than his (Truman’s) own Grandmother had experienced in the Civil War in Missouri, as the British had treated the Acadians in 1755, and as the American Indians had been treated by the U.S. Government during the administration of Andrew Jackson.* By comparison to these mass expulsions by “civilized countries,” the tribulations of the 70,000** Polish Jews, living in Germany in the 1930’s, who were deported in part back to their native Poland whence that had come originally during the First World War as workers, and the roughly quarter million German-born Jews who left Germany, until the world-wide Jewish boycott against German goods, fully reimbursed for all their worldly goods for a life all over the world before the war began. Now in 1945, as a result of the enlightened leadership and judgement of the United Nations, all of these atrocities would be made to appear by comparison as nothing by the unspeakable expulsion of millions of Germans from their ancestoral homes under almost the cruelest conditions imaginable. The brutality of such an act could have been exceeded only by their mass slaughter!***

* One can only conjecture as to how the proposed pre-war deportation of a large number of Poland’s Jews,numbering 3,500,000, strongly supported by Col. Jozef Beck and Marshal Smigly-Rydz, would have been carried out. Poland’s traditional position with respect to the Jews (and other minorities) has been demonstratably, violently anti-Jewish, and this position, if one is to believe the reports of the Kielce Pogram in 1946, doesn’t appear to have changed during the war — even with a reduced Jewish population.

** Of this number only about half were deported, and of these who were “shoved across the border” against their will, many later returned to Germany rather than remain in Poland.

*** Naturally, one will immediately call to mind the fate of the “6 million” Jews alleged to have been killed by the Germans in that series of unclear, unsettled events normally refered to collectively as the “Holocaust.” The significance of this nebulous affair and its related evidence is too immense to discuss here, but it is of the greatest significance that the accepted number of its alleged victims has continually decreased since the end of the war. At the end of the war, everyone was told and believed without question that all German concentration camps were “death camps.” Now, the number has shrunk to a mere six: Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Majdanek and Auschwitz (Birkenau). Ashes of “victims” exhibited at various camps are now admitted to be “symbolic,” rahter than authentic as originally stated. The facilities required to have carried out a mass destruction on the scale alleged are now considered to have been too small, and on reflection by authorities on the subject of cremation wholly inadequate. As if this were not enough, the present-day “leaders” of the extermination thesis are continually revising the number of alleged victims downward in an attempt to make the over-all story more believable in line with the irrefutable revisions in the capablilities of the existing facilities at the alleged death sites. Birkenau, allegedly the largest of the death camps, formerly supposedly the site of 4½ million murder of Jews, now is allegedly responsible for 2½ million Jews and 1½ Poles (NYT., Nov. 12, 1945, p. E-5). The 4.5 million figure has been eradicated on the memorial plaques. The Auschwitz “Sterbebuecher,” finally surrendered by the Soviet Government after 45 years indicate that 74,000 inmates in the Auschwitz Complex died from all causes during the war. This, of course, brings the cremation facilities known to have been at Birkenau in line, for the first time, with possibility.

XXXIV. LONDON AGREEMENT (“LONDON WAR CRIMES TRIALS PROTOCOLS”) SIGNED Aug. 8 1945

The political heritage of the British government and consequently that of their American “cousins” has for centuries been complicated by the admixture of a peculiar form of religion into the government so as to form a belief unique to the Anglo-Saxon countries. Of course, this occurred in some measure in the predominately Roman Catholic continental european countries also, but here the fusion of church and state resulted in a symbiotic rule of a soverign by “divine right,” fully supported by the clergy exercising their rights under the soverign. Even with the advent of Martin Luther, the newer “Protestant” clergy, in many ways merely replaced the Roman Catholic clergy in this function which continued, as always, supportive of the ruling soverign.

In England, an insular country in which the clergy had been required by the existant monarchy to do several “flip flops” between Roman Catholicism and a poorly defined patriotic “Protestantism” within the space of a few decades to survive, and one in which numerous factions had forcefully dethroned kings and in 1685, after a rigged trial, beheaded Charles I, King of England and the Country had before and afterward shown itself quite capable of executing numerous claimants to the British throne if said faction felt itself or position threatened, “divine right” could not be depended upon to maintain a monarch or a government. In England, and consequently later, in America, the controlling factor was the politico-religious mixture which in its most primative terms could rightly be described as a “folks religion,” a religion peculiar peculiar to that particular people or nation.

Curiously, it appears that it was during the reign of the Tudors, that “trials,” rigged to achieve the ends of the monarch or head of state became desired over an outright sentence of death on orders of the monarch. It was in this manner that any stigma which rightfully should be associated with a harsh ruler could easily be avoided and, if necessary, be attributed to incompetent judges or Lords which served on the court.

This common belief to which both monarchs and subjects must subscribe had as its basis British Common Law, but what really made it stand out was the fusion of this widely accepted basis with a form of primative Christian Protestanism. It was almost as if the British had been annointed the favored children of the Almighty, and as a result, whatever their government undertook was automatically the definition of what was “Right.”

“Whatever is is right!” proclaimed Dryden, and the British fleet and army lost no time in creating that situation which they considered to be “Right” to their way of thinking.

These conceptions were brought to the American Colonies at a well-developed stage. Among the groups which came from England to the American Colonies, none was more certain that they were right in all things than the “Puritans” who settled in the Massachusetts Bay Colony and began spreading their philosophy of religious intolerance throughout the Colonies which eventually would become the United States of America. As the Country grew in size and prestige, these puritan thoughts remained and spread with the migrations westward as well as remaining a well-organized base of power in its original New England.

Already, by the time of the American Revolution, their ideas had essentially triumphed in many areas. “Opposition to tyranny is obedience to God!” they screamed at their opponents whom they considered luke warm in entering into war with their motherland. Their characteristic thoughts were only in a single shade of black and a single shade of white. A thing was either “good” or “evil,” and what they opposed was invariably “evil” and came from the devil himself. Consequently, it had to be opposed on religious grounds.

After the American Revolutionary War, the “American Ideals” began to assume more and more an international character. The War of 1812 was a mistake into which the U.S. politicians blundered because of the difficulty of communication at the time. Otherwise, the United States followed primarily a policy of cooperation with England, particularly the British fleet.

Although there can be no question as to its Christian origins, the concept is nonetheless, reminiscent of the eternal battle between Ormazd and Ahriman in Zoroastrianism. But these “conflicts,” between opposing poles, diametrically opposed concepts were ready made for simple people raised in the unwavering tradition of “thou shalt not,” “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” and “if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out!”

With the lines clearly drawn between “good” and “evil,” it then becomes clear to those of this persuasion, that their God and Country was best served by combatting “evil” and punishing “evil doers.” If any, the “ideology” had the advantages of being functional and easy to follow, since the priests of the doctrine, clerics and politicians with their followers and hanger-on, were there to constantly remind them of the precepts of the doctrine and their obligations thereto.

Without doubt, one of those phenomena of mankind which such people and many other would consider the greatest “evil” would be a war. The bloodier the war, the more people killed, the more evil it was and the more necessary it was for the devout, true believers to punish the devils responsible, in their eyes, for having begun the conflagration.

Certainly, one of the bloodiest wars in the history of the United States was the Civil War, a war fought primarily because of the intrangience of both sides, made all the more fearful by the fact that the puritan-abolitionist elements our of fanatical obedience to the codes they themselves had generated refused absolutely to arbitrate with the enemies. With the assistance of these “zealots,” a minority president, with fewer than 40% of the popular vote, had been placed in the Presidency, and the concept of “Let us die to make men free” was about to run amog. In conjunction with another Abolitionist motto: “There by the rude bridge the embattled farmer stood and fired the shot heard round the world.” American “Democracy” has suddenly become a concept commited to democratizing the world.

The people of the South generally were quite willing to admit that “Slavery” was an undesirable institution, economically if for no other reason, but many were in the position of having much of their wealth tied up in slaves and land which had to be worked by slaves. Since this property was perfectly legal and had been obtained legally, they sought recompense for that which was theirs under existant law, and sought time for an orderly transition from slavery to emancipation. The firey abolitionists would have none of this but demanded immediate emancipation with no conditions. By so doing, they made the conflict inevitable and produced even worse conditions after the war among those the professed to wish to help — this in addition to ruining the South for nearly a century and killing off the young men of both North and South. Such was the logic of the puritan-abolitionist sect.

The Civil War was fought allegedly to “right” terrible “wrongs.” Although people, still today, are not exactly in agreement as to what and how far-reaching these wrongs were, most are agreed that the cost in lives, lasting sectional hate and resentment and disruption to the growing nation was much too high in comparison to the “good” it achieved. (Although the “Reconstruction” supposedly began around 1875-80, the “South” had to wait over another half century and two world wars before catching up to the “North.”) As a consequence of the horrible slaughter on both sides, there were demands, even then, that those responsible for the great loss of life be tried. But as would be the cases in the future, the “criminals” were always on the losing side.

President Jefferson Davis as well as other members of the Confederate Government were considered as targets for these indictments as well as for treason, but as time went on, the people of the North lost interest and attempts at prosecution were abandoned. But it was not to be so for Capt. Henry Wirtz, the Commandant of the Andersonville Camp. After a trial by Union Forces in Washington, he was ceremoniously hanged for the alleged mistreatment of Union captives in his charge, held under conditions over which he had no control whatsoever. Characteristic of things yet to come, no Northern leaders were considered guilty of any infractions warranting “trial,” although the internment camps of Rock Island, Illinois, Fort Dearborn, Illinois, Elmira, N. Y. and others are considered by some authors to be less justifiable than Andersonville, Ga., since the North was never so much in need of foodstuffs, clothing, shelter, etc. as was the South.

From the Civil War onward, every war in which the United States has participated has been a crusade, a holy war in which the opposing side always represented the forces of evil, and the side represented by the U.S. was invariably the side of “Right,” “Justice,” “Good,” “Godliness,” etc. These enemies had to be combatted at all costs with religious fervor and with any and all weapons available. There was no consideration of the rules of chivalry, if these could be circumvented by the forces of “good” to advantage, they must be circumvented. Existing covenants were to restrain the barbaric enemy not to encumber the champions of liberty, freedom and democracy, and at the end of the war, the enemy would be held strictly accountable for any alleged infraction (s) which he might have made or may have been accused of making during the course of the war. The ultimate fate of the enemy must be annihilation so complete and so far reaching that he must never again be capable of becoming any sort of antagonist. He must be absorbed into the sphere of influence of this country, and the level of his vassalage determined by the spontaneity of his desire for service and dedication to the continuing cause of the victor.

By the end of World War I, it was a foregone conclusion that war crimes trials of Germans accused of “crimes” would be held. The horrific accusations “documented” by the “Report of the Committee on Alleged German Outrages” by Viscount (James) Bryce, the former popular British Ambassador to Washington, D. C. and others were held up as just cause for such action. The trials themselves were held in Leipzig between May 23 and July 16, 1921 under German Law and under Articles 228, 229, and 230 of the Treaty of Versailles on charges of having violated the laws and customs of war. The Allies reserved the right to repudiate the findings of the German courts should they so decide and demand the accused Germans be tried in their court system.

In these trials, some forty-five cases were tried. Predictably, none of the trials satisfied the Allies, but they were reluctant to enter into any lengthy prosecutions years after the end of the war when passions had cooled. (No mention of Bryce Report — repudiated by British Parliament)

Mullins, Claude, The Leipzig Trials, H. F. & G. Witherby, London, 1921

In view of Ponsonby’s findings regarding the Report of the Bryce Committee as well as publicized Allied activities under similar conditions, it is well that so little litigation in this regard was undertaken was undertaken. Nevertheless, most of those who had participated in the war against Germany felt thay had been deprived of seeing large numbers of Germans condemned for having acted in a barbaric manner during World War I, and the did not hesitate showing this resentment in the period between the wars.

At the close of World War I, the British Empire was on its knees financially as was the French Republic. Only the United States remained solvent enough financially to represent anything like the stability the nations of the world had experienced under the U.S.-British domination of world politics. Germany had been permanently destroyed accordingly to formulae advanced by its former enemies. Primative Russia had emerged as a devastated nation, claiming as did the United States, to be the leading international democratic wave of the future, but for two decades, its primary concern would have to be in obtaining food for its people.

Even before the United States entered the war in late 1941, the people of this country were already being prepared for the “war crimes” trials to come by being fed daily reports of bestial acts of the Germans primarily but also of the Japanese. Herbert Clayton Pell, U.S. Minister to Portugal, Roosevelt’s “ear” in Portugal, future Minister to Hungary (and the World Jewish Congress in Hungary), and future head of the United Nations War Crimes Commission was busy collecting the ever-proliferating horror stories of refugees from central Europe which he would later expand and attempt to substantiate for use in the coming sensational “war crimes” trials.

By Feb. 27, 1948, the United Nations War Crimes Commission, mostly under Mr. Herbert Claiborn Pell’s direction, published some eighty lists of German and Italian names had been collected by accusing United Nations (with the name of the actual accuser unrevealed). Each of these lists was about one-fourth of an inch thick, typed on both sides on legal sized paper, and soft bound. These lists were to be submitted with the view to obtaining an indictment for war crimes. By July 1946, the United Nations War Crimes Commission had enough names so that it proceeded to publish four volumes encompassing the first 40 lists mentioned above. Each of these volumes was about 1 inch in thickness, typed on both sides of tyyping paper, and also soft bound. In these lists, the name of the suspect was listed according to “war criminal,” “suspect,” or “witness” as well as the name of the complaining government. In no case, in typical Bryce Committee fashion, was the name of the person who reported the alleged infraction mentioned, much less sworn to.

Purely on the basis of rumors and perhaps sworn depositions in some cases The Germans and some of their allies were not only accused of “war crimes” but convicted long before “trial” by the United Nations War Crimes Committee. Obviously all that was left for the postwar tribunals to do was to take “judicial notice” of their decisions (in Washington) and pass a sentence appropriate to the desires and objectives of the United Nations in the manner of the Moscow (Vishinsky) “Trials.” This group of anti-German zealots worked with ever-growing vigor to extend the numbers on their war criminal lists and to weave an thread of guilt around their proposed victims from which they could never extricate themselves. Often, to accomplish this, it was necessary to allege a multiplicity of “crimes.”

Pell’s one great fear apparently was that his proposed German sacrifices would escape sufficient punishment, maybe even escape any punishment at all. Consequently, he resigned or was fired from his essential position in a huff, making due protest to the newspapers who would then openly carry on his “crusade for justice.” It was in this atmosphere that Robert H. Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice designated to give meaning to the United Nations War Crimes Committe charges, went to London shortly after the end of the war. As a long-standing “Roosevelt” liberal, he could be trusted not to be too easy on the guilty Germans.

But in London, Jackson did not find smooth going. Many opposed the projected trials, at least those of the type he (with the Robinson brothers — Goldmann, Nahuum, The Jewish Paradox, p. 122) ) were projecting. After much consultation, and after obtaining the active support of Lord (Robert) Wright, who had taken over Pell’s position on the UN War Crimes Commission, the Germanophobe, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and numerous others of his persuasion, Jackson succeeded in putting together the following agreement. (But even with this support, he, Jackson, threatened at one time to resign!)

AGREEMENT by the Government of the United States of America, theProvisional Government of the FRENCH REPUBLIC, theGovernment of the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN ANDNORTHERN IRELAND and the Government of the UNION OF SOVIETSOCIALIST REPUBLICS for the Prosecution and Punishment ofthe MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS of the EUROPEAN AXIS

WHEREAS the United Nations have from time to time made declarations of their intention that War Criminals shall be brought to Justice:

AND WHEREAS the Moscow Declaration of the 30th October 1943 on German atrocities in Occupied Europe stated that those German Officers and men and members of the Nazi Party who have been responsible for or have take a consenting part in atrocities and crimes will be sent back to the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of these liberated countries and of the free Governments that will be created therein;

AND WHEREAS this Declaration was stated to be without prejudice to the case of major criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical location and who will be punished by the joint decision of the Governments of the Allies;

Now THEREFORE the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (hereinafter called “the Signatories”) acting in the interests of all the United Nations and by their representatives duly authorized thereto have concluded this Agreement.

Article 1. There shall be established after consultation with the Control Council for Germany an International Military Tribunal for the trial of war criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical location whether they be accused individually or in their capacity as members of organizations or groups or in both capacities.

Article 2. The constitution, jurisdiction and functions of the International Military Tribunal shall be those set out in the Charter annexed to this Agreement, which Charter shall form an integral part of this Agreement.

Article 3. Each of the Signatories shall take the necessary steps to make available for the investigation of the charges and trial the major war criminals detained by them who are to be tried by the International Military Tribunal. The Signatories shall also use their best endeavors to make available for investigation of the charges against and the trial before the International Military Tribunal such of the major war criminals as are not in the territories of any of the Signatories.

Article 4. Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the provisions established by the Moscow Declaration concerning the return of war criminals to the countries where they committed their crimes.

Article 5. Any Government of the United Nations may adhere to this Agreement by notice given through the diplomatic channel to the Government of the United Kingdom, who shall inform the other signatory and adhering Governments of each such adherence.

Article 6. Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the jurisdiction or the powers of any national or occupation court established or to be established in any allied territory or in Germany for the trial of war criminals.

Article 7. This Agreement whall come into force on the day of signature and shall remain in force for the period of one year and shall continue thereafter, subject to the right of any Signatory to give, throught the diplomatic channel, one month’s notice of intention to terminate it. Such termination shall not prejudice any proceedings already taken or any findings already made in pursuance of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Undersigned have signed the present Agreement.

Done in quadruplicate this 8th day of August 1945 each in English, French and Russian, and each text to have equal authenticity.

For the Government of the United States of America

ROBERT H. JACKSON

For the Provisional Government of the French Republic

ROBERT FALCO

For the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

JOWITT, C.

For the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics

I. NIKITCHENKO

A. TRANIN

It is interesting to note at this point that the “Free” French now had progressed to the point of grace in the eyes of their “allies” that they were recognized by them to the extent that they were allowed to sign this document as an “equal” and had not out of formality been allowed to affix their signature as a sign of United Nations Solidarity. Clearly, the four victorious signatories were all equally guilty of what history will judge to be the most barbarous, beastly, hypocritical act of modern history if not all history.

XXXV. CHARTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL

I. CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL

Article 1. In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of August 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established an International Military Tribunal (hereinafter called “the Tribunal”) for the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis.

Article 2. The Tribunal shall consist of four members, each with an alternate. One member and one alternate shall be appointed by each of the Signatories. The alternates shall, so far as they are able, be present at all sessions of the Tribunal. In the case of illness of any member of the Tribunal or his incapacity for some other reason to fulfill his functions, his alternate shall take his place.

Article 3. Neither the Tribunal, its members nor their alternates can be challenged by the prosecution, or by the Defendants or their Counsel. Each Signatory may replace its member of the Tribunal or his alternate for reasons of health or for other good reasons, except that no replacement may take place during a Trial, other than by an alternate.

Article 4.

(a) The presence of all four members of the Tribunal or the alternate for any absent member shall be necessary to constitute a quorum.

(b) The members of the Tribunal shall, before any trial begins, agree among themselves supon the selection from their number of a President, and the President shall hold office during that trial, or as may otherwise be agreed by a vote of not less than three members. The principle of rotation of presidency for successive trials is agreed. If, however a session of the Tribunal takes place on the territory of one of the four Signatories, the representative of that Signatory on the Tribunal shall preside.

(c) Save as aforesaid the Tribunal shall take decisions by a mojority vote and in case the votes are evenly divided, the vote of the President shall be decisive: provided always that convictions and sentences shall only be imposed by affirmative votes of at least three members of the Tribunal.

Article 5. In case of need and depending on the number of the matters to be tried, other Tribunals may be set up; and the establishment, functions, and procedure of each Tribunal shall be identical, and shall be governed by this Charter.

II. JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Article 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treratment of priisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c) CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a commom plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

Article 7. The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.

Article 8. The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.

Article 9. At the trial of any individual member of any group or organization the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any act of which the individual may be convicted) that the group or organization of which the individual was a member was a criminal organization.

After receipt of the Indictment the Tribunal shall give notice as it thinks fit that the prosecution intends to ask the Tribunal to make such declaration and any member of the organization will be entitled to apply to the Tribunal for leave to be heard by the Tribunal upon the question of the criminal character of the organization. The Tribunal shall have power to allow or reject the application. If the application is allowed, the Tribunal may direct in what manner the applicant shall be represented and heard.

Article 10. In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for membership therein before national, military or occupation courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned.

Article 11. Any person convicted by the Tribunal may be charged before a national, military or occupation court, referred to in Article 10 of this Charter, with a crime other than of membership in a criminal group or organization and such court may, after convicting hi;m, impose upon him punishment independent of and additional to the punishment imposed by the Tribunal for participation in the criminal activities of such group or organization.

Article 12. The Tribunal shall have the right to take proceedings against a person charged with crimes set out in Article 6 of this Charter in his absence, if he has not been found or if the Tribunal, for any reason, finds it necessary, in the interests of justice, to conduct the hearing in his absence.

Article 13. The Tribunal shall draw up rules fo its procedure. These rules shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter.

III. COMMITTEE FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF

MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS

Article 14. Each Signatory shall appoint a Chief Prosecutor for the investigation of the charges against and the prosecution of major war criminals.

The Chief Prosecutors shall act as a committee for the following purposes:

(a) to agree upon a plan of the individual work of each of the Chief Prosecutors and his staff,

(b) to settle the final designation of major war criminals to be tried by the Tribunal,

(c) to improve the Indictment and the documents to be submitted therewith,

(d) to lodge the Indictment and the accompanying documents with the Tribunal,

(e) to draw up and recommend to the Tribunal for its approval draft rules of procedure, contemplated by Article 13 of this Charter. The Tribunal shall have power to accept, with or without amendments, or to reject the rules so recommended.

The Committee shall act in all the above matters by a majority vote and shall appoint a chairman as may be convenient and in accordance with the principle of rotation: provided that if there is an equal division of vote concerning the designation of a Defendant to be tried by the Tribunal, or the crimes with which he shall be charged, that proposal will be adopted which was made by the party which proposed that the particular Defendant be tried, or the particular charges be preferred against him.

Article 15.The Chief Prosecutorts shall individually, and acting in collaboration wht one another, also undertake the following duties:

(a) investigation, collection, and production before or at the Trial of all necessary evidence,

(b) the preparation of the Indictment for approval by the Committee in accordance wiith paragraph (c) of Article 14 hereof,

c) the preliminary examination of all necessary witnesses and of the Defendants,

(d) to act as prosecutor at the Trial,

(e) to appoint representatives to carry out such duties as may be assigned to them,

(f) to undertake such other matters as may appear necessary to them for the purposes of the preparation for and the conduct of the Trial.

It is understood that no witness or Defendant detained by any Signatory shall be taken out of the possession of thet Signatory without its assent.

IV. FAIR TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS

Article 16. In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the following procedure shall be followed:

(a) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Inductment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at a reasonable time before the Trial.

(b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he shall have the right to give an explanation relevant to the charges made against him.

(c) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant understands.

(d) A defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel.

(e) A defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution.

V. POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL

Article 17. The Tribunal shall have power

(a) to summon witnesses to the Trial and to require their attendance and testimony and to put questions to them,

(b) to interrogate any Defendant,

(c) to require the production of documents and other evidentiary material,

(d) to administer oaths to witnesses,

(e) to appoint officers for the carrying out of any task designatd by the Tribunal inclding the powere to have evidence taken on commission.

Article 18. The Tribunal shall

(a) confine the Trial strictly to an expeditious hearing of the issues raised by the charges,

(b) take strict measures toprevent any actionwhich will cause unreasonable delay, and rule our irrelevant issues and statements of any kind whatsoever,

(c) deal summarily with any contumacy, inposing appropriate punishment, including exclusion of any Defendant or his Counsel from some or all further proceedings, but without prejudice to the determination of the charges.

Article 19. The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious andnon-technical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value.

Article 20. The Tribunal may require to be informed of the nature of any evidence before it is offered so that it may rule upon the relevance thereof.

Article 21. The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official government documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations.

Article 22. The permanent seat of the Tribunal shall be Berlin. The first meetings of the members of the Tribunal and of the Chief Prosecutors shall be held at Berlin in a place to be designated by the Control Council for Germany. The first trial shall be held at Nuremberg, and any subsequent trials shall be held at such places as the Tribunal may decide.

Article 23. One or more of the Chief Prosecutors may take part in the prosecution at each Trial. The function of any Chief Prosecutor may be discharged by him personally, or by any person or persons authorized by him.

The function of Counsel for a Defendant may be discharged at the Defendant’s request by any Counsel professionally qualified to conduct cases before the Courts of his own country, or by any other person who may be specifically authorized thereto by the Tribunal.

Article 24. The proceedings at the Trial shall take the following course:

(a) The Indictment shall be read in court.

(b) The Tribunal shall ask each Defendant whether he pleads “guilty” or “not guilty”.

(c) The Prosecution shall make an opening statement.

(d) The Tribunal shall ask the Prosecution and the Defense what evidence (if any) they wish to submit to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall rule upon the admissibility of any such evidence.

(e) The witnesses for the Prosecution shall be examined and after that the witnesses for the Defense. Thereafter such rebutting evidence as may be held by the Tribunal to be admissible shall be called by either the Prosecution or the Defense.

(f) The Tribunal may put any question to any witness and to any Defendant at any ti;me.

(g) The prosecution and the Defense shall interrogate and may cross-examine any witneses and any Defendant who gives testimony.

(h) The Defense shall address the court.

(i) The Prosecution shall address the court.

(f) Each Defendant may make a statement to the Tribunal.

(k) The Tribunal shall deliver judgement and prnounce sentence.

Article 25. All official documents shall be produced, and all court proceedings conducted, in English, French and Russian, and in the language of the Defendant. So much of the record and of the proceedings may also be translated into the language of any country in which the Tribunal is sitting, as the Tribunal considers desirable in the interests of justice and public opinion.

VI. JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE

Article 26. The judgement of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the innocence of any Defendant shall give the reasons on which it is based, and shall be final and not subject to review.

Article 27. The Tribunal shall have the right to impose upon a Defendant, on conviction, death or such orther punishment as shall be determined by it to be just.

Article 28. In addition to any punishment imposed by it, the Tribunal shall have the right to deprive the convicted person of any stolen property and order its delivery to the Control Council for Germany.

Article 29. In case of guilt, sentences shall be carried out in accordance with the orders of the Control Council for Germany, which may at any time reduce or otherwise alter the sentences, but may not increase the severity thereof. If the Control Council for Germany, after any Defendant has been convicted and sentenced, discovers fresh evidence which, in its opinion, would found a fresh charge against him, the Council shall report accordingly to the Committee established under Article 14 herof, for such action as they may consider proper, having regard to the interests of justice.

VII. EXPENSES

Article 30. The expenses of the Tribunal and of the Trials, shall be charged by the Signatories against the funds allotted for maintenance of the Control Council for Germany.

PROTOCOL

Whereas an Agreement and Charter regarding the Prosecution of War Criminals was signed in London on the 8th August 1945, in the English, French, and Russian languages,

And wheras a discrepancy has been found to exist between the originals of Article 6, paragraph (c), of the Charter in the Russian language, on the one hand, and the originals in the English and French languages, on the other, to wit, the semi-colon in Article 6, paragraph (c), of the Charter between the words “war” and “or”, as carried in the English and French texts, is a comma in the Russian text, and whereas it is desired to rectify this discrepancy:

Now, THEREFORE, the undersigned, signatories of the said Agreement on behalf of their respective Governments, duly authorized thereto, have agreed that Article 6, paragraph (c), of the Charter in the Russian text is correct, and that the meaning and intention of the Agreement and Charter require that the said semi-colon in the English version should be changed to a comma, and that the French text should be amended to read as follows:

(c) LES CRIMES CONTRE L’HUMANITE: c’est a dire l’assassinat, l’extermination, la reduction en esclavage, la deportation, et tout autre acte inhumain commis contre toutes populations civiles, avant ou pendant la guerre, ou bien les persecutions pour des motifs politques, raciaux, or religieux, lorsque ces actes ou persecutions, qu’ils aient constitue ou non une violation du droit interne du pays ou lis on ete perpetres, ont ete commis a la suite de tout crime rentrant dans la competence du Tribunal, ou en liaison avec ce crime.

In WITNESS WHEREOF the Undersigned have signed the present Protocol.

Done in quadruplicate in Berlin this 6th day of October, 1945, each in English, French, and Russian, and each text to have equal authenticity.

For the Government of the United States of America

ROBERT H. JACKSON

For the Provisional Government of the French Republic

FRANCOIS DE MENTHON

For the Government of the United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Northern Ireland

HARTLEY SHAWCROSS

For the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics

R. RUDENKO

_______________________________________________________________

Telford Taylor, Vol. I, pp. XI-XVI

(U.S. VERSION OF MOSCOW JURISPRUDENCE — ACCUSED ASSUMED GUILTY

UPON ENTERING THE TRIBUNAL ROOM — TRIBUNAL NECESSARY MERELY TO

DECIDE FATES OF CULPRITS — U.S. VERSION OF “KATYN”) -

WORKED WELL TO ELIMINATE ROMANOFFS & BOURBONS

XXV Telford Taylor, Vol. I, p. IX-X.

_________________________________________________________________

Clearly, in fairness, the above document, dated Oct. 6, 1945, can hardly be held to apply to any act allegedly committed by a non-signatory to the agreement. Secondly, if it is to avoid the onus of an ex post facto law, it cannot apply to any alleged infraction defined in the document which happened prior to the date of signature. One may refer, it is true, to the earlier statements made by Roosevelt and others as warnings to the Axis powers, but these can be no more than mere edicts at best by wrathful men swearing vengence against their enemies. In no way nor manner are these declarations capable of being interpreted as binding international agreements as, for example, the Geneva Conventions are binding upon all its signatories of which Russia was not one.

Nothing more clearly sullies the entire pseudo-legal proceedings of the allied United Nations and brands it as an international lynching bee than this ridiculous attempt by legalistic frauds attempting to masquerade as authorities of the law and attempting to lend credence to their lust for wrathful vengeance against their long-standing political antagonists. Of the four countries, Shawcross doubtless had at least the advantage of a reputable law education, but his association with the labor party and Clement Attlee and his socialist turnings, about which he bragged, apparently took precedence over his legal education. Essentially the same political turnings tainted the partisan French delegate, de Menthon. The prime qualifications of Jackson and Rudenko had nothing to do with legal standing. Both were men of little scholastic accomplishment but well aware of the desires of the men and the systems they controlled who had placed them in positions of authority. As practical men not without political ambition, they would continue to do what they felt would benefit them most in the further pursuit of their public careers.

Robert H. Jackson who in many ways can be described as the driving force behind the Nuernberg Tribunals, had studied Law but never received a degree in Law. His only degree, aside from numerous honorific degrees, was from the Canadaigua (N. Y.) Institute, hardly known for its standing in International Law. It was, however, often used as a sounding board for Roosevelt’s liberal political ideas, and Jackson was called to Washington (Treasury Department!) to participate in Roosevelt’s (unsuccessful) political vendettas against Andrew Mellon and Huey P. Long. His dogged dedication to his chief’s ideas resulted in further promotions to Solicitor General, Attorney General, and the U.S. Supreme Court as one of Roosevelt’s most trusted intimates and lieutenants.

According to Dr. Nahum Goldmann of the World Jewish Congress, Robert H. Jackson became aware of the possibilities of prosecuting the leaders of Germany and how to get reparations from Germany after talking with Jacob Robinson (brother of Nehemiah) of the Institute of Jewish Affairs (Goldmann, The Jewish Paradox, p.122). Goldman described the two brothers as being “two great Lithuanian Jewish jurists.” One is overwhelmed with the obvious question then as to whether the “justice” at Nuernberg was an example of “jewishprudence.”

Although some might tend to blame the Jews entirely for the Nuernberg Tribunals, nothing, in my opinion, could be further from the truth. If it had not been the desire and intent of the United States Government, headed and controlled at the time by Franklin D. Roosevelt and later by Harry S. Truman, these “trials” would never have taken place. Needless to say, these men had tremendous backing for their objectives, and I am sure these were backed fully by most Jews. But the primary thrust for such a horrendous act had to come from the gentiles.

The general tone of both the Jackson Trial at Nuernberg and the Telford Taylor Trials which followed immediately is best given by a series of quotations given by Prof. Arthur Butz in his book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. On pp. 26-27 he quotes statements made by Judge Charles F. Wennerstrum (Des Moines, Iowa) immediately after the trial in Nuernberg of the German Generals. In these quotes, Prof. Butz, recognizing the bias with which those opposing him cry “foul” has selected as his source, Josiah Dubois, an extreme germano-phobe and former Treasury (Morgenthau) lieutenant who himself “prosecuted” I. G. Farbenindustrie officials at Nuernberg (The Devil’s Chemists) who quotes the Chicago Tribune in Feb. and March of 1948. A few of JUdge Wennerstrum’s remarks which Gen. Taylor attempted to intercept and destroy (unsuccessfully) are quoted:

“If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here.”

Obviously, the victor in any war is not the best judge of the war crime guilt.”

The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity aloof from vindictiveness, aloof from personal ambitions for convictions. It has failed to strive to lay down precedents whichmight help the world to avoid future wars.”

The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome. Linguists are needed.”

The trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders. They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost the war to tough conquerors.”

Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected fromthe large tonnage of captured records. The selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case.”

Also abhorrent to the American sense of justice is the prosecutions reliance upon self-incriminating statements made by the defendants while prisoners for more than 2½ years, and repeated interrogation without presence of counsel.”

… You should go to Nuernberg. You would see there a palace of justice where 90 percent of the people are interested in the prosection.”

For those who would read still more on this indictment of United Nations justice at Nuernberg, reference is made to Prof. Butz’ book, DuBois’s book or the original news articles listed in these sources.

But, even with these criticisms, Judge Wennerstrum could hardly be considered pro-German. Initially, he participated willingly in the trials, since he believed the Germans in some way to be guilty of something as did most Americans in positions of political responsibility in the U.S. Otherwise, he would never have been considered for such a post. Inspiteof this, he apparently could never convince himself to go the “second mile” necessary to become an self sullied team player as for example the ultra liberal Judge Michaelangelo Mussmanno. Judge Wennerstrum’s position was that the Germans probably were guilty, but he disagreed with the judicial methods by which they were brought down by their enemies. Perhaps he, as had Cordell Hull, would have prefered that they had been shot arbitrarily at capture thereby obviating a “sticky” trial under questionable standards and procedures of jurisprudence which at a later date might well be brought into question. There is no evidence of which I know that either Robert H. Jackson or Telford Taylor ever were so bothered.

General Clay notes in his book, Decision in Germany (p. 442) that General McNarney succeeded General Eisenhower on November 20, 1945, as military governor of Germany, the very day the Nuernberg Tribunals began, after rehearsal by Robert Jackson. (NYT,, Nov. 19, 1945, p. ) It must have been clear that a victorious general with the potential to be President of Columbia University, replacing the revered Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler and finally as Ike the future beloved President of the United States and hero of the Little Rock “civil rights” demonstration would not appreciate having his numerous possibilities cut short by being kept in charge of the coming pseudo-legal draconian blood letting which now would be visited upon vanquished Germany in the name of United Nations “justice.” The responsibility would be given to an “establishment” general who would most probably even enjoy the job but who, in the end, was also expendable.

General Clay was, as am I, a son of the South. As a soldier in Germany, I was always greatly disappointed by the vehemence and hatred of my fellow Southerners for a country which had actually done so very very little to incur their wrath. But there was no question as to the hatred Southerners, including the Ku Klux Klan, bore Germany in both world wars. I could not understand how those whose forebearers had suffered so long and so greviously at the hands of the proselytizing, moralizing abolitionist leaders of the North, whose political successors still controlled the Government of the United States, could proceed with such undisguised joy to perpetrate the very same hate-borne acts against the most civilized nation of Europe. But I observed it over and over again. The soldiers from the “Solid South” were almost always among the most merciless of U.S. troops in their dealings with the Germans under occupation. It was as if they were finally avenging themselves and their forebearers in some way against Yankee troops of the 1860’s and 1870’s.

A possible explanation of this might be the result of there haveing been so many soldiers of German origin in the troops sent south in “Abe Lincoln’s War.” Entire units spoke nothing but German and had German-speaking commanders. They knew only that they were totally dedicated to “Father Abraham,” apparently for services rendered or yet expected. Some of these “German” commanders were Carl Schurtz (who had a price on his head in Germany for revolutionary activities) and Franz Sigel. It is most likely that the Southerners who suffered from the depredations of these troops told their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of the brutal escapades of many of these maurauding soldiers.

After the destruction of the Civil War and its attendant “Reconstruction” under Northern supervision (“occupation”), there was little that Southerners could do other than raise cotton and/or tobacco for the most part. For at least two generations, those born in the South who wished a measure of success best did it by getting an education and going North. One other thing, however, they could do to bring in money for their destitute families was to join the Army with its plethora of Northern Generals. After the Spanish-American War and the First World War, they were “converted!” One young southern captain with whom I spoke while returning from Europe (1946), having found a “profession” much superior to “dirt farming” told me, “I don’t care what I have to do or where I have to be. I’m going to stay in the Army.”

XXXVI. LAWS, PROCLAMATIONS, DECREES, ORDINANCES, ETC. OF THE ALLIED CONTROL COUNCIL FOR GERMANY, BERLIN (Oct. 29, 1945 — Feb. 20, 1948)

In as much as the first objective of the occupation forces was to gain complete control over the day-to-day life of the German people, it is not surprising that the first proclamations of both the western United Nations and the eastern United Nations allies, who were operating in concert, were directed toward this end. Initially, in the absence of a working Contorl Council for Germany, each of the two commands issued very nearly similarly orders on their own. Later, most of these edicts pronounced by these commands were given the additional sanction of the Control Council in Berlin.

The first “Proclamation,” addressed to the “German People,” which attained notariety in this country was the one which announced that the U.S. troops came into Germany as a victorious army with the avowed purpose of destroying every vestige of National Socialism and “German” militarism. In doing this, the Control Council was decreed to be the highest legal and military power in Germany. Any German resistance to the rule or will of the victors would be crushed ruthlessly and severly revenged. Former party members, members of the German military forces were to be punished by the victors as they should subsequently determine, in courts which the victors would establish.

All German courts, schools and eductional facilities in the occupied areas of Germany were to be closed until further notice. The ability of courts believed to be tainted by NSDAP doctrine were deprived of all power of trial. The resumption and reopening of German civil and criminal courts as well as the reopening of schools, etc. would occur when the victors considered conditions permitted (e. g. after “denazification”).

All German governmental officials were required to continue in their official capacities and assist in carrying out all decrees and orders from the Military Government or the Allied Occupation Authorities. This is also binding upon the officials, workers and employees of all public facilities and public works activities and for other persons who perform necessary services.

Following, is “Proclamation No. 1” issued by the United Nations, establishing the Control Council:

PROCLAMATION NO. I

Establishing the Control Council

To the people of Germany:

The Commanders-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in Germany of the Unitd States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, acting jointly as members of the Control Council, do hereby proclaim as follows:

I

As announced on 5 June 1945, supreme authority with respect to Germany has been assumed by the Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Unted Kingdom, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic.

II

In virtue of the supreme authority and powers thus assumed by the four Governments the Control Council has been established and supreme authority in matters affecting Germany as a whole has been conferred upon the Control Council.

III

Any military laws, proclamations, orders, ordinances, notices, regulations and directives issued by or under the authority of the respective commanders-in-Chief for their respective Zones of Occupation are continued in force in their respective Zones of Occupation.

Done in Berlin, 30 August 1945

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

General of the Army

B. H. ROBERTSON

Lt. Gen.

Deputy for:

BERNARD L. MONTGOMERY

Field Marshal

L. KOELTZ

General de Corps d’Armee

pour P. KOENIG

General de Corps d’Armee

G. ZHUKOW

Marshal of the Soviet Union

(Official Gazette of the Control Council for Germany, No. 1, 29 October, 1945, pp. 4-5)

As stated above, the United Nations being in close contact and agreement as to how Germany should be treated after being defeated published a number of edicts refered to in Section III above. They were not necessarity identical, but all Zones of occupation were expected to be governed by more or less identical laws and conditions. Many of the regulations which governed Germany immediately after the end of hostilities until uncertain dates thereafter were pronounced immediately after an area had been occupied and subdued. Often these edicts were posted on walls, the street corners on “Litfasssaeulen,” etc. for the population to read and thereafter be held strictly accountable for compliance by the occupation authorities. An example of such an “Order” (in German) is in the Appendix. It is different only in that it was issued by order of Russian Generaloberst N. Besarin in Berlin rather that another United Nations general in any other large German city.

The Russian Befehl Nr. 1 (Appendix), like those which appeared in the west threatened dire consequences for those disturbing the peace and committing any act which was contrary to the will of the occupation authorities. Toward this end, the population was confined to their homes, NSDAP was dissolved and most of its members were required to register within 48 hours. Members of the Wehrmacht were required to register within 72 hours. Those obligated by the order to register were threatened with severe punishment for failure to do so. Officials and employees or the “Bezirk” were required to report to the Russian commanding general to report conditions and receive further orders.

All public facilities such as electricity, water, sewer, transportation facilities, hospitals, food stores and bakeries must continue operation. The existing employees are obligated to accomplish this. Employees for the distribution of foodstuffs were required to report to the district Commandant within 24 hours for registration and no food stuffs were to be disbursed without approval of the district Commandant. These employees were warned of severe punishment for disbursing foodstuffs to unauthorized persons — for example, persons no longer in Berlin.

All safes in banks were to be sealed immediately and the condition of the bank reported to the military command. Nothing must be removed under threat of very severe punishment. In addition, the Morrgenthau occupation Mark must be accepted on parity with the circulating Reichsmarks.

All persons with weapons, ammunition, explosives, radio receivers or radio transmitters, photo cameras, motor vehicles, powered bicycles, fuel, and lubrication materials must deliver the same to the district military commander within 72 hours. Again, those failing to comply would be subject to severe penalties under the laws of war.

Those who possess printing establishments, typewriters and other apparatus capable of printing are obligated to report to report to the district and regional commanders for registration. It was forbidden categorically to print in any manner, distribute or exhibit any document in the city without the permission of the military commander. All printing establishments were to be sealed until reopened by the military commander.

Between 22.00 and 08.00 Berlin time, the population must remain inside their houses. Areas not purposely darkened might not be lit. No one, including members of the Red Army might be quartered even overnight within a German household without the permission of the military commandant. The taking of property or food abandoned in either working place or from private property will be punished severly under the laws of war.

Cinemas, theaters, circuses, stadiums, churches and restaurants and taverns were allowed to operate until 21.00 Berlin time. The use of any public facilities to perpetrate any hostile objective to disturb the order and quiet of the city would be punished severely in this district under the laws of war.

The citizens of Berlin were warned that any hostile actions on their part against either the Red Army or any Allied troops would be punished under the laws of war. Acts resulting in the murder of Red Army or Allied personell, committing other acts endangering personal property, war materials, war property of allies of the Red Army and Allied troops would result in trial by courts martial.

Units of the Red Army and individual members of the military in Berlin are obligated to live only in the quarters provided by the military district and region. Further, Red Army personell on their own authority, may neither dispossess nor transfer to new quarters the present occupants of housing. The taking of goods and valuables and searches of houses by the Red Army on individual authority was forbidden.

XXXVII. JCS 1779

JCS 1779 entitled “Note By The Secretary To The Joint Chiefs Of Staff On REVISION OF DIRECTIVE TO COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF U.S. FORCES OF OCCUPATION REGARDING THE MILITARY GOVERNMENT OF GERMANY is dated 19 May 1947. Its stated purpose was to supercede JCS 1067/6. Doubtless, it too had given great difficulty to its authors as had its antecedant, since a number of pages dated May 20, 1947 appear in the C.C.S. File Copy (No. 53). Apparently, it had been under discussion since the fall of 1945 (Clay, Lucius D., Decision in Germany, pp.237-238). One can only surmise that the changes considered were of such importance that they could not be made without destroying JCS 1067/6, but that these changes were nevertheless of such importance that they had to be made to achieve the purposes of the United Nations (“U.S.”) occupation of Germany.

General Lucius D. Clay had succeeded General Joseph T. McNarney on March 15, 1947. On July 15, 1947, he had received JCS 1779 with the following authority: “Your authority as Military Governor will be broadly construed and empowers you to take action consistent with relevant international agreements, general foreign policies of this government and with this directive, appropriate or desireable to attain your government’s objectives in Germany or to meet military exigencies.”

In General Clay’s own words, “The new policy did not alter our objectives to demilitarize and denazify Germany. It still demanded the punishment of war criminals, and it required the speedy conclusion of trials, [apparently disliking the idea of drawn out trials opposed by Churchill at “OCTAGON”]. [ It did allow for commutation and reduction of some sentences if the Military Governor chose to do so.] Likewise it required the early completion of plant removals. It continued to call for the breaking up of cartels and excessive concentations of economic power. While retaining punative measures, it attempted to emphasize the constructive work ahead, including the rapid transfer of governmental responsibility to German hands and the encouragement of a German government of the federal type. It specifically required maximum cultural exchange [between victor and vanquished] and the use of our information media to present factual information to the German people. In the economic and financial field, where under the previous directive we had to let events take their course, we were now empowered to undertake currency reform and other measures necessary to develop a balanced economy based on sound currency and credit. While much of the new policy was in effect when received, as a result of amendments from time to time in the old directive, it was helpful to have our instructions in a single document.” (Clay, Decision in Germany, p. 238)

As with the other “plans” based upon the Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plan, JCS 1779 changed very little which was the basic philosophy of the United States toward Germany. It, like its predecessor could be changed by a telephone call from the military governor. It still allowed prosecution of Germans for “crimes” which the victors had designated, often capriciously, as crimes in political “courts” constituted by them for the express purpose of executing or imprisoning those Germans deemed to be any sort of threat to them in the future. It would continue to dismantle German factories for shipment to those who had signed the United Nations “pledge” of fealty to the “great three” powers. It would continue to disrupt the German cartels which had been formed to allow Germany to compete in an economic world dominated by the victors of World War I. The single provision here was that it should now be done quickly so that those “idealistic” objectives of the occupation not yet accomplished might not be connected in the future and therefore sullied beyond repair in the eyes of the defeated Germans.

From now onward, the attention of the Germans would be directed toward the possibility of a better life for themselves and their children, completely, of course, within the limits defined for them by the victors but only if they had learned their political lessons well. They now would be able to “choose for themselves” the whip or the carrot. Much of the occupation government was to be directed toward this end. They were to copy slavishly the government and life style of their conquerors, presumably so that they might also attain the high levels of perfection they had witnessed so far in the occupation. In this, they were to be assisted and reconstructed by U.S. experts in government, education, finance, religion, labor, and every other phase of daily life. The information available to the Germans had, since the cessation of hostilities, been firmly in the hands of the victors. Consequently, the Germans had heard and had been “brain-washed” into believing that information contrary to what they heard over and over, day in and day out, did not exist. After a few months of being daily deluged with a flood of United Nations intellectual garbage, many if not most were ready to believe their fathers, brothers, and husbands were indeed aware of, if not guilty of, the horrendous crimes now regularly laid at the collective doorstep of all Germans without fear of a challenge from any source. In fairness, it should be noted, however, that for them to have done otherwise would have resulted in immediate arrest and at least imprisonment with the accompanying “interrogation” which could easily lead to death.

Finally, the financial aspects of the occcupation were discussed. It is not unlikely that these were in fact the primary cause of the issuance of JCS 1779. The United States had not reckoned with the high costs of the occupation. Now, thanks primarily to the infamous policies of Morgenthau in flooding a prostrate land with uncounted Morgenthau Occupation Marks, the predictable had occurred even faster than most had expected. And for the future political objectives of the United States in Germany, they could not afford to look into the face of a Europe with a Germany occupied by the U.S. which daily became more of an economic liability to its neighbors. This was a specter more fearsome to those who were eagerly awaiting, daily the advent of the “American Millineum” than any other. The only hope for an economically sound Germany in an economically sound Europe was the establishment of an economically sound currency for Germany which could then be used to purchase raw materials from overseas with which to begin an economically sound nation.

JCS 1779 sought to lay the groundwork of this objective, but there were still many who insisted on the punative provisions which dominated every plan developed by the U.S. Government since the 1930’s. Although their apparent numbers were decreasing daily, they remained and remain a force to be reckoned with. In an attempt to appease this faction at least partially, they were allowed to continue their vendetta and blood letting with official blessings but were told to hurry up and get it and the dismantling of plants over with. But so far as the Roosevelt-Morgenthau plan was concerned, it again emerged unscathed and very much in place. Most of its objectives which had been set for it in the past period had long since been accomplished under the leadership of General Eisenhower and General McNarney.

Now, General Clay, an underling and admirer of General Eisenhower, General McNarney, and General Marshall would take over the “new” plan, JCS 1779, and complete the next phase of German mental and political enslavement.

XXXVIII. MARSHALL PLAN FOR EUROPE (June 5, 1947)

In the period after the surrender of Germany and the assumption of the United Nations victors of all the functions of Government of the partitioned Nation, conditions, under the various modifications of the Roosevelt-Morgenthau plan predictably, steadily worsened. The currency, having been deprived of any backing by any assets whatsoever, their having been immediately confiscated by the victors, predictably became worthless. This situation was actually guaranteed by the issuance of the “Morgenthau Mark” for the occupation armies. In addition to the other factors working hard to pull down the Reich Mark, it had also to contend with the continuing, almost unlimited dilution of these “Morgenthau” Occupation Marks by the Russians. It was, in fact, Morgenthau who gave the Soviet Russians not only the “plates” but the negatives, positives, inks, ink formulations, pigments, vehicles, paper, etc. so that they could print any number of these worthless marks to their heart’s content.

German business, faced with daily demolition of factories destined to be shipped to any of the United Nations victors desiring them, stagnated and unemployment grew. The had neither factories, raw materials, nor money to pay the workers at wages fixed by the occupation. The food supply decreased, again predictably, since the victors were dead set against importing food into Germany. Persons with “money” could turn only to the “Black Market” to obtain bread, medicine, or any other essentials of everyday life. It was a macabre “joke” among the susrviving Germans at the time that what the Russians hadn’t plundered from Germany at the end of the war, the Americans had “bought” with cigarettes.

This intolerable situation in Germany was compounded many fold by the fact that large numbers of former German soldiers, Prisoners-of-war or “Disarmed Enemy Forces” as the U.S. chose arbitrarily to classify them, were still dying and working at forced labor in works camps of the victors allegedly repairing the damage done by the German Wehrmacht during the war. (Actually, much of this damage was done by the United Nations themselves in driving the Germans out of France, Russia, etc. and destroying factories and facilities which might be of use to the German war effort.)

Doubtless, this condition would have been allowed to continue for some time had it not been for the simultaneous rise in Stalinist aspirations to attain in short order that which Roosevelt had led him to believe he would receive from Germany and the United States, over the “long haul,” at Teheran, Yalta, and through the numerous conferences Stalin had had with “Garry Gopkins” (Harry Hopkins), Averell Harriman, and others since the beginning of the war. This led to understandable friction with the United States in spite of the entreaties of men such as Sumner Welles, Henry Wallace, etc. who insisted steadfastly that we must keep our solemn promises made to Stalin by themselves, others and Roosevelt himself. Dedication to this policy had placed the entire German occupation by United Nations Forces in jeopardy. At daily caloric intakes of fewer than 1,000 calories, wholesale deaths from starvation for large numbers of Germans was merely a matter of time, and under such desperate conditions, the well-fed armies of the victors could expect no less than mounting, determined guerrilla terrorist escalations in the occupied, destitute population. It was feared that the troubles the British had had much earlier in Ireland might be repeated again in central Europe but on a much larger scale.

The victors were faced with the spectre of a destroyed nation whose population with neither the hope nor possibility of any sort of recovery, and this condition had resulted from their very own occupation policies and no one else’s.

But another wind was now necessarily blowing along the Potomac. Roosevelt had been succeeded by Harry Truman. Although far from being “pro-German” in any sense of the word, mid-westerner Truman was not the virulent Germanophobe that easterner Roosevelt had always been, and the heated war-time hatred for their enemy of two wars was beginning to cool throughout the United States. Although many still believed in punishing Germany severely, it was no longer universally believed that this punishment should last forever, nor that the provisions of the Morgenthau Plan should be continued, especially if they placed further burdens upon the U.S. taxpayer and endangered the occupation to such an extent that the “principles” of the “peace” were also endangered. In addition, many believed now, somewhat belatedly, of course, that Germany would be a dandy buffer, or perhaps even a useful if not reliable ally, against Soviet Russia and its demanding, intransigent, ambitious Stalin. This was certainly the case with the sudden realization that the British, whom they believed to be the controllable “partner” of the U.S. in Europe was nearly, if not completely, bankrupt and was considering leaving continental Europe as an occupying power. This would place an even heavier burden ujpon the American taxpayer if the U.S. were called upon to fill the political and military vacuum created in Germany by a British withdrawal.

At the occasion of his being awarded the honorary Doctorate at the Harvard Commencement exercises (June 5, 1947), he refered to what came to be known as the “Marshall Plan,” a part of the “Truman Doctrine.” The Plan, as might be surmised from General Marshall’s personal hatred for Germany and reverence for Roosevelt policies, was not initiated by any desire to rehibilitate or “Reconstruct” Germany. It was directed, he said, “against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos.” But surely there was no country in Europe where such conditions were as prevalent as they were in Germany as a result of the Morgenthau policies.

It was at this time that the “Marshall Plan” began life. The “Marshall Plan” is today mentioned with an almost reverent tone and is regarded by many as the policy which “saved the world” from communism, etc. It is true that some of its many facets had some of the effect its instigators had hoped it would have, but it was introduced in no manner at all because of any humanistic regard for the German People. General Marshall was a life-long germanophobe. His most basic traits were those of a “survivor,” a trait essential for success in his chosen profession. He was successful only because he was extremely capable in generating innumerable “plans” as they were needed to rescue or advance the ideas and positions of himself and those to whom he was beholden himself for further advancement. If one surveys his career from Lt. Col. to General of the Army, a mere six years, it is obvious as to the cause of and degree of his success. During this time, he was the genesis of many of the “plans” necessary to the Roosevelt Government both before and after it entered the war. Later, he was equally indispensable to the Truman Government. Obviously, those who depended upon him time and time again and who were so indebted to him for the services he provided could, out of deep gratitude, only heap accolades (and promotions) upon him.

However, what Marshall really was doing in “the Marshall Plan” was basically developing a new “plan” which was in reality a negation of the numerous other “Plans” which he had been involved with since at least 1938 when he had been “Head of War Plans.” Indeed, it is difficult to believe that there was any U.S. Governmental plan at all which involved the eventual defeat and destruction of Germany and the war in Europe to which he was not privy if he had not, in fact, played a major part in itsd development. In these numerous plans, of course, one would expect to find the “Victory Plan” “publicized” in December, 1941. This secret plan developed by the War and Navy Departments together certainly with Roosevelt’s full support while this country was still “neutral” proposed to put an American Expeditionary Force of five million men in Europe by 1943. (see N. Y. Times, “A. E. F. ‘Plan’ Laid to Army and Navy,” Dec. 5, 1941, p. 3). This “plan” apparently was to augment the decision of Roosevelt to go to war “if war came to Europe,” and the British had their backs to the wall, a decision he had apparently made at least by July 1939 (N. Y. Times, “Borah Notes Quote Roosevelt in July 1939 on Need to ‘Go In’ if War Came to Europe,” Oct. 29, 1944, p. 33. See also, Morgenthau, “The Morgenthau Diaries, III- How F.D.R. Fought the Axis,” Collier’s, Oct. 11, 1947, p. 74, col. 2), maybe much earlier!

Since serving as Gen. Pershing’s aide in World War I General Marshall had always seen the German Nation as the prime enemy of the U.S. A. With the exception of the time where he, out of frustration with the British position recommended to Roosevelt (July 10, 1942), along with Admiral Ernest J. King, his naval counterpart, that if the British did not obtain agreement on Operation Bolero, a frontal assault upon Germany in Europe, the United States should then proceed to give the Pacific (Japan) theater its primary attention, his dedication to this princicple never wavered. In this case, however, he was vetoed by Roosevelt.

In the spring of 1947 a meeting of Foreign Ministers was held in Moscow to discuss a number of topics including a peace treaty with Austria and the further occupation of Germany with a possibility even of a peace treaty with their former main enemy. This, of course, would have been an obvious solution to many of the western United Nations economic and military problems. General Marshall attended as the U.S. Secretary of State. One of the sticking problems in Moscow with a German Constitution which the victors were apparently writing for Germany was the insistence of General Marshall that any such document should contain a in which the German People, in accepting “their” Constituution also accepted the responsibility for the initiation of World War II. It was the Versailles Treaty all over again accept this time there would be no signatories to assign “war guuilt” but rather the entire German People would be required to “accept” it. Molotov (Stalin) insisted that Hitler was responsible for the war and not the German People. In this he was guided by a statement by Stalin that Hitlerism could and would be destroyed, but that it was impossible to destroy the German People. Although probably intended for propaganda, the statement was deemed important enough for the Russians to defend. On retrospect, and considering the policies of the Morgenthau-Roosevelt Plan, it appears that some, perhaps even Marshall himself believed that the German People could indeed be destroyed. At any rate, from that point onward, the fortunes of a united Germany, which, of course, the Russians as well as the United States intended to dominate completely were down hill and were finally realized only to a degree in 1990. Had General Marshall been a little more flexible at this point in history, Germany might have been united much earlier with much less loss in territory.

The Marshall Plan, therefore, was designed by Marshall as had all his other plans not to benefit Germany as a Nation but to benefit the western United Nations military coalition in Europe which in two world wars had fought against and finally succeeded in destroying Germany. AS such, it was no more than a State Department adjunct of JCS 1779 which he had doubtless had a hand in writing as he had in JCS 1067. Any benefit which might accrue to his longstanding enemy would be only in so far as it benefitted his former allies even more. But in this decision, he really had little choice, since he finally was forced by circumstances to the realization that Europe could not be economically healthy without the country having the country in Europe with the greatest industrial potential also being healthy. After all, with the loss of its colonies, England now had lost beyond recall the competitive position it had held with Germany before the war, and without question, it would have to be Germany who would supply many, if not most, of the manufactured needs of the other western european countries. In spite of the war, it was German manufactured goods which were prized highly for their quality and workmanship, not just in Europe but throughout the world, and the Morgenthau Plan had deprived the German Nation of the right to produce these articles and the rest of Europe of their availability. This observation, however, was not new. It had been foreseen by many Americans who had opposed not only the U.S. clandestine participation and likely guaranteed entry into the european conflagration (Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. N. Y. Times, 1940). For their farsightedness and their attempts to reason with their fellow Americans, they earned for themselves only ridicule and the continuing vituperation of their bellicose interventionist-minded fellows. For their efforts to save their compatriots from the chaos they now found themselves in, they had been treated as little more than “traitors.”

The Marshall Plan officiall recognized at a rather late date, that this deplorable situation, out of necessity, must be changed but certainly not out of any consideration of the Germans but out of fear of the Russians and the realization that if the situation didn’t change, the “solidarity” of the war-time west-european coalition itself would be eroded away, possibly to the advantage of Germany but certainly to the advantage of Russia. And the “American millineum” would be at a sudden, ignominious end, with a now unpopular America “out” so far as European policies and economics were concerned.

What the Marshall Plan did vis a vis Germany was to allow it to finally begin reconstruction of its factories which up to then either destroyed in the war or had been designedly dismanteled and shipped to whichever “United Nation” nation coveted them. Dismantling was gradually stopped, modest loans and credits (in comparison to what other european nations received) for the rebuilding process were provided, Germany was allowed access to the raw materials of the world, which the United States and England had always controlled and withheld, the Germans themselves were allowed to manage their own affairs instead of allowing vengeance-minded U.S. Treasury experts to supervise them at every step. The results astounded even its originators. It surpassed even their most optimistic predictions and has come to be known as the “Wirtschaftswunder,” the economic miracle. It was, in fact, one of the few economic programs the occupation Government originated and introduced with great fanfare which actually worked! And to this day, its originators have continued to take credit for the miraculous job which “they” accomplished by the Marshall Plan with so little cost to the United States taxpayer.

Having obtained such miraculous results in Germany with such a small financial investment from the U.S. taxpayer, one can only conjecture what the results might have been if in May 1933, Dr. Hjalmar (Horace Greeley) Schacht had been able to discuss the multitude of economic problems of his Government with someone with at least a modicum of sympathy and understanding for Germany’s plight (or, for that matter a degree of business acumen and regard for the lives and treasure of the citizens of the United States), instead of being received by a solidly hostile U.S. Government, bent solely on driving the legally-elected German Government from power with economic warfare. (Morgenthau, “The Morgenthau Diaries III — How F. D. R. Fought the Axis,” Colliers, Oct. 11, 1947, pp. 20, 21, 72-74, 77 and 79). We do know that a greatly-disappointed, disillusioned Dr. Schacht returned to Germany to initiate a necessary German plan of autarchy and belt tightening which, of necessity, lasted in Germany until the initiation of the “miraculous” Marshall Plan (and JCS 1779).

But the Marshall Plan provided for the continued, future occupation of West Germany by the United States and its war-time allies, and the continued occupation of Middle (Central) Germany and East Germany by the Russians and the Poles. It had the effect of perpetuating the Polish hold over East Germany, an area they had always coveted. In addition, large numbers of German prisoners-of-war were still held by the Eastern United Nations and they were reluctant to, or refused to, repatriate them. They were, in fact, building a “new” Russia upon the war ruins of the old, an agreement made by Stalin and Roosevelt. These factors still gave satisfaction to some degree to those who still wished to punish Germany. German prisoners-of-war held in hostile countries had the effect of creating a low birthrate in Germany, keeping the German population at a low level as well as preventing an upsurge in industrial activity even if the plants were rebuilt. The Marshall Plan did little or nothing to undo the damage done by the Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plans. It proposed to “slow down” the process and in some cases beneficial to the occupation powers allow the beginning of a rebuilding program to replace some of the damage created by blind hatred and lust for vengence.

In the minds of American Germanophobia prior to the Second World War, the post-war partition of German territory amoung its neighbors with a long occupation of the remnent of the dismembered country and long been a desireable objective and must continue to be so in the future. Now with much of the Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plan which had not yet been accomplished in danger, they must consider how they might yet rescue as much as possible of that which they still considered an objective.

From the beginning of the planning which went on in various locations about what kind of a plan should be used for post-war Germany, all were subsequently superceded by plans which were more innocuous appearing, continuations of the preceeding plan(s) with the single exception of the “Marshall Plan.” In many ways, the Marshall Plan is the de facto recognition that the other, preceeding plans had been, in part at least, fundamentally wrong in their conception as to how Germany should have been treated in the first place, although, it would be foolish to believe that General George C. Marshal, as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had not also exercised great influence on the very earliest phase of the occupation plans produced by the Roosevelt Regime and its successor regime in Washington. Now, a logical mind might ask why it was necessary to rebuild that which it was “unquestinably” necessary to destroy with such loss of life and treasure a few years earlier? Was it really necessary to destroy Germany? Yesterday Gen. Marshall said “Yes.” Today, he calls upon the U.S. taxpayer to rebuild what he ruthlessly destroyed yesterday.

But although the Marshall Plan was a turn-about plan as to how Germany would be treated in the future, it like all the plans which preceeded it did nothing to eliminate and rectify the myriad mistakes made beginning with the entry of United Nations’ troops into Germany. Of course, it could not return to life, those men already hanged for alleged infractions for which conviction in the future would mean, if anything, at most only prison terms, but it most certainly could have called for modification or rectification of the heinous decisions by which millions of Germans had been deprived of their homes, lands, and personal possessions and driven en masse as animals across former German territory, subject to attack at any moment by murderous, Slavic terrorist bands. It was another instance of slaughter, rape, and robbery which characterized the atrocities committed aganst the Armenians by the Kurds and/or Turks in Turkey in 1915 and through the efforts of Henry Morgenthau, Sr.outraged at least the allied world, these World War II atrocities which exceeded those committed against against the Armenians both in the numbers involved and in viciousness, was officially sanctioned, organized and orchestrated by the moralizing heads of the United Nations themselves! And to a very great extent, these “Heads” were acting with the support of their propaganda-besotted supporters who seconded their inhuman acts so fervently and without consideration.

Nor would it be able to return the hundreds of German plants which had already been torn down on the authority of the occupation authorities under JCS 1067 and transported at great expense to the Germans to sites west and east of Germany. Many of those sent to Russia ended up as rust at sites throughout the Soviet Union when insufficient uncompensated German slave labor or instructed labor was available for the huge task of reassembly. The removal of these plants added unemployment to the growing list of ever-present ills in the German economy, purposely made terminally ill by its conquerors, and made it even more difficult for the sorely wounded country to produce the immense reparations which it had been obligated to do at Yalta.

The Marshall Plan also could not speed the return of the many millions of German POW’s which disappeared into Russia in wartime. Some would return after 5-10 years of slave (uncompensated) labor in its truest sense. (Note: The uncompensated, forced labor which the German soldiers were forced to supply under orders of the post-war masters of Germany is the only true example of “slave labor” which existed in Europe during or after the war.) For various reasons, many German soldiers would never return. But the Marshall Plan at least finally recognized that the Germans “had a soul” as the Pope had decided with the American Indians, and should be “converted!” — presumably to United Nations “democracy.” Translated to terms understood more easily in the “cold war” world, it meant that German troops (levies) would be extremely useful (and cheaper) in the newly founded NATO (anti-Russian) alliance.

Although “Nazis” above a certain level in the Party, were still considered to be a level below humans, those Germans who had not been in the Party and some who were minor Party functionaries were, as a manner of speaking, welcomed, with reservations and so far as they could be used advantageously by the western United Nations, back into the Homididae.

The “Marshall Plan” is noteworthy if for no other reason than the fact that it is an about face so far as all the previous “Marshall Plans” and U.S. policies toward Germany are concerned. Prior to this all plans were directed essentially to the distruction of German power. After this, the reconstruction of parts of this power useful to the United States and its allies commenced. Germany would be “rebuilt” now but not as a soverign nation. Rather it would be a satrapy subservient to the will of the “Great President of Presidents” in Washington. I am tempted to wonder if it was so obviously now that Germany must be rebuilt at great cost to the U.S. taxpayer, was it really all that imperative that it be destroyed in the first place?

XXXIX. WEST GERMAN OCCUPATION STATUTE, JOHN J. MC CLOY AND “I CHANCELLOR CONRAD ADENAUER” (April 10, 1949)

With the objective labeled the “Marshall Plan” having guaranteed, for the foreseeable future, a separation of the western and central portions of an already truncated Germany, it became obvious that some sort of puppet government for that portion controlled by the western United Nations coalition must be brought into existence. This was done as a result of activities undertaken by the military authorities which were in charge of the occupation. In as much as the United States was now the leader in the three western occupation powers as well as the guarantor of financial support to which they all had to turn, the form of government chosen would be expected to copy very closely that of the “senior” victor with some concessions to the British and French. To be certain that it would have a distinct “liberal” flavor, liberal americans were selected as experts in advising the Germans as to how they should go about setting up the new “German” puppet Government at Bonn. Taking their lead from the United States, the Russian Zone, Central Germany, set about creating a “German” puppet Government modeled after the Russian Government in Germany’s former capitol, Berlin. Thereby, the separation of the two of a total of three major parts of the country was made more nearly complete and more likely to remain permanently separated, with the third section, East Germany, being annexed by Poland.

By the time Germany was “ready” for a measure of “self government,” as the victors prefered to describe the puppet regimes, the major objectives of the Morgenthau Plan and its several modifications had been accomplished more or less fully. The German Government had been destroyed, the victors had taken unto themselves the full powers of a German government as its replacement. The former leaders of the German Government had been arrested and through the expedient of laws etc. stipulated specifically for the purpose had been executed, imprisoned, denied the right to vote or hold office or so tied up in litigation in tribunals the victors tried to dignify as “German courts” that none of the former German politicians were considered a threat to the occupation authorities. All this was done to further guarantee no resurgence of German nationalism or politicians. With no leadership, the Germans had only the services of German collaborators and American “experts” working in political parties selected and declared “legal” by the occupation authorities.

Further, Germany had been partitioned with the entire eastern portion of the country (in addition to Versailles!) going to Poland and the remainder being separated into two puppet states each governed by the military forces of the two United Nations factions. The economies of these two units had been essentially ruined by the flagrant use of Morgenthau occupation marks, dismantling of factories for shipment outside the remnants of what formerly had been Germany. Agriculture, Germany’s one allowed industry, was stagnant with both factions first helping themselves to German production before meeting dire German needs. The food available for Germans was at an all-time low, in some cases well below 1,000 calories per day, and deaths from disease and malnutrition were increasing. American newspapers, although censored, showed pictures of hungry Germans rumaging through U.S. Army, garbage dumps in search of food. (Schadenfreude?) Clothing and dwellings were, for the most part, that which was left over from the war years or earlier, and most of these houses were damaged. Quarters for the occupation troops were confiscated from what existed in the destroyed country and its former occupants set out on the street. All new building was primarily for the occupation authorities since there were not sufficient undamaged facilities to house the military in the manner to which they wished to grow accustomed.

There were, of course, some factories still operating in Germany. Their production was normally taken by the occupation authorities for their own use or was shipped to some “United Nation” as part of its share of the German booty or reparations. Nothing was imported into Germany because its meager supply of gold had been immediately confiscated by the occupation authorities who had not decided as to its disposition. Besides this, had the situation been otherwise all German ships, rolling stock, even railroad beds had been taken by whomever wanted them for their own useage and were thus denied the Germans for their relief.

From my own personal experience as a pilot stationed at Tempelhof Airfield from Aug. 1945 to June 1946, I can say I never heard one official word spoken by anyone of the OMGUS that had the slightest indication of understanding or pity for the German Population in their plight, or any indication that it would ever or should ever become better. The “orientiation and education” officers from Washington and Lee University (which I attended three days myself in 1944) had “oriented the troops” so well that most felt the Germans deserved even worse treatment — even unto some of the “christian” chaplains! The overwhelming majority whom I met felt “Who cares? We won! During this time, I met only one man, a Roman Catholic chaplain at Tempelhof who felt the Americans might accomplish more with the Germans in “teaching” them Democracy by example rather than by the whip and cudgel. He used to go to the ruins of Anhalter Bahnhof in his time off and there help hand out bread crusts and water to those destitute, dispossesed Germans still streaming in from what had for previous centuries been East Germany. The bread crusts were those which he and his people had begged from the Germans themselves as they got their meager weekly rations, after sometimes standing hours in line. For his efforts in behalf of these unfortunate people, he was abruptly transferred back to the United States against his wishes.

Teaching traditional Democracy by example was the last thing which interested the occupation troops. Their primary concern was “booze, broads, and booty” and they immediately set about satisfying these three prime hungers to an extent which nauseated most of the defeated German population. In a starving nation, those with anything which the well-fed occupation forces wanted was available to them in any quantity for a few cigarettes, a chocolate bar, etc. Almost everything was available on the “black market” for barter or for a number of cigarettes, cigarettes, after the introduction of the Morgenthau occupation Marks, were the only universally accepted “currency” in Berlin if not the nation. Farmers would accept cigarettes for potatoes, but they would not sell potatoes for Morgenthau Marks.

For a number of years, the men in the occupation army, married or unmarried, had literally “the time of their lives.” But this euphoric experience was purchased at an enormous cost to the prestige to the occupation troops and their alleged, long-term objectives so far as the Germans themselves were concerned. The Germans always insisted that their troops had never behaved so poorly in any country under German occupation as the United Nations troops had behaved regularly in Europe in general and defeated Germany in particular. Normally, they were refering primarily to United States troops which some Germans called “Russen mit Buegelfalten.” There probably were instances where German troops did misbehave, but punishment by the Wehrmacht was swift, certain and severe. A large number of French, British, Belgians, and Dutch with whom I spoke personally at this time bore out this German opinion.

These were the conditions which finally brought about what came to be know as the “Occupation Statute” in post-war Germany. In many minds it was certainly premature, and there can be no doubt that had the international political, military and economic situations been different, it probably would not have been issued until a much later date.

(Berlin, April 10, 1949)

We, General Pierre Koenig, Military Governor and Commander in Chief of the French zone of Germany; Gen. Lucius D. Clay, Military Governor and Commander in Chief of the United States zone of Germany; and Sir Brian Hubert Robertson, Military Governor and Commander in Chief of the British zone of Germany, do hereby jointly proclaim the following Occupation Statute.

[1]

During the period in which it is necessary that the occupation continue, the Governments of France, the United States and the United Kingdom desire and intend that the German people shall enjoy self-government to the maximum possible degree consistent with such occupation, that federal states and the participating laender (German states) shall have, subject only to the limitations in this instrument, full legislative, executive and judicial powers in accordance with the basic law and with their respective constitutions.

[2]

In order to ensure the accomplishment of the basic purposes of the occupation, powers in the following fields are specifically reserved, including the right to request and verify information and statistics needed by the occupation authorities.

(a) Disarmament and demilitarization, including related fields of scientific research, prohibitions and restrictions on industry and civil aviation.

(b) Controls in regard to the Ruhr, restitution, reparations, non-discrimination in trade matters, foreign interests in Germany and claims against Germany.

(c) Foreign affairs, including international agreements, made by or on behalf of Germany.

(d) Displaced persons and admission of refugees.

(e) Protection, prestige and security of Allied forces, dependents, employes and their representatives, their immunities and satisfaction of occupation cost and their other requirements.

(f) Respect for the basic law and the land (state) constitutions.

(h) Control over internal action, only to the minimum extent necessary to ensure use of funds, food and other supplies in such manner as to reduce to a minimum the need for external assistance to Germany.

(i) Control of the care and treatment in German prisons of persons charged before or sentenced by the courts or tribunals of the occupying powers or occupation authorities, over the carrying out of sentences imposed on them, and over questions of amnesty, pardon or release in relation to them.

[3]

It is the hope and expectation of the Governments of France, the United States and the United Kingdom that the occupation authorities will not have occasion to take action in the fields other than those specifically reserved above. The occupation authorities, however, reserve the right, acting under instructions of their Governments, to resume, in whole or in part, the exercise of full authority if they consider that to do so is essential to security or to preserve democratic government in Germany or in pursuance of the international obligations of their Governments. Before so doing, they will formally advise the appropriate German authorites of their decision and of the reasons therefore.

[4]

The German Federal Government and the Governments of the Laender shall have the power, after due notification to the occupation authorities, to legislate and act in the fields reserved to these authorities, except as the occcupation authorities otherwise specifically direct, or as such legislation or action would be inconsistent with decisions or actions taken by the occupation authorities themselves.

[5]

Any amendment of the basic law will require the express approval of the occupation authorities before becoming effective. Land constitutions, amendments thereof, all other legislation, and any agreements made between the Federal state and foreign Governments, will become effective twenty-one days affer (sic, “after”) official receipt by the occupation authorities unless previously disapproved by them, provisionally or finally. The occupation authorities will not disapprove legislation unless in their opinion it is inconsistent with the basic law, and constitution, legislation or other directives of the occupation authorities themselves or the provisions of this instrument, or unless it constitutes a grave threat to the basic purpose of the occcupation.

[6]

Subject only to the requirements of their security, the occupation authorities guarantee that all agencies of the occupation will respect the civil rights of every person to be protected against arbitrary arrest, search or seizure, to be represnted by counsel, to be admitted to bail as cirmumstances warrant, to communicate with relatives, and to have a fair and prompt trial.

[7]

Legislation of the occcupation authorities enacted before the effective date of the basic law shall remain in force until repealed or amended by the occcupation authorities in accordance with the following provisions:

(a) Legislation inconsistent with the foregoing will be repealed or amended to make it consistent herewith.

(b) Legislation based upon the reserved powers referred to in (a) and (b) will be repealed by the occupation authorities on request from appropriate German authorities.

[8]

Any action shall be deemed to be the act of the occupation authorities under the powers herein reserved, and effective as such under this instrument, when taken or evidenced in any manner provided by any agreement between them. The occupation authorities may in their discretion effectuate their decisions either directly or through instructions of the German authorities in the legislative, executive and judicial fields.

[9]

After twelve months, and in any event within eighteen months, of the effective date of this instrument the occupying powers will undertake a review of its provisions in the light of experience with its operation and with a view to extending the jurisdiction of the German authorities in the legislative, executive and judicial fields.

At this point we may ask ourselves just what did the “West German Occupation Statute” accomplish in so far as the western remnant of Germany was concerned? It states the desire of the wesstern United Nations occupation commanders to return control of the western German Government, which the entire United Nations had taken over by a series of decrees, proclamations, agreements, etc. to the Germans themselves. They are to be free to do as they wish — “subject only to the limitations in this instrument,”. These limitations require Germany to maintain the provisions of the Morgenthau Plan, convictions of Germans, agreements, policies, etc. already decreed by the miliitary government. To make doubly sure that Germany will maintain its status of an state beholden to its occcupation authorities, these authorities reserve the right to take back all authority”to preserve democratic government in Germany or inpursuance of the international obligations of their Governments.”

To further guarantee their hold over the West German puppet state, they stipulate that the West German “basic law” (“Constitution”) which West Germans with much help from U.S. experts are currently writing may not be amended without “express approval of the occupation authoorities before becoming effective.”

Paragraph [6] states that civil rights and protection against arbitrary arrest, search or seizure will be guaranteed. Such a paragraph makes sense only if such rights (e. g. under the occupation authorities) had not been so respected, and indeed, the were not

The document further affirms the complete power of the occupation powers (as assumed at the total assumption of power, June 5, 1945, Berlin) to act within the meaning (or outside the meaning) of the Occupation Statute and promises that within eighteen months the progress (apparently of Germany) will be evaluated and the Statute modified as necessary as result of experience.

In other words, the Germans now have been given a longer leash. At any time, the lease may again be shortened or taken away completely by the occupation authorities. The Morgenthau-Roosevelt dictum of putting Germans in charge of their own Government (so that Germans will be held responsible for failures) and shooting them if they don’t do what we tell them to do had been modified to the extent that now the Germans placed in charge would only be removed by the occupation authorities.

The West German Occupation Statute, although it changed very little of what had gone before, least of all the changes in Germany wrought by the Morgenthau-Roosevelt Plan and its successors, was at least a sort of promise that “if you behave as we have heretofore stipulated, things may get better. If you don’t behave as we wish, we’ll take over again as we did on June 5, 1945.”

XXXX. APPROVAL OF WEST GERMAN BUNDES (“FEDERAL”) BASIC LAW (CONSTITUTION BY WESTERN UNITED NATIONS OCCUPATION AUTHORITIES.

In as much as all persons who had served as members of any German Government from 1933 to May 15, 1945, had been executed, imprisoned, involved in litigation by tribunals established by the occupation authorities for the purpose, had been so intimidated by interrogations, threats, etc. as to have ceased all political activity, or by decree might not stand for election or vote, one might well ask where exactly might the occupation authorities find Germans who could or would form a new “Government.” In this case, it also meant creating an entirely new form of government for the Nation. All those who had been active in German Government for some dozen years had been removed from all such activity by the victors and steps taken to guarantee that none would return to any degree of political power.

If we accept the information which appeared regularly in the proto-United Nations’and their successors, the United Nations’ information media, we would arrive at the conclusion that Hitler and his regime had done exactly the same thing to the hostile German politicians who had opposed him in 1933. But was this true? After the war, any number of his enemies were found alive — older but otherwise alive and well as well as politically active in Germany. They had spent the entire time under political arrest in facilities which were much better than one would have suspected if he had read the anti-German newspapers. These facilities were, so long as the Germans controlled them, at least as humane as those in which the Germans governmental heads were incarcerated.

Just a few of these enemies were: Kurt von Schuschnigg, the former Austrian Chancellor who, as a “Prominent” inmate in Buchenwald, had there married and fathered a daughter, Sissy; Pastor Martin Niemoeller, the obstreperous pastor from Dahlem, the leader of the anti-Hitler Barmen “Confessional Church;” Konrad Adenauer, the post-World War I Rheinland “Separatist,” Oberburgemeister of Koln, Kurt Schumacher, a lifelong SPD socialist who with a severe case of diabetes had survived German imprisonment; Willi Frahm, alias Brandt (“Weinbrandt Willie,” a term resulting from his personal habits), the journalist, who had fled to Sweden to continue his socialist, anti-German activities and there had been “discovered” by the United States as a German of possible use to the American occupation of Germany (Foreign Relaions, 1944, Vol. I., pp. 552-553), etc. To expand the list to almost any length desired, one need only peruse the membership of the Parlementarischer Rat, the composition of the later Bundestag along with lists of those Germans involved in the United Nations occupation governments, courts, etc.

Literally thousands of nati-NSDAP Germans had been allowed to depart Germany in peace with their belongings to go to various proto-United Nations countries (Russia included!) where they spent the entire time fomenting war and denegrating Germany. One in particular was Dr. Robert M. W. Kempner, formerlly with the Prussian Government. Having lost his job, possibly solely as a result of his Jewishness, he came to the U.S. A. where he was welcomed by the Roosevelt Regime with open arms. He was invaluable to Robert H. Jackson in preparing the Nuernberg Tribunals to try such persons as his former chief, Hermann Goering, but he was also active in deciding the course German post-war government was to take.

Many anti-NSDAP Germans travelled to Russia where they pursued similar activities against Germany. After the war, it was these Moscow “Germans” who formed the nucleus of the German Government in the Russian zone created from Middle Germany.

Another interesting “refugee” was Gerhardt Eisler who spent at least some of his time in the U.S. (via Cuba), but upon discovery after the war that he was indulging in communist activity, he was arrested for trial. While awaiting trial, he “jumped bail” using the Polish ship “Batory” and returned to the Russian zone of Germany where he was installed as a member of the Russian puppet regime. Eisler’s brother Hans, stayed in this country as a composer as a result of numerous testimonials about his high character etc. by such liberal composers as Aron Copeland and other liberal notables.

The West German occupation authorities had already redivided their zone of occupation into “Laender” or states most likely as a result of a much earlier U.S. decision to establish eventually a federal system of Government for Germany at some future date. It may be compared, I suppose, with God creating Man in his own image. At any rate, those who would now work on a new form of government and a new government for Germany had already been shown the direction in which they should go.

For this work, the Military Governors of the occupation established the Parlamentarischer Rat in 1948.In this, the Governors were assisted by the German Minister-Presidents of the 11 “Laender” into which West Germany had already been divided. It was comprised of 65 representatives who were members of the political parties allowed and not forbidden operation in the western zone by the occupation authorities. These were the Socialists (SPD) [27 delegates], CDU/CSU [27 delegates], Liberal-Demokraten (FDP) [5 delegates], Deutsche Partei [2 delegates], des Zentrums [2 delegates], and Communists (KPD) [2 delegates]. Another 5 delegates were awarded to Berlin, making a grand total of 70 delegates in the Parlamentarischer Rat. The chairman of the CDU, Dr. Konrad Adenauer, was chosen as chairman for the entire council. Although some difficulty was experienced with some occupation authorities, it was soonobvious that Dr. Adenauer was the “coming man” in the new West Germany.

It was this council of highly controlled, highly selected delegates from which a large percentage of the entire German People were arbitrarily barred from taking any part whatsosever and a number of american “experts” sent specifically to German to supervise these proceedings which resulted in the present German “Grundgesetz,” the Basic Law or

“Constitution” of the existing Bundes Republik Deutschlands which could be amended only with the will of the occupation authorities. Of the American observer-supervisors, Judge Simon Rifkind of N. Y. is reported to have played an essential, if not a leading part in the actual form and wording of the document.

When one looks closely at the Bonn Regime, there is very little, indeed, which recommends it as being German except for the fact that German is spoken in its deliberations. For the most part, these “deliberations” are a foregone conclusion when considered in light of the desires of the “former” occupation powers controlled by the United States. At no time has the “German” Bonn Bundestag made any decision which was favorable to Germany if in any way it could be conceived of as being evenly remotely harmful to the United States, its policies or Israel. When finally an investigation was undertaken by the “Bundestag” into the abuses of Germans by Czechs, Poles, etc. at the end of the war, a belated effort finally forced upon the “Bundestag” by the fear of defeat in a comming election, at the behest of socialist (SPD) “Weinbrandt Willy” Frahm (Brandt), the investigation was sealed and kept from the public. Frahm was also the driving force in “recognizing” for all Germany the Oder-Neisse Line as the legal boundary between Poland an Germany, abandoning Germany’s traditional bread basket in Polish hands.

Frahm’s rival for the affection of the United States, Bundeskanzler Helmut Kohl (CDU) is no less hostile to German interests. Besides supporting the above policies of Frahm and obligating Germany to provide food for Poland (!), his influence was fully behind the “humanitarian” decision that the expulsion of the Germans from the Sudetenland and other parts of Czechoslovakia in 1945 was justified and must be accepted by Germany. This decision by Edouard Benes, supported by Russia, the U.S. and their United Nations hangers-on was one of the most monsterous decisions and acts carried out by nations claiming to be “civilized” at any time in history. Taking their cue from Benes, the Poles also decided to expell the Germans from the territory which they occupied for centuries. In the process, both slavic peoples committed atrocities against their former neighbors never before seen in the modern or perhaps any period. Among those Germans who lived to tell about the event, many, if not most, maintain the Czechs were the most treacherous, brutal and viscious. This would be in keeping with the experiences of German soldiers in the trenches with Czech soldiers during World War I.

*** SEE MORGENTHAU BOOK II

XXX. WHAT HAS REMAINED OF THE ORIGINAL ROOSEVELT-MORGENTHAU PLAN?

In early September of 1944, after the initial Normandy invasion on June 6, 1944, the overpowered Wehrmacht had been driven steadily from the invasion beaches and were approaching the (1939) western boundary of Germany. On Oct. 20, 1044, Aachen, the capital of Karl the Great (Charlemagne), fell to the troops of the U.S. On Oct. 19, it was announced that U.S. Army rule of Germany would end Naziism with a “stern” but “just” code which they would enforce. (“Army Rule in Reich to End Nazism; Stern but Just Code to be Enforced,” NYT., Oct.19, 1944, p. 1).

The use of the slang term, “Nazi,” had long since,, lost its purely political conotation and had been used by the United nations even before the war as a word summerizing all that which they despised in and about Germany. It was used interchangeably in the U.S. press and in official governmental circles to mean “militarists,” “barbarians,” Germans, those accused of collaborating with the Germans, those even remotely suspected of being sympathetic to Germans or Germany, etc. The accusation of “Nazi,” supported by evidence or not was sufficent to destroy a person’s reputation or position in this country and could easily lead to bodily harm and loss of property. It was a term encompassing even more than word “Hun” which was used so widely and effectively against the Germans or suspected German sympathizers in World War I. There was no doubt in anyone’s mind, German side or United Nations side, that the victors intended to destroy any “German” (“Central European”) trait or custom which they found offensive to them in any way, shape or form. Aachen, the first German city captured by the United Nations troops in the west would be the first city of the nation which would be “reconstructed” in a manner satisfactory to the victors.

This “reconstruction” began with a series of edicts which were pronounced by the victorius military powers even before the end of hostilities. One of these was the following which was posted over the areas occupied by the victors. As all other victorius, occupying powers, they claimed the right to act in any manner to achieve their purpose by right of conquest and the right to enforce their edicts by their own courts martial in which the penalty of death might be exacted for lack of compliance.

MILITAERREGIERUNG — DEUTSCHLAND

KONTROLLGEBIET DES OBERSTEN BEFEHLHABERS

PROKLAMATION NR. I

AN DAS DEUTSCHE VOLK:

Ich, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Oberster Befehlshaber der Alliierten Streitkraefte gebe hiermit Folgendes bekannt:

I

Die Allierten Streitkraefte, die unter meinem Oberbefehl stehen, haben jetzt deutschen Boden betreten. Wir kommen als ein siegreiches Heer; jedoch nicht als Unterdruecker, in dem deutschen Gebiet, das von Streitkraeften unter meinem Oberbefehl besetzt ist, werden wir den Nationalsozialismus und den deutschen Militarismus vernichten, die Herrschaft der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiter Partei beseitigen, die NSDAP auf loesen sowie die grausamen, harten und ungerechten Rechsaetze und Einrichtungen, die von der NSDAP geschaffen worden sind, aufheben. Den deutschen Militarismus, der so oft den Frieden der Welt gestoert hat, werden wir entgueltig besitigen. Fueher der Wehrmacht und der NSDAP, Mitglieder der Geheimen Staats-Polizei und andere Personen, die verdaechtigt sind, Verbrechen und Grausamkeiten begangen zu haben, werden gerichtlich angeklagt und, falls fuer schuldig befunden, ihrer grechten Bestrafung zugefuehrt.

II

Die hoechste gesetzgebende, rechtssprechende und vollzeihende Machtbefugnis und Gewalt in dem besetzten Gebiet ist in miener Person als Oberster Befehlshaber der Alliierten Streitkrafte und als Militaer-Governeur vereinigt. Die Militaerregierung ist eingesetzt, um diese Gewalten unter meinem Befehl auszuueben. Alle Personen in dem besetzten Gebiet haben unverzueglich und wiederspruchslos alle Befehle und Veroeffentlichungen der Militaerregierung zu befolgen. Gerichte der Militaerregierung werden eingesetzt, um Rechtsbrecher zu verurteilen. Widerstand gegen die Allierten Streitkraefte wird unnachsichlich gebrochen. Andere schwere strafbare Handlungen werden schaerfstens geahndet.

III

Alle deutschen Gerichte, Unterrichts-und Erziehungsanstalten innerhalb des besetzten Gebietes werden bis auf Weiteres geschlossen. Dem Volksgerichtshof, den Sondergerichten, den SS Politzei-Gerichten und anderen ausserordentlichen Gerichten wird ueberall in besetzten Gebiet die Gerichtsbarkeit entzogen. Die Wiederaufnahme der Taetigkeit der Straf-und Zivilgerichte und die Wiedereroeffung der Unterrichts- und Erzeihungsanstalten wird genehmigt, sobald die Zustaende es zulassen.

IV

Alle Beamte sind verpflichtet, bis auf Weiteres auf ihren Posten zu verbeliben und alle Befehle und Anordnungen der Militaerregierung oder Alliierten Behoerden, die an die deutsche Regierung oder an das deutsche Volk gerichtet sind, zu befolgen und auszufuehren. Die gilt auch fuer die Beamten, Arbeiter und Angestellten saemtlicher oeffentliches und gemeinwirtschaftliches Betriebe, sowie fuer sonstige Personen, die notwendige Tatigkeitsn verrichten.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

General

Oberster Befehlshaber

Allierte Streitkraefte

(The above proclamation is undated. A similar “Order 1” issued by Kuschtschow in Berlin [Appendix] is dated April 28, 1945.)

It was with just such edicts and the flood of edicts to follow that the victors planned to erase every vestige of German life prior to the war and “reconstruct” the “new” Germany to their own liking. This was not a new idea. A look at some of the germano-phoebic New York Times headlines characteristic of those issued at this time supports this.

“Scientists Outline Plan for Germany,” April 27, 1945, p. 8.

“German Schools Wholly Nazified — Necessary to Reeducate People,” April 11, 1945, p. 10.

“Germanic Library Set Up At Columbia [University] [3 Year] Project seeks to Warn the U.S. Against Letting Foe Prepare for Third War,” Feb. 25, 1945, p. 9.

“U.S. Plans Engulf Everyone in Reich -Fraternization Barred,” Feb. 18, 1945, p. 18.

“Allies Ignore Needs of Germans — Will Require Them to Share Food and Clothing With Victims,” Feb. 17, 1945, p. 12.

“Germany to Shrink Under Allied Plan — East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia and Left Bank — 10,000,000 to be shifted,” Aug. 14, 1944, p. 6.

[“U.S. State Department] Will Help Rebuild Schools of Europe — Books ready in England,” June 8, 1944, p. 6.

From the above headlines, it is obvious that the post-war plans for Germany had, even before the bitterest part of the war, the last 2-3 years, assumed gigantic porportions in the minds of Germany’s foes. These plans had been long in preparation and were not only gigantic in scope but draconian in character. There was no indication that the occupation of Germany would ever end, and all which the victors alleged they would be doing in this case would be “righting” injustices allegedly committed by Germany before and during the ocurse of the war and preventing a third world war.

No one should have been surprised at the final demands the United Nations made of Germany. They had been in preparation in the minds of Germany’s enemies officially at least as far back as the Chicago “Quarantine” speech made by Roosevelt on October 5, 1937. During the preparation of the United States case against Germany at the Nuernberg Tribunals, one gets the idea that Hitler’s becoming Chancellor on January 30, 1933 in a perfectly legal manner gave the “democracies” cause to begin preparations for action against Germany. But behind all this was the festering hatred of large segments of the U.S. population that “We failed in 1919 — Shall We Fail Again?” (NYT, July 2, 1944, p. Mag. 14)

There is no document which represents all the postwar objectives of the United Nations in their occuupation of conquered Germany. This is the result of a situation in which the victors could never agreed at one time as to what these objectives would be. Even so far as the individual victors were concerned, the individual nations, excepting Russia, were far from unanimous in what they wanted. Members of the U.S. Senate in early 1944 were still demanding to know Roosevelt’s “peace plans” and attacking his stipulation of “Unconditional Surrender”for Germany and Japan.(Taft and Wheeler) What resulted was an open ended agreement or program which consisted of a number of agreements which had grown progressively harsher as the war progressed.

Although vague and clouded with equivocation and uncertainty at the beginning of the war, many of these demands became more and more specific and draconian as the end of the war approched and Germany steadily lost its ability to reply in kind to the United Nations acts. The postwar plan(s) for Germany therefore was (were) an envelop of the United Nations agreements and demands, mostly from Casablanca onward, including but by no means limited to the provisions of the Yalta (“Crimean”) Agreement, the Potsdam (“Berlin”) Agreement, J.C.S. 1067/6-7, J.C.S. 1779. Other parts of the plan were made known in the form of edicts issued by the Military Governors. The power and jurisdiction of the occupation forces could be expanded into any area as the Military Government might wish.

The reason given at the time and supported to this day by those who still support the horrendous plan, was that it and all subsequent plans and measures were no more than an essential “Program to Prevent Germany from Starting a World War III.” (Morgenthau, Germany Is Our Problem, Harper & Brothers, N. Y., 1945, Frontispiece). The utter falseness of the concept must, upon consideration, be percieved seen by even the most obtuse believer in the promises of the Roosevelt and the succeeding “New Deal” regimes.

There have been few periods as unsettled and as bloody as the one following World War II. Acording to a UNICEF report published (Mexico City) in February, 1991, 60,000,000 children (alone!) have perished in 150 wars since the end of World War II. Besides the open bloodshed of such localized conflicts as Korea and Vietnam, there have been other unending guerrilla wars in which no quarter was ask nor given. The disruption caused by the World WAr II policies of boundary changes, changes in colonial status, etc. have taken a toll of life much greater than World War II itself, and that was considered the bloodiest war ever. With the supremacy of the United States and Russia as atomic powers, the world has lived in dread of a confrontation between them for half a century. Now, fifty years later, with Russia’s demise as a first-rate power, the world quakes and wonders what will be their ultimate lot under uncontested United States bombing supremacy.

The period I have just described which resulted almost wholly from alleged efforts to avoid World War III, sound uncomfortably like exactly what was predicted to happen if the United States did not enter World War II (then it was in some minds only “The European War”) and destroy Germany, whom they recognized as the great, evil power which was responsible for all wars. Curiously, both predictions were made by the same brain pool. One is prompted to conjecture that both predictions had one and the same ultimate purpose, namely to destroy permanently the Central European Power unit, possibly to the aggrandizement of those who initiated the destructive policy.

The tendency of the world-wide supporters of the “New Deal” to creat a “New” (“Rooseveltian”) variety of international morality, international law and just about every other thing else at the expense of the existing order can be seen in the apparently Anglo-American plot to kidnap Hitler and place him on “trial” for “war crimes.” (“Kidnap Hitler,” Dr. Samuel Harden Church [Carnegie Inst.], New York Times, June 1, 1940, p. 1 & June 2, 1940, p. 28). This was proclaimed to be an entirely private undertaken, but in light of later official acts and statements, one is inclined to doubt this.

When one considers what were the alleged various “plans” of the Roosevelt-Morgenthau Regime as regards the future of Germany one is struck first by the fact that they all are really quite similar in that they all advocate or imply the accomplishment of certain aims in Central Europe (Germany-Austria) by the United Nations. Much of that which is contained therein was the objective of the men of vengeance at Versailles after World War I. These general objectives, although expressed in slightly different phrases, is also expressed in the wording of the very first unofficial plan produced by Theodore Kaufmann and all of the “official” plans in which this Government knowingly and actively participated at later dates. In fact, the plan proposed by Kaufman so paralleled the prewar diplomacy, acts, and policies of the Roosevelt Regime that it was considered by the German Regime to have been written by Roosevelt (and Morgenthau)! One can well imagine that this early (1941) booklet, as bragged on its coversheet “struck fear and terror into the hearts and souls of the Nazis.” It was at this point that many first realized, after perusing the “Potocki Papers,” that Germany had been lured into initiating a punitaive war against Poland which would end only with its own complete destruction by its unforgiving traditional enemies.

Secondly, of the “official” plans for post-war, “Remnant” Germany, and as mentioned earlier, one is struck by the progressive, sequential nature of the restrictions and demands placed upon the conquered nation. These plans were placed into effect by the occupation armies as their desired achievements in certain specified areas were accomplished. After such accomplishments, it was often announced that this or that plan or edict had been superceded by a new plan or edict which is indeed the case, but none of the harsh measures which had made the foregoing plans so horrendous were ever recinded or even denounced even though according to official pronouncement, it was no longer a goal to be sought by the occupation. Obviously once “war criminals” were “tried” convicted, and executed, they could not be recalled to life and/or reinstated or testify in the “trials” called to convict other German victims of United Nations justice. Nor was there any reason to institute a “trial” at all if the target of the occupation had previously been sumarily executed theman sought. In this manner, the United Nations occupation consisting of the “Three Great Powers (and the Provisional Government of France)” would seek to achieve their long-standing, lasting, nefarious ends in “Remnant” Germany and at the same time protest that their occupation was becoming progressively more mild and generous in Germany as the strangling nation was having the last vestiges of anything remotely German squeezed from it — to be replaced by a culture stipulated by the victors.

I

The success of the envelope of Roosevelt-Morgenthau “plans” for Germany were predicated upon, as Roosevelt unilaterally demanded at the Press Conference after the Casablanca Conference, Germany’s “Unconditional Surrender.” This implied, of course, the final destruction of the destruction of the power of the German Wehrmacht to resist, the destruction of the power of German industry to supply the Wehrmacht with the essentials of war and the absolute destruction of any remnant of influence of a pre-surrender German Government upon the occupation government which would be decreed for Remnant Germany by the victors. It must be obvious that no national state would surrender its right to exist and place its future in the hands of those bent upon its complete destruction unless it was thus rendered encapable of further resistance. It was for this reason primarily that the Wehrmacht fought like demons to keep the hate-crazed invaders from its traditional territory. Only when it became obvious that the (U.S.) invader would succeed in killing more German civilians as refugees from the invading Russians than German soldiers on the western front was the German High Command compelled by consideration for the larger portion of its citizens to submit to “Unconditional Surrender.” Actually, had the war continued much longer the war supplies of the Wehrmacht, already very short, would have run out leaving them helpless to resist the onslaught of the United Nations forces.

II

After the total destruction and surrender of Germany, the entire country was to be isolated by a ring of United Nations steel. No one was to be allowed to enter or leave without the sanction of the United Nations occupation. No information was allowed to enter or leave the country without the consent of these same occupation authorities. A great measure of the success of the occupation depended upon the efficiency and effectiveness of these post-war moves. The objectives of such moves are numerous, but most important were to cause the German population itself to recoil in horror as a result of the uncontested skatological propaganda charges which would be brought by the occupation authorities. Offers by Gross Admiral Doenitz to investigate these charges were ignored, since his Government, the last de jure German Government, was already scheduled for extinction by the occupation powers.

The charges of “war crimes” would be used to separate Germany from the few neutrals who had remained neutrals in fact until the very end of the war. Many of those who classified themselves as neutrals had long since submitted to coercive threats of sanctions etc. unless they became in effect clandestine allies of the United Nations. (An example of this was Sweden which sent a V-2 rocket which had crashed in its territory to Britain) Almost all “neutrals” had become hotbeds of agents for the waring nations with the financially-better-off United Nations holding the upper hand through threats of sanctions, etc. or outright bribes.

It is this facet of the “war crimes” charges which must be investigated still further, since it indicates beyond doubt that the Zionists are hardly the only ones who benefitted mightily from the dessimination of these horrendous tales. The subsequent belief of the Germans and the entire world in these wartime fabrications was essential to the future position which many leaders of the United States forsaw and for generations had coveted for themselves. In this, then, the United States regime of Roosevelt-Morgenthau and its successors, “Democratic” and “Republican,” must bear the primary guilt for the origination and proliferation (“Report of Refugee Board”) of these self-serving horror machinations. The Zionists, Jews and supporting Gentiles, in a position to benefit most directly from these slanders acted merely as their most constant supporters and defenders.

This was a politicallly symbotic relationship extremely beneficial to both groups. The Zionists were able to finally obtain Palestine as their national homeland for the Jews with continuing, dependable foreign financial support from the United States and from Germany in the form of “restitution” (Wiedergutmachung”), and the United States international liberals were able with Zionist support to embark upon an international experiment in which they would dominate world politics for an indefinate period inspite of the tremendous cost to American taxpayers. The key to this unchallenged international success has been that both are completely dedicated to the continued blind belief in the Holocaust Dogma as a means of damning Germany for all time and forcing it into a posture of international survitude to the benefit of those who defeated it in a highly one-sided war. The charges inherent in the Holocuast Dogma as stated by the victors gave them an eternal moral obligation to do this and for these moral reasons they claimed themselves obligated to this course of action to avoid a third World War and for the benefit of their progeny.

This political religion, they both may be expected to defend together until death for it has been their most successful (as well as their most wicked) joint propaganda accomplishment. They not only convinced their enemies but also converted themselves. For half a century it has been used to justify the gross beastiality of the victors of World War II toward the vanquished and has served to deter the investigation into the real causes for the devastating world war itself and who started it. This has been so even though it must now be recognized that the interfering hand of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his liberal internationalist “New Deal” regime is known to have been involved in every international action since his first term of office. With the information of the “Pitocki Papers” and that from the cypher clerk Tyler Kent, it is certain that the intrigue which got the war going in Europe, a war in which Roosevelt finally attained the “world leadership” pole he had long desired for the United States, he and his symbiotic supporters were as much involved and were as much responsible as he and his supporters were for the manuevers which resulted in the Pearl Harbor attack.

From the close cooperation between pre-war Poland and this country, it seems highly likely that Roosevelt is responsible for encouraging the flight of Polish troops into Timoshenkso’s captivity where they were subsequently massacred at Katyn and other locations. No one can doubt that at the time he was as interested in rescuing Polish troops from German capture as he later was in keeping the French fleet out of German hands.

As for the generation of U.S. “liberal,” “New Deal” politicians who perpetrated this plague of “holocaust” lies against Germany, they are now almost all safely dead and buried in “heroes’“ graves, under a loving blanket of reverence, honored almost daily by a later generation as hallowed “superstatesmen,” “men with foresight,” “patriots” and all the other window dressing available to the news media to remold scoundrels of their liking into what they in life never were. Those who committed this damnable atrocity against mankind are thus dead, beyond personal reproach and just punishment, but their beneficiaries, political heirs, and converts still wallow daily in the bloody filth which was bequethed to them and which they willingly still use as signs of their qualitications for high office and regularly still use for their own personal political gain.

To think that these “me too” men, now exercising the sweet fruit of earlier “liberal”/”New Deal” victories would admit lies or even imperfections on the part of those to whom they owe so much politically and for their personal gain is absolute foolishness. They will do as they have thus far done — everything to maintain the old myths and lies of their political progenitors so that they may retain their present positions of respect, wealth and power. There will be no admission on the part of the U.S. Government under any circumstances that the “Holocaust” tales were lies from the beginning perpetrated by Roosevelt from the very top downward, as the British Parliament admitted the inaccuracies of the infamous Bryce Report. Such an admission would effectively bar “liberal”/”New Dealers” from positions of trust and respect in Government for all time. They might even be hunted down by irate citizens who for once might consider the condition into which the country was stampeded beginning in 1933.

It can be seen, therefore, that the entire bureaucratic system which has been in power since 1932 depends heavily upon continued belief in the “Holocaust” myths and trust in the honesty and integrety of the regime which created it. Of the numerous groups which have supported it without question from the beginning, the Zionists, including Jews and Gentiles, have been most visable and perhaps most active.

ALLIED CONTROL COUNCIL LAWS, ETC.

As said above, the objective of all these initial orders, was to place every aspect of German life for the present and future securely in the hands of the occupation governments. To this end, the population was deprived of any of its governmental rights. All means of obtaining information were placed securely in the hands of the victors to use when and as they saw fit, resulting in a situation in which the population and individuals accused of “crimes” were never in a position to answer publically the charges brought against them in the press controlled by the victors. The same was true of the radio, movies, churches and schools when they again were allowed to become active. All were dependent upon the benevolence of the victors and were beholden to them for their further operation. It was the most intensive use of propaganda with the objective of “brainwashing” in modern history.

German thought in the future was taken care of by the complete United Nations control of the schools, churches, printing establishments, and news media. As said above, they were opened only when the victors considered they were “ready,” and they were “ready” only when they had been sufficiently “denazified.” This meant only when, in their opinion, every vestige of “nazism” had been destroyed, and that was a euphemism indicating that they believed every trace of information which might be deleterious to them in the future had been eliminated by a process they chose to call “denazification.” To this end, the United States prior to its capture of Aachen already had printed new “school books” with, we may be assured, the wholehearted help of Columbia University and its School of Education, influenced greatly by that undying germanophobe and liberal educator, Dr. John Dewey, who has done so much to make the United States educational system what it has become today.

Later, “American schools” utilizing even more of John Dewey’s teachings were established in Germany which, according to the american-liscensed papers were invariably superior to those which had been reestablished by the Americans after the war. Many German parents strove to get their children into such schools.

German teachers in the revised educationan institutions who were considered to have been members of the Party who could not be “retrained” (“brainwashed”) were dismissed from the top to the bottom of the German educational system. Although “German” officials did the discharging, it was done as a result of “guidelines” etc. published by the victors. Political and social orientation was now the guiding factor in the “new” German eductional guidelines not knowledge of one’s discipline. In the United States this educational fault has become obvious from the number of high school and even college graduates who can neither read nor write and have no knowledge of history, geography nor mathematics. Quite often, their appreciation of the arts is no more than a catechismic response to anything billed by the liberal brotherhood as an artistic masterpiece.

So long as the churches said nothing which might remotely be interpreted as a defense of the former German regime, they might say anything they wished in the name of “freedom of religion.” In the few known instances in which even a veiled reference was made to the Third Reich which would indicate that it might have had some virtue, the cleric was slapped down in no uncertain terms with the implication that it had better not happen again.

To further subdue the German populace and deprive them of what might have been their last hope of solace, and comfort for their losses of loved ones, their homes, their pseesssions, etc., the Lutheran Church was restructured under the careful aid of such men as (German, anti-NSDAP) Martin Niemoeller, (German, anti NSDAP), (German, anti- NSDAP) Theophil Wurm, (German, anti-NSDAP) Friedrich Karl Otto Dibelius, (Swiss, anti-NSDAP) Karl Barth, the latter often draped in an American uniform, and (Dutch) W. A. Visset’t Hooft, they conspired to introduce into the “new” Lutheranism the concept of collective German guilt. This they did with the Stuttgart Declaration or “Confession” (October 19, 1945). At this meeting, eleven anti-NSDAP clerics affixed their signatures to a paper written by Dibelius and Niemoeller in which they declared the collective guilt of all of Germany for the crimes alleged by the victors in the conflagration. Actually, these eleven clerics had, for the most part, also been the prime movers in the “Barmen Confession” of 1934 establishing the “Confessional Church” which had openly opposed the NSDAP from its inception — even in time of war. (Lang, R. Clarence, “Imposed German Guilt: The Stuttgart Declaration of 1945,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. VIII, pp. 55-78(1988).

The Stuttgart “Confession,” was closely watched and scrutinized and supported by clerics of the victor nations as the “Barmen Confession” in 1934 had been scrutinized and supported by the same groups at that time. The feeling was wide spread that American financial and other aid depended heavily upon the tendency of the “sinners” to admit their offenses to God and the “Community of Nations” before being accepted as repentants sorely in need of rehabilitation. Such “purification” was also known to be the prerequisite to obtaining U.S. financial aid for both Germany and the “purged’ Lutheran Church.

So far as those who supported the institution of the Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plan in Germany were concerned, the Stuttgart “Confession” was all they needed to insist with renewed vigor that such a sinful dissolute nation must, besides making fitting restitution to its victims, do long and hard pentence before it would be sufficiently purged to again become acceptable into the “Community of Nations.”

With the capture of the German Lutheran Church by those beholden to the occupying powers, the people of the former great nation had lost their last hope of resisting in any manner, the heinous charges leveled against them continually by their enemies. The Roman Catholic Church faired no better, since, after the death of Pius XII, it was controlled by persons in Rome also beholden to the conquerers of Germany. There being no alternative to the doctrine of collective German guilt, dinned daily into the heads of the defeated by the victors’ numerous acolytes, the natural German reluctance to believe the worst about their fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers was deftly circumvented. It was easier to at least profess belief in the alleged sins of Germany and its Government than it was to attempt to combat the insurmountable mass of daily propaganda which could be loosed apparently at a moment’s notice in support of the victors’ allegations. In addition, protests of Germany’s innocence were, as a result of agreements made by Adenauer in Luxemberg and by laws later passed later by the Bonn Government, doubtless at the behest of the occupation government, could be punishable by both fines and jail sentences. The flood of German blood which had been released and the jail sentences pronounced at the post war “war crimes” trials by the victors and the collaborating German “democrats” left no doubt in any minds as to the serious intent of the Bonn Government to stamp out any open doubts as to the truth of the wartime accusations.

III

Thus, having been converted into an agonizing, hopeless mass of helpless humanity, isolated from any help or sympathy from outside the country and subject to a mean, merciless tyranny within the country, the once proud and powerful German Nation could finally be handled as its victors had desired, if not planned for, for over a generation. Millions of Germans were deprived by the victors of their traditional homelands in adjacent nations, many of which had been created already under highly criticized circumstances at the end of World War I. These unfortunates were forced to flee through a gauntlet of enraged slavs. They had been forced to leave their belongings in what was left of their dwellings and could carry with them little more than the clothing on their backs, an act of barbarity without equal in modern times. All who survived this torturing journey, under constant attack from maurauding slavs, were to be crammed into what had been the western two-thirds of what had constituted their country prior to 1939, a territory itself which resulted from the punitive efforts of those dedicated to Germany’s destruction in 1918. These survivors would then be dependent upon the hard-pressed occupation government for food, clothing, and dwelling.

The Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plan and its successors were conceived, devised, and supported by wrathful men with a life-long hatred for German Central Europe. This hatred of Germans and of Germany by the proto-UN powers predated the Assumption of Power by the National Socialists in 1933. The original “Plan” was prepared with the objective of completing the destruction of Germany-Austria which was begun in 1914, was attempted unsuccessfully at Versailles, failed again in the mercantile war from 1920-1939, and was to be given a final try in 1945. The original Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plan and its successors, each prepared in the spirit of its ignoble predecessor was the most barbaric plan yet devised by a group of nations claiming to be “civilized” and/or “christian” in which the objective was to “gang up” on a nation with vastly fewer resources than themselves, reduce it to rubble and then proceed, with the deafening din of self-proclaimed morality, to pare down the borders of the defenseless, defeated nation and then through calculated bestiality and to proceed methodically to pare down the population of the defeated nation so as to assure its future insignificance as a competitor and certainly not as a future adversary. Churchill’s observation that he’d rather be handcuffed to a dead German is about the most humane statement made by anyone in authority about the entire affair.

Already in 1918, Germany, a nation of 208,830 sq. miles had already been forced to give up 27,116 sq. miles of any territory even remotely conceived, by the victors, as being non-German — primarily to Poland and as a result of League of Nations “plebiscites” many now openly known and admitted to have been falsified. Now, Germany, a nation of 181,714 sq. miles, would be required to yield yet another 45,380 sq. miles (1.67 times the 1918 loss!) to Poland “in recompense” for its overzealous attempt in 1918 to gobble up large portions of the Russian Ukraine and reestablish its dominion by force of arms over the mass of territory and non-Polish peoples it had originally obtained by conquest and dominated up until 1772.* The remnant of the German population which had inhabited post-World War I Germany’s 181,714 sq. miles of territory would now be squeezed into the 136,334 sq. miles of the remnant of Germany to be reduced in number as the victors would decide by methodical starvation, sickness resulting from malnutrition and neglect, purposely separating Germans of child-bearing age for long post-war periods to prevent child birth, deportation of Germans from Germany, and whatever other methods they might find effective.

* It was in retaliation for the first partition of Poland, in which the final territorial acquisitions of Poland by conquests were taken away by Austria, Russia and Prussia, that Louis XV of France, feeling aggrieved that the eastern powers had removed the pro-French Stanislaus, his father-in-law, from the Polish throne and had replaced him with Augustus III (of Saxony) who was favorable to the German powers, “avenged” himself by taking the Austrian province of Lorraine and annexing it to France.

We have seen above that the modifications to the original Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plan as they were applied to the occupied remnant of Germany were, in fact, a series of steps in which parts of the original plan which had been accomplished to the extent believed possible were dropped and those not yet accomplished were retained. It is interesting to note, however, that at each such pause before the next phase of the Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plan was to be put into effect, there were solemn statements that the “Morgenthau” Plan had ceased to exist. In the period in which the U.S. Army maintained rigid controls over who entered and exited Germany and censored all communications entering and exiting the country, this was really no major accomplishment. Such censorship was the rule rather than the exception and resulted in the Telford Taylor-Hal Foust flap. In spite of the supposed camaradary between the two, United States journalists just didn’t take kindly to having their dispatches to their papers censored regularly by U.S. Army Generals. (NYT, “Prosecutor [Telford Taylor] Scores War-Crimes Judge,” Feb. 23, 1948, p. 5; Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, pp. 26-27).

In supporting such a monsterous plan, those who led this nation and whose “Battle Hymn” from 1862 onward fervently preached “let us die to make men free”* themselves created ten million “Evangelines” whose stories would never be heard because these horrendous true stories would instead be effectively stiffled by the strict censorship the perpetrators would impose as occupiers in Germany and the cooperation they could command in this Country from the co-conspirative news dissemination media which they, in fact, controlled as effectively as if it had been a government agency legally under their control. If a time ever existed when an entire, tortured nation was justified in raising its eyes collectively to the heavens and asking in horror and wonderment, “Where is God?” as had Odoacer at his treacherous murder by his fellow Christian, Theodoric, this had to have been it! Even the belated investigations of the post-war treatment of Germans during this merciless period, untertaken in Germany to discover some of these atrocious happenings while those who had experienced them still lived, were obediently “buried” by SPD Chancellor “Weinbrand” Willy Frahm upon request (“demand”) by the occupying powers of Germany.

* As might be expected, in practice this extrapolated to, in the words of General George S. Patton, to “letting some other poor son-of-a-bitch die for his country!” The losses suffered by the U.S. of slightly over 400,000 total dead (291,557 deaths in battle), although admittedly many too many for anything which was accomplished of lasting value, was a severe blow to the country. But by comparison to the losses of men of both Russia and Germany the U.S. loss was disporportunately small!

The Morgenthau Plan which was the “father” and New Deal “holy spirit” of the succeeding plans was likely the most heinous, inhuman document conceived and prepared in history. I can think of no other example whereby the population of an entire nation was condemned to slow death by its greatest enemies who then attempted to cover their malevolent activities with self-serving pious statements and protestations of morality that it was done in the name of humanity, justice, future peace, etc. to prevent another recurrence of war. The provisions of the Morgenthau Plan are the most inhuman ever devised and in fact put into practice as well as the most devoid of justice and completely dedicated to wrathful excesses to produce suffering purely for suffering’s sake! As for preventing another war, it has been noticeably ineffective obviously as a result of it having assumed from the beginning that Germany and “German militarism” was the only and inevitable cause of “war.” Since the series of wars which have been fought since 1945 have been a result of rivalry and attempts by members of the “Three Governments” to gain superiority over one of the others, it should be obvious to any objective person just how foolish this assumption was from the beginning. One such attempt resulted in the Cuban Crisis in which an all-out atom war was avoided, fortunately for all the nations of the world, only because Russia backed down from the open challenge by the U.S.

Most assuredly, the nations which had received bribes for their cooperation in the initiation of hostilities and in achieving the final defeat of Central Europe would not be called upon by those who had given the bribes for services rendered to return them!

Not even religion as immune to the attacks and changes of the victors. Cooperative pastors and priests were allowed to continue in service of the “new” Judeo-christian Lutheranism as enunciated by calvinists Karl Barth and W. A. Visser’t Hooft and accepted obediently by the renegade Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoeller, placed in a dominating church position by the occupation powers, in the self-flagellating Stuttgart Declaration or “Confession.” “Nazis,” Party members or not, were eliminated. Cooperative Catholic priests were also allowed to continue in office only so long as the obediently hawked the prescribed U. N. propaganda. “Nazis” were sumarily moved or removed. Even U.S. Army chaplains deemed in opposition to the U.S. objectives for devastating vanquished Germany, tolerant of a mild peace with Germany, who genuinely tried to help the Germans in their dire need were removed from the zones occupied. Strangely, some of the German pastors and priests who had found disfavor with the NSDAP, now found disfavor in the eyes of the occupation powers.

The Germans were “reeducated” by their occupiers to the degree that today (1990) in Germany, the average citizen accepts unquestitonably the U. N. accusation that Germans killed millions of Jews, although maybe not the originally allegated “6,000,000, but “even one” Jew was an eternal blot upon Germany. This does do some damage, however, to the concept that there ever was a “plan” to kill every Jew in territory occupied by Germany, but apparently causes no logical problem to those who claim to believe the “holocaust” allegations. By comparison the Americans who admittedly killed many millions of German civilians and soldiers by their bombings, as a result of the viciousness of their post-war policies, etc. never feel the least inclined to voice one word of introspective guilt at all. In this, theyare motivated by their blind belief, created by their thought manipulative functionaries that the system supported by the Germans was soooooo completely evil that any act deemed necessary and undertaken by the enemies of Germany was justified in securing that unfortunate country’s final, utter destrction. Most Americans believed the Germans whom they assumed to be unquestionably guilty of the barbaric crimes charged to them were fortunate, indeed, to have been treated so mildly by their christian enemies and victors.

Of the Germans who dared predict or guess the treatment a vanquished, helpless Germany would receive at the hands of the victors, time would show that only Adolf Hitler had, from the middle of 1939 onward, clearly seen and predicted his unfortunate country’s fate at the hands of its enemies. On this basis, he had bravely and properly chosen rather to die “with harness on his back” rather than submit meekly to U. N. vassalage and their obviously intended plans for pruning down of German territory (including Austria — 32,369 sq. miles) from 213,305 sq. miles to 175,569 sq. miles (including Austria) with an attendant plan of Germanocide intended to reduce the population of ethnic Germans in the “new” truncated Germany by several millions through planned privation, sickness, etc. after the cessation of hostilities. (The present population of Germany includes many who were brought into Germany under U. N. supervision who, although are now officially part of the present German population are not German in any sense. Consequently, the Germanocide as planned and practiced by the U. N. occupation is adroitly concealed.

The United States has always seen itself as a heroic nation in which everyone, even its enemies could continue to have respect for it and could expect fair treatment from it as a matter of course. This image which the United States sees when it looks into the mirror does not exist now if, indeed, it ever should have existed. The war changed all that for all time. As in the case of the “Reconstructed” South, it will be many generations before the stories of invasion by merciless, wrathful troops bent upon devastation, murder, and plunder are not passed on to the next generation. Worst of all will be the vengeful treatment meted out after the end of future hostilities.

And this will not be the case just in central Europe. There is an anecdote about an American in Vienna who asked a Viennese how to get to St. Stephan’s Cathedral. “Why do you ask me?” returned the Viennese, “you could find it when you wanted to bomb it!” Sadly, the same is true of much, if not most, of the destruction throughout Europe in World War II. A similar tale could have been told about Montecatini in Italy or in innumerable other places throughout Europe. Such destruction was so widespread that much of the construction necessary to rebuild the tourist trade in Europe had to be done before many of these countries could again have the income which had supported them for centuries prior to the war. Destruction of sites attractive to tourists, however, represented but a small part of the total rebuilding which was necessary. Almost all had been captured intact by the Germans. Many of these places were destroyed by the United Nations after the Germans had withdrawn from them rather than defending and by so doing destroying them.

‘ Oct. 21, 1991

XXX. WHAT HAS REMAINED OF THE ORIGINAL ROOSEVELT-MORGENTHAU PLAN?

In early September of 1944, after the initial Normandy invasion on June 6, 1944, the overpowered Wehrmacht had been driven steadily from the invasion beaches and were approaching the (1939) western boundary of Germany. On Oct. 20, 1044, Aachen, the capital of Karl the Great (Charlemagne), fell to the troops of the U.S. On Oct. 19, it was announced that U.S. Army rule of Germany would end Naziism with a “stern” but “just” code which they would enforce. (“Army Rule in Reich to End Nazism; Stern but Just Code to be Enforced,” NYT., Oct.19, 1944, p. 1).

The use of the German anti-NSDAP slang term, “Nazi,” for “National Socialist,” used by the political enemies of the NSDAP, had long since lost its original, purely political conotation and had long been used generally by the United Nations even before the war as a word summerizing all that which they despised in and about Germany. In the U.S. press, it was used interchangeably with the word German, and it was also used in official governmental circles to mean “Prussians,” “militarists,” “barbarians,” Germans, those accused of “collaborating” with the Germans, those even remotely suspected of being sympathetic to Germans or Germany, etc. In this name calling, “Nazis” could also be born and bred Americans who had never had any connection with Germany or the NSDAP but were politically opposed to the Roosevelt New Deal dogma. Some of this useage in newspapers continued into the 1990’s. American political candidates, in campaigning for office, openly accused their political opponents of being, or implied they were “Nazis.”

The accusation of “Nazi,” supported by evidence or not was often sufficient to destroy a person’s reputation or position in this country and could easily lead to bodily harm and loss of property. It was a term encompassing even more than word “Hun” which was used so widely and effectively by anti-Germans against the Germans or suspected German sympathizers in World War I. There was no doubt in anyone’s mind, German side or United Nations side, that the victors intended to destroy any “German” (“Central European”) trait or custom which they found offensive or threatening to them in any way, shape or form. Aachen, the first German city captured by the United Nations troops in the west would be the first city of the nation which would be “reconstructed” in a manner satisfactory to the victors.

This “reconstruction” began with a series of edicts which were pronounced by the victorius military powers even before the end of hostilities. One of these was the following which was posted over the areas occupied by the victors. As all other victorius, occupying powers, they claimed the right to act in any manner to achieve their purpose by right of conquest and the right to enforce their edicts by their own courts martial in which the penalty of death might be exacted for lack of compliance.

MILITAERREGIERUNG — DEUTSCHLAND

KONTROLLGEBIET DES OBERSTEN BEFEHLHABERS

PROKLAMATION NR. I

AN DAS DEUTSCHE VOLK:

Ich, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Oberster Befehlshaber der Alliierten Streitkraefte gebe hiermit Folgendes bekannt:

I

Die Allierten Streitkraefte, die unter meinem Oberbefehl stehen, haben jetzt deutschen Boden betreten. Wir kommen als ein siegreiches Heer; jedoch nicht als Unterdruecker, in dem deutschen Gebiet, das von Streitkraeften unter meinem Oberbefehl besetzt ist, werden wir den Nationalsozialismus und den deutschen Militarismus vernichten, die Herrschaft der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiter Partei beseitigen, die NSDAP auf loesen sowie die grausamen, harten und ungerechten Rechsaetze und Einrichtungen, die von der NSDAP geschaffen worden sind, aufheben. Den deutschen Militarismus, der so oft den Frieden der Welt gestoert hat, werden wir entgueltig besitigen. Fueher der Wehrmacht und der NSDAP, Mitglieder der Geheimen Staats-Polizei und andere Personen, die verdaechtigt sind, Verbrechen und Grausamkeiten begangen zu haben, werden gerichtlich angeklagt und, falls fuer schuldig befunden, ihrer grechten Bestrafung zugefuehrt.

II

Die hoechste gesetzgebende, rechtssprechende und vollzeihende Machtbefugnis und Gewalt in dem besetzten Gebiet ist in miener Person als Oberster Befehlshaber der Alliierten Streitkrafte und als Militaer-Governeur vereinigt. Die Militaerregierung ist eingesetzt, um diese Gewalten unter meinem Befehl auszuueben. Alle Personen in dem besetzten Gebiet haben unverzueglich und wiederspruchslos alle Befehle und Veroeffentlichungen der Militaerregierung zu befolgen. Gerichte der Militaerregierung werden eingesetzt, um Rechtsbrecher zu verurteilen. Widerstand gegen die Allierten Streitkraefte wird unnachsichlich gebrochen. Andere schwere strafbare Handlungen werden schaerfstens geahndet.

III

Alle deutschen Gerichte, Unterrichts-und Erziehungsanstalten innerhalb des besetzten Gebietes werden bis auf Weiteres geschlossen. Dem Volksgerichtshof, den Sondergerichten, den SS Politzei-Gerichten und anderen ausserordentlichen Gerichten wird ueberall in besetzten Gebiet die Gerichtsbarkeit entzogen. Die Wiederaufnahme der Taetigkeit der Straf-und Zivilgerichte und die Wiedereroeffung der Unterrichts- und Erzeihungsanstalten wird genehmigt, sobald die Zustaende es zulassen.

IV

Alle Beamte sind verpflichtet, bis auf Weiteres auf ihren Posten zu verbeliben und alle Befehle und Anordnungen der Militaerregierung oder Alliierten Behoerden, die an die deutsche Regierung oder an das deutsche Volk gerichtet sind, zu befolgen und auszufuehren. Die gilt auch fuer die Beamten, Arbeiter und Angestellten saemtlicher oeffentliches und gemeinwirtschaftliches Betriebe, sowie fuer sonstige Personen, die notwendige Tatigkeitsn verrichten.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

General

Oberster Befehlshaber

Allierte Streitkraefte

(The above proclamation is undated. A similar “Order 1” issued by Kuschtschow in Berlin [Appendix] is dated April 28, 1945.)

It was with just such edicts and the flood of edicts which followed that the victors planned to erase ultimately every vestige of German life which had existed prior to the war and “reconstruct” the “new” Germany into a nation of their own liking. This was not a new idea. A look at some of the violently germano-phoebic New York Times headlines, characteristic of those issued at this time, supports this.

“Scientists Outline Plan for Germany,” April 27, 1945, p. 8.

“German Schools Wholly Nazified — Necessary to Reeducate People,” April 11, 1945, p. 10.

“Germanic Library Set Up At Columbia [University] [3 Year] Project seeks to Warn the U.S. Against Letting Foe Prepare for Third War,” Feb. 25, 1945, p. 9.

“U.S. Plans Engulf Everyone in Reich -Fraternization Barred,” Feb. 18, 1945, p. 18.

“Allies Ignore Needs of Germans — Will Require Them to Share Food and Clothing With Victims,” Feb. 17, 1945, p. 12.

“Germany to Shrink Under Allied Plan — East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia and Left Bank — 10,000,000 to be shifted,” Aug. 14, 1944, p. 6.

[“U.S. State Department] Will Help Rebuild Schools of Europe — Books ready in England,” June 8, 1944, p. 6.

From the above headlines, it is obvious that the post-war plans for Germany had, even before the bitterest part of the war, the last 2-3 years, assumed gigantic porportions in the minds of Germany’s foes. These plans had been long in preparation and were not only gigantic in scope but draconian in character. There was no indication that the occupation of Germany would ever end, and all which the victors alleged they would be doing in this case would be “righting” injustices allegedly committed by Germany before and during the ocurse of the war and preventing a third world war.

No one should have been surprised at the final draconian demands the United Nations made of Germany. They had been in preparation in the minds of Germany’s enemies officially at least as far back as the Chicago “Quarantine” speech made by Roosevelt on October 5, 1937. During the preparation of the United States case against Germany at the Nuernberg Tribunals, one gets the idea that Hitler’s becoming Chancellor on January 30, 1933 in what was a perfectly legal manner gave the “democracies” cause to begin preparations for action against Germany. Later, Chautauqua-educated Robert H. Jackson, the Chief U.S. Prosecutor at Nuernberg would state that the government of Germany under Adolf Hitler (although it was based upon the Weimar Constitution and recognized by the Roosevelt regime) was an “illegal” government which had come into power “legally” (e. g. “Democratically”). But behind all this bantering about of words, however, was the festering hatred of large segments of the U.S. population. And in this, they were goaded ever onward by their opiinion forming media. “We failed in 1919 — Shall We Fail Again?” (NYT, July 2, 1944, p. Mag. 14)

There was never a document which represented all the postwar objectives of the United Nations in their occupation of conquered Germany. This was the result of a situation in which the victors could never agree at one time as to what these objectives would be. Even so far as the individual victor nations were concerned, excepting Russia, they were far from unanimous in what they wanted. Members of the U.S. Senate in early 1944 were still demanding to know Roosevelt’s “peace plans” and attacking his stipulation of “Unconditional Surrender” for Germany and Japan.(Taft and Wheeler) The “plan” which resulted was an open ended “floating” agreement or continuing program which consisted of a number of agreements which had grown progressively harsher as the war progressed.

Although vague and clouded with equivocation and uncertainty at the beginning of the war, many of these demands became more and more specific and draconian and to a degree more secret as the end of the war approched and Germany steadily lost its ability to reply and retaliate in kind to the United Nations acts. The postwar plan(s) for Germany therefore was (were) an envelop of the United Nations agreements and demands, assembled mostly from Casablanca onward, including but by no means limited to the provisions of the Yalta (“Crimean”) Agreement, the Potsdam (“Berlin”) Agreement, J.C.S. 1067/6-7, J.C.S. 1779. Other parts of the plan were made known in the form of edicts issued by the Military Governors at their pleasures. The power and jurisdiction of the occupation forces could be expanded into any area as the Military Government might wish at any time.

Germany was to learn that its conquerors had reserved the meanest, the most lasting and insidious part of their plans for the future of the post-war nation were to be revealed after a modicum of “peace” had developed afteGermany’s surrender. These plans had not been released, much less publicized by the victors — even not among their own people. As it will be seen, the plans for the final destruction of Germany as a viable, independent power in Europe was the final rendering of earth and water to the victors as a sign of its future and eternal servitude and satrapy status under the dominance of its conquerors.

The reason given at the time and supported to this day by those who still support the horrendous United Nations plan, was the self-serving argument that it and all subsequent plans and measures were no more than an essential “Program to Prevent Germany from Starting a World War III.” (Morgenthau, Germany Is Our Problem, Harper & Brothers, N. Y., 1945, Frontispiece). This general purpose prevails and is later stated in the “Yalta” Conference (“The Occupation and Control of Germany”); The Berlin (“Potsdam”) Conference; J.C.S. 1067/6; J.C.S. 1779 and in all the governmental organizations by which the victors governed defeated Germany in succeeding years. The utter falseness of the premise must, upon consideration, be apparent to even the most obtuse believer in the promises of the international Roosevelt and the succeeding “New Deal” regimes.

There have been few periods as unsettled and as bloody as the one following World War II. Acording to a UNICEF report published (Mexico City) in February, 1991, 60,000,000 children (alone!) have perished in 150 wars since the end of World War II. Besides the open bloodshed of such localized conflicts as Korea and Vietnam, there have been other unending guerrilla wars suupported by the United States and/or the USSR, in which no quarter was ask nor given by the combattants. The disruption caused by the World War II policies of boundary changes, population transferes, changes in colonial status, etc. have taken a toll of life much greater than World War II itself, and that was considered the bloodiest war ever. With the supremacy of the United States and Russia as atomic powers, the world has lived in dread of a confrontation between them for half a century. Now, fifty years later, with Russia’s demise as a first-rate power, the world quakes and wonders what will be their ultimate lot under uncontested United States bombing supremacy.

The period I have just described which resulted almost wholly from alleged efforts to avoid World War III, sound uncomfortably like exactly what was predicted to happen if the United States did not enter the “European War,” thereby initiating World War II (then it was in some minds only “The European War”) and destroy Germany, whom they recognized and identified as the single great, evil power which was responsible for all wars. Curiously, the predictions before, during and after the war were made by the same brain pool. One is prompted to conjecture that these predictions had one and the same ultimate purpose, namely to destroy permanently the Central European Power unit, possibly to the aggrandizement of those who initiated the destructive policy. At any rate, the predictions appear to have achieved the purpose for which they were disseminated.

The tendency of the world-wide supporters of the “New Deal” to creat a “New” (“Rooseveltian”) variety of international morality, international law and just about every other thing else at the expense of the existing order can be seen in the apparently Anglo-American plot to kidnap Hitler and place him on “trial” for “war crimes.” (“Kidnap Hitler,” Dr. Samuel Harden Church [Carnegie Inst.], New York Times, June 1, 1940, p. 1 & June 2, 1940, p. 28). This was proclaimed to be an entirely private undertaken, but in light of later official acts and statements, one is inclined to doubt this.

When one considers what were the alleged various “plans” of the Roosevelt-Morgenthau Regime as regards the future of Germany one is struck first by the fact that they all are really quite similar in that they all advocate or assume the necessity of accomplishing certain aims in Central Europe (Germany-Austria) by the United Nations. Much of that which is contained therein was also the objective of the men of vengeance at Versailles after World War I. These general objectives, although expressed in slightly different phrases, is also expressed in the wording of the very first popular unofficial plan produced by Theodore Kaufmann and all of the “official” plans in which this Government knowingly and actively participated at later dates. In fact, the plan proposed by Kaufman so paralleled the prewar diplomacy, acts, and policies of the Roosevelt Regime that it was considered by the German Regime to have been written by Roosevelt (and Morgenthau)! One can well imagine that this early (1941) booklet, as bragged on its coversheet “struck fear and terror into the hearts and souls of the Nazis.” It was at this point that many first realized, after perusing the “Potocki Papers,” that Germany had been lured into initiating a punitaive war against Poland which would end only with its own complete destruction by its unforgiving traditional enemies who would then seek to fill the former political place Germany had occupied in Central Europe for centuries.

Secondly, of the “official” plans for post-war, “Remnant” Germany, and as mentioned earlier, one is struck by the progressive, sequential nature of the restrictions and demands placed upon the conquered nation. These plans were placed into effect by the occupation armies as their desired achievements in certain specified areas were accomplished. After such accomplishments, it was often announced that this or that plan or edict had been superceded by a new plan or edict which is indeed the case, but none of the harsh measures which had made the foregoing plans so horrendous were ever recinded or even denounced even though according to official pronouncement, it was no longer a goal to be sought by the occupation. Obviously once “war criminals” were “tried” convicted, and executed, they could not be recalled to life and/or exhonorated, pardoned, reinstated, retried or testify in the “trials” called to convict other German victims of United Nations justice. Nor was there any reason to institute a “trial” at all if the target of the occupation had previously been sumarily executed the man sought. In this manner, the United Nations occupation consisting of the “Three Great Powers (and the Provisional Government of France)” would seek to achieve their long-standing, lasting, nefarious ends in “Remnant” Germany and at the same time protest that their occupation was becoming progressively more mild and generous in Germany as the strangling nation was having the last vestiges of anything remotely German squeezed from it — to be replaced by a culture stipulated by the victors.

I

The success of the envelope and phases of Roosevelt-Morgenthau “plans” for Germany were predicated upon, as Roosevelt unilaterally demanded at the Press Conference after the Casablanca Conference, Germany’s “Unconditional Surrender.” This implied, of course, the final destruction of the power of the German Wehrmacht to resist their carrying out of these plans, the destruction of the power of German industry to supply the Wehrmacht with the essentials of war and the absolute destruction of any remnant of influence of a pre-surrender German Government upon the occupation government which would be decreed for Remnant Germany by the victors. It must be obvious that no national state would surrender its right to exist and have its future placed into the hands of those admittedly bent upon and dedicated fully to its complete destruction unless it was thus rendered encapable of further resistance.

It was for this reason primarily that the Wehrmacht fought like demons to keep the hate-crazed invaders from its traditional territory and its people. Only when it became obvious that the (U.S.-Anglo-) invader would succeed in killing more German civilians as refugees from the invading Russians than German soldiers on the western front was the German High Command compelled by consideration for the larger portion of its citizens to submit to “Unconditional Surrender.” Actually, had the war continued much longer, the war supplies of the Wehrmacht, already very short, would have run out leaving them helpless to resist the further onslaught of the United Nations forces.

The purpose of “un-conditional surrender,” of course was to avoid any hint of German participation in the postwar peace making process, as had been the case in World War I. In this bitter war, however, the United Nations propaganda had purposely and falsely depicted Germany in such a beastly light with, an “illegal” government which had “legally come into existence (with overwhelming popular support)” so the only way to avoid any possibility of problems which might arise by invoking the principle of the “autonomy of nations,” which had been such an embarassing stumbling block for the victors in 1918, that the only German participation in the post war process until the “Three Great Powers” had accomplished their long-term ends in the occupied country, was to deny Germany and Germans any voice whatsovever beyond the actual surrender of the Wehrmacht and the other German armed forces at the Rheims/Karlshorst proceedings.

Unconditional surrender was the child and protege of Franklin D. Roosevelt (The Casablanca Conference). Of the leaders of the remaining “Three Great Powers,” Stalin favored the destruction of Germany as a means of spreading his own particular brand of “Democracy.” Churchill, caught completely unawares, as he was later at Quebec (“OCTAGON”), but completely dependent upon the favor and largess of Franklin D. Roosevelt for further support, silently acquiesed.

The demand for “unconditional surrender” was in fact the prelude to the declaration of the end of treaties of peace which were negotiated under the principles of the Geneva Convention with participation of the International Red Cross in the wartime relations between the warring nations. It was a return to the “winner take all” principle which had been used from antiquity to the Napoleonic Period. The atrocities of this era were rectified to a great extent by the Congress of Vienna as, no doubt, the atrocities of the United Nations will be rectified at a later date when the nations of Europe settle their political and economic problems without outside interference.

The Geneva Convention has been dealt such grevious wounds by the victorious United Nations that it would seem timely to convene yet another international conference, one not under the complete control of the victorious nations, preferably in neutral Switzerland, for the purpose of writing another convention which can be subscribed to by all nations. The insistence upon an “unconditional surrender” of an enemy, the mistreatment of defeated civilians and of military personal, who as “disarmed enemy forces” were deprived of their rights as prisoners-of-war under the Geneva Convention, the “perogative” to obliterate a defeated enemy government, formerly a recognized de jure government, dismember the country, and “reconstruct” it as the victors see fit must be declared an international, barbaric crime of the worst magnitude and forbidden by the civilized nations of the world. The above problems and many many more which arose during the course of the war and the following occupation will certainly never be handled by those nations who made the Geneva Convention meaningless and who control almost every action of importance carried out by the United Nations.

II

After the total military, physical and economic destruction and surrender of Germany, the entire country was to be isolated by a guard ring of United Nations steel. The isolation of their former enemy in this manner was accomplished adroitly by organizing most of the remaining unneutral nations into the “United Nations Organization,” sponsored by the victorious United Nations coalition themselves, and under the guise of establishing a necessary peace-keeping international organization. No one was to be allowed to enter or leave without the knowledge and sanction of the United Nations occupation authorities. No information was allowed to enter or leave the country without the consent of these same occupation authorities. A great measure of the success of the occupation depended upon the efficiency and effectiveness of these essential post-war moves. The objectives of such moves are numerous, but most important were to cause the German population itself to recoil in horror as a result of the uncontested skatological United Nations propaganda charges which would be loosed upon it by the occupation authorities. Offers and attempts by Gross Admiral Doenitz, the last legal chancellor of Germany under the Weimar Consitution, to investigate these charges were ignored and forbidden, since his Government, the last de jure German Government, was already scheduled for extinction by the occupation powers.

The charges of “war crimes” would be used to separate Germany from the few neutrals who had remained neutrals in fact until the very end of the war. Many of those who classified themselves as neutrals had long since submitted to coercive threats of sanctions etc. unless they became in effect clandestine, functional allies of the United Nations. (An example of this was Sweden which sent a V-2 rocket which had crashed in its territory to Britain) Almost all “neutrals” had become hotbeds of agents for the waring nations with the financially-better-off United Nations holding the upper hand through threats of sanctions, etc. or outright bribes.

It is this facet of the “war crimes” charges which must be investigated still further, since it indicates beyond doubt that the Zionists are hardly the only ones who benefitted mightily from the dessimination of these horrendous tales. The subsequent belief of the Germans and the entire world in these wartime fabrications was essential to the future position which many leaders of the United States forsaw and for generations had coveted for themselves. In this, then, the United States regime of Roosevelt-Morgenthau and its successors, “Democratic” and “Republican,” must bear the primary guilt for the origination and proliferation (“Report of The War Refugee Board”) of these self-serving horror machinations. The Zionists, Jews and like-minded, supporting Gentiles, in a position to benefit most directly from these slanders acted merely as their most constant supporters and defenders.

This was a politically symbotic relationship extremely beneficial to both groups. The Zionists were able to finally obtain Palestine as their national homeland for the Jews with continuing, dependable foreign financial support from the United States and from Germany in the form of “restitution” (Wiedergutmachung”), and the United States international liberals were able with Zionist support to embark upon an international experiment in which they would dominate world politics for an indefinate period inspite of the tremendous cost to American taxpayers. The key to this unchallenged international success has been that both are completely dedicated to the continued blind belief in the Holocaust Dogma as a means of damning Germany for all time and forcing it into a posture of international survitude to the benefit of those who defeated it in a highly one-sided war. The charges inherent in the Holocaust Dogma as stated by the victors gave them an eternal moral obligation to do this and for these moral reasons they claimed themselves obligated to this course of action to avoid a third World War and for the benefit of their progeny.

This political religion, they both may be expected to defend together until death for it has been their most successful (as well as their most wicked) joint propaganda accomplishment. They not only convinced their enemies but also converted themselves. For half a century it has been used to justify the gross beastiality of the victors of World War II toward the vanquished and has served to deter the investigation into the real causes for the devastating world war itself and who started it.

This has been so even though it must now be recognized that the interfering hand of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his liberal internationalist “New Deal” regime is known to have been involved in every international action since his first term of office. With the information of the “Potocki Papers” and that from the cypher clerk Tyler Kent, it is certain that the intrigue which got the war going in Europe, a war in which Roosevelt finally attained the “world leadership” role he had long desired for the United States, he and his symbiotic supporters were as much involved and were as much responsible as he and his supporters were for the manuevers which resulted in the Pearl Harbor attack.

From the close cooperation between pre-war Poland and this country, it seems highly likely, if not absolutelly certain, that Roosevelt is responsible for encouraging the flight of defeated Polish troops into Timoshenkso’s captivity where they were subsequently massacred on Stalin’s orders at Katyn, Karkov, Miednoje and other locations. No one can doubt that at the time he, Roosevelt, was every bit as interested in rescuing Polish troops from German capture along with their pitiful air force, for later use as a sort of foreign legion by himself and Britain, in a manner he later attempted with the French Air Force planes (many of which were made in USA), the French Army and French and British naval fleets out of German hands at all costs. (Shortly before his death, Secretary of State Cordell Hull stated that the policy of this Government toward Russia in the Finno-Russian War and Russian attack on Poland had been guided by the principle that Russia was regarded as a future ally of the United States against Germany. Doubtless the same principle was applied regarding the Katyn massacre for which Roosevelt (and Averell Harriman) always blamed the Germans and suppressed any wartime attempt to investigate the Soviet role in the atrocity.)

As for the generation of U.S. “liberal,” “New Deal” politicians who perpetrated this plague of “holocaust” lies against Germany, they are now almost all safely dead and buried in “heroes’“ graves, under a loving blanket of reverence, honored almost daily by a later generation as hallowed “superstatesmen,” “men with foresight,” “patriots” and all the other window dressing available to the news media to remold scoundrels of their liking into what they in life never were. Those who committed this damnable atrocity against mankind are thus dead, beyond personal reproach and just punishment, but their beneficiaries, political heirs, and converts still wallow daily in the bloody filth which was bequethed to them and which they willingly still use as signs of their qualitications for high office and regularly still use for their own personal political gain.

To think that these “me too” U.S. government officials, now enjoying the sweet fruit of earlier “liberal”/”New Deal” victories would admit lies or even imperfections on the part of those to whom they owe so much politically and for their personal gain is absolute foolishness. They will do as they have thus far done — everything to maintain the old myths and lies of their political progenitors so that they may retain their present positions of respect, wealth and power. There will be no admission on the part of the U.S. Government under any circumstances that the “Holocaust” tales were lies from the beginning perpetrated by Roosevelt from the very top downward, as the British Parliament admitted the inaccuracies of the infamous Bryce Report. Such an admission would effectively bar “liberal”/”New Dealers” from positions of trust and respect in Government for all time. They might even be hunted down by irate citizens who for once might consider the condition into which the country was stampeded beginning in 1933.

Curiously, some of the Bryce Committee charges against Germany were taken almost as they were in the first war and used again in World War II. Perhaps the most obvious is the “Kadaver Factory” which was completely discredited between the wars. Nevertheless, it was resurrected by a U.S. Army Intelligence Report from a Polish source in 1941. As in the case of mass murder “holocaust” charges which originally was applied to gain sympathy for the Poles by the Polish (London) Government-in-exile, its use was shortly thereafter usurped by Jewish activists such as Rabbi Stephen S. Wise and his American Jewish Congress. It was given the aura of respectability by prosecutors L. N. Smirnov and Sir Hartley Shawcross at the “Jackson” Nuernberg Trial and in postwar books by propagandists Elya Ehrenburg, William L. Shirer, and Konnilyn Feig. (Weber, Mark, “Jewish Soap,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. XI, No. 2, Summer 1919, pp. 217-227).

Cakes of smelly soap, imprinted with “RJF” were then and still are revered and beatified as having been made with “rein juedisches Fett.” The imprinted letters, “RJF” meant in reality “Reichsstelle fuer Jndustrialle Fettversorgung.” The fantastic deception worked beautifully, since few Americans were ever aware that, in German (and in Polish), the capitals “I” and “J” are the same character. The stink from this soap came not from “Jewish fat” but rather from the novel and imaginative oxidation process which the hard-pressed Germans had to use to prepare soap from the air-oxidation of hydrocarbons. (Wittka, Dr. F., “Gewinnung der hoerheren Fettsaeuren durch Oxidation der Kohlenwasserstoffe,” Moderne fettchemische Technologie, Heft 2, Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag, Leipzig, 1940.) The fantasy showed, however, that a “good” propaganda tale can be used effectively again and again on a gullible population. But one might feel that the Jews out of feeling for their brothers would rather have chosen a soap not quite so odoriferous but perhaps even perfumed. The possibility that some goy might make the obvious remark about a “stinking Jew” would, be too obvious.

In his book, Tragic Deception, (p. 97) Hamilton Fish, a well-known “isolationist” N. Y. Congressman and supporter of Zionism, states Ben Hecht, in his autobiography, relates that David Niles, who Fish describes as Roosevelt’s “chief secretary and a Jew,” told him personally that Roosevelt “would not make a speech or issue a statement denouncing the German extermination of the Jews.” It seems likely that Roosevelt, in these charges, being as close as he was to the origin of the mass murder stories and their subsequent unconditional support by the Office of War Information and the War Refugee Board, agencies he created for his numerous purposes, was as aware of the brazen falsity of these “holocaust” charges as he was aware of the falsity of the charges he brought and continually supported and falsely maintained against the Germans for the Russian massacre of the Polish officers at the Katyn forest near Smolensk.

It must be accepted that the entire American bureaucratic system which has been in power since 1933 depends heavily upon continued belief in the “Holocaust” and similar myths and continue to trust in the honesty and integrety of the regime which created them. Of the numerous groups which have supported these tales without question from the beginning, the Zionists, including Jews and Gentiles, have been most visable, the most reliable and perhaps the most active. The underlying reason for the non-Zionist support of the holocaust myths are, upon study and reflection so near and dear to the American mind and thought in preference to all other accusations for the following reason. Of all the charges and counter-charges the combattants hurled at each other in the heat of World War II, very nearly all have their counter charges on both sides. Both sides bombed civilians, both sides mistreated each others captured soldiers, etc. although perhaps not to the same extent on both sides. When brought before an international court, such charges could easily have been contested on the basis of their having been “isolated cases” or “tu quoque” (“thou didst the same!”).

The United Nations’ logical position at Nuernberg, is therefore sullied from the beginning, since almost their entire moral and ethical position, which they, by force of overwhelming arms and men had usurped for themselves, was the result of a long wartime propaganda “sermon” that practically every infraction of which they themselves might be accused by the Germans was promptly justified by them on the grounds that the Germans had done it “first” or had done the same only “much worse.” The “holocaust” accusations of German mass murder against the Jews and Slavs were therefore charges unique to the United Nations. Only the Germans (and Japanese) were accused or could be accused of such atrocities according to the rules set up by the United Nations. Further, with the decision at Yalta that “Hostile Propaganda (emphasis mine!) directed against the contracting parties or against any of the United Nations will not be permitted,” (Yalta Conference, “Bilateral Document,” Article 2) the stage was set for the dismissal of any statement in defense of Germans or Germany as “German propaganda.”

Only in the case of the charges of the mass murder of Jews (and Slavs originally) was there a charge which could be construed by Germany’s enemies as being distinctly German. The fact that over twice as many Germans were killed by one means or another by the United Nations as is alleged Jews were killed in the “holocaust” somehow escapes notice by the United Nations with their feigned, grandiloquent concern for human life. Some of these Germans killed were wilfully, purposely murdered even after the end of hostilities, while the United Nations information media continued to din the “story” of the “Six Million” (now reduced by more than a half, depending upon the authority consulted) into the captive ears of the citizens of both the victorious and vanquished nations alike.

In the five decades following the war, any German who might have successfully resisted the brainwashing propaganda procedures of the occupation authorities in their zeal for German “re-education” and who might argue that at worst Germany had only replied in kind against brutal those acts perpetrated against it during the war and that Germany, therefore, had done no worse than its enemies had done, could be bludgeoned into almost immediate silence by the self-righteous, self-serving statement by the victors that they had never sought to nor attempted to annihilate an entire people as Germany was alleged by them to have done. As stated above, however, during the wageing of war and in the occupation afterward, the United Nations had killed or made death inevitable for twice as many very real, existant Germans as they claimed illusory Jews had been killed (or were “missing”) by the Germans.

In as much as the number of Jews allegedly killed by the Germans in World War II has been steadily revised downward because of the discovery and belated revelation of concentration camp death books, Red Cross reports, and the work of Jewish students themselves, etc., the ratio of dead Germans to Jews who actually died in the war from any cause at all continues to rise steadily. In addition, the fact that now, according to Jewish figures, fewer than half the Jews of Europe allegedly perished must cause even the most dedicated believer in the “holocaust” to wonder about the accuracy of the original charge that the NSDAP had any intention whatsoever that Germany at any time intended to or attempted to kill every Jew in Europe. This does not change the admitted position of the Germans however, that they intended to rid all of Germany and areas under German control of its Jews in a “all encompassing” solution (“Gesamtloesung) by emigration or evacuation. This Reichsmarshal Goering (710-PS) described as the “Endloesung” or “Final Solution of the Jewish Problem.”

The Nuernberg and other United Nations’ Tribunals, with the driving thrust of the horrific “holocaust” accusations could therefore dare to disallow such an objective defense as “tu quoque,” although every soldier in the European Theater experienced or heard of such atrocities against prisoners-of-war committed by both sides. These, of course, were atrocities forbidden by the Geneva Convention. Only with the daily dessimination of more and more of these mass murder atrocity fantasies could the seeming sheer unending number of the stories appear to give credance to them in minds already desiring to believe the worst about their enemy. In the end, the German defendants after the war were raceing about pell mell in what was a vain attempt to save their lives as a result of the mountain of “new” holocaust charges and generally ignoring the traditional Geneva Convention charges against their Fatherland.

As said above, the objective of all these initial orders, was to place every aspect of German life for the present and future securely in the hands of the occupation governments. To this end, the population was deprived of any of its soverign governmental rights. Preparation for this had been long in the minds of those who led those countries which were finally to declare themselves as Germany’s foes and almost as long in preparation in the various agencies, organizations and institutions which themselves supported these views. These constituted a powerful, formidable array of the coalition which had propelled Roosevelt into the White House in the first place and thereafter maintained him there and assisted him in gathering the political clout he needed to carry out his domestic and international goals.

This highly disciplined band included the following:

A. Regime-Supportive, Mind Manipulative “Intellectual” Propaganda Brotherhood For Their Own Political And Economic Advantage

Academic, “Intellectual” Liberals — Teaching Brotherhoods, Federal Aid for Education

Clerics Churches and Religious Groups

News, News “Commentators” and “Analyists,” Informationand Behaviorial Dessimination Media

Ad Hoc Committees to Support Special “New Deal” Rooseveltian Efforts and Concepts

Polls, Poll Takers and Poll Analysts

B. Economic, Political and Racial Pressure Groups ExertingPolitical Pressure For Political And Economic Advantage

Solid South, Seeking Political and Economic Equivalencewith the Northern States Since The Civil War

Labor Movement

Women’s Rights Movements

Ambitious, Internationally Oriented Military OfficersAnd Groups

Zionists, Jews and Gentiles (Supporters of Balfour

Declaration and Fish [1922] “Palestine Resolution”)

Traditional Leftists, “Liberals, etc. in the U.S.

One-World Internationalists

Racist Organizations Advocating “Negro Rights,” Negro”Emancipation,” Immigration Quota Abolition, Anti-Northern European Racial Dominance in the U.S., etc.

Coalitions of Racial Organizations Organized for theMutual and Sole Benefit of the Component Racial Groups

Racial “Brotherhood” Organizations, Medals, Awards,Etc.

The composition of this coalition is to a very great extent derived from the similarly-motivated coalition which in the Civil war made it possible for a president with no more than 40% of the electorate to plunge this country into its bloodiest war. Although changed, the different persons with the same fanatically dedicated beliefs continued to exert tremendous influence upon the U.S. Government from that time onward. One such group which was noticeably missing in the 1930’s was the group supporting “Prohibition.”

The importance of such a captive, dedicated coalition is first realized perhaps when one realizes that a huge portion of the United States public, being attracted and oriented as it is toward almost any sort of thought-mesmerizing entertainment, especially that entertainment involving some kind of bouncing ball, is exceedingly susceptible to the suggestive methods of “advertising” and propaganda used by these groups so effectively to obtain their objectives. If the public hears anything continually on the radio, in church, in their schools and from their associates, and if they continually read the same reports in their newspapers (editorials, articles, polls, etc.), from their favorite newscaster movie star, etc., especially if these statements are uncontested are uncontested, and, if in addition, they continually see in the movies, on television, etc. supporting reports, no matter how contrived, the concept so peddled by the mind-directional media becomes fixed indelibly in their minds of the targets as indisputable fact. And, accordingly, they will “buy it” or believe it.

The “selling” of ideas and concepts as “fact” to the American public is not far different that the methods used commercially in selling soap, automobiles, etc. to the public. In the field of advertising, it is an important factor which helps drive the economy. It is the hazy realm of wilful deception, of biased equivocation, of misrepresentation, of “black and white” in which only unwarranted positive or negative superlatives are used. Properly presented to the public, and without being openly challenged, the past has demonstrated that the most outrageous fiction masquerade fearlessly as “truth” with no danger of its falsity being found out.

In the field of national and international politics, as should be apparent to those who have taken the trouble to look beneath the surface of the “facts” revealed and supported by the above-mentioned media, it has proved catastrophic to the dissemination of factual “truth.” Too often “truth,” as believed and revered by the public, under the influence of these media, is in actuality “democratic truth” — that which is believed or even “proven” by the fact that the majority of the people, because of their “faith” or their desire that what they wish to be “true” is in actuality factual. It is a massive example and demonstration of the ultimate power of “wishing will make it so.” Logically and intellectually, it might better be described as ignorance run amog. Such, however, was thinking was the origin of the “facts” of the “holocaust” and other atrocity charges against National Socialist Germany.

With this liberal-New Deal “fact machine,” well in hand, the “truth” then become anything those who controlled the machine wished. The targets of this nepharious business, if properly influenced with no outside detraction by factual truth, were inclined strongly to the opinions expressed in what they heard, read and saw in the public mind-direction media, and if their was a remaining doubt in their minds, they were most often be dispelled by the fact that they had actually “seen” it either in the movies or on television. Others chose to acept the opinions fo what the “majority” believed to be the truth on the basis of “where there was so much smoke, ther had to be fire.” Still others, desiring to belong to the majority opinion, at least professed belief just to belong to the interest, conversational and thought pool of the common herd. This was, of course, particularly indicative of the mentality of the intended propaganda targets in general, and in this case, since they had, some three decades earlier, already shown their proclivity, if not outright desire, to believe the worst which could be said of their enemy, Germany, by nearly anyone with no insistence whatever that hard evidence and proof be submitted in support of these charges.

Obviously many of the persons in any one of the above groups were also members of yet a second or third group in the above categories. Needless to say, all these groups, bound together as they were to obtain something from the Roosevelt Government which they wanted were more than happy to work as a block for a victory and a “new” Germany which they fully believed would benefit them either directly or would benefit them all collectively in the postwar world. With this understanding, all played the role requested of them by the Roosevelt regime in the preparation of the over-all plan for postwar Germany and the “re-education” of the American public which still contained large segments opposed to such a plan. It should surprise no one that the American institutions of learning (e. g. Columbia University, University of Virginia, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, etc.) in having taken a leading role in re-educating the American people in preparation for war would now also take a leading role in the preparation of the “ideological” plans for rebuilding a government of postwar Germany and the attendant, necessary re-education of the entire German poeple.

The “plans” formulated by these people, following the guidelines of Roosevelt and Morgenthau were the natural result, but being normally better educated and probably better informed than these two, were much more thorough and detailed. The “T’s” were now crossed and the “I’s” dotted!

As has been mentioned above, these plans were already finished when the United States troops crossed the German frontier in September of 1944, and they began the immediate implementation of these plans, even though the war would last another eight months. It was here that a sudden, unexpected German counter attack in the Ardennes mountains allowed them to capture at least part of these plans under the name of “Operation Eclipse,” mentioned by Col. Gen. Jodl at the (Jackson) Nuernberg Tribunal. It was already apparent at this stage that theUnited Nations invaders had no intention of treating with any de jure German Govermnent. They would treat, albeit disdainfully, with German officers in command but purely for the purpose of “unconditional surrender.”

Those who imply or state that the leaders of the United Nations and their pan-germanophobes had ever intended to use any part of the existing German governmental machinery established by the Weimar Constitution appear to ignore this. Their statements and actions since early 1941 refute this. Also, those who insist the government established under the Weimar Constitution simply disappeared and died away, no longer having the ability to function as a government are totally wrong! The Doenitz Government was still functioning and functioning far better when it was arrested and dissolved by the United Nations troops than was the Polish Government (abandoned by its leaders) in 1939. When the U.S. Government made at feigned show of outrage in protesting the Russian position that they had invaded Poland because the Polish Government had ceased to exist, the Red Army answered, satisfactorily to Washington at least, that it had invaded only to “maintain order” in Poland. Order was never a problem in the area controlled by Doenitz’s Government. Food was the problem, and the invading United Nations forces were not prepared to deal with that problem for the benefit of the German populace for several years yet during which time the Germans’ plight grew steadily worse.

The Doenitz Government was functioning at the time of its arrest and could and would have functioned further to investigate the numerous holocaust allegations (as it wished and offered to do), etc., maintain order, distribute existing food, regulate housing, assure the populace treatment by the victors under the Geneva Convention, assist in an orderly return and demobilization of German Troops, assist German and other refugees, etc. to the great future benefit of a destroyed great nation had it not been arrested by those who wanted absolutely to destroy and prevent the further operation of any German Government which might interfere with their long-prepared, vengeful and revolutionary plans. So ended, as Feld Marshal Hermann Goering stated at the Nuernberg proceedings which condemned him and others to death by hanging, the final attempt by a German Government to be master in its own house.

As stated before, the invading United Nations forces began the implementation of their future plans as soon as they crossed the German borders. As soon as German territory was in their grasp, it was disposed of as they had intended and planned for months if not years. These invaders did not wait until the end of hostilities much less the end of the war and a peace settlement the terms of which they have, since 1945, talked endlessly about but upon which they were never able to agree.

Let us turn now to the many areas which were taken over and dictated by the victors in the postwar govermnent of Germany. In this manner, we can see how prewar Germany and its Government based upon the Weimar Constitution, a remnant of World War I was destroyed and replaced with the present Bonn Regime.

I. LOSSES OF TRADITIONAL SOVERIGN GERMAN TERRITORY (IN ADDITION TO THOSE OF 1918-19)

Disposal of Traditionally Soverign German Territories (In Addition to Those Lost in 1919)

In the year 800, slavic-dominated territory extended to the Elbe (“Laba”) River (“Polabs”). German territories which were sparsely populated were thereby almost regularly overrun by slavs and subsequently reclaimed from time to time. This territory involved all which was historically known as “Eastern Germany,” East Prussia, West Prussia-Danzig, Posen, Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Silesia, Sudetenland, Brandenburg, Warteland, etc.

As the slavic threat grew, German reaction to this Slavic thrust into the heart of Europe resulted in the invasion being steadily beaten backwards toward the slavic ancestoral lands. Many Slavic tribes were absorbed, however, into modern Germany and disappeared, many remained (Sorbs, Wends, etc.) but became “germanized.” Still others became “pacified” but remained nevertheless, protagonists of a kind of slavic nationalism (Bohemians, Moravians, etc.). This resergence in Germanic influence had the effect of isolating small groups of Slavic “islands” in a sea of ethnic Germans. A still larger group of contiguous Slavs later became the nucleus of “Little Poland” with its capital at Krakau and yet another became the nucleus of “Great Poland” with its capital at Gnesen. With the later union of the two “Polands,” followed by the union of Poland with the Dutchy of Lithuania, many attempts were made by the Polish King, an “elective” monarch*, to increase his dominion, by reconquest of lost German lands, which he regarded as “recovered” lands in the west as well as increase his holdings in the east and north by new conquests. But with the help of the Knights of the Sword and the Teutonic Order, slavic influence in central Europe diminished steadily and was driven eastward.

* Elected by the Polish nobility.

In so far as Prussia was concerned, the “First Partition” of Poland (1712) essentially stripped Poland of much of what remained of its earlier conquests of German territory in central Europe. West Prussia, at the time, a fief of Germans, maintained and dominated by slavic military might, between Brandenburg and East Prussia was reclaimed for Prussia by Frederick the Great. This left large numbers of Germans living in the Posen-Thorn area still subject to draconian Polish rule.

The “Second Partition” of Poland (1793) returned this predominantly German area to Prussia plus an area east of this inhabited mostly by Poles. Earlier, the western limit of this slavic portion had been the boundary roughly when slavic Poland embarked upon its great period of expansion to the Elbe (Wuestrow) in the west and after the union with slavic Lithuania, the Dnieper in the east, the Baltic in the north and the Black Sea in the south.

By the end of the “Second Partition of Poland,” nearly everything west of the Vistula River which the Slavs had taken from Germany had been regained by Prussia in addition to the anti-Polish, one-time slavic land of Prussia. It should be remembered, however, that at this time this area was sparsely settled and consisted of small villages or farms surrounded by great forests.

Austria had claimed “Little Poland” and its eastward possessions (Galicia). Russia, a nation composed of the eastern Slavs and many other races, some of which were also slavic, annexed the remainder of what the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania had conquered for itself. The area regarded quite properly by the Russians and others as “Poland” was bounded on the east by the western Bug (“Curzon Line”), on the north by East Prussia, on the west by the upper reaches of the Warta River and on the south by the Carpathian Mountains. This area with Warsaw roughly at its center, itself contained “islands” of Germans who had been surrounded over the years by “a sea” of Slavs.

The “Third Partition” consumed the “heartland” of Poland with slavic Russia taking the lion’s share yet a third time.

At the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815), Prussia chose wisely to cede the territory that it had taken from Poland in the “Third Partition” and the purely Polish area which it had taken in the “Second Partition” to Russia in the interest of obtaining thereby a more nearly homogenious (“German”) racial population. In no way did this prejudice the position of the many “germanized” slavs who lived peacefully in Prussia. This boundary constructed mainly, but not solely, upon ethnic lines served Europe very well, indeed, until it was destroyed by the Treaty of Versailles. It was recognized, however, that many Germans still lived in Polish territory controlled by the Russian Zsar and Poles lived in German territory oweing allegiance to the Prussian King. In Prussia, Polish nobility, unlike German nobility under a Polish king, was recognized on a parity with the Prussian nobility.

“Poland” proper was now Russian Poland ostensibly oweing allegiance to the Russian Zsar. But the Polish populace was disdainful of Russian nationality and sang “Poland is not Dead” while dreaming of the day when their influence would once again extend from the Black Sea to the Baltic and westward to the Elbe. Although it was a black period for the Poles, it was no less black for the Russians who had to deal with them. It was the Poles who contributed to a great deal of the initial success which Napoleon enjoyed at the beginning of his ill-fated invasion of Russia. Only the Russians themselves would be in a position to say whether the period between 1945-1991 was worse or better for them. But Stalin remarked at Yalta that Poland had long been the roadway used by invaders from the west to attack Russia.

At the end of World War I, any territory in which there was the least doubt about the presence of a majority of Germany population was stripped from Germany. Much of this territory was taken without a plebiscite and completely without concern for the wills of the people who were living and had lived in these territories for centures, a complete affront to the principle of the “Autonomy of Peoples” about which its supporters spoke so loud and long prior to the Armistice of 1918.

Already in 1918, Germany, a nation then of 208,830 sq. miles had been forced to give up 27,116 sq. miles of any territory even remotely conceived of being, under any pretense advanced by the victors as being non-German. Of this, 18,111 sq. miles went to Poland either by cession or by outright Polish encroachment. Plebiscites called by the League of Nations “plebiscites” were often openly known and admitted to have been flagrantly falsified.

With the “reconstitution” of Poland in 1919, much of the German territory which Slavs had carved out of central Europe for themselves as much as a thousand years earlier, was returned to “Poland.” The principle of the “Autonomy of Peoples,” admittedly a difficult objective, was outrageously ignored by those who had proposed it, and there are numerous examples of official plebiscites called to decide upon the soverignty of a given area being purposely and wilfully falsified to the advantage of the Poles and the detriment of Germany. This was the ruling criterion in many other areas. It was, in fact, the true principle in deciding the future nationality of an area. in question. Actually, in the intervening centuries and in the areas involved, many slavs had come to think of themselves as “Germans” and many Germans had come to consider themselves “Poles.”

In March of 1945, as Slavic hordes swarmed westward across the Oder river, the Russians congratulated the Polish units fighting with them by telling them they had just crossed their western border with Germany.

Although the “legal” transfer of this territory to Poland was to be made at a “Peace Conference” which has yet (1991) to come about, the “Three Great Powers” had placed Poland in de facto control of a large area of Germany with their blessings long before even the end of hostilities, so at that time the transfer of German territory to Poland was a fait accompli! The territory involved contains great parts of Pommerania, Brandenburg, Silesia and only the southern half of East Prussia as an accommodation to Soviet Russia. The Poles, having been “given” this territory in consideration for their accepting the “Curzon Line” as their eastern boundary with Russia promptly stated the new boundary with Germany to be permanent and refered to these German territories as the “Recovered Territories,” claiming them as having been Polish since prehistoric north-western Slavs swarmed into Gothic Germany from east of the Vistula River. For the Germans, it represented a rolling back of the clock to the beginning of the second millenium.

For the Poles, the Oder-Neisse (Roosevelt-Stalin Boundary) is but a step in the direction of regaining the old boundary they once had in central Europe and hardly enough for them to modify or forget their claims and dreams of recovering Lwow (Lemberg) and the Ukraine. Without the self-serving morality arguments of the “holocaust” allegations against Germany, the United Nations had no moral and ethical reasons for the cessation of such tremendous tracts of German territory to present-day Poland. Without the “moral” support of these groundless arguments, a more reasonable transfer of the United States cities of Chicago, Detroit, and Buffalo on the basis of the “autonomy of (contained) peoples” could have been made rather than for the transfer of such overwhelmingly German cities as Danzig, Memel, Tilsit, Bromberg, Posen, Thorn, Koenigsberg, and the many other ancient German cities of East Prussia, West Prussia, Pommerania, Silesia, etc. on the basis of any alleged slavic population.

Now, Germany, already in 1919 nation reduced to an area of 181,714 sq. miles by the punative Treaty of Versailles, would be required to yield yet another 45,380 sq. miles (1.67 times the entire German 1919 loss!) to Poland (two and one-half times what the country had already been forced to yield in 1919) “in recompense” for Poland’s loss from its overzealous attempt in 1918 to gobble up large portions of Russia and the Russian Ukraine and reestablish its dominion by force of arms over a mass of territory and non-Polish peoples it had originally obtained by conquest and dominated of and on only up until 1772.*

This time the exchange would not have even the embarrassing encumberances of even a falsified plebiscite to restrain the victors. The remnant of the German population which had inhabited post-World War I Germany’s 181,714 sq. miles of territory would now be ejected from their ancestoral lands and, after much abuse, squeezed into the remaining 136,334 sq. miles of the remnant of Germany with their numbers to be further reduced as the victors would later decide by methodical starvation, sickness resulting from malnutrition and neglect, purposely separating male and female Germans of child-bearing age for long post-war periods to preclude German child birth, deportation of Germans from Germany, and whatever other methods they might find effective and devise in pruning the German population to the level they would decree.

After thus being further dismembered or partitioned, what remained was split up into “occupation zones” in which each of the four occupying powers was initially supreme. Only after early discovery that without some union or ability of the occupied zones to act together, only chaos for victor and vanquished alike would result, the zones of the western United Nations allies were grudgingly unified. But Russia feeling itself deceived and denied the rightful role it had expected from the Crimean Conference onward refused to cooperate with its former allies until 1991. What traditionally had been considered “Central Germany” (“Mittel Deutschland”), “Eastern Germany” (Ost Deutschland) having been ceded to Poland, was held separate from the “West Germany” with essentially no contact between the two parts of the former Country. The “Russian Zone” (Mittel Deutschland), in the center of Europe, stagnated and degenerated. As a testimonial of Russian treatment of subject nations, it must be recognized that even Mittel Deutschland was better off than any of the other soviet-dominated countries.

The dismemberment of Germany to the extent beyond that of the 1919 dismemberment was mentioned and championed in a rather general way by the Roosevelt regime as early as the Argentia (“Atlantic”) Conference, a point in time in which the United States still claimed “neutrality” for itself, and then from the Second Quebec Conference (“OCTAGON”) onward regularly and in a growing, open, specific way. It was obviously Roosevelt himself who agreed to, if he did not in fact suggest himself, the Oder-Neisse boundary. Stalin was interested only in the subsequent domination of Poland by Russia and had no desire to make Poland stronger in any way. By this time Churchill had worked himself into a economic-political position in which he could do little more than second and support Roosevelt’s suggestions and hope he could thereby obtain necessary succor for “his people” after the end of the war.

The dismemberment of Germany in 1945 was therefore carried out in fact before one pen had been put to paper in Potsdam (Berlin Conference), and this was done largely through the efforts of one man, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was, by the end of the war, dead. In his final testament to the post-war world, he, with the Oder-Neisse Line, had sacrificed much more German territory than recommended by any of the advisory plans which had been submitted to him — from Morgenthau — or which even he himself had participated in preparing. Although done in the name of the American People, who finally demanded the “Morgenthau Plan” be dismantled, not one person of the political hierarchy has condemned this forced transfer of German territory or demanded its return from Poland. At best, James Byrnes tried to get agreement on the Oder-Neisse boundary as a “temporary” boundary which would later be modified by the victors but not necessarily returned to the 1939 boundary.

II. GERMAN CIVILIAN POPULATION

Churchill, at the insistence of and the attempt to obtain aid from the Roosevelt regime had carried out a merciless, unchivalrous total, provoctive war of attrition against Germany as soon as any initial danger of a German invasion of England waned. It was a war in which the front was at every point in Germany at all times, and the civil population was often in more danger than soldiers on a given front. It was a war in which General George Armstrong “Squaw Killer” Custer, General Tecumseh Sherman and General Benjamin Franklin “Beast” Butler would have felt perfectly at home. It was the luxurious type of war which can be fought only by a wealthy nation against a poor nation and then only if it is supported by an unquestioned, inexhaustible surplus of men and material with respect to its enemy.

By continuous provocation, an enemy can be finally goaded into an attack on what may be described as a purely civilian target after which, enemy may be publically condemned and the provoker may loose his waiting bombers for the planned campaign of mass murder against civilian targets. (Such was the calculated plan and purpose of the British bombing of Luebec, Rostok, Hamburg, Koeln, etc. See De Gaulle-Churchill conversation). An additional bonus for the plan was that when Germany did finally respond in kind, it was treated in the U.S. press as a “second inhuman ‘Lusitania’ incident.”

For the German population faced with a coalition of enemies having unlimited supplies of bombs, bombers, pilots and gasoline and a capacity and will to produce much more, it was little more than a massacre, like shooting fish in a barrel! Already at the Third Washington Conference (“TRIDENT”), Roosevelt had suggested the additional bombing of small villages in Germany so that no portion of the German population might escape bombardment (F. R. p. 154). The “great man” apparently desired to apply many of General William Tecumseh Sherman’s ideas about the Confederacy to Germany! It was only a quirk of fate that Ass’t. Sec. of War John Jay McCloy arbitrarily ordered Rothenburg o. T. spared by the U.S. Bombing Command that it escaped the same total destruction as Dresden (NYT, Dec. 1948, p. 8). (It must be fairly obvious, however, that a person who can order a scheduled bombardment cancelled is most likely also to be in the position to order a bombardment to take place.) A similar proposal was “The Splendid Idea” of Churchill’s confidante, Prof. Frederick Alexander Lindemann (“Lord Cherwell”), in which the concept was advanced that German production could better be destroyed by bombing workers’ homes rather than the factories. Prof. Lindemann’s idea had already shown its self to be highly effective in the British night time bombings. Since an appreciable amount of German production of a number of items, some of which was for war production some not, was done in homes as piece work by women and children, the bombardment of German homes was considered completely justified.

By the end of the war, roughly as many German civilians had perished in the United Nations air raids as soldiers of the Wehrmacht had perished on the front. They had perished in the very real holocausts such as Hamburg, Koeln, Dresden, the thousand-plane raids against Berlin, etc. The initial raids were often followed up by a second raid to be sure everything missed in the first would be destroyed in the second. The survivors of Dresden who fled to Chemnitz were accordingly bombed after they arrived there. Germany was seared from one end to another — the British by night and the Americans by day. The odor of burnedd wood still permeated the German air as late as 1953. In their attacks, the United Nations air forces met with little or no opposition from the Luftwaffe which by then had an insignificant number of planes, relatively few pilots and often no gasoline for the flyable planes they did have. In addition, the number of German pilots had dwindled because of losses before 1943, and could not be replaced.

The victors had decided long before of how Germany would be forced to the status of a third-rate nation. Its population, purposely pared down by about one sixth (one in every six Germans killed!) would be forced to depend upon agriculture, forestry, fishing, etc. for their sustenence. Economically, they would then be chained to an agricultural economic system which had proved its self insufficient in Europe half a millinium previously. This was done to be doubly certain, the living standard of the Germans would be strictly controlled by the victors to such a degree that it would never equal, certainly never exceed, that of at least the major members of the United Nations partners. In spite of the statement of General Eisenhower that the United Nations troops “came (into Germany) as victors but not as oppressors,” the play on words would show, as statements in 1917 had shown, that the grandiloquent rhetoric was but a tedious semantic exercise in both equivocation and hypocracy. In the occupation of postwar Germany, the difference in what was often called simultaneously “oppression” and “freedom” by different sources would be found only in highly opinionated, abstract academic arguments of United Nations politicians and army officers.

Many of those Germans who, remembering similar statements of 1917, properly judged the barely-hidden meaning of the words and the intents of the victors, realizing that their generation had, in the foreseeable future, nothing to look forward to, committed suicide. German academia and industry were among the hardest hit. Many who had survived Wehrmacht service, in a valiant though vain attempt to halt the Russian advance from the east, returned home and chose to die by their own hands than under the conditions chosen for them by the victors.

With the end of hostilities, the German populace would be subject, as a decision on the part of the “Three Great Powers,” to yet another assault, more insidious and malevolent than open killing with the weapons of war. In this phase, millions more Germans would perish unnecessarily as a result of the calculated brutality of the victors. Under the assumption in Germany of total authority by the victorious United Nations, no German government or German group existed to represent the German People in any manner at all. There was no possibility of an appeal to the Geneva Convention as there would have been had the German Government not been purposely destroyed by the United Nations forces. Nor was there such a thing as an appeal to international morality, since occupied Germany was completely isolated, cut off absolutely from all contact with the outside world. Nothing came in or out of Germany which the occupation armies did not first authorize. Soldiers of the Occupation were warned about transmitting letters to or from Germany using United Nations mail.

Under these conditions, even the International Red Cross was forbidden to operate except as stipulated by the occupation forces. The German population was forced to undergo the harshest indignities and humiliations which only poorly controlled and poorly disciplined troops, already inclined to lawlessness and believing devoutly in their own omnipotence, can inflict upon a helpless citizenry. Often Germans attempting to obtain justice by accusing occupation military personnel of rape, theft, murder, etc. found themselves the objects of great abuse with their complaints completely ignored. The invaders were infused with the principle of Genghis (Jenghiz) Khan, to kill their enemy; to possess his house, his wealth and his women and to ride his horse. Consequently, Americans quite often believed they could do as they wished with “Fraueleins” with no fear of punishment. The Russians, having been subject to the teachings of Ilya Ehrenburg, considered German women to be proper booty of war.

The destitute Germans were forced by the victors to underwrite the caring for millions of itenerants who had chosen a route through Germany to their final destination to France, Palestine, America, etc. German property could be confiscated by authorities placed in power over them by occupation authorities. Many of the “German” authorities chosen by the victors had themselves been former concentration camp inmates. If compensation was received for goods confiscated by the victors, it was in the form of the worthless occupation Morgenthau Marks. In the time of their greatest need, the Germans were deprived of their rightful health and social insurance. Often, they were deprived of just compensation for their labor they were compelled to give. Although the entire occcupation operation was to be run as the victors stipulated, German officials had been appointed by them to carry our the orders and wishes of the occupation authorities, but the German appointees were to be held responsible for the local economy in case things did not work out as the victors had anticipated.

The idea of ejection of Germans from their ancestoral lands apparently originated with Edouard Benes of Czechoslovakia who wished to rid himself of the strongly German Sudetenland which he insisted upon annexing to Czechoslovakia in 1919. After obtaining Stalin’s assent, he presented the idea to Roosevelt who naturally thought it a wonderful idea. Having thus “opened the door,” to such an inhuman operation, it was not surprising that Poland also chose to solve a potential German “minority” problem in the German territory it intended to annex in the same bloody manner. Prior to World WAr II, Polish Foreign Minister, Josef Beck, had considered solving its “Jewish Problem” (3,500,000 Jews in Poland; 500,000 Jews in Germany!) by expelling them to unspecified territories. Both Czechoslovakia and Poland had signed treaties after World War I guaranteeing respect for the rights of minorities as conditions for their recognition as nations and for their receiving disputed territories. Subsequently, both countries renounced these guarantees. After World War II, they were encouraged to have a “field day” at the expense of the defenseless, expelled Germans, “no holds barred!” Other nations, of course, followed suit.

But of all the nations mercilessly ejecting their Germans populations, most of whom were there from before the slavic migrations occurred, none were more ruthless, more barbaric than the Czechs who had been in the center of Europe, closely associated with Germans for centuries. Yet, spontaneously, in the twinkeling of an eye and with questionable German provocation, the Czechs committed atrocities against their helpless neighbors which make the treatment meted out by Poles and Yugoslavs to their German populations look mild by comparison. (Thorwaldsen, Das Ende an der Elbe). One is seriously tempted to doubt that the Czechs, always considered a treacherous race, will ever be able to be trusted to make their peace with the German People, Slovakians, Poles and the others living in central Europe whom they have repeatedly abused. (See Study during Brandt [Frahm] regime)

Germans were thereby ejected from their traditional homelands which they had occupied for many hundreds of years, under the cruelest of conditions, with little more than the clothing on their backs for resettlement in the remnant of Germany, now divided up by the victors into four German fiefs in which each occupying power was the supreme authority. No thought was given to their personal property which was confiscated without even a thought of just compensation.

Germans considered “war criminals” or “security risks” by the occupation authorities (“political prisoners”) were treated and sometimes “tried” by special tribunals established by the occupation authorities and using edicts promulgated at the pleasure of the occupation powers. The conditions under which these trials were held were in no way better than the Moscow Trials under Andrey Vishinsky in which guilt was assummed (“judicial notice”) prior to the “trial” itself and “court” held merely for its “teaching benefits” to the public in general.

Katyn is the site of one of perhaps as few as three mass graves in which the Russians, after accepting the surrender of around 15,000 Polish Officers and cadets, the elite of the Polish Army (to Marshal Timoshenko) buried over 4,000 of their victims. Initially the Roosevelt Regime, insisted that the Germans, who had opened the grave and identified 2,914 of the dead, were guilty and stubbornly resisted all attempts to learn the truth. Finally, it was confirmed that the NKVD, under orders from Stalin had done the deed. Later, yet another mass grave was discovered at Orenburg. In the summer of 1990, similar mass grave sites were discovered at Kharkov and Miednoye (Washington Journal, Aug. 2, 1991, p. 3). With the discovery of these plus many more in which solely Russian corpses were buried by the NKVD/OGPU, there seems little doublt as to what actually happened to the lost 15,000 Polish elite. Information available now indicates further that a multitude of Russians as well were killed by their own troops as they were driven forward by their own elite troops into the deadly fire of the Wehrmacht. Of the total number of Russians killed in the war, it is likely no one will ever know for certain just how many died from German fire and how many from Russian fire.

What the rogish soviet Russians sought to do secretly with a bullet in the nape of their enemies’ necks, the more cunning United Nations, led by Franklin D. Roosevelt, sought to copy with the postwar terror tribunals which were called into being. With the tribunals of Nuernberg, Lueneburg, Dachau, Hamburg, etc. the rules of the day were certainly no better than those of the Vishinsky trials of Moscow. They had as their double purpose the ridance or silencing of persons who might become a potential embarassment or threat to the United Nations or their wartime propaganda in the future and the consequent complete despondency of the German people who were afraid to doubt even secretly the truth of the literate manure being dumped regularly upon them with no one anywhere who could or dared to deny these scandalous charges.

Germans were forced to fill out a “Fragebogen” designed to force all members of the NSDAP, governmental officials, “security risks,” those who supported the NSDAP, etc. to reveal themselves to the victors for subsequent “trials” before tribunals selected by the victors for that purpose. The members of these tribunals were invariably persons who had opposed the NSDAP for a long time. Many had spent time in concentration camps as a result. In their “deliberations” these tribunals had the active assistance and supervision of many refugees of Jewish extraction who had returned to Germany as members of the U.S. and British armies.

The purpose of these tribunals was the “denazification” of the German population. In these tribunals, the “judges” had the advantage of the fact that the membership rolls of the NSDAP had been captured by the invading victors. These could be cross-checked with the “Fragebogen” answers filled out by the German population. In this manner, the victors could be certain that no one escaped their drag net. There is no indication that the NSDAP officials ever tried to destroy these lists, while there was still time to do so. The Party officials had no reason to believe that the victors would utilize their wartime propaganda as a postwar excuse and weapon for destroying even the individual members of the Party.

The accused could be forced to give testimony which would be considered “self-incriminating” in any civilized court. Subsequent sentencing was merely an exercise in ridding the authorities of potentially embarassing or threatening personalities and as a warning to those who might otherwise cause difficulties in the future. To further insure the impossibility of any type of continuity between the governments of pre-war and post-war Germany, all members of the NSDAP (or “security risks”) not killed or imprisoned were forced to do only manual labor. None was allowed without special permission of the occcupation authorities to practice his profession. They could not vote nor could they run for office in the regime to be formed by the victors.

Those subject to such tribunals were, as had long before decided, party members, Government officials, “security risks,” academics, holders of college degrees above a certain level. In fact, any one could be arrested for interrogation on as little grounds as the desire or whim of an “interrogater,” most often Jewish, to interrogate a German captive.

Quite often, as in the case of those suspected of being a “major war criminal,” the suspect was placed in the “custody” of a Jew in the U.S. Army for close almost twenty-four hour surveillance. To help in this, huge negroes were assigned to guarantee compliance by the hapless German. Some, such as Goering and Funk stated at Nuernberg, that they had not been mistreated. Others such as Fritz Sauckel (who was hanged), the lieutenant of Albert Speer (sentenced to twenty years but later freed) and Julius Streicher complained bitterly (TMWC) of the brutal treatment and threats which they received.

In these “interrogation” sessions, the person being interrogated was often subjected to torture with the victim’s body often being permanently damaged beyond repair or dying as a result (Simpson Investigation, Dachau). As if this gauntlet of bloodthirsty “interrogators” were not enough, the ever-present threat of being turned over to the Russians or Poles for interrogation or trial was found most effective. When questioned about torturing Germans to obtain confessions, a member of the OSS (CIA) answered this had not been necessary, since the could always be turned over to Poles who would always get a confession. Such treatment was not dealt out just to the suspect but was used with family members, close associates, etc. to get confessions and or locate desired Germans ( Hoess & Sauckel).

Germans residing outside Germany were often returned to Germany for “trial” by the victors under the conditions prevailing there. Germans were forced to accept whatever accusations the invaders chose to level at them, their former Governmental officials, or their Wehrmacht, or Navy, and any denial could result in severe military punishment by the occupation government under the “rules of war.” On the otherhand, no act by any member of the United Nations could be criticized in any way in Germany. United Nations personnel charged with crimes against Germans were tried by U. N. courts. Often the charged was suppressed. The accused could be transferred back to the country of his origin and the charge forgotten. Only in the most heinous crimes was action actually taken (Murders by Hagelberger [from Buffalo, N. Y.]) by the occupation forces.

Many Germans charged by the United Nations were never even accorded the “fair trial” stipulated by the London Protocols. Many officers and soldiers were executed at or shortly after capture as had been advocated by Churchill, Morgenthau and Hull. To this may be added the many unreported instances of the individual United Nations soldier administering “justice” his own so that he might tell his children that he had killed a Nazi. It is suspected that Heinrich Himmler was one of these victims. Many other Germans, especially civilians, were victims of the numerous Polish, Zionist, etc. vengence societies which were allowed almost unimpeded operation in Germany immediately after the war. Many of these assassins operated as if they were members of UNRRA and could fly to any location in Germany with the European Air Transport Service (“EATS”) operating out of Tempelhof, Munich, Frankfurt, and Vienna. After capture by United Nations units, many thousands of SS personnel were massacred by the prisoners they had been assigned to guard. In addition, there were those who took advantage of the moment to obtain personal revenge which had been long smoldering. Lawless elements, German and foreign, used the moment as a means of obtaining personal gain with no liklihood of punishment.

As if the above were not enough for a defeated nation to endure, those Germans who had survived running the above gauntlet were subject to being taken from their homes and families at any time by the military authorities in their zone and sent to any place on earth to work for the occupying power. Their compensation was whatever the occupying power considered necessary at the time. Besides Russia, the British and the U.S. also indulged in this practice. Under “Operation Paper Clip,” many German scientists were brought to this country to give the U.S., among other things, superiority in rockets.

Here again, many of the objectives desired and described above had been accomplished by the invading United Nations forces before the end of hostilities. At the Crimean (“Yalta”) Conference, Stalin after stating that the Germans were “savages,” (F. R. p. 571) hastened to state that the former German lands were empty since the Germans fled their traditional homelands before the merciless Russian assault (F. R. p. 720). The conditions brought about by the earlier United Nations agreements began to be slowly ameliorated somewhat by J.C.S. 1779 (19 May 1947), but by this time, as said above, the objectives which the victors had sought to achieve originally in their earlier plans which were designed to produce no less than a calculated reign of terror, had been almost fully acomplished. Many Germans had been ejected from their traditional lands. The surviving Germans had been reduced further in their numbers and to a level of poverty and helplessness unknown in western european nations for hundreds of years. German leaders had been killed, imprisoned, intimidated or otherwise immobilized or “liquidated” as a possible or potential threat to the occupying powers, a situation quite reminiscent of the treatment the Germans received years earlier as a matter of course at the hands of the Poles after their earlier conquests of Thorn and Posen (“Poles Stage Own Circus With Two Caged Nazis [Ludwig Fischer and Dr. Arthur Greiser],” NYT., April 4, 1947, p. 16).

After much proding by the German citizens it professed to represent, many of whom had themselves suffered through the event, the Bonn regime, installed by the occupation forces, made a study of the multitude of atrocities committed by the enemies of the Germans during their merciless expulsion from lands which had been theirs for centuries. In a succinct demonstration of exactly whose interests the Bonn “government” really represented, Willie Brandt (Frahm) the SPD Chancellor at the time directed that the entire study be buried with a view to postponing the day of reckoning until the German people had become accustomed to the idea of the treatment they had received at the hands of the poles, Czechs, etc. It was the same “Herr Frahm,” as Chancellor Adenauer inevitably and properly refered to him, who, as Chancellor of the Bonn Bundes regime, directed the “Bundestag” to accept this Roosevelt-Stalin Oder-Neisse Border unconditionally as the permanent, unchangeable boundary between Poland and Germany. Quite obviously, the laws which bound Germany always were and were destined to remain totally different from those, if any, which bound the victors.

In supporting such a monsterous plan, those who led this nation and whose “Battle Hymn” from 1860 onward and fervently preached a religion of “let us die to make men free”* did themselves creat ten million “Evangelines” whose stories would never be heard because these horrendous true stories would instead be effectively stiffled by the strict censorship the perpetrators and their confederates would impose as occupiers in Germany and the cooperation they could command in this Country from the co-conspirative news dissemination media which they, in fact, controlled as effectively as if it had been a legitimate government agency legally under their control. If a time ever existed when an entire, tortured nation was justified in raising its eyes collectively to the heavens and asking in horror and wonderment, “Where is God?” as had Odoacer at his treacherous murder by his fellow Christian, Theodoric, this had to have been it! Even the belated investigations of the post-war treatment of Germans during this merciless period, untertaken in Germany to discover some of these atrocious happenings while those who had experienced them still lived, were obediently “buried” by SPD Chancellor “Weinbrand” Willy Frahm upon request (“demand”) by the occupying powers of Germany.

The agreement stank to high heaven and prompted even some of the most ardent Roosevelt devotees to have second thoughts. Anne O’Hare McCormick, who had always supported Roosevelt in his international projects wrote, “No one seeing its horrors (the Berlin Railway station serving the German deportees) firsthand can doubt that it is a crime against humanity.” Victor Gollancz, himself Jewish, accused the Allies (United Nations) of treating German civilians as Himmler had treated the Jews. Bertrand Russell, the heady liberal philosopher and mathematician described the entire affair as “extermination.” F. W. Voigt of the “Manchester Guardian” describes a postwar event in which Czechs killed 2,000-3,000 German women and children. (Pat Buchanan, “The Dividing Line,” Spotlight, March 12, 1990, p. 6). Of the twelve million Germans driven from their ancestorial homes at the end of the war, two million, one in every six, died.

* As might be expected, in American practice, this extrapolated to, in the words of General George S. Patton, to “letting some other poor son-of-a-bitch die for his country!” The losses suffered by the U.S. of slightly over 400,000 total dead (291,557 deaths in battle). Although admittedly many too many for anything which was accomplished of material or lasting value, these deaths were, nevertheless, a severe blow to the country. But by comparison to the losses of men of both Russia and Germany the U.S. loss was disporportunately, if not insignificantly, small!

During the Punitive period of the United Nations Occupation of vanquished Germany, 1945-1949, the German People were not in a position to note a difference in the treatment of a conquored nation being subjected to the puritanical will of a victorious army and one being subjected to brutal suppression. The difference was also not particuarly apparent when the Adenauer-Bonn regime came into power in 1949 with the same foreign powers occupying the country and had the legal right to set aside the “German” constitution, (written by German and German-Jewish renegades, among the latter, Robert M. W. Kempner, overseen closely by U.S. New Dealers hand picked by the U.S. Government) at any time they considered their interests threatened and reinstitute their previous occupation powers.

Surely the brooding ghosts of Thaddeus Stevens, “Bluff” Benjamin Wade, Charles Sumner, Benjamin “Spoons” Butler, and Carl Schurz, the Congressional “Directorate” which essentially dicated the destructive conditions of the Southern “Reconstruction,” cried out with glee when they observed the sleazy host of Twentieth Century Carpetbaggers sent by this Government to Germany to finish its destruction and then rebuild it and “reeducate” it as the authoritarian Lords of the Potomac demanded. This legion of “liberal locusts” was composed to a great extent of left-leaning “social science” majors, recruited from various liberal institutions throughout the United States and prepared further for their appointed task at education institutions chosen throughout the country. Their teachers were carefully selected by the liberal “intellectuals” of the New Deal.

The “Directorate” of 1865, after the Civil War, had only some ten years to practice their mischief before they were jerked up short by a U.S. electorate properlly horrified by what was being committed in their name. In Germany, the policies of those sent to guarantee the future subjugation and subservience of the country are still (1991) everywhere in power with no end of this power yet in sight! And those responsible for the atrocity are, if still alive, revered as great patriots and statesmen. If dead, they are honored patriots and hallowed saints of the “Democracy” and entitled to occupy the most heroic of graves.

One and a half generations later, after the German men of political influence and ability at the time of Germany’s defeat are mostly dead, and a new generation of “Germans” steeped in the traditions of U.S. “democracy” are in power, the degree to which Germany exerts soverign power over Germans and Germany has not changed appreciably. Present day Germany is no more than a satrapy, totally subservient to the will of those nations (primarily the United States) which conquered it in 1945. The same army of occupation commanded by the same political factions of the same victorious governments are in place (with the exception now of Russia).

The presence of the United Nations occupation army in Germany is now “explained” as being there to “protect” Germany — even at Germany “request!” Is this “protection” possibly to maintain the present obnoxious, anti-German “democratic” regime of Bonn in power against the wills of those who have no say in or control in making its decisions but nevertheless must suffer as a result of them? Is it to “protect” Germany from regaining the vast food-producing territories in the east taken by Poland but needed by Germany to feed its own people? Is it to “protect” Germany from reclaiming the German Sudetenland from the Czechs who expelled its predominately German population? Is it to “protect” Germany from once making the grave error of making a decision which would work even once to benfit Germany? Is it to “protect” Germany from the “error” of ceasing to pay unending, illegal reparations to any former (45 years ago!) enemy anytime this country finds itself, inspiteof reparations it has already received and stipulated by the Berlin Agreement, countries still in desperate economic straits today and likely to remain so? I think not! It is all too clear to me that it is a means of guaranteeing that Germany will forever be used by the victors as a ready source of funds for the United Nations Organization to give to nations they support which are unable to support themselves. By this ploy, in the name of “humanitarianism,” Germany will be kept busy and eternally in debt to eliminate it as a possible influence if not controlling force in Europe.

III. GERMAN ARMED FORCES

Already before the end of hostilities, the U.S. newspapers proudly proclaimed that the United Nations forces held more German troops and officers than did the German Government had available. After the end of hostilities, most of these captives would not be demobilized and sent home to Germany. Rather, they would become part of a huge program agreed to by Roosevelt and Stalin to rebuild what had been destroyed (by anyone) in the war.

According to the document obligating Germany to unconditional surrender to the United Nations, all German units of the land, air and sea as well as the German Merchant Marine were obligated to surrender to the victors. With their persons, these units were also to surrender all their equipment, supplies, etc.

Under the Geneva Convention, a belligerant is obligated to accept the surrender of enemy soldiers and military units which try and wish to surrender. Thereeafter, the soldier or unit is to be disarmed and treated as “prisoner(s) of war” as stipulated by the Geneva Convention. The United States and Britain, as signatories to the Convention, were therefore obligated unconditionally to accept the surrender of any German units offering to surrender. Russia was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention. Roosevelt, therefore, unilaterally agreed with Stalin to circumvent the Geneva agreement. German units which had been accused of “war crimes” by the Russians would not be allowed to surrender to anyone but the Russians. Further, Russia could thereafter use German military forced labor for any purpose it chose. It was probably this slave labor force which, after building “modern Russia,” as planned at Yalta, finally began to trickle home to Germany in the 1950’s. Hundreds of thousands had vanished. They apparently perished in Russia or became “russianized,” since Russia after losing some 20,000,000 men had a tremendous shortage of men for operating its farms and factories, and never returned to Germany.

Those German captives who were engaged in labor beneficial to any power, were probably the fortunate ones, since they had, at least, someone who was obviously interested in their remaining healthy long enough to at least finish the work at hand. The more unfortunate ones, as yet unassigned, were often herded into primative camps equipped with little more than a barbed wire enclosure. Under the Geneva Convention, these troops were to be disarmed, given the status of “prisoners-of-war” and accorded treatment equal to that given the soldiers and officers of the capturing nation. To circumvent this problem with the Geneva Convention, to which the United States was a signatory, the United States (Generals George C. Marshall and Dwight D. Eisenhower) arbitrarily and illegally classified those prisoners taken after their surrender as “Disarmed Enemy Forces,” (“DEF’s”). At a later date, German prisoners-of-war captured by the Americans prior to the end of the German surrender were also arbitrarily and illegally reclassified “DEF.” All this was in defiance specifications of the Geneva Convention.

Disarmed enemy forces were different in that whatever German government which existed in Germany (none!) was responsible for feeding them instead of the army which captured them. Also, no public statements about these captives was to be made. So effective was this veil of secrecy that the public became aware of it only with the publishing of Other Losses in 1989 by the Canadian James Bacque.

The United States had some 200 such DEF camps which operated some ten months following the end of hostilities. One of the most infamous was at Sinzig-Remagen which was totally destroyed after its closing. It made Andersonville look like a church get-to-gether. Prisoners in these camps in Germany were shipped for labor, as requested to United Nations allies. Indeed, it was only after the French complained bitterly about the poor physical condition of the prisoners they received from the United States as “reparations laborers” that official notice of the barbaric conditions in the camps was taken. Bacque lays the guilt for establishing and maintaining such camps squarely on Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower and Gen. George C. Marshall. Bacque estimates that at least 750,000 Germans perished in American custody in these unnecessary inhuman camps. Another 250,000 Germans transferred to the French were in such bad condition that they also died. But what was done to the United Nations authorities guilty of such acts in the name of “Justice?” Nothing! Even today, many believe the “Germans got what they deserved,” so it is not difficult to see how this atrocity was kept secret so long. It is difficult to get any sort of investigation going just to determine the truth or falsity of the charges. The biggest disagreement appears to be on the extent of the atrtocity. But many are beginning to wonder if this maltreatment of Germans was, indeed, true “Justice” or retribution. Obviously, any such maltreatment which for any reason might have been dealt out by the Germans would necessarily have to be punished quickly and punished harshly. At any rate, it seems that on a personal basis, and in the case of Germans, the punishment, in most instances, far exceeded the “crime.”

The debate over Bacques book is, however, not whether German DEF’s in American custody died from maltreatment but just how many German victims died. In this case, I presume the logic so often and so self-righteously used in the arguments by the protagonists of the holocaust accusations must rightly prevail, if justice is indeed double edged. And that is “If only one died they are just as guilty as if 6,000,000 died.”

Additionally, in 1991 when Bacques’ book first became known, it was condemned in general by the American public, as the “holocaust” allegations in 1945 were condemned by the Germans in 1945. Some Americans condemned the charges out of hand on grounds of “patriotism.” The well-meaning, easy-going Americans were obviously incapable of such bestiality, again quite similar to the German reaction about its military men and governmental officials in 1945. (At the end of the war the official German attitude toward the United Nations’ atrocity charges were “Unreines Mittel zum boesen Zweck” [dirty goods for an evil purpose!”].) Generally, American officers denied any knowledge of such an unchivalrous affair. Again in 1945, German officers maintained they had heard nothing of United Nations charges of mass murder until they heard the United Nations broadcasts after the end of hostilities, and those who had heard anything about them earlier, very often German clerics, admitted to having listened illegally to United Nations broadcasts before the end of the war. But it was American officers, American documents, buried in Washington archives, unpublicised letters from Eisenhower to Marshall, and French reports which gave Bacques the unequivocal thrust for his book.

But being in a camp did not always guarantee that the German captive would be treated even as well as related in Bacques book. These camps could be entered more or less at will by anyone in a uniform of one of the United Nations under an almost endless number of pretenses. One uniform which allowed the wearer to travel all over Europe and visit any camp he wished, at least for a time, was the UNRRA uniform. The camp guards had no definate knowledge of which uniforms belonged to which country. Over an above this, they really didn’t care what happened to their hapless German captives. As might be suspected, a number of “Vengence Organizations” took advantage of the situation to satisfy their burning desires to shed German blood (“Poison Bread Fells 1,900 German Captives in U.S. Army Prison Camp Near Nueremberg,” NYT, April 20, 1946, p. 6). (Later, a secret Polish-Jewish vengence organization, “NAKAM,” operating out of Lublin, Poland openly bragged about having poisoned 4,300 of the interned SS troops. They claimed their operation resulted in 700-800 deaths) Very little ever came of this glaring example of U.S. “negligence,” if it may be called that. One is tempted to wonder what would have happened if such an obvious case of proveable negligence and mistreatment could have been laid at the feet of the defeated Germans.

In the desire of the victors to pare down the German population to fit within the new borders allotted Germany by them, they were very nearly completely successful prior to 1947. Whether the German soldiers were killed or sterilized or kept in POW (DEF) camps and away from their wives during child bearing age, the result on the GErman population was the same. New German births in Germany were suppressed by the victors by precluding the possiblity of conception. With the difficult circumstances existing in Germany at the time, those couples who could have borne children tried to avoid births since a child would have made their lives more difficult still.

IV. GERMAN INDUSTRY

At the conclusion of hostilities, large segments of German industry had been laid waste by the immense bombing program which had been carried out by the United Nations since 1943. Germany and eastern Europe were vulnerable to bombers from England, France, Italy, and North Africa, and they came day and night in ever-greater numbers with little, because of their numbers and the heavy Luftwaffe losses to incumber their operation except the new German jet fighters in 1944-45 and anti-aircraft which they had been able to replace from the tremendous Stalingrad defeat. In addition to this, there was the “shuttle bombing” in which planes from one location dropped their bombs on Germany and flew on to Russian bases where they were reloaded with bombs for a return bombing run over Germany before returning to their home base. The United Nations, with its unlimited supply of bombs, never got this system operating as they had hoped it would work. In addition to this, the atomic bomb being built in the United States was slated to be used in Germany the first time if Germany continued to resist after it was built. Apparently Roosevelt envisaged a “Dresden” type experiment on a relatively untouched city just to see how deadly the weapon was. (Had this been done, the fallout would obviously have been distributed over eastern Europe.)

But even traditional explosives had taken a heavy toll on German industry. The Ruhr, although still operating at a vastly reduced rate, even until it was captured, had been severly damaged with no hope of its being repaired. This extrapolated to the point that no new tanks, guns, planes, etc. would be produced in Germany. Having very little oil production itself and no chance of importing this essential fuel, Germany was forced to produce its oil for gasoline synthetically at Leune by Leipzig and at the Leune Section at Dwory-Monowitz (Auschwitz). Leune was under constant bombardment with the result that any production at all was limited and sporadic. The Leune Section at Dwory/Monowitz using Auschwitz-Birkenau labor was bombed in the summer of 1945 after a test run and never again came into production.

By the time the United Nations troops crossed into Germany in late 1944, German industrial sites, like German cities with their dwellings, colleges, churches, hospitals, etc. were little more than tangled shambles of ruined iron and brick.

A great portion of the physical plants of factories had, therefore, already been destroyed by the time hostilities ended. With the United Nations decision that all German “Armament” plants must be destroyed or dismantled for shipment to any United Nation requesting the plant, whatever of value that still remained in Germany was to be dismantled, removed from Germany and shipped to the requesting country, and Germany would not even have the scrap of the old plant to repair and rebuild the decimated country. This was done with the full knowledge that in modern war practically any manufactured article is useful in war or can be used to produce something which is useful in war. None of this deterred the United Nations decision makers in post-war Germany, they followed blindly the decisions which had been made for them years before the end of the hostilities.

German commerce and transportation both domestic and international were at a standstill and was to be allowed to stay in the condition so long as it did not work to the detriment of the occupation. Already in the summer of 1945, it was nearly impossible to obtain necessary chemicals (e. g. medicine) made in the Ruhr in Berlin. Obviously, transportation was of great importance to the victors, so it is not surprising that the German transportation system, certainly one of the best in the world at the time, was to be put back in service for the benefit of the occupation forces. But first, those United Nations wishing German rolling stock etc. were given a large portion of what they wished from that which was considered available for the German domestic civilian use. Many miles of railway track were also dismantled and shipped to Russia to be reassembled presumably by German prisoners-of-war in the “modern” Russia they were building for the postwar world.

Although the Germans had few autos or trucks, the Autobahn with its heavily bombed bridges would be put back into service for use by the occupation troops.

In accord with the plan to keep Germany isolated until “reconstructed” by the victors, no German international trade, imports, etc. except those specifically allowed by the occupation authorities were to be made. The isolation of Germany was to include international trade. To this end, the German Merchant marine was confiscated. Allowed transactions to obtain essential raw materials, primarily for the use of the victors, were to be paid for with captured German assets.

Although the German mines would not be flooded as Morgenthau (and Roosevelt) had desired and proposed, their production would be closely controlled and the coal produced would be doled out and used as decreed by the occupation authorities. The miners would be Germans who, in recognition of the heavy work they must do, would be given better rations of food than their fellow Germans.

In addition to all the above which was decreed, the German patents, copyrights, etc. were declared void and available for use by all the nations at no cost of licensing. The product of millions of hours of German educational preparation, of research and development, of inestimable value,” was declared to be fair plunder for the United Nations. Space prevents the inclusion of even a modest generalized list of these confiscated creations of German brains.

As if this were not enough, Germans themselves were often taken under the most questionable circumstances and bodily whisk away to foreign countries and required to work their for their former enemies. Even though, in this respect, the United States, because of its great wealth, probably behaved best toward its captives, much was left to be desired so far as civilized behavior was concerned. An example which is well documented is that of Arthur Rudolph, a German rocket scientist who, in wartime had managed the underground German V-2 factory at Nordhausen-Mittelwerk. After the war, he (and many others) was brought to the United States where he took a leading part in the development of the Saturn V Rocket. (See: Franklin, Thomas, An American In Exile, Christopher Kaylor Co., Huntsville, Alabama).

The Rudolph story is unique in that it is so well documented. Had Gen. Walter Dornberger, Dr. Wernher von Braun, and others but lived a little longer until the advent of the “Office of Special Investigations” (“OSI”) in the Justice Department heavily dedicated to Zionist hatred and a desire for yet further vengeance against Germany and Germans, these men, now proudly viewed by many as “great Americans,” would also have been subject to the whims of this nepharious, zionist-dominated United States bureau and thereby be made to suffer the agony which they are capable of illegally inflicting. These men of the “OSI” behave in Washington still today as if they were with the U.S. Army in Germany in the period between 1945-52. They not only get away with it, but they are publicly applauded by elected officials who benefit greatly from the support they receive from those who maneuvered the “OSI” into existence to do their malevolent bidding.

Here again, the destruction of German industry was very nearly complete at the end of hostilities. According to the Berlin Conference agreement, The factories which were to be removed from Germany by the end of 1948. Products etc. taken as “reparations” were to be removed by 1950. With the situtation in which Germany found herself the physical plants were to be removed, but she was to continue delivering goods for another two years. Apparently, the plan had been to bleed the country white within the foreseable future and to guarantee this to be the case by giving the United Nation another two years after the important factories had been removed to gather up any goods which might still have been overlooked. At any rate, this objective too was reached fairly early in the occupation. The factories not marked early for dismantling and transfer and those not designated by the Zone Commander as necessary for the occupation were marked for demolition under the provisions of J.C.S. 1067/6.

V. GERMAN CULTURAL LIFE

A. Propaganda, Thought Direction and Thought Control Media

The initial edicts published by the authority of the United Nations occupation placed all means of obtaining information securely in the hands of the victors to use when and as they saw fit. The media for distributing “news,” propaganda, such as newspapers, radio transmissions, movies, publication of books, magazines, etc. and public relations activity were initially all closed by the victors and German activity in this area was recommenced only with a license from the occupation authorities to reopen. This was done only after a thorough “denazification” of the establishment and even then with the sharpest continual scrutiny by the Military Government to be certain that there was not the slightest hint of opposition to the objectives,policies or statements of the occupation powers by the suppressed, powerless Germans. At Yalta, it had been decreed that nothing could be said, broadcast, printed, filmed or implied which would reflect in any way upon the honor or reputation of any one of the United Nations or the behavior of their troops. Neither were German newspapers allowed to question any of the allegations made freely against Germans and Germany and recognized officially by the occupation authorities as unquestionable “truth” (“judicial notice”, thus “truth” by definition) in their numerous “war crimes” tribunals.

The “crimes” which the Germans and their allies allegedly committed were for the most part not war crimes which the warring nations had agreed before hand in the Geneva Convention to regard as such. The situation was complicated even more by the fact that Russia, the major ally of the United States had itself refused to sign the Geneva Convention and refused to be bound by any of its provisions. Never the less, the United States and England insisted that Russia be treated as a signatory and threatened dire consequences if the Germans, who were also signatories, did not act accordingly. The crimes which the victors brought against the Germans at Nuernberg and at other tribunals were in fact no more than the accusations they had been making all along in their wartime propaganda campaigns calculated to infuriate their own people against the Germans. They therefore formulated and pronounced ex post facto “law” tailored in the London Protocols by the prosecutors to convict only Germans and their wartime allies of “crimes” defined by these same prosecutors already named by the victors, who in their infinate wisdom and knowledge of international law, declared that, without any investigation, certain alleged crimes were actually committed without doubt and must therefore be accepted as unquestitonable fact (“judicial notice”), it is hardly surprising that they achieved the high number of “convictions” at the numerous tribunals.

But unless a condemned German was hanged with haste, which the occupation authorities were always overly eager to do, even at the expense of hanging witnesses which might be necessary in later “trials,” his sentence was quite apt to be commuted. The key to continued life for Germans accused of “war crimes” in the late 1940’s was to somehow keep an “appeal” or some other legal maneuver active in the military government heierarchy until the early 1950’s. (Hilberg, Raul, The Destruction of the European Jews, Quadrangle Books, Chicago, 1961, p. 696-699). At this late date, only those Germans hated most and therefore marked from the beginning for death by the powerful zionist minyans of Nuernberg (e. g. SS Gruppenfuehrer Oswald Pohl, who “confessed” under the most scandalous conditions) were still in danger of execution by the occupation forces. Those who were successful at this deadly game saw their sentences commuted drastically, and some were even released from United nations custody. This is a poor commentary on the alleged guilts of the persons involved. One must not forget, however, that release by the occupation authorities often meant delivery into the hands of the “German” civil authorities appointed by the occupation authorities and in some cases into the hands of other United Nations (e. g. Poland).

It is not the purpose of this study to cover the lives and political ideocyncracies of the numerous men who served on these United Nations political tribunals as liberal “judges” and “prosecutors,” but in all honesty they were probably those most qualified to carry out the job desired by those men who appointed them to their positions. Their positions and anti-German stances were well known long before they were appointed, since no chance was taken that a major embarrassment to the United Nations would occur. Even here, however, miscalculations did occur as in the case of the Taylor Tribunals at Nuernberg where some of the basic principles of the tribunal were attacked by Judge Charles F. Wennerstrum (Iowa). (For the record, Judge Wennerstrum did not doubt the guilt of his victims but suggested that the victors were poor judges of the vanquished. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Institute for Historical Review, Torrence, Cal., 1985, pp 26 & 27) As judges, history will certainly judge them on the same level with Justice Charles Lynch, Tomas de Torquemada, etc. This is an immense and complicated subject which deserves much more study than it has so far been given.

Along with such judges, one must also consider the numerous “professional” witnesses etc. who, literally fully dependent upon the occupation forces for food, clothing and shelter and often times money, provided the grist for the postwar United Nations propaganda mill. Some of these (e. g. Eugen Kogan) were themselves former inmates of German concentration camps or work camps seeking revenge against Germans and a favored position with the victors. It was to the advantage of such “witnesses” to keep the trials going as long as possible and to provide the fanciful “testimony” desired by a “prosecution” interested only in achieving convictions and sentences of designated Germans. The careers of some of these “witnesses” lasted well into the 1950’s, and they succeeded in sending many innocent men to ignominious death without trial or to undeserved prison terms if not to the gallows.

Another type of “witness,” often overlapping with the foregoing type, was the unseen, uncross-examined witness who furnished the victors with a profusion of confessions and depositions. These “documents” were obtained under the most unclear if not suspicious circumstances. After providing the occupation interrogators with these signed statements, which could be used as evidence according to the rules set out in the London Protocol, the “witness” disappeared forever or was hanged after being turned over to a United Nation requesting him for “trial.” Examples of such “witnesses” were SS Obersturmfuehrer Kurt Gerstein, who obliged his captors with no fewer than six different and differing “documents” between April 26, 1945 and May 6, 1945. (Roques, Henri, The Confessions of Kurt Gerstein, Institute for Historical Review, Costa Mesa, Calif., 1989, p. 4).

Another “disappearing” witness was Alfred Helmut Naujocks, who after leaving a deposition attempting to prove the disorder and attacks on the German Czech and Polish Frontiers were actually ordered, planned and carried out by SS Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich. Naujocks was also involved in the “Venlo Incident” (Best, Captain S. Payne, The Venlo Incident, Hutchinson & Co., Limited, London, 1951 & Shirer, William L., The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Simon and Schuster, N. Y. 1960, pp. 518-20.)

The testimony given by Auschwitz Commandant, SS Obersturmbahnfuehrer Rudolf Franz Hoess is yet another variant. When captured by the British near Flensburg on March 11, 1946 by British Sgt. Bernard Clark and five “specialists” in interrogation. After three days of the most brutal abuse, Hoess’ resistance was broken and he was ready to do anything his tormentors demanded. (Butler, Rupert, Legions of Death, Hamlyn Paperbacks, England, 1983 & Faurisson, Robert, “How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Hoess,” JHR, Vol. 7, No. 4, Winter 1986-87). It was while he was in British hands that he first signed his first “confession,” NO-1210. With sufficient abuse, even the miraculous had occurred. Another document NO-1210, signed April 5, 1946 is in English, a language in which Hoess was not proficient! Apparently, the certification of U.S. Lt. Col. Smith W. Brookhart which follows Hoess’s signature is intended to lend credence to the tawdry affair.

SS Obersturmbahnfuehrer Rudolf Hoess subsequently was taken to Nuernberg for what appears to be testimony the substance of which the United Nations Prosecution was certain of before hand. He was then handed over to the Poles who condemned him to death. Before his execution, he allegedly wrote a book entitled Kommandant in Auschwitz which is believed to be spurious. A foreword for the book is provided by Martin Broszat of the (Munich) Institute fuer Zeitgeschichte.

Witnesses who had been coerced or bribed into giving false testimony were not to be trusted. To prevent subsequent embarassment, if their testimony were so important as to endanger the achievement of the objectives of the occupation, they were either eliminated by those who had by one way or another obtained the testimony or affidavit, or given into the hands of those who would keep them silent until they were executed. Probably the men who “cooperated” under duress secretly hoped at the moment to save their lives at the moment and their honor at a later date. Their captors were certainly aware of such possibilities and the subsequent damage a sudden denial would do to the case the Prosecution was presenting. To avoid such a possibility, crucial or stubborn witness could “disappear,” die while being interrogated, or while still in United Nations custody, be transferred to another United Nation such as Poland where execution without ever any possibility of the condemned man being allowed a chance to speak openly was a foregone conclusion.

Newspapers

To assure that only news which the occupation authorities had passed and authorized for the occupied Germans would be available, all newspapers and similar sources were closed until reopened by the occupying powers. They reopened under rigorous control by officers of the United Nations with their former owner/publishers ejected from their positions and often times under indictment or restraint by the military government.

Later, after finding “cooperative,” liberally-inclined Germans, the newspapers were returned to “German control” to operate under a license issued by the military government. Axel Springer was one of the first German publishers to obtain such a license and has proved to be both a long term and dedicated devotee to the dissemination of news which was deemed necessary to the achievement of the United Nations occupation goals. For this, he has become a wealthy man with a publishing empire surpassing that of Ullstein. Such news rarely had anything which might be even remotely considered pro-German or for that matter “characteristically” German. Rather, it was completely devoted to the conversion of the mass of Germans into the type of pro-American population advocated by the western United Nations. Correspondingly, the Russians attempted to remake their zone into an extra territorial soviet of the Soviet Union.

In an attempt to make this a long-standing, permanent conversion, journalists, editors, etc. were sent to the United States to “seminars” at such institutions as Columbia Univerity to “learn” of American journalistic methods (NYT. “15 Germans Here to Study our Press,” Aug. 27, 1948. p. 23). One of these was Eugen Kogon, a Buchenwald “alumnus,” known for his many unproven charges against the Germans as a prolific “writer” and as a professional “witness” and deponent. The “seminar” cited at Columbia Univeristy lasted until November of 1948. Its “alumni” served as the basis of the generation of pro-United Nations, anti-German “German” writers who continue to dominate German journalism after half a century of occupation.

Radio

Radio stations were closed and re-opened in an entire analogous manner. It was obvious that these controls had long been planned. The single example of “RIAS,” the “Radiosender Im Amerikanischem Sektor (Berlin)” is fairly characteristic of all such stations. RIAS was established in 1945 by Lt. Col. William Friel Heimlich from Columbus, Ohio, a member of the Military Government and Headquarters, U.S. Army, Berlin. His job was to broadcast American music, American news, American viewpoints, etc. Anything which would promote American culture to the detriment of anything German which had previously existed. Some German music was also broadcast so long as it had been properly “denazified.” Felix Mendelsohn-Bartholdy, grandson of Moses Mendelsohn, Gustav Mahler, George Gershwin were popular on programs dictated by the victors (Bremen Orchestra to Play; Nazi Bans Dropped,” NYT., June 14, 1945, p. 11 & “Germans Play Gershwin,” NYT., Feb. 18, 1946, p. 23.) as were German composers who had remained politically inactive in the Third Reich. Wagner and Richard Straus were seldom if ever heard. Notable pro-United Nations conductors refused invitations to appear at Salzburg (“Three Decline Salzburg Bids,” NYT., June 1, 1946, p. 10).

Conductors who had been even suspected of being supportive of the NSDAP were denied the podium and allowed only the possibility of manual labor. Fortunately Yehuda Menuhin took up the defense of Wilhelm Furtwaengler (“New Friends of Music Head [Ira Hirschmann] Protests Plea [by Yehudi Menuhin) to Clear Furtwaengler of Nazi Stigma,” NYT, Dec. 11, 1945, p. 10; “Furtwaengler On Trial,” NYT., Dec. 11, 1946, p. 10; & “Furtwaengler is Cleared of Nazi Taint,” NYT., Dec. 18, 1946, p. 22) who, after a tortuous period was again allowed to conduct. After initial political difficulties, Herbert von Karajan (“Another Conductor is Banned [by the U.S.] in Austria,” NYT., March 3, 1946, p. 28) was again allowed to conduct.

Other conductors faired worse. Leo Borchard (“U.S. Sentries Kill Berlin Conductor,” NYT., Aug. 25, 1945, p. 6) was killed. Leopold Ludwig falsified his “Fragebogen” and was condemned to manual labor. Later, he immigrated to Canada where he again conducted. Dutch conductor Willem Mengelberg (“Mengelberg Loses Medal From Dutch,” NYT., Mar. 1947, p. 47) and was ordered permanently removed from the podium.

Performers faired no better. Walter Gieseking, allegedly Hitler’s favorite pianist arived in New York for a series of recitals. Demonstrations organized by Jews were so effective, Artur Rubinstein being one of the participants, that he was shuffled off back to Germany without playing one single note, leaving an almost solidly Jewish group of U.S. pianists to dominate the concert stages of the U.S.

With a major role being played by the United States Army in the “reconstruction/reeducation” of Germany, it is not surprising that some American conductors rushed to fill the vacuum created by the disqualification of German composers and orchestra directors. John Bitter of New York, conducted in Dresden (Feb. 24, 1947, p. 16). Negro, Rudolf Dunbar conducted in Berlin ( “To Conduct in Berlin,” Aug. 31, 1945, p. 14). The apparent lesson for the defeated but never the less culture-aware Germans was unmistakeable. The United States was not only superior in its ability to fabricate the weapons of war, but its “culture” was superior to that of Germany (and all other nations) in every other way.

Obviously, Lt. Col Heimlich’s job was purely and simply providing propaganda to support the United Nations occupation objectives in Germany, and with no possible counter effort on the part of a German Government, which meant he had no effective opposition, in his endeavors, he was quite successful.

In 1946, Col. Heimlich was discharged from the U.S. Army in Germany and became (civilian) Chief, Political and Civil Affairs, Military Government, Berlin, in control of “Operation Backtalk” by order of Gen. D. Lucius Clay, Commander of U.S. Forces in Europe. His new job was to provide propaganda to support the western United Nations in their cold war against Russia and to provide counter-propaganda to denegrate the Russians in their efforts to seize control of the Berlin enclave.

In this manner, many of the post-war officers who were placed in control of information dissemination and military government extended the period of their control by remaining as civilian employees of the U.S. Government long after the war. Their initial objectives for which they had been trained in the United States in various institutional sites (e. g. University of Virginia, Charlottesburg, Va. and Columbia University, NYC.) were thereby assured despite any changes in the official master plan from time to time.

Col. Heimlich associated with such celebrities as Gen. Clay, Robert Murphy, Dr. Kurt Schumacher, “Weinbrandt” Willy Brandt (Frahm), Cardinal Graf von Preysing, Jacob Kaiser, Otto Suhr, Ernst Reuter, and Jeanette Wolff (See: Boehm, Erich H. [Editor], We Survived, Wolff, Jeanette, “For Life and Freedom,” Yale University Press, New Haven, 1949, pp. 253-280 — one of the few stories in which a Jew relates her experiences in a Ghetto [Riga] for Jews established by the Germans for those being resettled in the east), to name but a few. Mr. Heimlich, “Mr. RIAS,” was a very influential man-on-the-inside for certain. Toward the end of the Blockade of Berlin he was recalled to Washington to work with “Radio Free Europe,” yet another propaganda assignment, but his lasting mark had already been left upon how and what would be broadcast in Germany (Washington Journal,Nr. 39, Sept. 27, 1991, Seite 8). So important had “RIAS” become to the “reborn” Bonn type politicians which it has helped place in authority over the People of Germany and helped maintain in this position that in September of 1991 Oberburgemeister, Gerhard Diepgen, of Berlin, from his luxurious apartment in Berlin, publically called for the retention of occupation-dominated RIAS rather than a return of broadcasting to German control. For the German population, what would have been a welcome change with “Ubt immer Treu’ und Redlichkeit” issueing from the Berlin radio. They had not heard it since its capture by Russians in 1945. So far as Germans were concerned, RIAS had practiced neither loyalty to Germany nor honesty to the German People.

As indicated above, by the time the news dispensing media was nominally returned to the hands of “denazified” Germans, licensed by the occupation authorities, they were no more than a poorly veiled propaganda instrument of the occupation government itself. After the establishment of the Bonn Regime, these news disseminating groups continued operation under essentially the same conditions which had originally been met when they obtained their license to begin publishing. This situation continued long after it was publically maintained that “freedom of the press” existed throughout Germany.

B. Education, Academia

As was the case with all institutions which control information to and thoughts of the public, German schools were immediate closed by the occupying powers and were opened after being “denazified” thoroughly and reorganized with a John Dewey type liberal curriculum entirely satisfactory and supervised closely by the victors. In this manner, the victors hoped to justify all their activities during the occupation and secure the sweet fruits of their victory for future generations. This resulted in a situation in which the population and individuals accused of “crimes” were never in a position to answer publically the charges brought against them in the press controlled by the victors. The same being true of the radio, movies, churches and schools when they again were allowed to become active. All sources of news dissemination to the German population were dependent upon the benevolence of the victors and were beholden to them for their further operation. It was therefore the most intensive use of propaganda in modern history with the objective of “brainwashing” an entire nation.

All allowable German thought in the future was taken care of by the complete and strict United Nations control of the schools, churches, printing establishments, and news media. As said above, they were opened only when the victors considered they were “ready,” and they were “ready” only when they had been sufficiently “denazified.” This meant only when, in their opinion, every vestige of “nazism” had been destroyed, and that was a euphemism indicating that they believed every trace of information which might be deleterious to them in the future had been eliminated by a process devised and prescribed by them which they chose to call “denazification.” To this end, the United States prior to its capture of Aachen already had printed new “school books” with, we may be assured, the wholehearted help of Columbia University and its ultra-liberal leftist School of Education, influenced greatly by that undying germanophobe and liberal educator and philosopher, Dr. John Dewey, who has done so much to make the United States educational system what it has become today. One should not look exclusively at Columbia University in this regard, however, since all U.S. institutions of higher learning, eager to obtain Government funds were anxious to follow Columbia’s lead.

Later, “American schools” utilizing even more of John Dewey’s teachings were established in Germany which, according to the american-licensed papers were invariably superior to those which had been reestablished by the Americans after the war. Many “reconstructed and reborn” German parents strove to get their children into such “elite” schools and then spent years wondering why their progeny had such completely different basic ideas on extra-marital relations, honesty, dependability, industry, frugality, respect, patriotism, etc. Within one generation much of what had been respected and revered as the German way of life had been put away in favor of the “new” ideas of the invader, taught in their “new” schools.

German teachers in the revised educational institutions who were considered to have been members of the Party who could not be “retrained” (“brainwashed”) were dismissed from the top to the bottom of the existing German educational system. Although “German” officials did the discharging, it was done as a result of “guidelines” etc. published by the victors. Some persons in the United States felt that any teacher who had once been a National Socialist Party Member should never be allowed to teach again. (“Would Blacklist Nazi Teachers,” NYT, Oct. 11, 1944, p. 9). Political and social orientation closely supervised by the occupation authorities was now the guiding factor in the “new” German eductional and “re-educational” guidelines not ability in and knowledge of one’s scholastic discipline. In the United States this educational fault has become obvious from the number of high school and even college graduates who can neither read nor write and have no knowledge of history, geography nor mathematics. Quite often, their appreciation of the arts is no more than a catechismic pavlovian response to anything billed by the liberal establishment brotherhood as an “artistic masterpiece”.

The “new” philosophy introduced by the victors was by no means directed solely toward the students, it was the intent of the occupation regime to “re-educate” the entire German Nation. This “re-education” was more like a religious conversion, since everything previously taught and revered by the German Government was subject to continual ridicule and any attempt to retain or defend any concept under attack was considered a certain sign of residual “nazism” or a danger to the security of the occupation. German holders of the Doctorate were automatically subject to arrest for possible punishment by the victors if it were believed they might be a future problem. The conversion into a “born again” German was as far reaching as that of the barbaric Clovis who suddenly was required to burn the idols he had adored and adore the cross which he had formerly burnt.

The Germans were “reeducated” by their occupiers to the degree that today (1990) in Germany, the average citizen accepts unquestitonably the U. N. accusation that Germans killed millions of Jews, although maybe not the originally allegated “6,000,000, but “even one” Jew was an eternal blot upon Germany. This does do some damage, however, to the concept that there ever was a “plan” to kill every Jew in territory occupied by Germany, but apparently causes no logical problem to those who claim to believe devoutly the “holocaust” allegations. By comparison the Americans who admittedly killed many millions of German civilians and soldiers by their bombings, as a result of the viciousness of their post-war policies, etc. never feel the least inclined to voice one word of introspective guilt at all. In this, theyare motivated by their blind belief, created by their thought manipulative functionaries that the system supported by the Germans was soooooo completely evil that any act deemed necessary and undertaken by the enemies of Germany was justified in securing their final, utter destrction. Most Americans believed the Germans whom they assumed to be unquestionably guilty of the barbaric crimes charged to them were fortunate, indeed, to have been treated so mildly by their christian enemies and victors.

Of the Germans who dared predict or guess the treatment a vanquished, helpless Germany would receive at the hands of the victors, time would show that only Adolf Hitler had, from the middle of 1939 onward, clearly seen and predicted his unfortunate country’s fate at the hands of its enemies. On this basis, he had bravely and properly chosen rather to die “with harness on his back” rather than submit meekly to U. N. vassalage and their obviously intended plans for pruning down of German territory (including Austria — 32,369 sq. miles) from 213,305 sq. miles to 175,569 sq. miles (including Austria) with an attendant plan of Germanocide intended to reduce the population of ethnic Germans in the “new” truncated Germany by several millions through planned privation, sickness, etc. after the cessation of hostilities. (The present population of Germany includes many who were brought into Germany under U. N. supervision who, although are now officially part of the present German population are not German in any sense. Consequently, the Germanocide as planned and practiced by the U. N. occupation is adroitly concealed.

C. Clergy

Not even religion was immune to the attacks and changes of the victors. Cooperative pastors and priests were allowed to continue in service of the “new” Judeo-christian Lutheranism as enunciated by calvinists Karl Barth and W. A. Visser’t Hooft and accepted obediently by the ambitious renegade Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemoeller and his German followers, placed in a dominating church position by the occupation powers, in the self-flagellating Stuttgart Declaration or “Confession.” “Nazis,” Party members or not, were eliminated as it suited the purpose of the occupation authorities. Cooperative Catholic priests were also allowed to continue in office only so long as the obediently hawked the prescribed U. N. propaganda. “Nazis” were sumarily moved or removed. Even U.S. Army chaplains deemed in opposition to the U.S. objectives for devastating vanquished Germany, tolerant of a mild peace with Germany, who genuinely tried to help the Germans in their dire need were removed from the zones occupied. Strangely, some of the German pastors and priests who had found disfavor with the NSDAP, now found disfavor in the eyes of the occupation powers.

So far as those who supported the institution of the Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plan in Germany were concerned, the Stuttgart “Confession” was all they needed to insist with renewed vigor that such a sinful dissolute nation must, besides making fitting restitution to its victims, do long and hard pentence before it would be sufficiently purged to again become acceptable into the “Community of Nations.”

With the capture of the German Lutheran Church by those beholden to the occupying powers, the people of the former great nation had lost their last hope of resisting in any manner, the heinous charges leveled against them continually by their enemies. The Roman Catholic Church faired no better, since, after the death of Pius XII, it was controlled by persons in Rome also beholden to the conquerers of Germany. There being no alternative to the doctrine of collective German guilt, dinned daily into the heads of the defeated by the victors’ numerous acolytes, the natural German reluctance to believe the worst about their fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers was deftly circumvented. It was easier to at least profess belief in the alleged sins of Germany and its Government than it was to attempt to combat the insurmountable mass of daily propaganda which could be loosed apparently at a moment’s notice in support of the victors’ allegations. In addition, protests of Germany’s innorance were, as a result of agreements made by Adenauer in Luxemberg and by laws later passed later by the Bonn Government, doubtless at the behest of the occupation government, could be punishable by both fines and jail sentences. The flood of German blood which had been released and the jail sentences pronounced at the post war “war crimes” trials by the victors and the collaborating German “democrats” left no doubt in any minds as to the serious intent of the Bonn Government to stamp out any open doubts as to the truth of the Uniited Nations’ wartime accusations.

So long as the German churchmen had not been members of the NSDAP and said nothing which might remotely be interpreted as a defense of the former German regime, they might say anything they wished in the name of “freedom of religion.” In the few known instances in which even a veiled reference was made to the Third Reich which would indicate that that the last German Government might have had some virtue, the cleric was slapped down in no uncertain terms with the implication that it had better not happen again.

An essential characteristic of any religion is that it times of great turmoil and personal trial, solace, foregivness, and understanding for accusations known to be false can be obtained by what many persons believe to be a source higher than man. The post-war Lutheran church has not only betrayed its charges most grievously in this regard and thrown them to the United Nations wolves, but they have joined the “wolves” themselves and for their own materialistic benefit. To used their positions to further subdue the already distraught German populace and deprive them of what might have been their last hope of solace, and comfort for their losses of loved ones, their homes, their possessions, etc. these “wolves in clerical robes,” have betrayed their most sacred vows. The Lutheran Church has been restructured under the careful aid and scrutiny of such men as (German, anti-NSDAP) Martin Niemoeller, (German, anti NSDAP), (German, anti- NSDAP) Theophil Wurm, (German, anti-NSDAP) Friedrich Karl Otto Dibelius, (Swiss, anti-NSDAP) Karl Barth, the latter often draped in an American uniform, and (Dutch) W. A. Visset’t Hooft. These men conspired to introduce a “new,” liberal Lutheranism into Germany with the concept of collective German guilt for the war and for the mass murder of Jews. They were among the most effective propagandists in disseminating the wartime information broadcast by the United Nations propaganda broadcasts. In addition they were responsible as well for the post-war, nation-wide acceptance of this wartime United Nations propaganda as gospel. This they accomplished with the Stuttgart Declaration or “Confession” (October 19, 1945). At this meeting, eleven anti-NSDAP clerics affixed their signatures to a paper written by Dibelius and Niemoeller in which they declared the collective guilt of all of Germany for the crimes alleged by the victors in the conflagration. Actually, these eleven German clerics had, for the most part, also been the prime movers in the pre-war “Barmen Confession” of 1934 establishing the “Confessional Church” which had openly opposed the NSDAP from its inception — even in time of war. (Lang, R. Clarence, “Imposed German Guilt: The Stuttgart Declaration of 1945,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. VIII, pp. 55-78(1988).

The Stuttgart “Confession,” was closely watched and scrutinized and supported by internationalist-minded clerics of the victor nations as the “Barmen Confession” in 1934 had been scrutinized and supported by the same groups before the war began. The post-war feeling was wide spread that American financial and other aid depended heavily upon the will of the German “sinners” to admit their offenses before God and the “Community of Nations” before being accepted as repentants sorely in need of rehabilitation. It was made known to the German clerics that such “purification” was to be the prerequisite to obtaining financial any aid from U.S. Churches for both Germany and the “purged,” “denazified” Lutheran Church.

The clergy represented the earliest large group of converts to the dogma of the United Nations occupation. It was not mere chance that so much attention to achieve this was spent by the victors. With the continual din from the newspapers, the broadcast medium, the politicians, and the “denazified” academicians, all of which could easily be controlled by the occupation authorities, the German People had no sanctuary left to which they could fly for hope and understanding in their greatest hour of need.

D. Libraries, Archives, Monuments, Museums, etc.

The above institutes which were considered to be, if not the finest in the world, certainly among the finest in the world were closed by orders of the occupation powers until they could be purged of any materials the victors declared to be tainted with NSDAP ideology. I can remember the trucks, loaded with books from the Columbia Haus Library rolling down Tempelhoferdamm to the place where they were to be burned. This was of course, neither a new nor isolated act ob book burning by Americans. (See: Martin, James J., An American Adventure in Bookburning) By comparison, the number of books burned by the National Socialists in a largely symbolic demonstration was miniscule when compared to the tons of books purposefully and willfully burned by the United Nations occupation forces. And here, one must remember that these books which had remained were but a fraction of the many many more which were burned as a side result in the numerous massive United Nations saturation bombing raids.

After a thorough going “denazification” of their German personnel as well as a draconian expurgation of the materials contained therein, carried out by persons in the service of the United States described best by Robert H. Jackson at Nuernberg as men who had been born in Germany and had grown up speaking German, the above institutions were restored to public service to participate in the dissemination of United Nations propaganda. These were to augment the purely propaganda “Libraries,” one of which is located at Hallisches Tor in Berlin, and “Cultural Exchange Offices” which were built by the occupation forces purely to expouse the purposes and whims of the victors in Germany.

But these fine institutions were also subject to plunder by individaul soldiers and the occupation governments like everything else in Germany. Many books were confiscated and shipped to libraries in the United States. I have seen such books in the Iowa City Library of Iowa University. It is unlikely that Iowa State Library is unique among the universities of the United States in this respect. I have noticed other books in the Carlysle War College Library at Carlysle, Penn. which I suspect were also obtained in Germany and shipped by “alumni” to Carlysle to the War College. Other books obviously having been taken from Germany by the United States are in the library of Congress (e. g. Der deutsche Feldzug in Polen, published by the German General Staff during the war). Warehouses of documents and books are still held and uncatalogued in U.S. repositories in and around Arlington, Va. For a time, the repository dealing with I. G. Farbenindustrie and probably other records was controlled by (Jewish) U.S. Army (West Point) Col. David “Mickey” Marcus who at the time was head of the Washington War Crimes Branch seeking “evidence” for the trials of Germans in Germany. No one knows to what degree these many many documents were “expurgated” while in his care. Later, as “Mickey Stone,” he was killed accidentally by one of the Hagana troops he was commanding in military operations against the Arabs in Palestine.

Among the other documents of historic note captured by the U.S. Army in Germany were the documents of the German (Prussian) archives from their beginning. Indications are that since their capture in the Harz Mountains by U.S. troops certain documents, which might proove embarassing to the U.S. Roosevelt regime, have disappeared (e. g. the Potocki Papers dealing with the initiation of the war in Poland).

The Americans probably excused much of their plundering as individuals as cases of basically good, well-meaning boys collecting (“liberating”) souvenirs from the enemy. By this, they apparently mean such “boys” as Col. Jack W. Durant who with his wife stole $1,500.000 of the Hesse Family jewels and actually got to the United States with them. Another Colonel smuggled captured gold bullion into Switzerland (N. Y. Times, July 14, 1946, p. 14) before being discovered. The crime here was, of course, that it was not turned over to higher officers to do with as they pleased. These are two cases which were discovered and reported, but one would be foolish to the extreme to believe they were isolated cases.

Over the last half century, numerous cases have arisen and been reported in which “souvenirs” taken home by the “boys” have been priceless relics looted from churches, irreplaceable paintings taken from homes, galleries, museums, etc. Many such things are still missing. Some have been returned by paying a “finder’s fee” to the person presently in posession of it to avoid its almost certain destruction to escape detection. Many of the original thieves have been placed beyond jeopardy by death, leaving the plunder to their relatives. Still others have been found out and allowed by the U.S. Courts to keep their loot because the original owner had not found its location within a time the court believed pertinent.

But it you ask almost any soldier who served in Germany in the 1945-46 period and he tells you the truth, you’ll be surprised to learn that practically every soldier and officer serving in Germany upon seeing an opportunity took property which was not his.

The American attraction toward souvenirs was so pronounced that a lucrative (to Germans!) market sprang up after the war in which articles stolen from public buildings were offered to American soldiers for cigarettes, which I have said was, after the introduction of the Morgenthau Mark, the only real currency in Germany (Berlin!). I knew one major (from Oklahoma) who was overjoyed at obtaining two matched duelling pistols which had belonged to Friedrich the Great for thirty cartons of American cigarettes. This was also normally the approximate price demanded for a Leica or Contax camera in good condition. Germans had to be very cautious when dealing with Americans, however, there were cases where the “damned Kraut” was hit over the head and his wares taken from him. In the one case I knew of, the “damned Kraut” was named Brinkmann (Xantenerplatz). Thereafter, Herr Brinkmann showed his wares which he had obtained from Germans (whom he, being Jewish, heartily disliked) and dealt only with those former “customers” he knew to be non-violent.

Ancient treasures such as “Priam’s Treasure,” discovered by Heinrich Schliemann were removed by the Russians to Moscow. Some 1.5 million books are rotting (1991) and being used as toilet paper in a church at Uzkoye, near Moscow. The Sanatorium at Uzkoye contains many more works of art. At the Cloister at Sagorsk, there are at least 16,500 famous works of art which used to grace the famous Germany art galleries. The famous amber room (“Bernsteinkammer”) from Koenigsberg has disappeared, but there is some indication it still exists in Russia.

Probably the U.S. cannot boast such a mass of loot from Germany as the Russians, but they nevertheless took large quantities of whatever they wished “for safe keeping.” German authorities being what they are have not been insistant about their return from the museums and galleries of the U.S.

The German libraries, museums, galleries, churches, etc. were not the only things plundered more or less at will by those seeking whatever they might wish to find. In the period of lawlessness which existed for some time at the death of the German Nation, the government office buildings which had somehow escaped destruction by bombardment lay open to any who might wish to enter, since their tenants had abandoned them in fear of their lives. Reams of paper lay in the varying offices for the taking with the mastheads of the office for which they were printed. On the desks or floors nearby, lay the typewriters used in the offices when they were manned. With little effort, the paper, the typewriter, and the secretary who had used them could be combined to produce any “document” desired, for whatever purpose desired. I am in possession of some of Fuehrer Hitler’s official stationary. It would be the height of folly to suppose that the opportunity to forge documents was not realized by some dedicataed advocates of a number of “causes.” Some of them, offered as evidence at the Nuernberg Tribunals were identified as forgeries.

Others, working for or with or with the full knowledge and consent of one of the “Three Great Powers,” looking desperately for authentic documentation of the war-time charges which had been leveled at Germany and the new charges which would be brought later, rumaged through the many documents left lying in their file cabinets when their caretakers fled. One of these was Zosa Szajkowski (Szajko Frydman) a Polish Jew who worked for YIVO. He dropped as a paratrooper into Berlin with the U.S. 82nd Airborn Division and made a beeline for the empty German Government buildings. The documents he and others thus obtained were used to fill the Jewish archives of Israel and New York where they are available only to those judged competent to interpret them properly. One would think that they should have become the property of the U.S. Government if he was serving with the 82nd Airborne.

In 1991, it was reported in The Spotlight (Nov. 4, 1991, p. 24) that the Diaries of Reichsfuehrer Heinrich Himmler have been located in a top-secret archive in Israel where authorities refuse to allow them to be made public since they do not mention gas chambers at Auschwitz or the alleged six million Jews killed there. It was not reported how long these diaries have been in Jewish hands or who put them there, but however long it has been, the public has been long denied the information contained therein. It may be assumed that much of this information was pertinent to the trials and defenses of many men who were imprisoned and hanged, and one is again confronted with the possibility that Himmler may, indeed, have been murdered at his capture by the British to prevent his testimony at the Nuernberg Tribunal.

E. Literature, Music, Art, Etc.

The fine arts did not escape the wrath and greed of the victorious United Nations. All institutions were first closed by them and reopened only after they had been “denazified” to the satisfaction of the occupation authorities. What remained was what, in the opinion of the censors, gave no hint of supporting German Nationalism or the late Third Reich. Writers, composers, artists, etc. were forbidden to engage in their art. Sometimes, they were kept under arrest to assure compliance.

Music, the diadem of German, if not all culture was also leashed by the occupation authorities. None of Wagner’s Ring Cycle could be performed until all “Nazi” performers, conductors, directors etc. and parts of the text had been “denazified.” The Festspielhaus at Bayreuth was closed until it and its staff had undergone artistic “denazification.” It was reopened when the occcupation authorities had “denazified” Richard Wagner and removed Frau Friedelinde Wagner from its staff.

Artists too suffered persecution. The venerable Wilhelm Furtwaengler, Germany’s leading conductor suffered untold meanness at the hands of “anti-Nazis” but eventually was allowed to conduct again. Leopold Ludwig was forced to imigrate to Canada to continue his conducting. Willem Mengelberg (Dutch!) was permanently forbidden the podium. Furtwaengler’s fate might have been the same except for the heroic, active intervention of violinist Yehude Menhuin. On the otherhand, Walter Gieseking, “Hitler’s favorite pianist,” was prevented from playing a concert in the United States and forced to return to Germany as a result of a violent Jewish demonstration in New York participated in by pianist Artur Rubenstein.

The old music publishing companies such as Breitkopf-Haertel which had published the works of the old German masters were closed and their plates taken to Moscow in the hope that Moscow would become the source of the music in performing German music.

The heavy hand of the United Nations occupation authorities was removed from Germany only after only after it had accomplished it original objectives. “Nazi” art and “Nazi” writings were ruthlessly destroyed. In some instances some of the artistic accomplishment of the Third Reich has survived. Some of it survived as “souvenirs” of the invading soldiers, some of it has survived in “collections” assembled as examples of the “racist” tendencies of the National Socialists. What has survived then, survived primarily only as a means for the occupation authorities to misuse the artistic output of the Third Reich for their own propaganda purposes.

F. Charities

Need was always a factor which the Germans necessarily considered everyday. This is not surprising since the country still suffered from the loss of breadwinners in World War I and now had the additional problems of heavy losses at the fronts as well as the murderous bombing of the United Nations. The importance of the German charity program could be demonstrated by the fact that Reichs Marshall Herman Goering, Adolf Hitler’s designataed successor, himself stood on the corner at Christmas time (as did Dr. Joseph Goebbels) to collect funds for the German needy. In addition to these activities of the NSDAP, there were a number of insurance plans for pensions for people who had reached pensionable age. This spendid pension plan dated back to the time of Chancellor Bismark. All of this activity was stopped by the occupation authorities until it like all other phases of German daily life had been satisfactorily “denazified” and modified in a manner entirely satisfactory to and desired by the United Nations.

G. Public Expressions of German National Pride, Parades, Uniforms, Medals, Etc.

In the trying period between the two World Wars, Germany had had little more to unify it and give it hope that the future might be better than a rally of its citizens, some of them in uniform and with medals and flags to impress upon those present that Germany was still a nation of which its citizens might be justly proud. It should be remembered that this sort of patriotic appeal is used by all nations not just Germany. I can remember such rallies in my home town during the “Depression.” True, we didn’t have a lot of soldiers, but we had the American Legion who paraded with their medals and flags and were given much material assistance by the local Masonic and other organizations. We’d then assemble in the Municipal Auditorium to listen to sing patriotic songs and listen patriotic speeches from the local clergy and politicians. Often, these speeches, even then contained a definate anti-German tone. All in all, almost everyone forgot the “depression” for the time being and had a “good time” and it provided conversatiional topics for the coming week in everyday life, in school, etc.

Apparently this very aspect of German life irritated Roosevelt greatly, since it was at his direct request that these types of celebrations would be forbidden to the Germans after their defeat (Morgenthau Diaries, 1941-1945, p.. 352). After their defeat, the Germans might assemble only with the permission if not orders from the occupation authorities. The German uniforms might not be worn after a certain date and up to then without medals. No German flag might be displayed. For German ships allowed to move about, a special “standard” was prescribed.

“New,” denazified Germany was to have completly new uniforms designed with the consent of the occupation forces. The medals would be “new” medals stipulated by the occupation forces. The “German” flag would be of a design acceptable to the victors. Parades and public assemblages would be under the supervision of the victors or, after 1952, by their subalterns.

Every aspect of German life and culture was under assault by the conquerors. Anything which had existed before was to be laid waste for the new world of the United Nations unless it could be used by them for their purposes — “new” music, “new” literature, “new” education, “new” architecture, etc. It was, therefore, with no little amusement on the part of the decimated, impoverished Germans, at a time when they had little other cause for amusement, that the British had such a difficult time destroying the German flak bunker in the Berlin Tiergarten with dynamite while the “new” American Kongresshalle, built with the newist U.S. construction methods, using reinforced concrete under tension, began falling apart by its self after only a few years of useage.

VI. GERMAN RESEARCH LABORATORIES, ACADEMIC AND PRIVATE

Having led the world in scientific research for a century or more, Germany was the outstanding example of what could be done with a minumum of mineral wealth in the hands of a highly capable, educated, industrious nation. Already in World War I, Germany was sorely pressed to provide for the needs of its civilians and soldiers with the mineral wealth at its disposal. Britain and France could rely upon the wealth of their far-flung empires to underwrite their European war, but with the first shot of World War I, Germany could expect supplies from the outside only from an occasional blockade runner which had miraculously evaded the maze of British, French and United States Ships. Germany turned to its scientists to provide synthhetically the bare essentials it needed.

The “peace” of Versailles further worsened Germany’s position with respect to its in-hand mineral wealth by the loss of Alsace-Lorraine which contributed some three-quarters of Germany’s iron production. In addition, large amounts of coal needed desperately by Germany were dedicated to the French recovery.

In the period between the wars, Germany was still denied access to the mineral wealth of the world by express design of its former enemies. When Germany somehow managed to scrape sufficient gold together to pay for materials essential to the struggling German economy they were “out-bid” by their former enemies just to be certain these essential materials did not “fall into the wrong hands.” Thereupon, Germany embarked upon a strict policy of “autarchy,” economic self-sufficiency as its only hope and alternative. Hitler decreed that Germany would raise itself by its own bootstraps.

As in World War I, this was to be accomplished through the expedient of using Germany’s high level of technology with the known industry of the German People. Coal, the single item which Germany had in plentiful supply in the 1930’s would be converted to oil by the Bergius (and Fischer-Tropsch) process. Steel would be produced from third rate ore available in Germany (Hermann Goering Works). German Heavy Industry would therefore be reborn and fed with German coal, steel and oil. The German chemical industry would be nourished by chemicals from coal and wood. Wood and polymers would furnish the necessary fibers to the German textile industry, since it was denied cotton from U.S. farmers by the U.S. Government. Rubber, closely controlled by Britain, France and the U.S. would be synthesized as had been attempted in World War I.

Foodstuffs, not yet considered “contraband,” could be purchased for hard currency (gold), and since, afater the boundary changes of World War I, Germany was incapable of growing enough food for its population, the difference now had to be made up with purchases made overseas. But purchases and arrangements made by Germany with Brazil even for coffee irritated the anti-German Roosevelt Regime.

With the beginning of “The European War (1939),” Germany’s need for essential war materials, present in rich excess in the bloated arsenals of its enemies, was increased many times over. Initially, premium iron ore could be purchased from Sweden, moved across Norway by rail to Narvik and barged laboriously and dangerously down the Norwegian coastline to Germany. The attempt of the British and French to close this source resulted in the dual invasion of Norway by the British and French and the Germans with Germany succeeding. Synthetic oil-gasoline production at Leune (near Merseburg/Leipzig) was increased and construction was begun on a second coal hydrogenation facility at Dwory/(Auschwitz)Monowitz. Synthetic rubber production at Buna (Merseburg/Leipzig) was increased and work was begun on a second synthetic rubber plant a short distance from the Dwory/(Auschwitz)Monowitz oil/gasoline factory. Every able-bodied worker in axis-occupied Europe was drafted and utilized in the collection of anything which might be of use in the monumental war effort. Scraps of wood and paper could be converted into clothing, alcohol, rubber, explosives, plastic sheets, lacquers, etc. One must remember that eastern Europe is still, to a great extent, one vast forest. Scraps of iron were retrieved from the street by magnets mounted on automobiles powered by gas (carbon monoxide) produced from wood scraps.

The key to this effort was, of course, was the technical ability of the German scientific community, and they rose to the defense of their Fatherland marvelously. Had it not been for their imagination and technical excellence, Germany would have been overwhelmed years earlier. For this contribution to their country, these patriots earned the undying enmity of the United Nations. The German scientific community had already been decimated when after making their numerous scientific contributions to the war, they were called upon further, in some instances to serve their Country also as combattants. In this, many lost their lives. At the end of the war, such men were arrested and treated as criminals and chattels of the victors. If their service to the Third Reich had been grievious in the eyes of the victors, they were forbidden to practice their profession in the “new” Germany which they were to build.

The superb German scientific community would be used as the conquerers dictated. The discoveries of decades were sniffed out and confiscated by special teams long-trained for the job. Perhaps the biggest question in United Nations minds was how close was Germany to building an atom bomb. In a feigned show of scientific comradary and probably hints of “forgiveness,” a group of eminent German nuclear scientists, including Prof. Werner Heisenberg were invited to come to England for “open” scientific discussions with other european scientists. The “seminar” was held at Farm Hall in Huntington in a house which had been literally covered with secret microphones. These Germans had been recruited from “Dust Bin,” an internment camp reserved for German scientists, while the victors were deciding what to do with them (Jones, Reginald V., The War Wizard, Coward, Mc Cann & Geoghegan, Inc., N. Y., 1978, p. 481-482). Regrettably, the Germans learned they were being played with with all the information coming from them but none being returned to them by their “hosts.”

Some resented what they considered this dishonorable ruse on the part of perfidious Albion, but Prof. Jones dismisses it with the accusation that an American general at “Dust Bin” wanted to shoot all German nuclear physicists etc. held therein. Prof. Jones has informed me in a letter that he no longer remembers the name of the American general in question.

Other than a few good meals for the Germans for a change, little came from Farm Hall which benefited the Germans. After the “meetings” there they were returned to “Dust Bin” in France to await the pleasure of the victors. As in the days of the Roman Empire, useful citizens of vanquished nations were dispersed according to the desires and needs of the victor. General (Dr.) Walter Dornberger, Dr. Wernher von Braun and others were sent to the United States to carry out rocket research. The Russians took those German rocket experts they had captured at Peenemuende for the same purpose. Prof. Otto Hahn and Prof. Max Laue went to England. Prof. Max Planck had died in Berlin during the difficult times after the war. Dr. Walter Reppe, the originater and developer of high pressure acetylene chemistry saw the fruits of his labor become a great success in the victorious nations while he, as a member of I. G. Farbenindustrie, “a warm body” to the victors, sat in fear of prosecution and further persecution by the victors for non-cooperation with the invaders of his devastated Fatherland. Dr. Bruno Tesch (who along with Dr. Gerhard Peters of DEGESCH) had developed Zyklon B and founded the German fumigation industry to eliminate vermin and insects as a danger to man and had thereby increased the food and freedom from disease in Europe during a period of warfare, was “tried” by a British military tribunal in Hamburg and hanged at Hameln. His “crime” was that it was he allegedly furnished Zyklon B to Auschwitz to kill masses of Jews. But the time when this was allegedly done was a period in which the Wehrmacht furnished the fumigant from its Main Sanitation Depot in Berlin. The story of some of the tribulations of Farbwerke Hoechst, formerly a part of I. G. Farbenindustrie, during this period may be read about in Baeumler, Ernst, A Century of Chemistry, Econ Verlag, Duesseldorf, 1968.

To guarantee that the entire country would be completely plundered of the fruit of its hard scientific labor, a number of scientific “teams” composed of persons of scientific background were organized by the victors. Some of these United Nations “teams” were “BIOS,” “CIOS,” and “FIAT.” American Publication Board Reports were available from the Office of Technical Servces in the Department of Commerce. British reports were obtained from H. M. Stationary Office, London S. E. 1. The reports of organic chemicals from acetylene (Dr. Walter Reppe, I. G. Farbenindustrie) were obtained from the Allied Intelligence Reports. It is likely that much of the German material on synthetic rubber had its origin at Monowitz (Auschwitz), the site of the most modern and most advanced synthetic rubber plant in the world at the time. Efforts of the Germans to provide much-needed fatty acids for soap production are described in Von Wittka, Dr. F., “Gewinnung der hoeheren Fettsaeuren durch Oxydation der Kohlenwasserstoffe,” Moderne fettchemische Technologie, Heft 2, Johann Ambrosius Barth, Leipzig, 1940. An edition was also published by J. W. Edwards by license of the U.S. Office of Alien Property Custodian, Ann Arbor, Michigan. A large number of German books was also published by Interscheince Publishers, Inc. New York.

One of the first acts of the victors was to close all academic and commercial laboratories. The revered German scientific and trade periodicals which had been the foundation of all western scientific advancement for a century or more were also closed down. In wartime, these publications were deemed of such importance to the United States and its own scientific research that the journals of the German scientific societies were scrupulously collected through neutral sources such as Sweden and Switzerland and brought to the United States so that American universities, industry, etc. would not fall behind Germany. Curiously, even the periodicals dealing with the use of hydrogen cyanide fumigation in the war against lice and typhus were also regularly collected and deposited in certain U.S. libraries. The venerable German scientific societies were which generated these periodicals were similarly closed down.

Foreseeing a long period during which they would be forced to wither on the scientific vine, some German scientists migrated to or were kidnapped by a United Nation to labor for their former enemies; others, in despiration, committed suicide.

German patents, the fruit of over a century of intensive, top-level scientific research were made the public property of the victors. The cream of German industrial secrets which had been carefully guarded since they brought badly needed hard currency to the country almost regardless of the world financial condition were confiscated by the victors and made available to everyone for a few cents. The rights to German scientific books and periodicals were confiscated and republished in United Nations countries, sometimes as translations, so that United Nations university students might have the very lastest information about German scientific education and development.

The highest level of “fame” which some of the United Nations scientists ever achieved was in the translation and publication of these captured German reports of German research. In the meantime, the various “teams” subjected the German scientists they were forcing to reveal their lives’ work to undergo the most demeaning and degrading personal treatment imaginable. The entire operation was reminiscent of the survey necessary to the writing of the Domesday Book (1085-86) on the orders of William I, the conqueror.

Germany was not only deprived of the fruits of its many years of labor but reduced to a level lower than those countries it had earlier outstripped. Only after the German research laboratories and their administration and their scientific societies, among them the venerable Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, had been thoroughly “denazified” and reconstructed by agents of the victors were they again allowed to open and operate. The reopened laboratories and societies, often under “new” names dictated by the victors, were to be closely and regularly scrutinized by these and other agents. There was a long list of research subjects activity in which only the victors might participate. It was understood that the level of German research activity would never again equal or surpass that of the victor nations.

In a similar manner, “new” German scientific societies were “denazified” and reformed, but their leadership was carefully scrutinized, screened and supervised. The same was true of the “new” scientific journals with “new” titles which had been established under the aegis of the victors to replace the time-honored German scientific periodicals they had closed down.

Control Council Law No. 25 (May 7, 1946) is an example of the restraints placed upon defeated German Science and Industry by the occupation powers. The list of areas in which they might or might not become active could, of course, be changed by the issuance of another “Law,” “Order,” “Directive,” “Decision,” “Regulation,” or “Proclamation.” The Control Council ceased functioning March 10, 1948 because of bitter controversy between the “Four Great Powers.” Thereafter, each “Great Power” ran its Zone or “fief” as it saw fit until the beginning of the unification of the western three occupation zones under what was essentially U.S. supervision.

As the military government of Germany progressed through J.C.S. 1076/6 and J.C.S. 1779 eventually to what is described as “self government” by Germany, these initial regulations were relaxed, but the men removed remained removed and the periodicals closed down reopened under new names or under completely new management with “politial pursuasion” being the deciding factor rather than scientific ability.

VIII. ECONOMY AND FINANCE

Thus, having by design and with much calculation and effort been turned by the occupation forces into an agonizing, hopeless mass of helpless humanity, isolated from any help or sympathy from outside the country and subject to a mean, merciless tyranny within the country, the once proud and powerful German Nation could finally be handled as its victors (who protested they were not “oppressors”) had desired, if not planned for, for over a generation. Millions of Germans were deprived by the victors of their traditional homelands in adjacent nations, many of which had been created already under highly criticized circumstances at the end of World War I. These unfortunates were forced to flee through a gauntlet of enraged slavs. They had been forced to leave their belongings in what was left of their dwellings and could carry with them little more than the clothing on their backs, an act of barbarity without equal in modern times. All who survived this torturing journey, under constant attack from maurauding slavs, were to be crammed into what had been the western two-thirds of what had constituted their country prior to 1939, a territory itself which resulted from the punitive efforts of those dedicated to Germany’s destruction in 1918. These survivors would then be dependent upon the hard-pressed occupation government for food, clothing, and dwelling.

The Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plan and its successors were conceived, devised, and supported by wrathful men with a life-long hatred for German Central Europe. This hatred of Germans and of Germany by the proto-UN powers predated the Assumption of Power by the National Socialists in 1933. The original “Plan” was prepared with the objective of completing the destruction of Germany-Austria which was begun in 1914, was attempted unsuccessfully at Versailles, failed again in the mercantile war from 1920-1939, but it was to be given a final try in 1945. The original Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plan and its successors, each prepared in the spirit of its ignoble predecessor was the most barbaric plan yet devised by a group of nations claiming to be “civilized” and/or “christian” in which the objective was to “gang up” on a nation with vastly fewer resources than themselves, reduce it to rubble and then proceed, with the deafening din of self-proclaimed morality, to pare down the borders of the defenseless, defeated nation and then through calculated bestiality and to proceed methodically to pare down the population of the defeated nation so as to assure its future insignificance as a competitor and certainly not as a future adversary. Churchill’s observation that he’d rather be handcuffed to a dead German is about the most humane statement made by anyone in authority opposing the entire affair. But the dollar signs in Morgenthau’s eyes soon convinced him to support the atrocity and participate in it.

* It was in retaliation for the first partition of Poland, in which the final territorial acquisitions of Poland by conquests were taken away by Austria, Russia and Prussia, that Louis XV of France, feeling aggrieved that the eastern powers had removed the pro-French Stanislaus, his father-in-law, from the Polish throne and had replaced him with Augustus II [???????] (of Saxony) who was favorable to the next-door German powers, “avenged” himself by taking the Austrian province of Lorraine and annexing it to France.

We have seen above that the modifications to the original Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plan as they were applied to the occupied remnant of Germany were, in fact, a series of steps in which parts of the original plan which had been accomplished to the extent believed possible were dropped and those not yet accomplished were retained. It is interesting to note, however, that at each such pause before the next phase of the Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plan was to be put into effect, there were solemn statements that the “Morgenthau” Plan had ceased to exist. In the period in which the U.S. Army maintained rigid controls over who entered and exited Germany and censored all communications entering and exiting the country, this was really no major accomplishment. Such censorship was the rule rather than the exception and resulted in the Telford Taylor-Hal Foust flap. In spite of the supposed camaradary between the two, United States journalists just didn’t take kindly to having their dispatches to their papers censored regularly by U.S. Army Generals. (NYT, “Prosecutor [Telford Taylor] Scores War-Crimes Judge,” Feb. 23, 1948, p. 5; Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, pp. 26-27).

The Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plan which was simultaneously the New Deal “father” and “holy spirit” of the succeeding plans or “phases” for governing post-war Germany was likely the most heinous, inhuman document conceived and prepared in history. I can think of no other example whereby the population of an entire nation was literally condemned to slow death by its greatest enemies who then attempted to cover their malevolent activities with self-serving pious statements and protestations of morality that it was done in the name of humanity, justice, etc., or even God to prevent another recurrence of war. The provisions of the Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plans were the most inhuman ever devised and in fact put into practice. They were completely devoid of justice as the modern world has come to know it and completely dedicated to wrathful excesses of its originators to produce suffering purely for suffering’s sake for the defeated and revenge for revenge’s sake for the victorious!

As for preventing another war, it has been noticeably ineffective obviously as a result of it having assumed from the beginning that Germany and “German militarism” was the only and inevitable cause of “war.” Since the series of wars which have been fought since 1945 have been a result of rivalry and attempts by members of the “Three Governments” to gain superiority over one of the others, it should be obvious to any objective person just how foolish this assumption was from the beginning. One such attempt resulted in the (Kennedy) Cuban Crisis in which an all-out atom war was avoided, fortunately for all the nations of the world, only because Russia backed down from the open challenge by the U.S. In 1991, UNICEF published a report in Mexico City stating that since 1945, 150 wars had occurred in the World (obviously without Germany “starting them”). These wars under the millineum of United Nations “peace” had resulted in the death of 60,000,000 children of whom some 200,000 were under 15 years of age and had been forcefully recruited as soldiers. (Maerkische [Potsdam] Allgemeine, Feb. 6, 1991, p. 2).

It must be kept always in mind by those who study the history of this period that the Germans which the United Nations placed in charge of the “new” Germany which they admittedly and openly completely dominated and controlled until the early 1950’s were properly regarded during the war by the Germans in general as “traitors.” There can be no doubt about the fact that they did, in fact, do much more to advance the United Nations’ cause than they did any German cause. Whether this was a result of their “idealism,” “opportunism,” etc. may be debated, but that the cause of their activity played contineously into the hands of their country’s enemies and oppressors, bent upon her complete destruction, cannot be doubted. There can also be no doubt that the present members of the Bonn regime are the political heirs and designates of these very men. The Bonn regime is, therefore, unique among those governing large, influential countries today. It is beholden to the will of those who established it, established its form, named its first members, succored and protected from replacement its successor regimes, and continue to rule it from outside the boundaries of Germany. It is “German” in the sense that the German language is spoken during its deliberations which to a great extent are still artfully controlled from the capitals of the victors outside Germany.

VIII. (Second!) GERMAN ECONOMY, FINANCE, ETC.

A. Morgenthau Occupation Marks

As the border of Germany was approached by United States Armed Forces, the magnitude of the United States plans for the future of Germany began to become apparent. It was announced that “Occupation” Marks would be issued to the occupying powers. Among other reasons, this was done as a means of circumventing the recognition by the victors of the Reichsmark as a viable currency. It was their intent to destroy not only the political make up of the Third Reich but, coupled with it, the any economic strength remaining after the war and the monetary strength of the Reichsmark with it. The international value of the Reichsmark was not so much influenced by the inability or will of the German Government to redeem their currency in gold as it was dependent upon the control of the world gold market by the United States which arbitrarily announced that it would take immediate punative action against anyone accepting gold from Germany. It was only after these policies of the United Nations (“States”) were announced and Germany occupied by their troops that the Reichsmark lost its international value. Reichsmarks looted by U.S. soldiers could and were sent home by those who had stolen them from homes, banks, German payroll officers, etc. and were redeemed at the exchange rate by the U.S. banking system.

As was the case in so many activities near and dear to the heart of President Roosevelt, the job of producing these occupation marks was entrusted to Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and Harry Dexter White as early as early January of 1944 (Diary, III, P. 117). Morgenthau states in his Diary that occupation marks were chosen over the use of “Yellow Seal” dollars because of the fear that Germans might refuse to deliver goods for anything other than U.S. Dollars. This is not a convincing argument, since Germans were punished severly for refusing to accept currency declared legal tender by the occupation authorities in payment for goods.

The issuance of “yellow seal” dollars would, however, have made the U.S. Treasury and the U.S. Government responsible for the bills it issued. The destructive course chosen achieved what the Roosevelt regime desired to be accomplished in Germany after the war and at the same time, the Russians could later be blamed for the ultimate cause for the catastrophic failure of the German economy. And it was the unilateral U.S. (British & French) decision to issue a new currency and abandon the Morgenthau Mark which eventually allowed the later “economic miracle,” based upon a solid German currency, to evolve from the ruins of the Third Reich. At the same time, it alienated the Russians who immediately isolated themselves from their former allies resulting in what the latter called the “cold war.”

At the time, although not unopposed, the plan to produce the Morgenthau Marks (“Allied Military Marks”) was manoeuvered through the various “Signatory” powers of the United Nations by Secretary Morgenthau. (Diary III, pp. 177-194). The “marks” would be printed by the Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing Co. and have an exchange rate of ten to the U.S. Dollar. Initially, Morgenthau advocated an exchange rate sometimes as high as 20 to the dollar.

It was not difficult to obtain the assent of the “Signatory” powers, since they (Russia and Britain) were both in dire need of support which they could only obtain if the Roosevelt Regime were allowed to prevail in such matters. Britain would be supplied with Morgenthau Marks, but Russia insisted upon printing her own. Soviet soldiers would be paid only once, and that was in a lump sum at the end of the war. Payment would be in Morgenthau Marks which differed from those printed by Forbes in that the latter contained a tiny capital “F” located in the scrolling on the currency at various sites of various denominations. The Russians printed large numbers of 1,000 mark bills. (Toy, Raymond S., and Schwan, Carlton F., World War II Allied Military Currency, Carlton F. Schwan, Fourth Edition, Box 138, Portage, Ohio, 43451)

The accusation has been made that Morgenthau gave the “plates” to the Russians with which they printed immense, uncontrolled quantities of the “Allied Military Marks.” Later, the Treasury Department (History of Bureau of Bureau of Engraving and Printing, World War II Years 1941-1948, pp. 153-155) revealed that not the plates but 23 glass positives and 23 glass negatives were delivered to the Russians so that they might make all the plates they wished! Along with these, they were given instructions on the entire process and the materials necessary to compound the inks. To all of this, Morgenthau’s Director of theBureau of Engraving and Printing voiced great concern as to the potential uproar it probably would cause when it would become public knowledge in the future.

But the generosity of the Roosevelt Regime toward the Russians did not end here. I submitted authentic “Russian” and Morgenthau Marks to Mr. John D. Hankey of John D. Hankey & Associates, P. O. Box 1856, Appleton, Wisconsin 54913 for determination as to the types of wood fibres contained in the bills. After examining the fibers from the bills under the microscope, he has informed me that they are identical. It is, therefore, almost certain that the papers had a common american origin. This is probably some of the many tons of paper and other supplies sent regularly to Russia in wartime by the United States and dutifully recorded and later reported by Major George R. Jordan (Jordan, George Racey, From Major Jordan’s Diaries, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1952, pp. 141-191 & 217-233.).

By instigating the collapse of the German economy, the plans initiated by the Roosevelt regime guaranteed a much later recovery of the German economy than would have been the case otherwise. This crippling blow to the German economic recovery was but another of many measures undertaken by the United Nations to destroy Germany for all time as a viable power base in the center of Europe. Any one of the measures would have been expected at the time and from the state in which Germany found itself to have been a certain initiator of national catastrophe.

B. Confiscation of Reich State Property and NSDAP Property

(Put some of following at end in summarizing effect of lasting effects of United Nations Plans. ?????

Within days of the collapse and surrender of the Wehrmacht, everyone and every institution in Germany which might even remotely be described as “German” and could rise to the defense of the German population had been effectively destroyed or silenced by the victorious United Nations. The exceptions to this were in the private interrogation cells of those Germans being questioned by German-speaking “War Crimes” minyans in preparation for the coming political trials of those Germans being questioned. These “interrogations” were carried out with the objective of obtaining “confessions” used in the tribunals to support broad, general United Nations allegations, to incriminate the person being questioned or to incriminate his superior or incriminate some other person marked previously by the War Crimes Commission for “conviction.” Statements made by the unfortunate person in these star chamber sessions would, for the most part, never become public knowledge. After having provided the desired “documents” desired by the “interrogators,” many Germans disappeared, never to be seen again, others lived a life of shame, with the knowledge that they had purchased their further life at the expense of their former comrades, others ended their own existence because of the very real guilt they thereafter bore for lying about their brothers, and some few “survivors,” always landing cat-like on thir feet joined the United Nations-directed chorus and heartily, obligingly sang the songs of the “new” Germany placed before them by the victors.

In the 1970’s and 1980’s, it became possible to publish German rebuttals of the mountains of sullied paper collected expressely to insure an eternal German guilt complex for illusive “war crimes” concocted by Germany’s enemies in time of war to inflame and enrage their own peoples for the coming bloodbath of war and justify their own barbarous acts in the coming “reconstruction” in Germany. Books and other articles dealing with the subject would be confiscated and suppressed and the authors sometimes jailed by the “German” Government to curry the continued favor of the “democratic” occupation authorities and thereby maintain the fiction of German guilt for the initiation of the war and alleged “war crimes.” This was still being done by the Bonn regime in the 1910’s. In an attempt to circumvent any factual information which might be passed on by the generation which lived through the cauterization of the German natiion to its progeny, their progeny was mentally emasculated in the “new” schools established specifically for the purpose by the victors. In addition, the cohesion of and the former high respect Germany held for its families as essential units of the Nation and the authority of the parents was subverted. It was to be replaced by the “new” morality and ethics of the “new” Germany, dictated by the occupation authorities.

calculated to couple with the following postwar situations:

Its young manhood was being used in forced labor toconstruct the modern Russian colossus which would keepa large portion of the earth on edge until 1991.Therefore, they could not rebuild their own war-ravagedcountry; could not work in its factories which mightremain after dismantling; could not plow, plant andharvest its food crops, essential to the German Nation;could not maintain a German birthrate equal to theelevated deathrate.

The victors were dismantling German industry forshipment to requesting United Nations.

The victors sat astride Germany as a guarantee thatany German economic recovery would be controlled andlimited to their own advantage.

The defeated Germans would be forced to accept thewartime propaganda of the victors as absolute, indisputable “truth.” In the future, it would becomean integral part of their culture and religion.

Almost any one of the above situations would be capable of guaranteeing a German catastrophe over the long haul. Given the restrictions and the activities of the victors at the time, it is nothing short of a miracle that the country ever “recovered.” But since every phase of German life and everyday activity was scrutinized and controlled closely by the occupation forces, if the “new” Germany created by the victors is regarded closely, it will be seen that this “new” Germany is in most ways little more than an American caricature.

All State and Party property immediately became the property of and subject to the future wills of the victorious powers. The fact was that Germany and Germans became the property of the “Three Great Powers,” and France. Every German and their personal property were chattels of the “democratic” victors. There will, of course, be protestations that the United Nations occupation “compensated” those for the property which was confiscated by them, but this was in Morgenthau Marks of no value, printed in enormous unknown quantities and unredeemable in any United Nations currency. In addition, “compensation” was often paid by renegade Germans in the service of the occupying powers using currency, which if not supplied by the victors, was currency confiscated from German banks or wherever it might have been found. In the time interval between the loss of German control and the establishment of the United Nations occupation, millions of Reichsmarks lay in open banks to be stolen by whomever might be so inclined. Compensation with essentially worthless american cigarettes was better in that these could be traded without difficulty on the black market for essential food, clothing, goods, or what have you. While the occupation authorities could use their mountains of Morgenthau Marks in taking anything they wished from Germans, once the German had received them in legal exchange, he could expect that no German would accept them in payment for anything more than for the sparse rations which the victors decreed should be sold at a price fixed by the occupation authorities.

This method of bankrupting or looting the country was augmented by other programs designed to obtain funds to succor the alleged “victims” of National Socialism. Foreign exchange and securities having any value were taken, and the owners compelled to surrender them. All gold was categorized as gold “looted” by the National Socialists from German-occupied countries, and was immediately seized and used by the victors as they chose. They seldom divided it among themselves. Stock exchanges, etc., stocks and bonds were also seized. As a guard against any possibility that some German property might be sheltered by foreign ownership, no change of title of property from a German to a foreigner was permitted. Foreigners owning stock or bonds in German business had to surrender their certificates. International litigation involving Interessen Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie, A. G. and its Swiss connections stretched on for years if not decades after the end of the war.

When their well-demonstrated ability to consume huge quantities of wealth demanded still more, troops were sent out on the streets to take diamonds and valuables from the general German population. (“Big Gold, Gem Haul Made in Germany [‘Operation Sparkler’],” N. Y. Times, Sept. 12, 1946, P. 8).

The barbaric situation changed only after the occupation authorities had taken all that they figured it was possible to take from the German nation and its people. To get more, they realized that they would have to allow Germany to rebuilt at least some of its wealth-producing facilities! But this was not out of consideration for the plight of the German people they were suppressing but rather out of unending greed for more plunder and fear that the occupation was in danger of provoking a revolt by the sorely oppressed populace. This, the authorities feared would endanger the great principles for which they had fought and the “new” Germany (and the “new” world) they were in the process of “building.”

C. Confiscation of German Foreign Assets

Control Council Law No. 5 (Oct. 30, 1945) dealt with the confiscation of German assets outside Germany. Many of these had already been confiscated by the “United Nation” involved and had already, as part of its future sharing in the plunder of the German Nation, integrated this wealth into its own economy. All of this was done, of course, in the interest of preventing future wars and maintaining the peace. A German External Property Commission was set up to assume title over all property owned by Germans in countries outside Germany. It was a transparent move to obtain as booty for the victors what little was left of negotiable value which might benefit Germany in buying food, supplies, etc. in its direst moment of need. That any nation considering itself neutral could allow its own soverignty to be trampled upon in this manner is unthinkable, but it took place amid threats of sanctions, retaliation, etc. In this manner, Germany was effectively also isolated economically by the victors who then took the spoils and divided them as rewards among the nations it had been able to convince or coerce into cooperation in a manner not unlike Italy was rewarded with Bozen after World War I for leaving the Central Powers and allying itself with the Allies. It is hardly possible to think of a less honorable international act, but Italy repeated its performance in World War II, again after the promise of milder treatment than Germany at the hands of the United Nations and a share of the loot.

D. German Banks and German Financial Institutions

With the intent of controlling the Entire German economy carefully, the occupation authorities assumed control over all banks and financial institutions. As already stated, it was decreed that the Morgenthau Occupation Mark would be equal to the paper money issued by the German Government. This guaranteed the final demise of the Reichsmark as a currency of interntional standing, and the occupation authorities themselves found it necessary to issue yet another occupation currency replacing both their original occupation currency and the German Reichsmark bills. None of these currencies ever equalled the value of the pre-surrender (1945) Reichsmark.

With the German industry ruined, subject to demolition and export to a requesting United Nation, shut down because of the lack of raw materials, etc. German financial institutions were prostrate and doomed to remain that way until the occupation authorities chose otherwise under the Marshall Plan. A good example of what went on may be observed by considering what was done with the I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G. As the largest chemical complex in the world at the time, it was scheduled for dissolution to allow the chemical industries of the victors to surpass and remain for all time superior to Germany. However, even after the war, the assets of this giant firm were so vast and lucritive to those assigned to the task and the products and researcch it produced so necessary to modern life, that the job of dissolution was still not complete in 1985.

The huge steel mills, shipyards, mines, etc. were all placed in the hands of the victors who intended fully to cripple them to such an extent that they could never produce more than a minimum of goods necessary to the agricultural economy which was to pressed upon Germany. Only after it was shown the original intent was the ultimate in foolhardiness were these reluctantly returned to their “denazified” former owners or heirs for the most part. Only after this began did the German banks and financial institutions revitalize, but Germany was at least half a decade behind its adversaries of World War II. It had been a period in which the cream of German industry had been purposely and methodically dismantled and shipped to jealous United Nations to build up their industrial/war-making potential or completely destroyed to prevent German production ever again reaching a level competitive with the United Nations again.

E. German Agriculture, Forestry, Mining and Fishing

As one of the largest countries in Europe but nevertheless one of the most populous in addition, Germany had of necessity long led the world in utilizing the products of these indigenous industries to supply the growing needs of its population. Unlike England, France, or even Belgium and Holland, they had no valuable overseas colonies on which they could rely to obtain the raw materials they required. Even the colonies which they had gave them much more status in the eyes of the other European colonial powers than any real source of raw materials. But even with these restrictions, German scientists had been so successful that these basic materials could be used commercially to provide much of what an autarchic required.

With the end of the war, much of the foreign labor and help used effectively in running these four industries returned to their homeland, leaving the fields and forests untended. The mines were closed by the occupation authorities, and the ships necessary for ocean fishing were confiscated as part of the “reparations” due cooperative “United Nations.” Fresh water fisheries were lacking in manpower and equipment in addition to the fact that the occupying powers had first claim on any foodstuffs found by them in Germany.

As discharged German soldiers returned home, many finding the strength to do so by eating discarded potato peelings along their tortured route, the fields and forests could again be tended and produced the potatoes etc. which had saved Germany from famine since the time of Friedrich the Great. (A point dealing with the effect of humanism which governed the United Nations at the time is the fact that this was while the U.S. was experiencing a potato bumper crop during which pigs were fed potatoes and the rest was destroyed by burning them with kerosene and burial. They could not be shipped to starving Germany because it was not economically feasible). The forests beginning to produced woodpulp, turpentine, lumber, etc. necessary to rebuild the shattered Nation. The mines were allowed to produce the coal necessary to prevent the Nation from freezing in the winter. Individual fishermen often made the difference between having some sort of meat to eat or only potatoes. But the general situation was further compoicated by the fact that the Country was now partitioned between the Eastern and Western United Nations. The existence of lumber in the Western Zone did not preclude dire need for lumber in the Eastern Zone (traditional “Mittel Deutschland”). The chemical plants of Western Germany might produce all the aspirin they wished, but, unless the western democracies allowed it, none would penetrate to the cities controlled by Russian democracy. So it would remain in the “Eastern Zone” until 1991.

With the continual easing of occupation restrictions in the Western Zone, more German soldiers were released and “guest workers” from foreign countries entered Germany to releave the labor shortage even as foreign workers, dubbed “slave laborers” by the United Nations, came to Germany during the war to releave the shortage of workers in German factories. But even with this influx of workers, Germany, having been forced to accept the “Oder-Neisse Line” and, thereby, having lost its bread basket of East Prussia, West Prussia, Pommerania, Silesia, etc. would remain forever a nation unable to produce enough food for its own population. Food had to be imported. These imports could be paid for by assets gained from manufactured exports, but imports could be cut off at a moment’s notice at the whim of an occupying power, and within a week, large portions of Germany would be starving. This was, of course, exactly what the Proto-United Nations had believed they could accomplish with the British(-American) Blockade of Germany in 1939. Had they been correct in their estimates and successful in their attempts, it is doubtful if the “European War” would have lasted much longer than Christmas of 1939.

F. Reparations and Restitution

The victorious Allies of 1918, basically the same as the United nations of 11945, had been greatly disappointed in their attempts to gain a lasting advantage over Germany by levying enormous reparation assessments on the defeated Nation. Although successful in the “negotiations,” none of the victors was satisfied with the amount he was allotted much less the amount he actually received. Britain and France had intended paying their war debts to the United States with a portion of these reparations from Germany, but it finally became obvious that with all the gold spent by Europe for munitions, food, etc., now in vaults in America, the amount of gold they had demanded from Germany just did not exist! Consequently, in 1945, they resolved to try a new plan which they believed would benefit them to a greater extent anf for a much longer period than anyone would have dreamed in 1918.

To this end, they established three methods of obtaining these reparations. (a) Initially, two years after Germany’s surrender the “German national wealth” located in German territory was to be removed by the victors. Mention was made of “equipment, machine-tools, ships, rolling stock, German investments abroad, shres of industrial, transport and other enterprises in Germany, etc.” All this was to be removed for the alleged purpose of destroying the German war potential. (b) Annual tribute from Germany in the form of goods from as yet undestroyed, permitted production was to be delivered for a period to be fixed later. (c) German (slave) labor was to be used by the victors for whatever useages they might have in mind.

To achieve this end, the Moscow Reparations Commission was created with the agreement of the U.S. and USSR that its initial consideration must be the award of $20 billion in accordance with the stipulations of points (a) and (b) and that of this, half was to be awarded to the USSR.

Actually, it was an open ended program with no one keeping records of how much Germany paid or how many or how long German workers were subjected to uncompensated forced labor. No one knows how much Germany was required to pay its former enemies. Normally, it is assumed by the western United Nations that the Russians were the most flagrant in their mistreatment of German POW’s and German civilians in their power, but this impression doubtless results from the fact that German papers in the Western Zone of occupation could print nothing about the western United Nations which was derrogatory but could print almost anything about Russia without proof of its authenticity during the “cold war” period. With the appearance of James Bacque’s book, Other Losses, it is possible that any differences in treatment of Germans, if any, may well have been in numbers mistreated rather than in kind and severity of treatment.

After the initial period supervised by the Moscow Reparations Commission were over, the subject of “restitution” took over as a means of exacting further tribute. Here again, there was no end of how much could be demanded on whatever grounds at any time.

An excellent case in point was the “settlement” of Jewish claims against Germany between Konrad Adenauer and Dr. Nahuum Goldmann of the World Jewish Congress. This agreement was required before U.S. High Commissioner John Jay McCloy would sign the documents allowing Germany a measure of self goverment after the destruction by the United Nations of its last de jure government. The Jews had calculated tht a “restitution” of six billion dollars should be paid by Germany. In his book The Jewish Paradox, Dr. Goldman states (pp. 129): “In fact, Germany has paid sixty billion marks up to date, and the total will come to eighty billion — twelve to fourteen times more than we reconed at the time … So the Germans cannot be accused of bing stingy and of not keeping their promises.” But this did not keep Goldmann from returning to Adenauer when he needed more money with the demand: “Gibt Mehr, Reb Amschel.” (Jewish Paradox, p. 135).

In summing up his accomplisment, Dr. Goldmann states, “The Germans have paid an enormous debt, so enormous that no one — neither they nor I — had dreamt that it would reach the approximate figure of eighty billion marks (<1978).” (p. 145). Further, Dr. Goldman states, “Without the German reparations that startaed coming through during its first ten years as a state, Israel would not have half of its present infrastructure: all the trains in Israel are German, the ships are German, and the same goes for electrical installations a a great deal of Israel’s industry … and that is setting aside the individual pensions paid to survivors. Israel today receives hundreds of millions of dollars in German currency each year … In some years the sums of money received by Israel from Germany have been as much as double or treble the contribution made by collections from international Jewry.” (p. 125).

And that is not the end! Using the Talmudic argument he used to convince Adenauer, it is a sin to undertake a good work and leave it unfinished (Jewish Paradox, p. 145) Israel is still approaching the Bonn Government, held captive by the U.S. Government, with demands for more, more and still more. Added to this are the demands of the Poles (who were supposed to receive their share of looted German wealth from that awarded the Russians), the Russians and the myriad other requests for money assigned them by the Washington Regime in the name of “Humanity.” These demands have more to do with supporting and making the tottering post-war world of the United Nations work by supplying it with unlimited amounts of money than with anything pertaining to the welfare, benefit, or national aspirations of the German People, living country truncated by the very European nations demanding the most help.

Aside from this, the “Three Great Powers” along with the French Provisional Government took what they wanted when they wanted and where they found it in the prostrate German Nation regardless of any solemn pronouncements they may have made that they wanted neither compensation nor territory.

G. Industry Forbidden Germany

In forbidding Germany the right to participate in certain specified industries, the victors typically cited their intent to prevent Germany from once again resorting to war. But is is these very heavy industries which are necessary in the production of war weaponry in time of war which make a nation a powerful industrial nation with a high standard of living in time of peace. The two best examples of this are the United States and Germany. As a result, wars which often have a nasty habit of arising when industrial competition becomes a little too intense have often really come about as a means of settling on the field of battle what could not be resolved commercially.

As a result, J.C.S. 1067/6 (Part II, par. 31) severely limits the ability of German industry to produce anything other than “light consumer goods. The life’s blood of an industrial nation, iron and steel, non-ferrous metals (excluding aluminum and magnesium), machine tools, radio and electrical equipment, automotive vehicles, and heavy machinery and required replacement parts were forbidden. Aircraft manufacture and industrial research was also forbidden. In addition, plants not dismantled which produced such goods might not be operated nor repaired.

Needless to say, it was these very goods which were sorely needed by Germany to repair that which was damaged and to rebuild the vast areas which had been completely demolished. Not only Germany suffered because of this United Nations attempt to corner the world market on these goods but the recovery of all of Europe was greatly set back.

J. C. S. 1779 continues to give lip service to the Berlin (“Potsdam”) Agreement, but the reparations shall not exceed the provisions of this Agreement. It recognizes the imperitiveness of German economic unity, recovery and exports in international trade and speaks of the possibility of Germany’s foreign trade being no longer limited but states such a decision must be made in a “peace treaty.”

As more and more restrictions were removed by the occupation authorities and the Germans were given more and more control over their destiny, the “Economic Miracle” evolved. In this, more than a little of the credit is due to the “guest workers” who took the place of the many German prisoners-of-war still in primarily Russian hands. Only in this manner was the devastating worker shortage in Germany capable of being met.

H. German Personal Property

All property, real or personal which was considered even remotely to have been owned by the NSDAP or any of its adjuncts was subject to seizure by the Zone Commander. Final disposal of this property was to be made at the pleasure of the Control Council or a “higher Authority.”

Since all Germans, except for those released from camps etc. were almost universally considered “Nazis,” it was not difficult to imagine what happened. In cases where personal property rights were respected, the property could easily be confiscated by the property civil authorities under the control of the occuupation authorities. “Compensation” was always in the Morgenthau Occupation Marks, printed by the authorities in such profusion.

From J.C.S. 1779 onward, having confiscated the property they wished to control, personal property rights were honored to an ever increasing extent. The “Right of Eminent Domain” under which a government is allowed to confiscate any property it finds necessary to control so long as it makes just compensation remains. It was under this law actually that Jewish businesses were “aryanized” in the Third Reich. Compensation was from 3% bonds issued especially for the purpose (Reich Marshal Herman Goering’s testimony, TMWC, Nuernberg Tribunals)

I. Utilities, Communications, Railroad Transportation, Canals, Etc.

In as much as the early return of these utilities to service was necessary for the effective control of Germany by the occupation authorities, the repair of these facilities was the first that was under taken. Workers in these utilities were given orders by the occupation authorities to report to their jobs as usual or face severe punishment. In general, if they had not been connected with the NSDAP in any manner or considered hostile to United Nations’ interests, they could be considered fortunate among the rest of the population since they and the performance of their services were vitally necessary to the victors in the accomplishment the objectives set by the occupation authorities of the defeated country.

J. German Standard of Living

From the beginning of this century, the German life style and the general standard of living in the country, due to the enlightened, progressive political atmosphere of Wilhelmine Germany, compared to the rest of the Continent, had made it the envy of the great nations of Europe, if not the world. It was openly accepted world-wide that under its laws, a man could support his family with the work he did and, if he wished, could still have time and money to enjoy the many cultural pursuits available in Germany.

This was due in part to the huge, efficient industrial capacity which had recently been built to provide goods to be exported and thereby enrich the economy of the country, the superior educational system which made it the focus of the world over with England perhaps second, and an unequalled railway system to fulfill its industrial needs as well as mobilize its excellent army at a moment’s notice if necessary. In addition, Germany could count upon its ancient history; the atmosphere of its medieval towns, universities, museums, libraries, castles, etc.; the beauty of its mountains and countrysides; the cleanliness of the the entire country; and the appeal of its People, dressed immaculately in their native dress to furnish a steady flow of money from tourists, students, etc. attracted regularly to the countyry. All of these elements contributed to the German standard of living, a standard surpassed in the world, perhaps, only by the United States with its seemingly unending surpluses in food, mineral wealth, and land.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire with its dominating position in the production and sale of agricultural products to Europe, although not comparable in wealth to Germany was, nevertheless, able to provide a comfortable life for its citizens comparable to that of Germany.

A prime objective of the Versailles Treaty was to assure that Germany’s (and Austria’s) standard of living would be reduced to one lower than that of the other European nations, and in this objective the victors of 1918 were initially successful. From the end of World WAr I until the early 1930’s, Germany and Austria became quagmires of want and need. Hunger was an ever-present spectre. People starved in the streets of Berlin and Vienna. Their bodies were removed every morning. The national life of both defeated countries stagnated.

It was, therefore, a shock to the victors of 1918, many of whom had long since decided that the Treaty of Versailles had been much too severe with Germany and Austria and had swept the rest of Europe into the same economic abyss, when the German standard of living once again rose to a level almost equal to its pre-war position relative to the rest of Europe. Germany was once again a serious industrial competitor to its former enemies. In November, 1936, Winston Churchill confided to U.S. General Robert E. Wood that, “Germany is getting too strong. We must smash her.” (Sworn testimony before committee investigating “Lend Lease” bill.)

Properly observed, the penalties to be placed upon conquered Germany after its unconditional surrender in 1945 may all be interpreted as means whereby the living standard of Germans would be permanently reduced below that of any of the “Three Great Powers” (and France) which constituted the core of the two-war belligerency against Germany. These powers began discussing these measures at Tehran. They were given more formal status at the Crimea and were finally “chiseled in stone” at the Berlin Conference.

The future of the Germans was clear. No matter how hard they worked to recover and inspite of the “assurances” of Yalta, that “It is not our purpose to destroy the people of Germany, but only when Nazism and Militarism have been extirpated will there be hope for a decent life for Germans and a place for them in the comity of nations,” they would always remain at best a satrapy of the victors, led by the United States. Like the horse with the carrot on a stick affixed to his head by his master, no matter how hard or fast he ran, he could never get the carrot.

In J.C.S. 1067/6 (Par. 21) the allowed German standard of living is discussed. It was directed (by those who came as “conquerors” but not as “suppressors”) toward preventing “starvation or widespread disease or such civil unrest as would endanger the occupying forces.” But the Commander was directed to “take no action that would tend to support basic living standards in Germany on a higher level that that existing in any one of the neighboring United Nations and you will take appropriate measures to ensure that basic living standards of the German people are not higher than those existing in any one of the neighboring United Nations when such measures will contribute to raising the standards of any such nation.”

With the advent of J.C.S. 1779 (mid 1947) it was finally, suddenly recognized, even by the occupation authorities, that the economic future of Germany was tied closely to the economic future of all of Europe, a concept which the United States had adamantly refused to recognize for two decades. Nevertheless, it was still stipulated in J.C.S. 1779 that “The economic objectives of the United States Government in Germany are:

(a) to eliminate industry used solely to manufacture and toreduce industry used chiefly to support the productionof arms, ammunition and implements of war;

(b) to exact from German reparation for the losses sufferedby United Nations as a consequence of Germanaggression; and

(c) to encourage the German people to rebuild a self-supporting State devoted to peaceful purposes,integrated into the economy of Europe.”

Naturally, point (a) in German industry as in every industrial nation this could, at the discresion of the “judge” include or exclude every factory in the nation. If even the United Nations had been subject to such “disarmament,” probably the Korean and Vietnamese wars among numerous others could have been avoided.

Point (b) is an indication that the moralists in the U.S. policy-making eschelons were still trying to establish a high moral purpose to justify the United States and the United Nations

in the draconic punitive actions it had taken against Germany.

Point (c) is a belated “olive branch” extended to the denazified, “reborn” Germans who were being groomed by the U.S. to take over the puppet Bonn regime. These men (“Aye in the catalog they go for men.” Macbeth ) consistently have their ears more keenly attuned to the desires and whims of Washington rather than the shouts of the German people who, they foolishly mainntain, support them.

With the advent of the “Marshall Plan,” a gradual process of removing all the restrictions still existing began. Today, the German standard of living is again second only to that of the United States. The Government is, nevertheless, beholden to the will of the “princes of the Potomac” although Bonn Germany is loudly reputed to be “soverign.” For a long time after becoming “free” again, however, the occupying powers reserved the right legally to step in and negate the right of Germans to rule themselves if the occupation authorities considered their positions threatened for any reason. With a trained, highly armed occupation army under the command of officers of the “Three Great Powers” (now reduced to “Two Great Powers”), one is likely to question just how much “soverignty” a nation can have when a foreign army is still stationed in its midst five decades after its defeat.

With the standard of living which truncated Germany today

enjoys purely because it has finally been allowed to accquire raw materials from outside its borders which were denied it from 1914 until 1952, one is tempted to wonder what its standard of living would have been (and also that of the United States, Britain and France) had there not been twointervening world wars with their demands for raw materials, wealth and blood.

IX. Destruction of German Government and German Politics

A. The destruction of the de jure German Government, still operating under the Weimar Constitution was accomplished by the refusal of the victors to recognize the Government of Gross Admiral Karl Doenitz which, in spite of great difficulties, was still operating effectively aboard the “Patria” anchored in the harbor of Flensburg.

American treatment of captured German officers had always left much to be desired in both the stipulations of the Geneva Convention as well as the European customs of chivalry between men following the “honorable profession of arms.” This had been a problem thoughout Italy and France. Germans had expected such treatment from theRussians who had not been a party to the Geneva Convention but not from the Americans. As the end of Germany’s resistance drew near, the treatment of captured German officers (and POW’s) grew worse. An excellent example of this was the general hazing of U.S. Brig. Gen. Robert J. Stack by Eisenhower and his underlings for according a measure of courtesy to the captured Feld Marshal Hermann Goering (JIHR, IV, p. 310). Even General Alexander M. Patch, commanding the U.S. Seventh Army was rebuked by Eisenhower for treating captured German prisoners of war as stipulated by the Geneva Convention. But then, Gen. Patch had no knolwedge of Eisenhower’s intent to declare all captured Germans in American hands as “Disarmed Enemy Forces,” or “DEF’s” as they were called (Bacque, Other Losses, pp. 27-36).

Eisenhower’s ultimate act, showing the chivalry of which he wass capable at the peak of his power as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, came, without doubt on May 23, 1945. The Principles of the Doenitz Government were summoned abord the “Patria” where Eisenhower’s emmissary, Maj. Gen. Lowell W. Rooks bruskly informed the Germans that,

…in concert with the Soviet High Command…today the acting German government and the German high command, with the several of its members, shall be taken into custody as prisoners of war. Thereby, the acting German government is dissolved…”

(JIHR, Vol IV., p. 313; Katzander, Howard [Staff Correspondent for Yank], Yank: The Army Weekly, [May 1945]).

This rough act of force was followed on June 5, 1945 with a document providing for the assumption of total governmental authority in Germany by the United Nations. It was the purpose of this document, containing fifteen “Articles,” to provide a “legalizing” writ enabling the victors to over the prostrate country. In fact, this had already done by brute force on May 23, since there was no counter force available to dispute it. This take over had, no doubt been planned long in advance to accomplish the often-stated intent of the United Nations to eliminate anything they considered offensive to them from the national culture of the German Nation. These offensive elements they variously described as “Nazism,” “Prussianism,” “Militarism,” “Kaiserism” (WWI), etc.

It was, therefore, by decree (May 23, 1945) of General Eisenhower himself that the de jure German Government, acting under the Weimar Constitution (which was never denounced or rescinded any more than the oft re-interpreted U.S. Constitution has been denounced or rescinded) was arrested and destroyed.

Far from being similar to the situation in Poland in 1939 where the Polish Government fled (quite possibly on advice from the U.S. Government) and left no one in authority to maintain order in the country (this was the reason given by the Russians and accepted by Roosevelt for the Russian invasion of Poland), the German Government of Gross Admiral Doenitz was still in Germany, and still performing the functions of a soverign government. Had it not been so callously and brutally destroyed by Eisenhower who was himself greatly involved with and perhaps even driven by Roosevelt, Morgenthau, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, etc. who were developing crippling, draconian plans for the future of Germany, it would have continued in its worthy objectives to maintain order; to prevent famine; restore communications, business and industry; rebuild housing destroyed in the war; maintain the value of the Reichsmark; reestablish banking and financial systems; investigate the widespread charges of “war crimes” against Germans; and to assist in resettling and absorbing the millions of Germans who were driven from their homes by the Russians, Poles, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Rumanians, Hungarians, etc. at the encouragement and support of the United Nations.

The speed with which the United Nations destroyed the Doenitz Government can but remind one of the words of Macbeth with regard to the charges of “war crimes” and mass murder against the Germans.

This unfortunate, calculated, I believe, post-war stampede of the victors into trial of the vanquished into trial and execution of those hastily “found guilty” has deprived everyone of the possibility of knowing exactly what did happen and why it happened. Rather, it has taken some half a century to ascertain that the initial reports were highly exaggerated to say the least. Munch of the “evidence” present is now known to have been false, and some was entirely fanciful war-time propaganda.

B. German Courts

In his Proclamation No. I, Eisenhower decreed that all German courts, educational and instructional institutions would be closed until further instructions. As the troops of the United Nations proceeded across Germany, this policy was extended until it was in effect all across the conquered country. The right to establish courts of law to try infractions of laws passed by the government and to educate the population are of course, a portion of the soverign rights of any soverign nation.

This proclamation would remain in effect until the de jure laws of the Third Reich were set aside by the occupation authorities to their satisfaction and new laws promulgated by them, new courts established by them, and new judges appointed by them were firmly in place. The new judicial system would look much more like that of the United States than anything which previously had come out of Germany. The victors appear to have been exercising the same rights exercised by Napoleon I when his revolutionary army rolled over central Europe a century and a half earlier.

C. Permanent Removal of German Governmental Officials, Officiating Party Members, Party “Sympathizers,” and Those Hostile to the Objectives of the Occupation Authorities

It is necessary to know that all the Germans which the occupation authorities sought to restrain, imprison, or execute were not necessarily members of the National Socialist Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (“NSDAP”). Anyone whom the occupation authorities deemed or suspected of being a potential problem was to be restrained, and the various terms were often talked about interchangeably. Very often the term “Nazi” and “German” were synonamous in their deliberations. Even those who had been in concentration camps were not immune to molestation by the occupation authorities. Dr. Kurt Schumacher, a lifelong socialist and a member of the SPD incurred the wrath of the occupation authorities when he opposed certain of their vengeful policies against Germany. At one time he (properly) refered to Adenauer as the Alliierte Kanzler. In a like manner, even the renegade “Lutheran,” one of the authors of the “Stuttgart Confession,” Rev. Martin Niemoeller fell into periods of Allied disgrace.

D. Destruction of All German Political Machinery

Not just the party machinery of the National Socialists was destroyed but all political party machinery of every party. Initially, with the Assumption of Total Governmental Authority (June 5, 1945), the United Nations took over the government of Germany and ruled by decree. These decrees were in the form of Control Council Laws, Military Laws, Proclamations, Orders, Ordinances, Notices, Regulations, and Directives issued by the occupation authorities. The right to issue such decrees was based upon the unconditional surrender (“total defeat”) of Germany.

J.C.S. 1067/6 stipulates that, “No political activities of any kind shall be countenanced,” unless authorized by the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Occupation Forces. Freedom of speech, press and religion were to be promoted except in cases where it might conflict with military necessity or interests.

By the time J.C.S. 1779 was issued (May 19, 1947), the traditional state boundaries of Germany had been dissolved, Prussia had been decreed to exist no longer, and the entire country had been divided up by the United Nations into eleven “federal German states” or “Laender.” The Laender were governed by political parties which were allowed to organize and operate under the continual guidance of the United Nations. The Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Forces was instructed by J.C.S. to oppose (“veto”) a centralized German Government but to seek “the establishment in Germany of a political organization which is derived from the people and subject to their control, which operates in accordance with democratic electoral procedures, and which is dedicated to uphold both the basic civil and human rights of the individual (emphasis mine!). Was the long-term influence and effect of the forceful military occupation to be considered of no lasting consequence?

The parties established, priviledged by the fact that the occupation government allowed no others to function, included SPD (socialists), CDU (“christian” democrats), CSU, FDP, Deutsche Partei, Centrists, and KPD (communists). Members of these parties organized the “Parlamentary Council,” (“Parlamentarischer Rat”). Dr. Konrad Adenauer (CDU), the WW-I “Separatist” and former Oberburgomeister of Koeln, was the leader of the German delegates. Their decisions were subject to ratification by the Military Governor of the Zone. It was this “Parlamentary Council,” appointed by the various Laender governments established by the occupation authorities, their activities carefully watched and influenced by these same occupation authorities, which declared itself competent and empowered to speak for the German People, which on May 8, 1949 voted 53 to 12 to accept the present German Constitution (heavily influenced by and also subject to ratification by the occupation forces) as a basis for the present government of Bonn Germany.

A decentralized Central government for Germany reminds one of the ideals of the founders of the U.S. Constitution who sought to establish a federal system with power over the several states limited by the Constitution. Apparently, those who lived in the United States under the rather autocratic system which evolved under numerous influences still seek to do lip service to the system our Founding Fathers thought they had established. Or was it the knowledge of the foreign advisors who helped fram the German Constitution that a weak central government dragged in all directions by its more-easily-influenced, more-powerful component states is invariably weaker as a nation than one with central, uniform direction?

This Parlamentarisher Rat served as the nucleus for the present Bonn Bundestag which has continued through over forty years to make what remains of Germany today Washington’s most loyal vassal. It is the Bundestag which has refused to publicize the treatment of the German refugees from their traditional homelands in the east at the end of the war. It has steadfastly against the will and best interests of the German People recognized the Oder-Neisse Line as the Polish-German Boundary although the Yalta Agreement stipulates it is to be decided at a peace conference as yet not held. It has conspired with the treacherous Czechs in declaring their complete justification for ejecting the Sudeten Germans from territories in which they were the majority race for centuries. It has conspired with the occupation authorities to make Germany into a multi-racial, multi-”cultural” nation against the wills of the German People by making the remnant of the German homeland into a “racial dumping ground” for the racial dregs of the world. It regularly and willingly makes gifts of money taxed from the German working man and woman to support nations traditionally and still hostile to Germany, nations which have sorely wronged Germany and which show no remorse for past actions but rather demand what is no more than reparations for the wrongs they have committed against Germany. The Bundestag has shown no sympathy for these and other just complaints of the German public. Their ears are more attuned to the desires and international ambitions eminating from the Potomac River than the screams for help from the Rhein, Elbe, Oder or Memel.

E. Control of German Candidates and Election Procedures

Originally all political was forbidden by the military government. As parties arose at the expressed wishes of this government, they were carefully controlled as to what their purposes and characters might be. Likewise, persons who were considered “security risks” or persons likely to cause political problems later were denied the support of any of the acceptable, established parties. In this manner, election procedures were controlled by the established regime which had been put into place by the occupation authorities. With the initial decree that “Nazis,” “Security Risks,” etc. could neither run nor hold office, parties and regimes heavily biased in favor of the will of the occupation government were put into place.

As time progressed, those who had been minor Party officials who had been “denazified” were again allowed to vote and even to hold office. (Once again, one is reminded of the similarity of the occupation laws in Germany to those of the “Reconstruction Period” in the South where those who had born arms against the North were not allowed to vote or hold office.) But these offices in Germany were invariably of a rather low level compared to the “pure white” political requirements placed upon the upper eschelons by the occupation authorities. Even so, one of the framers of the Nuernberg Laws was found to be one of Konrad Adenauer’s aides.

To this day, the two strongest parties, SPD & CDU, continue to control the Government of Bonn as the military government of Germany which founded it intended. Other parties which have arisen are faced with a mass of political priviledge and power which consigns them to either oblivion or a very minor place with another minor party. Here again this is entirely comparable to the political party situation in the United States.

F. Expurgation of “Nazism,” “Prussianism,” “German Militarism,” Etc.

The expurgation of the propaganda “bogies” used by the victors so successfully to support thier efforts and objectives in conquored Germany was in reality a cover to allow them to destroy every vestige of German Life and Culture. Using the “buzz” words, “Nazi,” “Prussian,” “Militarist,” “Racist,” “Nationalist,” Etc. the perpetrators of the monumental crimes committed in Germany by the United Nations could easily excuse, even praise their own acts as a great “Crusade” against all wars, racial hatred and bias, nationalistic arrogance, and so on. While carrying out the attendant punative activities, however, they did not willingly disclose either what they were doing or the degree to which they had assumed power over those who were in their charge.

If one walks down the street in Germany today, he is struck by the degree of the success the occupation has realized its goals. As in the United States, the national dress seems to have become “blue jeans.” Radios and television stations, originally established and still controlled by the heirs of the occupation forces, blare out a continual din of propaganda to disseminate the wonders and superiority of American culture over all others. The cacophony is many times worse actually that it is in America where there is at least some respite. German music, German literature, German language, German political and national ambitions, German culture ---GERMANS take a back seat to the lifestyle imported into the country by its conquerors who are still in control of the country half a century after its defeat and surrender.

“Guilt” was heaped upon Germans by the victors. Germans convinced of this “guilt” through use of unopposed mass murder charges (“Germans Who See Atrocity Facts Tend to Admit Reich’s War Guilt,” New York Times, June 18, 1945, P. 8 & Political Justice — Sefton Delmer). To be certain that no significant opposition would be encountered by the instructed tribunals, it was already decided at Yalta that no German might say anything derogatory about a “United Nation.” The London Protocols stipulated aready that the charges were in the realm of “judicial notice” and, therefore could not be contested in court as non-factual. It remained for the “prosecution” merely to show in some manner that the alleged victims were in some way the responsibility of the accused and/or in any way remotely connected to him. Then, since the “crime” occurred “without question” because of “judicial notice,” he was of necessity “guilty.”

The United Nations “proved” with their manufactured and selected evidence and their politically oriented, instructed tribunals that the Germans in their fury had murdered some six million (?) Jews simply because the were Jews. Yet, not one identifiable Jew was proved to have been killed in the manner alleged. Nevertheless, Germany was called upon by the United States and forced to pay retribution to the Jews on the basis of the “six million” before American German High Commissioner John Jay McCloy would sign the document allowing finally, a measure of constolled German self govenment in 1952.

By this time, those Germans who were allegedly guilty of the alleged mass atrocity were, if the United Nations could lay hands upon them, long since hanged as an example of United Nations justice to other nations. Perhaps the Roman practice of crucifying those who opposed them upon trees along the road inspired them. By the time the “Germans” regained some measure of control over their lives, although this “control” was still no more than that of a puppet regime, all the essential provisions outlined in the Roosevelt-Morgenthau Plan for postwar Germany had been accomplished to the satisfaction of almost everyone except the most rabid Germanophobe. These still maintained that given a chance, Germany would prepare again for World War III. Here, they let their imaginations again run as wild as they had been in their invasion scare stories of the early 1940’s.

Most assuredly, the nations which had received promises of bribes for their cooperation in the initiation of World WAr II hostilities (e. g. Poland) and in achieving the final defeat of Central Europe (e. g. Italy) should not allowed to sit in judgement over the defeated nations by those who had obligated themselves to offer the bribes for services rendered. International justice should demand that the nefarious bribes be returned with reparations to the nation from which they were originally taken.

X. Unique U.S. Role in Europe and the World

As guarantors and underwriters of the “peace” established by the United Nations at the end of World War II, the United States and Soviet Russia were to act in post-war concert with the expectation that, as in war, the “hanger on” nations would giive their unquestioning, unqualified assent. In so doing, they hoped to present to vanquished Germany such an array of military, economic, and political power and opposition that the boundaries set and the agreements made would never be questioned. In the minds of those who, under Roosevelt’s guidance, envisaged the future, their decisions would continue in effect for all eternity. This meant that Germany, which in their minds had always been the cause of European and world unrest would disappear forever as the single cause of war.

The plans developed, primarily by the United States but usually with the expressed or implied offer of the United States that associated United Nations must agree to U.S.-Soviet leadership and subscribe to its decisions, left the United States in complete control of Germany if not the entire world. Only Soviet Russia was, since World War II, in a position to at least nominally challenge this role at certain times. The role played by Russia in the post war world created by the “United Nations” was pre-ordained by the policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, although Russia would remain greatly dependent upon United States wealth and support to assume and hold this important international position (See: Jordan, George Racey, From Major Jordan’s Diaries, pp. 142-191). Post-war support from the United States must continue to flow to Russia even in times of relative U.S.-Soviet hostility when a reasonable person would have considered that these supplies should have long since been cut off. It was this continuing support from this country to Stalin and his successors which made possible the maintainence of the visage of Russia as a world power comparable to the U.S. until 1190. Had this support not been provided as promised in war-time, the economy of the USSR would have collapsed much earlier. The Chinese Communists apparently were the only significant nation who earlier than others properly saw the Soviet Union as a “paper tiger,” a huge multi-racial empire on the verge of collapse.

It was necessary for the United States to preserve this image of the Soviet Union as a great world power comparable to the United States, however, for a number of reasons. The illusory concept of the two great “democracies,” together policing the world for peace after the war had to be preserved or the United Nations might well collapse, since in this case, its reasons for continued existence would be reduced greatly. Indeed, during this period, no nation which one of the two “democratic”leaders did not wish to obtain arms obtained them. With the atomic bomb which Russia had obtained as a result of Soviet supporters in the United States and England, Russia could be effectively cited and used by U.S. Politicians as necessity apparent forcing the United States to continue the war economy (and the “good times”) it had enjoyed since 1940. Had it been known that Russia had no more power in the post-war world than that posessed by any of the former great powers of Europe, Russia, like they, could have also been ignored by the Lords of the Potomac.

As it was, the United States, planning to operate in concert with Russia (and England) obligated itself to maintain an army in Europe (“Germany”) and Japan for a period which still has not ended after half a century. The “peace keeping” “police action” function of these armies has changed from time to time, and at times has been the cause of acttual confrontation needing only the proper spark to ignite a world atomic conflagration. Perhaps the greatest hinderance to this war was the fact that the Soviet Union knew such a war, although it could initially inflict great destruction on its fellow “democratic” partner, for it would in the end be completely destroyed in a holocaust which would make Germany’s and Japan’s recent destructions appear as nothing. At every such confrontation therefore, the Soviet Union fortunately backed down, after first finding a “face-saving” maneuvre. For this the entire world may be exceedingly thankful. It is almost certain that the Pentagon Idealists would not have backed down but would have chosen to bomb them too back into the stone age.

In addition to the force of the U.S. Army, the U.S. Government would maintain world-wide convert operations utilizing the CIA as means of extending the strength of the U.S. Government. Any governments believed hostile to the U.S. or no longer useful the the U.S. could expect to be targets for subversion fomented by the CIA or groups in its service. The objectives of the “New Deal” had suddenly become more of a secret world-wide power to be reckoned with than the Soviet Comintern.

With the decline of Russia to such an extent that they could no longer be considered a “partner” in the post-war world, the United States felt, no longer constrained to do more than give lip service to the former agreement. The “Lords of the Potomac” had, after a century and a half of waiting, finally arrived at a world in which the United States was unquestionably the supreme power of the world. If any nation in the world, targeted for any reason as a problem to the United States, does not succomb to economic sanctions imposed by the United States and its United Nations allies, it can call upon its air force to bomb the much inferior nation to its knees and its army to invade.

The United States has always seen itself as a heroic nation in which everyone, even its enemies, could continue to have respect for it and could expect fair treatment from it as a matter of course. This image which the United States sees when it looks into the mirror does not exist now if, indeed, it ever existed for a time in World WAr I. World War II changed all that for all time. As in the case of the “Reconstructed” South, it will be many generations before the stories of invasion by merciless, wrathful troops, dressed in blue and bent upon devastation, murder, and plunder are not passed on by word of mouth to the next generation. Worst of all will be the vengeful treatment meted out to the vanquished by victors after the end of future hostilities.

And this will not be the case just in central Europe. There is an anecdote (circa 1990) about an American in Vienna who asked a Viennese how to get to St. Stephan’s Cathedral. “Why do you ask me?” returned the Viennese, “you could find it when you wanted to bomb it!” Sadly, the same is true of much, if not most, of the destruction throughout Europe in World War II. A similar tale could have been told about Montecatini in Italy or in innumerable other places throughout Europe. Such destruction was so widespread that much of the construction necessary to rebuild the tourist trade in Europe had to be done before many of these countries could again have the income which had supported them for centuries prior to the war. Destruction of sites attractive to tourists, however, represented but a small part of the total rebuilding which was necessary. Almost all had been captured intact by the Germans. Many of these places were destroyed by the United Nations after the Germans had withdrawn from them rather than defending and by so doing destroying them.

Grimm, Prof. Dr. Friedrich, POLITISCHE JUSTIZ, DIE KRANKHEIT UNSERE ZEIT, Verlag Bonner Universitaets-Buchdruckerei, 1953, pp. 146-148 (Sefton Delmer interview).

USA TODAY, “Inquiry (interview of Deborah Lipstadt, ‘Topic: The Holocaust’),” Aug. 20, 1987, p. 11A.

FINIS

Origins and Developments of the Plans of the United Nations for Post-War Germany

I. May 7, 1945 THE END OF WORLD WAR II (REIMS)

II. EARLIER & INTERNECINE PLANS TO DESTROY GERMANY

III. Aug. 9-12, 1941 ARGENTIA, NEWFOUNDLAND (“ATLANTIC”) CONFERENCE (“ATLANTIC CHARTER”)

IV. Dec. 22, 1941-Jan. “ARCADIA” THE FIRST WASHINGTON 14, 1942 CONFERENCE — UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION (Jan. 1, 1942)

V. June 19, 1942-June THE SECOND WASHINGTON CONFERENCE 25, 1942

VI. Jan. 14-24, 1943 “SYMBOL” THE CASABLANCA CONFERENCE

VII. May 12-25, 1943 “TRIDENT” THE THIRD WASHINGTONCONFERENCE

VIII. Aug. 20-24, 1943 “QUADRANT,” THE FIRST QUEBEC CONFERENCE

IX. Oct. 19-Nov. 1, MOSCOW FOREIGN MINISTERS CONFERENCE & 1943 MOSCOW DECLARATION

X. Nov. 22-26, 1943 “SEXTANT,” THE FIRST CAIRO CONFERENCE

XI. Nov. 27-Dec. 2, “EUREKA,” THE TEHRAN CONFERENCE 1943

XII. Dec. 2-7, 1943 THE SECOND CAIRO CONFERENCE

XIII. Jan 14, 1944- Feb. THE EUROPEAN ADVISORY COMMISSION (“EAC”) 11, 1945

XIV. March 24, 1944 THE ROOSEVELT STATEMENT (ON ALLEGED GERMAN AND JAPANESE ATROCITIES

XV. Feb. 15, 1945 THE HANDBOOK FOR UNIT COMMANDER(MILITARY GOVERNMENT IN GERMANY,”SHAEF”)

XVI. THE MORGENTHAU PLAN

A. THE FORTUNES OF THE HOUSE OF MORGENTHAU

B. PRELUDE TO THE MORGENTHAU PLAN FOR GERMANY — MORGENTTHAU’SPOWER WITH ROOSEVELT

C. THE MORGENTHAU PLAN EVOLVES

D. THE MORGENTHAU PLAN AS PREPARED FOR “OCTAGON”

XVII. Sept, 12-16, 1944 “OCTAGON,’ THE SECOND QUEBECCONFERENCE

XVIII. Nov. 7-, 1944 THE DUMBARTON OAKS CONFERENCE(WASHINGTON)

XIX. Nov. 7, 1944 THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

XX. Dec. 16, 1944- THE GERMAN ARDENNES OFFENSIVE — Jan.1945 (“OPERATION GREIF”) — CAPTUREOF PLANS FOR “OPERATION ECLIPSE”

XXI. Jan. 20, 1945 THE ROOSEVELT, FOURTH PRESIDENTIALTERM INAUGURATION

XXII. Jan. 30, 1945 — THE MALTA CONFERENCE Feb. 2, 1945

XXIII. Feb. 4-11, 1945 THE CRIMEAN (“YALTA”) CONFERENCE

XXIV. April 12, 1945 ROOSEVELT’S DEATH

XXV. April 27, 1945 JCS 1067/6-7

XXVI. April 30-June 26, THE “UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION” 1945(SAN FRANCISCO) ORGANIZATIONAL CONFERENCE

XXVII. THE END OF NATIONAL GERMANY May 7 & 8, 1945 A. THE SURRENDER OF GERMANY May 15, 1945 B. THE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT OF THE LAST DE JURE GERMAN GOVERNMENT June 5, 1945 C. THE ASSUMPTION OF TOTAL GOVERNMENTAL GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY IN GERMANY BY THE UNITED NATIONS

XXVIII. July 17-Aug. 2, THE BERLIN (“POTSDAM”) CONFERENCE 1945

XXIX. Aug. 8, 1945 THE LONDON AGREEMENT (WAR CRIMESTRIAL “PROTOCOLS”) SIGNED

XXX. Oct. 6, 1945 THE CHARTER OF INTERNATIONAL(“UNITED NATIONS”) MILITARYTRIBUNAL FOR TRIAL OF GERMANS AND THEIR ALLIES

XXXI. Oct. 29, 1945 — THE (DECREES) — PROCLAMATIONS, Feb. 20, 1948 DIRECTIVES, ORDNANCES, ETC. ISSUED BY “ALLIED CONTROL COUNCIL FORGERMANY,” BERLIN

XXXI. May 19, 1947 JCS 1779

XXXII. June 5, 1947 THE MARSHALL PLAN

XXXIII. April 10, 1949 THE WEST GERMAN OCCUPATION STATUTE

XXXIV. May 12, 1949 THE APPROVAL OF WEST GERMAN (“BONN”) REPUBLIC (“BUNDES”) BASICLAW “CONSTITUTION”) BY THE WESTERN UNITED NATIONS OCCUPATION AUTHORITIES

XXXV. WHAT HAS REMAINED OF THE ORIGINAL UNITED NATIONS PLANS FOR GOVERNING GERMANY?