December 1989

The Colorado Daily has asked me to write an article on some of the unpublicized findings of certain writers in regard to World War Two. I agreed to do so in the interest of examining all aspects of an issue, no matter how controversial it may be. If we have hope of improving our future, we must seek to understand the failures and errors of the past.

Many who are familiar with our debacle in Viet Nam and its attendant propaganda seem to think this experience was unique in history. However, according to unpublicized findings of numerous qualified writers and historians, Viet Nam was merely another example of a long series of episodes in which the American majority has been propagandized, misled and even betrayed by its leadership.

According to these writers, it is only when we begin to peek beneath the propaganda curtain which still veils World War Two that the enormity of the deception can be seen.

An illustration of the power of propaganda provided by Carroll Quigley, Professor of History at Georgetown University, is the widely held misconception that National Socialist Germany was a totalitarian state. In Tragedy and Hope I he writes "unlike Italy or Soviet Russia, the economic system was not ruled by the state but was subject to 'self rule' (free enterprise) .... Newspapermen and journalistic writers applied the term 'totalitarian' to the Nazi system, and the name has stuck without any real analysis of the facts as they existed. In fact, the Nazi system was not totalitarian either in theory or in practice."

Dal Hitchcock, in The German Financial Revolution, described German financial and fiscal policy as "revolutionary" and "successful," and noted that National Socialism involved no nationalization of factories or industry, and that all business organizations were privately owned. In particular, control of the issuance of money was taken from the hands of international financiers and put into the hands of the government. This move helped Germany to recover from the Depression while other industrialized nations of the world still wallowed in it. It also made Hitler a target of the monopoly capitalists, which includes the Socialists and Communists.

(Abraham Lincoln had a similar confrontation with the inter- national banking interests when he issued interest free U.S. Notes to help finance the Civil War. The Bank of England in its famous "Hazard Circular" stated " shall control labor by controlling wages. This can be done by controlling money. The great debt ... made out of the war must be used as a means to control money .... Bonds must be used as a banking basis .... It will not do to allow the green-back ... to circulate as money ... as we cannot control that." Today, our money is interest bearing Federal Reserve Notes backed by bonds. The last U.S. Note in circulation was the old $2 bill. Some time ago it was replaced by a new $2 bill – a Federal Reserve Note.)

So dramatic was Germany's economic recovery that Churchill stated to General R. E. Wood in November 1936, "Germany is getting too strong and we must smash her." In 1938 Bernard Baruch, advisor to President Roosevelt, remarked to General George C. Marshall, "We are going to lick that fellow Hitler. He isn't going to get away with it."

These remarks suggest that leaders in Britain and the United States were contemplating war. Accordingly, a propaganda barrage was launched against Germany – she was building a war machine to conquer the world.

But, according to several writers, this charge was phony. Quigley in Tragedy and Hope: "From 1936 to the outbreak of war in 1939, German aircraft production was not raised ... its tank production was low, and even in 1939 was less than Britain's .... Britain produced about 8000 (military planes) in 1939 compared to 4733 (produced in Germany) In 1939 ... From these facts it's quite clear that Britain did not yield to superior force..."

In The World Crisis in America's Foreign Policy 1937-1941, W. L. Langer and S. E. Gleason show that Germany was unprepared for a major European war in 1939, having not planned for such a dire eventuality. In The Myth of the New History, Dr. David Hoggan writes, "The Churchill myth of Germany armed to the teeth in 1940 (flies) in the face of all the statistical evidence which has been offered by ... Asher Lee" (in The German Air Force).

In The Origins of the Second World War, A.J.P. Taylor, a leading British historian, shows that "Hitler did not wish a war, either local, European, or world. His only fundamental aim in foreign policy was to revise the unjust and unfair Treaty of Versailles, and to do this by peaceful means." (Quotation from a review by Harry Elmer Barnes.)

H. E. Barnes, who was one of America's leading revisionist historians, stated in Blasting the Historical Blackout, "It is well established that no responsible leader in Germany, France, or Italy wanted war in 1939. President Roosevelt apparently desired to have the European war break out as soon as possible, pressed Chamberlain to go ahead, and encouraged Polish ... stubbornness..."

One of the most comprehensive studies on the origins of the war was made by David Hoggan in his doctoral thesis at Harvard in 1948 which he expanded into a 900-page book over a 15-year period, to be published in English under the title When Peaceful Revision Failed. In a reference to this book in The Myth of the New History, Dr. Hoggan states, "...As demonstrated in my book ... Germany, whatever her faults in her own domestic system and foreign policy, was the victim of an English Tory conspiracy in September 1939 ... (Lord) Halifax conducted a single-minded campaign to plunge Germany into war and in such a way as to make Germany appear to be the guilty party .... Poland was the pawn in the game.... The documentary record has long since revealed that in 1939 it was Hitler's utmost desire to enjoy peaceful and friendly relations, and if possible alliances, with both Great Britain and Poland."

Supporting Hoggan's view, H. E. Barnes states, "...The public announcement of the final shift of British policy to hostility to Germany ... rested on a twofold fraud, (1) the charge that Germany was preparing for widespread military aggression, and (2) a hoax concocted through Virgil Tilea, the Rumanian minister to London." (Tilea was induced by the British Foreign Office to draw up a false statement charging Germany with seeking to seize the Rumanian economy.) So blatant was the deceit that, according to Barnes, "Both Chamberlain and Halifax falsified their reports of Hitler's favorable reaction to a proposed international conference on September 2 (1939) which still might have ... stopped the German-Polish war and prevented the European war."

Deceit was not peculiar to the British leadership. The role of the United States in promoting war against Germany is considered by C. C. Tansill in The Back Door to War. He shows that FDR was interested in creating a breach between Germany and England. His findings were based on unpublished state department documents which revealed that FDR encouraged the British to go to war in 1939 and then considered the best means of obtaining the intervention of the United States.

In The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, Admiral Theobald shows that FDR alone was responsible for the disaster at Pearl Harbor. He demonstrates beyond question, by means of documents, that FDR had ample warning of the impending attack which he failed to pass on to Admiral Kimmel. He writes, "Our main deduction is that President Roosevelt forced Japan to war by unrelenting diplomatic-economic pressure and enticed that country to initiate hostilities with a surprise attack by holding the Pacific fleet in Hawaiian waters as an invitation to that attack."

General Wedemeyer, in the Wedemeyer Reports, writes, "The fact that Japan's attack had been deliberately provoked was obscured by the disaster at Pearl Harbor." Thus, the U.S. was brought into the war by the deliberate sacrifice of over 3300 of our young men. Watergate pales to insignificance by comparison. The brief insights into unpublicized aspects of World War Two may shed some light on our present demoralized state. During the 1930s Communism was said to be the antithesis of our way of life. Why, then, were we so anxious to destroy Germany whose primary goal was to contain Communism? Why have we been fraudulently led to sacrifice so many of our best young men in foreign wars? What has been our gain?

Although the fact remains that the foreign interventionist policies of our leadership have consistently aided the Communist cause, the greatest threat to our future is not Communism per se. Rather, it is the portrait of an unreal world being painted for us by the propaganda media, the abandonment of intellectual leadership by the academic world, and a lack of moral and spiritual courage. There can be no doubt that the best interests of the American majority have not been served by our leadership. Nor can we expect any remedies in the near future. The liberal establishment has been exposed as phony, subservient to alien interests. It can offer only bankrupt ideas and licentiousness. Traditional conservatism offers only stagnation. The majority political parties are enslaved to monied interests with Socialism as their ultimate goal, for Socialism-Communism is the ultimate of monopoly capitalism. Only a new political movement in a new direction can offer any hope for a rewarding future. And it is only the young, who still have the time and the inclination to understand the failures of the leadership of the past, who can generate a successful remedy.