German Propaganda Archive Calvin College

 

Background: The Nazi Partyís Central Propaganda Office, the Reichspropagandaleitung, published a monthly bulletin for speakers. It was designed to be kept in notebooks, divided by subject area. This rather lengthy section appeared soon after the outbreak of the war. It gave the view of the warís origins that speakers were to incorporate into their speeches. It made particular use of “neutral” newspapers, though the reader will soon begin to wonder just how neutral most of them were. The material was not confidential, though neither was it readily available to those who were not propagandists. I have a large collection of this material, which can be rather hard to find, so I have posted an index to my collection.

The source: Aufklärungs- und Redner-Informationsmaterial der Reichspropagandaleitung der NSDAP., 11 (1939), pp. 31-41 (En).


The Führer Wanted Peace

The English Warmongers Wanted Destruction


With rare honesty, English Prime Minister Chamberlain revealed his true goals to the world on 12 October. Even neutral observers were surprised at how brutally he rejected the Führerís peace offer and declared a war of destruction on Germany, though the warmonger Churchill and his comrades were undoubtedly pleased. He naturally had to turn the facts upside down. It is the height of hypocrisy that he claimed Englandís goal was to maintain peace, despite the war cries and the incitements that he directed against the Reich.

No one in the past months, years and decades worked harder at unleashing a European war, with the goal of destroying Germany, than England.

The other side had no statesman of the stature of Adolf Hitler, who fought untiringly to keep Europe free of chaos, or who worked so honestly for an understanding with England.

Even during the period when the National Socialist movement was struggling for power, the Führer did all he could to eliminate the idea that France was Germanyís hereditary enemy. He succeeded. No National Socialist tried to score cheap patriotic points in this way. The Führerís goal of establishing friendly relations between the two Western European states is expressed clearly in his book Mein Kampf. The words he used there are clear proof that he was intent from the beginning on eliminating the old attitudes that resulted from the war and to build a new and better relationship.

Since the takeover, the Führer has extended the educational work of the party to the entire German people. In nearly every speech he discussed the relationship of Germany to the two Western nations. He repeatedly said that, once the Saar issue was resolved, Germany had no territorial claims on France. That is, he clearly renounced any German claims to the provinces of Alsace-Lorraine that had been taken from Germany in 1918. He repeatedly said that Germany had no claims on England either, with the exception of our former colonies. This showed both states the importance Adolf Hitler placed on friendly relations.

And one should not forget that it was these two nations that hardly made it easy for the Führer to say these words and proclaim such intentions. Mostly the statesmen to whom the Führer spoke seemed not to hear him, and when they did respond it was mostly only to doubt his words or to complain about them, or to see the German declarations or compromises as self-evident.

If the statesmen did not do it, the press of these nations did. They used every opportunity to throw dirt at the Führer, to make him look ridiculous, or to reject his proposals impudently. It really took great patience and strong faith in the face of such “successes” to maintain hope in an improvement of the situation.

The Führer never gave up hope, as his behavior in past years proves, particularly in the last days and hours before the French and English declared war. He did everything to prevent a new war in Europe and to spare its peoples new misery and privation. Today Herr Chamberlain is the leader of the warmongering against Germany and still dares to say he did everything to prevent the war. We need only look back on the events of recent years to show what the Führer has done for peace in Europe, and what Mr. Chamberlain has done.

It is more necessary than ever to recall these facts today, and to point out Germanyís peace efforts in order to take the wind out of the sails of a lying world.

As early as 14 October 1933, as Germany left the League of Nations, the Führer took the opportunity as Chancellor of the Reich to explain his thinking about France. He said:

I speak in the name of the entire German people when I assure the world that we all share the honest wish to eliminate the enmity that brings far more costs than any possible benefits... It would be a wonderful thing for all of humanity if both peoples would renounce force against each other forever. The German people are ready to make such a pledge.

Since we voluntarily accept the provisions of the peace treaties, I declare openly that there are no territorial obstacles between the two countries. Once the Saar returns to Germany, only a lunatic could want a war between the two countries, since there is no moral or reasonable grounds for one.

A few days later on 18 October 1933, the Führer said the following to Ward Price, the special correspondent of the English Daily Mail:

I was deeply unhappy on 4 August 1914 that the two Germanic peoples were now at war with each other, though they had been at peace with each other so many hundreds of years despite all the confusions and uncertainties of history. I would be delighted if this unhappy psychosis were finally at an end and both nations, related as they are, were again joined in friendship.

In his proclamation to the German people on 16 March 1935 on the institution of universal military service, the Führer said:

It [the Reich government — the editors] has given France solemn assurances that Germany has no territorial claims against France after the successful resolution of the Saar situation. It believes it has, by making a major political and actual sacrifice, laid the foundation for an end to the centuries-long conflict between these two great nations.

In his speech to the Reichstag on 21 May 1935 he said:

We want to do everything we can to build a true friendship with the French people. . . The German government has the honest desire to do everything to build good relations with the British people and their government, and to prevent a recurrence of the only war between the two nations.

In an interview with Bertrand de Juvenile of the Paris Mid on 21 February 1936, he said:

I want to prove to my people that the idea of hereditary enmity between France and Germany is nonsense. The German people has understood this.

In a speech to the Reichstag on 7 March 1936:

Over the last three years I have always attempted to build a bridge of understanding to the French people... The German people has no desire to see the French suffer, nor do the French desire that for us. What advantage does France have in Germanyís misfortune? I have eliminated any hatred of the French people from the German press.

In his Reichstag speech of 20 February 1938:

Germany had no territorial demands on France. We hope that, with the return of the Saar, territorial conflicts between Germany and France are forever finished. . . Neither does Germany have any difficulties with England, aside from colonial issues. There is no reason for any kind of conflict.

Even in the most politically difficult times last September in 1938, the Führer continued to express his firm desire for peace to England and France. In his reckoning with Benesch in the [Berlin] Sport Palace on 27 September 1938, he said:

I have gone even further, and have offered my hand to England! I have voluntarily agreed to renounce any kind of naval competition, to give England a sense of security. I have not done that because I could not build any more ships, but rather only in order to assure a lasting peace between the two peoples. . . I have further assured France that after the return of the Saar, there are no differences between us. I have said that for us, Alsace-Lorraine no longer exists! . . . We do not want war with France! We do not want anything from France! Nothing at all!

In his Reichstag speech of 30 January 1939:

Germany has no territorial claims against England and France, other than the return of our colonies.

In his Reichstag speech of 28 April 1939:

I have never declared the loss of Alsace-Lorraine for unacceptable, as France did in 1870/71, but have made a distinction between the Saar and both former Reich provinces. I have not changed my mind, nor will I in the future. Domestically, I have never questioned this matter in any way whatsoever. The return of the Saar eliminated all territorial conflicts between France and Germany . . . For my entire political career I have promoted friendship between Germany and England.

In his Reichstag speech on 6 October 1939, four weeks after the war forced upon us by England and France, the Führer spoke these words to both nations that once again show how honestly and faithfully he has sought understanding:

I have above all sought to improve our relations to France, and to make them acceptable for both nations. I have been entirely clear about Germanyís goals, and have never wavered from them. The return of the Saar was the only requirement for German-French understanding. Once France had faithfully upheld its side, there remained no cause for any further demands, nor were any ever made. That means that I entirely avoided even mentioning the problem of Alsace-Lorraine not because I was unable to do so, but because I did not see it as a barrier to French-German relations. I have accepted the decisions of 1919 and refused to begin a bloody war because of it, since it is not a life necessity for Germany, but instead would plunge a second generation into a terrible struggle. France knows this. No French statesman can claim that I ever made any demand on France that could not be met honorably or was to Franceís detriment. My only wish has ever been to bury the old enmity forever and to bring these two nations with their glorious pasts together once more. I have done everything possible to eliminate any idea of hereditary enmity between France and Germany, and instead encouraged respect for the great accomplishments of the French people and their history, just as every German soldier has the highest admiration for the French army.

My efforts for a German-English understanding were no less strong, indeed I wanted friendship between Germany and England. I have never opposed British interests. Unfortunately, I had regularly to deal with English assaults on Germanyís interests, even in areas that were of no significance at all to England. A goal of my life has been to bring the two nations together, both from reason and sympathy. The German people supported me in these endeavors. My efforts failed only because of a distressing enmity on the part of some British statesmen and journalists who did not conceal their aim, which we cannot understand, to wage war against Germany once again at the first opportunity.

The less factual foundations these men had, the more they sought to conceal themselves with empty phrases and claims. I still believe even today that true peace in Europe and the world can result only when Germany and England are in agreement. This conviction has often led me in the past to attempt to reach an understanding. If it does not happen, it is really not my fault.

Anyone who doubts the Führerís assurances despite his repeated statements should be persuaded by his astonishing acceptance of the well-known naval accord with England. Germany declared in this naval accord that it was willing to restrict its fleet to a size one third that of the English navy. Even Germanyís greatest enemy could hardly fail to see the willingness to restrict our fleet to 35% of Englandís as the Führerís desire to avoid an armed conflict with England. As the Führer said, Germany was certainly able to build more warships, but wanted to prove to the English people that there were no hostile intentions on Germanyís side.

England has no alternative but to admit that its present advantage in surface ships was gained by shameless deception. By the way, the past weeks have shown how exaggerated Englandís claims of “ruling the seas” are. Our courageous submarines and flyers within the first weeks of the war sunk the largest British ships, the aircraft carriers Courageous and Ark Royal, as well as the battleship Royal Oak, and will see to it in the future that Englandís fleet will cower like rats in their holes.

We are used to such things on Englandís part. Certain English statesmen, above all the untiring warmonger Churchill, etc., have opposed any efforts at improving German-English relations. They have dragged the Führerís words through the mud, and twisted and distorted them. Now they are carrying on an unprecedented campaign of lies against Germany.

They began a war against the German people for no good reason, and now are trying to blame Germany for it. Supposedly it was “sympathy” for a threatened Poland that led them to give free reign to the promotion of a new war. It was supposedly this “sympathy” that led them to offer Poland their generous support and to leave it to this state to start the war when it chose. Without success, they have tried to persuade the world of the opposite through a flood of lies. The facts are too clear, and cannot be contradicted even by the biggest lies of English warmongers.

The Führerís Efforts to Solve the Problems in the East

The following factual material proves how Germany and the Führer did everything up to the last possible moment to resolve the Polish question peacefully. and how Polish insanity on the one hand and the British warmongers on the other hand hindered any peaceful solution.

1. Consider the proposal to the Reichstag on 28 April to resolve the pressing questions on our Eastern border through a 25-year nonaggression pact.

The answer:

Poland rejected friendly relations with the Reich. England replied to Germanyís peace efforts by supporting and whipping up Polish expansionism and desire for conquest.

2. Germanyís warning to Poland on 9 August not to increase German-Polish tensions through unjust ultimatums about Danzig.

The answer:

Poland declared that Germany had nothing to say about its actions with regards to Danzig. It provoked the Reich by increasing terror and persecution of the Reich and ethnic Germans living in its territory.

Chamberlain wrote the Führer on 22 August a letter in which he supported Polandís actions and threatened English action against the Reich.

3. The Führer decided to make a new attempt to persuade Poland to give up its course of action. At a reception on 25 August at the British Embassy, Germany made a wide-ranging proposal for a reasonable understanding between Germany and England, which Germany would offer the British government after a reasonable solution of the Danzig and corridor problems.

4. An exchange of letters with Daladier. Germany emphasized its readiness to resolve its difficulties with Poland peacefully (despite insane Polish terror).

The answer:

England used delaying tactics. It proposed direct Polish-German negotiations on 28 August.

5. Despite grave concerns about Polandís behavior, the Führer answered England on 29 August by agreeing to its proposal and saying that he was expecting to meet the Polish governmentís representative on 30 August.

The answer:

Poland announced general mobilization on 30 August. The British ambassador delivered a memorandum at midnight that contained nothing new, only that the answer of the Führer on 29 August had been passed on to the Polish government. The British ambassador would

6. Make public the German proposal to resolve the question by a referendum in the corridor region under international supervision.

The answer:

Instead of the expected meeting with a Polish negotiator, the Polish ambassador announced on 31 August that the Polish government “responded favorably to the English proposal for direct negotiations between Germany and Poland.

On the same day, however, Polish radio announced that the German proposals of 30 August were unacceptable.

7. Only repeated attacks by Polish irregulars as well as Polish regular troops on German territory forced the Führer to respond on 1 September.

The behavior of the Führer and the Reich in these days of continuous Polish and English provocations were remarkable. No other nation would have been as patient. It would have done what the Führer finally did on 1 September much earlier.

Our remarkable restraint was noted by all the neutrals. The Spanish newspaper Alcazar wrote on 2 September:

Hitler has exhibited extreme patience, until the Polish attack forced the German army to respond. Nothing is more consistent than the behavior of the Führer and the Reich government. While Poland was attacking Germany along the border, Hitler published his last appeal for peace. The responsibility is not only Polandís, but also belongs to those statesmen who encouraged Polish insanity.

The Rumanian newspaper Porunca Bremii had this to say about the German demands on 2 September 1939:

The reader has to be impressed by the reasonableness of Germanyís demands, which are entirely just.

The American newspaper Washington News wrote on 2 September:

The German people desire only the same rights that England and France have. That is also the will of the Führer, without whom chaos would once more come upon Europe.

Poland Was Only the Pretext for a War Long-planned by London

Poland rejected these just German demands because it felt secure with Englandís support. It believed it could provoke and slander Germany.

The power-mad Polish politicians and statesmen really believed that England wanted war only to support their vast demands.

The day of the collapse taught them and the English a lesson.

Duff Cooper proclaimed in the House of Commons on 4 October that, if England had come to the assistance of Czechoslovakia over the Sudeten question, “England would not have fought for Czechoslovakia any more than it fought for Serbia or for Belgian neutrality in 1914.” Churchill and others declared before the same body in September with matchless cynicism that England was fighting not because of Poland or the Polish state, but rather only to destroy the government of Germany.

English newspapers confirm this, as for example the Daily Express on 7 September:

England has little interest in the Eastern theatre. England in reality is fighting to defeat the dangerous German government, even if Warsaw falls.

One of the worst French warmongers, the notorious de Kerillis, wrote an article in mid-September in the French newspaper Epoque in which he badly admitted that Poland and its fate was entirely of indifference to him and the other warmongers. He wrote:

We would naturally have considerable diplomatic difficulties if Poland were to be partitioned between Germany and Russia. The English and French would lose the pretext that led them into the war.

The extent to which such an open admission on the part of the warmongering clique might upset the French people was shown by the fact that the article was eliminated from later editions of the paper. The director of the French newspaper Aktion Francaise noted the fact and wrote:

We seem then to have been drawn into this struggle, which Kerillis has longed for since 1938, by a “pretext.” In other words, we were led into war by a hidden reason, by an apparent reason, without being told the real reason. One must take this into account for two reasons. First, in order to properly evaluate the past, but second because of the way in which the future will develop. One of the first warmongers admits in “Epoque” that he concealed the real reason for the war.

Even the “old honest sailor,” Stephen King Hall, so well known to the German people, felt the necessity to explain to the English people the matter of Poland. At the end of September, his comments were published in a number of English Sunday papers:

...Naturally I deeply regret, dear readers, that it was not possible in the last two weeks to rescue Poland. It was impossible, for strategic reasons, to rescue Poland...

This is another clear admission that Poland was only Englandís pretext to unleash war. Mr. King Hall excuses Englandís failure to help its Polish ally by saying that it was strategically impossible for England to help Poland. Yet the Polish Marshall Rydz-Smigly told a high Rumanian priest after his flight there that he had realized the war was lost after two days and wanted to conclude a peace, but England stopped him and declared that it would send help by land, sea, and air. To persuade Rydz-Smigly of this, he was told that the English were already fighting near Danzig.

Mr. King Hall says that it was strategically impossible for England to help Poland. Mr. Rydz-Smigly says that the English promised him help on the second day of the war. This makes plain the hypocrisy of Englandís assurances and promises.

The Führer Attempts Yet Again to Avoid War

Even during the warís first weeks the Führer attempted to maintain peace for the peoples of Europe. Given a situation of similar successes, one would not have expected the same of an English statesman. The Führer did that because he wanted to spare not only the German people, but also the other peoples misery.

The situation had changed greatly. The campaign in Poland was over, and in a period that left its impression not only on the world, but on these directly involved. Besides smashing one opponent, the German army had also done significant damage to England, which the English were hardly able to respond to. The “wave ruling” British fleet had suffered the loss of the two aircraft carriers Courageous and Ark Royal, heavy damage to the large English battleship Hood, damage to numerous other cruisers as well as the sinking of numerous British commercial ships. On the continent, heavy losses forced the British and French to recognize the superiority of the German Luftwaffe. Diplomatically, the Western powers suffered disappointment after disappointment. The first Russo-German treaty was followed at the end of September by another agreement that removed the democracies’ last hopes of misusing Russia for their purposes. They had found no allies among the neutrals who were willing to bleed for England. Even those they depended on made repeated declarations of neutrality and declined to join the war provoked by the Western powers.

Despite his superior military and diplomatic situation, the Führer refused to give up on the possibility of peace. The very opposite. He offered peace to those who had forced the Reich into war on 3 September in a sly and sneaky way. We know the results. There may have been a few who expected that there would be enough reason on the enemyís side to accept the Führerís offer, but hardly anyone expected such a brutal and insulting answer as Chamberlain gave on 12 October.

Chamberlainís speech did not change Germanyís desire to maintain its just demands, but it probably opened the eyes of the last German to the true nature of England and its peace offers of 1939.

The Neutrals, Too, Have Seen Through Western Methods

Even before the war broke out, and before the brutal admissions of the warmongers that Poland was only the means to unleash a war against Germany, numerous neutral politicians had seen through Englandís lies.

The Norwegian newspaper Nagnarok wrote the following in its July 1939 issue:

The fact that Englandís politicians are waving once more the flags of “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice” gives us cause for concern. No nation has done more against freedom than England has to states small and large, and in horrible ways over the centuries down to the last days of the last war. . . England is hardly willing to grant the freedom of the seas, or the principles of democracy to the most important of all political regions. It is unwilling to support guarantees of peace. To support its own domination it is ready to destroy the peace of all nations. It presents its program as democracy in order to conceal the true nature of its policies.

The Norwegian weekly Utenrikskronik wrote on 11 July that “England has always opposed the strongest power in Europe,” then continued:

England is not concerned about Danzig or Poland, but rather in keeping Germany from becoming too powerful for English tastes on the continent. England wants to rule over land and sea. . . That is what a new world war would be about, though England may assure a gullible world that it is a question of Danzig, Poland, Rumania, of freedom, democracy, or something else, anything but Englandís world domination.

The Estonian newspaper Paevaleth saw through Britainís hypocrisy when it wrote on 7 July that: “English and French policies take no regard of the wishes of other states and peoples, but rather treat them like Negroes and use them to haul their chestnuts out of the fire.”

The Norwegian paper Utenrikskronik makes the following ironic remarks about Poland on 16 September:

Chamberlain, Eden, and the English press say that the war is not being fought for Poland, but rather for democracy. It must have interested the Poles to learn that the war was not being fought for their sake, and that they were only the pretext for a declaration of war on Germany.

The Swiss newspaper Gazette de Lausanne of 21 September concluded:

Apparently the British warmongers have decided that Polandís chances of victory are not exactly good. They made a meaningless guarantee without wanting to risk anything. They merely wanted a pretext to unleash a world conflagration.

The Czech paper Vecer remarked on 6 September:

If we study Englandís history, we see that its policies always are determined by its self-interest. As was the case with the Czechs, now the Poles are sacrificed to Englandís interests. Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Benesch have the same intentions. They make cold-blooded calculations and spill other peopleís blood.

The Spanish paper Domingo wrote on 5 September:

England has provoked this war to defend its world domination, which is in danger. Poland and Danzig are merely pretexts.

The Italian paper Giornale d’ Italia answered the question of responsibility in this way:

London and Paris thought the hour had come to execute a long-prepared plan. . . London has shown that it has two faces, just as it did last September or in 1914. One is that of a moral facade of the world benefactor, the true face however is one of cold egotism and Englandís naked desire for domination.

The Italian paper Tevere wrote on 1 September:

The guilt is wholly on the side of the dirty merchant spirit of the democracies.

The Japanese paper Tairiki Schimbun wrote on 7 September that those who drafted the Treaty of Versailles are responsible for this war. Leading Japanese circles note that England used Poland for its purposes much as it used China two years ago, without any regard for the consequences to either nation. China is practically bled dry, so Poland is the substitute.

Finally, the well-known American journalist General Johnson wrote on 20 September:

Never have soldiers been so betrayed as those of Poland have been by their own and British politicians. With an unprecedented stupidity, Poland plunged into war. Now there are even some Americans who want to join their fate with those egotistical, unreliable, and idiotic British policies.

These devastating judgments by neutral observers show that they have seen through England and its methods. The English warmongers, however, are attempting to look innocent in the face of these more than clear judgments. They claim that “they left no means untried to prevent the present situation.”

These are the same Englishmen who gave Poland a blank check last April, and are therefore responsible for the blood that has flowed on the battlefields in the last weeks, blood that thousands of innocent people shed. They have been tortured, mistreated, kidnapped and murdered not only with Englandís toleration, but with its active support.

The Peoples in the Dominions Do Not Support England

The manner in which England tried to “prevent the present situation” is shown by voices reaching us from lands that belong to the Western powers.

In the British Commonwealths of Canada, the newspaper L’Illustration Nouvelle wrote on 7 September: “If England and France repeat their propaganda that they are ready to defend against any aggression, that is a huge lie. These nations are not fighting a defensive war, but rather a war of offensive intervention.”

The attitude of the people in the British dominion of South Africa toward the “motherland” is shown from the special message of the new Prime Minister Smuts. Following Londonís orders, South Africa declared war on Germany on 5 September. The then Prime Minister Herzog resigned. His successor was Smuts. He made a special proclamation to the South African people on 11 September, which among other things said:

I have the firm conviction that it is not the right time for us to separate from the British nation. A feeling of community has developed that would be lost if we raised at the present time the possibility of independence.

These words make it clear that the people of South Africa want independence from England. The loyal Smuts must therefore choose his words with great care to keep his people on the side of the “beloved motherland.” This further makes clear how little the ruling clique around Smuts considers the real opinion of the South African people. According to Englandís beloved principles of democracy, this people should really be free, and if it had its way it clearly would not find itself at war with Germany. Smuts also must know why he told England that there was no question of sending South African troops to Europe.

In India, Englandís most valuable foreign possession, the Executive Committee of the Indian National Congress declared on 26 September that:

India is not ready to take part in the present war, which would endanger its own freedom. The governments of France and England declared that they are waging war for democracy and freedom, yet they themselves betray the principles they espouse.

What is England Planning?

In view of these voices that prove that one has recognized Englandís game both in neutral countries and in Englandís dominions, one might ask what England has in the past done for peace. England likes peace only insofar as it conceals its drive for world domination. Whenever peace stands in the way of Englandís interests, it is ready to ruthlessly destroy it.

Just as in 1914, a rising Germany has become an obstacle. England is therefore doing everything it can to whip up the rest of Europe against Germany. These nations were supposed to bleed once more for England, just as in 1914. Although their sacrifices would bring them no benefit, as in 1918, England has always understood how to benefit.

It is clear today that the war England began against Germany in September was a continuation of the war that ended in 1918. England wants to destroy Germany now as it did then — and this time for good. This goal is stated daily in the British press with brutal openness.

The English newspaper News Chronicle made the following demands in a lead article at the beginning of September:

1. The final destruction of the Nazi regime.
2. The establishment of a decent German government.
3. The end of any German military activity.
4. The total disarmament of Germany.
Reading these demands surely reminds one of the Treaty of Versailles.

Today the “destruction of the Nazi regime” is the demand, then it was the elimination of the Kaiser, of militarism, and so on:

...Back then the Western powers promoted a German republic and spread leaflets over the German lines saying that those who said the word republic when captured would receive better treatment. Today they speak of a “decent government.” By a “decent government” the Western democracies mean one like the Weimar Republic. It accepted every indignity and really felt itself more an administrator for the victorious powers than a German government;

Back then, spying commissions looked for any sign of even the most limited resistance. Today they call it the “end of any German military activity.” Anything Germany would do could be declared military activity.

The last demand makes clear what kind of future they have in mind for Germany: no weapons, unable to give the least resistance, hopelessly given over to every manner of chicanery, oppression, and extortion. The period after 1918 was too lovely for these apostles of humanism to forget. We were a people that helped to make itself defenseless and without rights, inferior even to its smallest neighbor that had weapons.

That is but one voice of the many that daily discuss how Germany can be defeated forever.

No means is too evil for these puppeteers and warmongers. They even sink their own ships, as in the case of the “Athenia,” letting innocent people perish. They use escapees and traitors from Germany whose passport stamps claim they are “refugees from Nazi oppression,” and who receive certain benefits as long as England needs them. They supply Poland with poison gas, though they were the first to ask Germany if it intended to use gas shells. They praise the ruthless murderers of ethnic Germans as “martyrs,” and spread the worst and most outrageous lies about German barbarism to the world.

It does them no good. The Germany of 1939 is a very different Germany from that of 1914, and the world has learned to see through British methods, a result of Germanyís educational work.

Germany will endure the war forced upon it. Our enemies have learned this since the war began. They may spread new fables and lies about signs of a German collapse. They may spread leaflets trying to drive a cleft between our leadership and people. It will do no good. Germany knows that its existence is at stake, it knows what it has to expect if its unforgiving enemy wins, it knows that only strength and unity can stand against the enemy.

 

[Page copyright © 1998 by Randall Bytwerk. No unauthorized reproduction. My e-mail address is available on the FAQ page.]


Go to the 1933-1945 Page.

Go to the German Propaganda Archive Home Page.