Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Debunked’ Category

Former French President might be the one of the axe bearers to chop the head of Gaddafi regime together with the other Arab, European leaders and US President Obama, but there are skelotons in Sarkozy’s closet which will haunt him forever. Sarkozy will always feel guilty about the fact that he was a part of the larger group of world leaders which plotted against Gaddafi.

Does that make Nicolas Sarkozy a back stabber?

Mediapart in its investigation of the possibility of illicit financing of the presidential campaign of Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007. Launched in July 2011, this long-term research revealed financial ties forged in secret in 2005 by the entourage of Mr. Sarkozy, then interior minister, with the Libyan regime of Colonel Gaddafi deceased.The current investigations of Medipart about Gaddafi financing the Sarkozy 2007 election campaign will never get a justified judgement, but one thing was sure, that Gaddafi was the key sponsor of Sarkozy.

The seriousness of the facts revealed by the sections of Mediapart, which reveals strong evidence of corroboration of the illicit financing and consistency of submissions is indispensable to justice the appointment of an independent and impartial, to perform all acts necessary to ascertain the truth. Our attorneys, Mi, Jean-Pierre Mignard and Emmanuel Tordjman, had specifically requested that the Paris prosecutor, François Molins. Ignoring this legitimate request, prefers to stick to a preliminary inquiry into allegations by Mr. Sarkozy.

It is only in the context of a criminal investigation secret, under the control of the prosecution and without respect for the parties, which Mediapart been cited for the judicial police. As editor in chief, I asked for Friday, May 18, while the authors of the research, Fabrice Arfi and Karl Laske, are Monday 21 and Tuesday, May 22 After being deprived of a public debate on the choice of procedure of Nicolas Sarkozy, who has not placed on the floor of the defamation through the press, is now private Mediapart for the prosecution of human rights defense enjoyed in democratic societies continued to any journalist because of his writings.

Mediapart this procedure refused to limit press freedom, but remains at the disposal of justice that respects the equality of arms. We are determined to prove we have made ​​in compliance with our rules of conduct, a legitimate mission of information on a topic public interest . So to show our good faith, we will give the police all the articles and pieces in which our investigative reporting, and have joined our complaint for false accusation.

But they refuse to answer questions as part of this preliminary investigation. And we reiterate our request for an independent and impartial justice, respecting the right of the press is that the right of citizens to know. Above all, a justice who diligently investigate facts grave discovered by our disclosures and attest that the documents filed by us with justice.

List of documents disclosed to the court by Mediapart

Annex 1: The article of April 28, 2012 entitled “Sarkozy and Gaddafi: proof of funding” .

Annex 2: Mail the card of Mr. Takieddine of April 27, 2012.

Annex 3: Interview with Mr. Takieddine the newspaper Libération , April 29, 2012.

Annex 4: July 10, 2011 article entitled “ The financial secrecy that endangers the Sarkozy clan ” .

Parts 5: The article of July 22, 2011 entitled “ The Elysee secret negotiations to wash the right arm of Gaddafi ” , and reference sample (3 pages):

-. 1.5 Fax dated October 30, 2008 I Azzad Maghur lawyer, Libya. – 5.2. Note of 25 June 2008 on the legal situation in France by Mr. Senoussi. – 5.3. confidential note of a meeting of 16 May 2009 in the presence of Mr. Herzog and Mr. Gueant.

Part 6: The article of July 28, 2011 entitled “ Sarkozy and Gueant: suspicion of Libya, a large ” and reference sample (29 pages):

– 6.1. letter of invitation to Libya Mr. Sarkozy, interior minister, June 22, 2005 (in Arabic). -. 6.2 surround the private secretary of Mr. Gueant, chief of staff for Mr. Sarkozy, addressed to Mr. Takieddine. -. 6.3 Mr confidential note Takieddine preparing Sarkozy’s visit October 6, 2005. -. 6.4 Note of Mr. Takieddine in a preparatory visit to Claude Gueant in Libya. -. 6.5 Letter of 10 September 2005, Mr. Sarkozy confirmed his visit to Libya on October 6, 2005. -. 6.6 Letter of 23 September 2005 Mr Gueant confirm his arrival in Tripoli from 30 September to 2 October 2005. -. 7.6 Letter of 15 November 2005 Hortefeux, minister for local government on a future visit to Libya. -. 6.8 Presentation Software CryptoWall society i 2 e (Amesys) -. 6.9 Set of six payroll, payment of commissions by firm i 2 e (Amesys) foreign companies Mr. Takieddine. to 6.10. undated note of a meeting with Mr. Seif al-Islam Gaddafi and Mr . Senussi . 6.11 – Fax series of 20 July and 29 August 2007 from the Secretary General of the Elysee to Mr. M. Gueant Takieddine (11 pages). -. 6.12 Mr Takieddine confidential note of 23 April 2008 concerning the various files of Libya.

Table 7: August 12, 2011 article entitled “ The arms dealer, Gaddafi’s nephew and beaten prostitutes in London ” .

Pieces of 8: August 18, 2011 article entitled “ The emissary of the Sarkozy clan in Libya paid in total secrecy “ parties and referenced (38 pages):

– 8.1 by mail on 13 and 17 June 2008 in reference to a proposed partnership between the Libyan national oil company TOTAL. -. 2.8 Notes 9 and 25 June 2008 Mr de Margerie, Total CEO Ghanem, the Libyan company counterpart. – 8.3. Letter dated 3 December 2008 the Director of Global Oil and Gas Co. North, the total. – 8.4. Fax 12 December 2008 refers to the full cooperation of Libya and North Oil and Gas Global Co. -. 5.8 Confidential letter of December 19, 2008 Lord Pouyanné, CEO of Total, the North Oil and Gas Global Co. – 8.6 . Booklet 20 pages, dated July 2008 on cooperation in TOTAL LIBYA. – 8.7 . Confidential letter of 20 January 2009 Lord Pouyanné, executive director of the North Oil and Gas Co. the world total -. 8.8 Calendar confidential “TOTAL LIBYA” Mr. Takieddine. – 8.9. memo written by Mr. Takieddine. – 8.10. Memorandum of Understanding of 27 August 2009 between the National Petroleum Corporation and Total signed by Mr. Chokri Ghanem and Mr. de Margerie. – 8.11. Letter of 17 September 2009 Northern Oil and Gas Global Co. sent TOTAL – 8.12. Letter Pouyanné 30 September 2009, Mr, executive director of the North Oil world total and Gas Co.

Pieces of 9: 18 September 2011 article entitled “ Delivered by the clan of Sarkozy, the French 4 × 4 that protects Gaddafi ” , and pieces of reference (10 pages):

– 9.1. eight-page extract of the contract “Program for Homeland Security” company i2e (Amesys) and technical descriptions on the sale of four quarters Gaddafi regime secure. -. 2.9 Slip counter 18 December 2007 the company i2e on payment of a fee of 990.720 euros to an offshore company of Mr. Takieddine.

Parties No. 10: October 6, 2011 article titled “ Evidence of French intelligence network in Libya ”, and part references (18 pages):

– 10.1. Extract 18-page contract “Program for Homeland Security” company i2e (Amesys) and the technical descriptions of the “current network analysis”, foreshadowing the system “Eagle” spy in the country to the Internet.

Annex 11: December 17, 2011 article entitled “ Justice survey of Libya’s spy network ” .

Annex 12: the article of March 12, 2012 entitled “ Presidential Election 2007: Gaddafi was financed Sarkozy “ , and quoted parts: -. 12.1 . Hearing of Mr. Brisard by the National Financial Investigation Division (DNIF), October 18, 2011 – 12.2. list of notes given by Mr. Brisard. – 12.3. Memo Shows of December 20, 2006 – 12.4. new hearing Jean-Charles Brisard of October 18, 2011, at 14h 30. – 12.5. Appearance by Mr. Didier Grosskopf of October 19, 2011 – 12.6. Tickets for MM. Takieddine Grosskopf and a common movement in Tripoli in May June 2006.

Exhibit 13: Article of March 15, 2012 entitled “ Gaddafi-Sarkozy: Our new revelations ” .

Exhibit 14: Article 16 March 2012 entitled “ Gaddafi-Sarkozy: Mr. Brisard, under pressure, he wrote ” . Exhibit No. 15: Article of April 10, 2012 entitled “ The Libyan refugees spied accuse France in Paris ” , and some mentioned (10 pages):

-. 1.15 Note 13 June 2007 headed the direction of the Libyan intelligence to spy on a petition from residents of the opposition in Paris, in Arabic and translated into French.

Annex 16: April 28, 2012 article entitled “ Libya, the urgency of a formal investigation ” .

Annex 17: April 29, 2012 article titled “ Sarkozy-Gaddafi: news, their disinformation ” .

Proof # 18: April 30, 2012 article entitled “ Saleh Bashir is protected by France: the tangle of power ” .

Proof # 19: May 2, 2012 article titled “ Sarkozy-Gaddafi: the Elysee caught by witnesses ” .

Exhibit 20: The free transcripts of Sarkozy’s statements of 29 and 30 April 2012.

Exhibit 21: AFP dispatch of August 19, 2011 on the destruction of the residence of Mr. Senoussi, head of Libyan intelligence.

Part 22: Dispatch from Reuters March 22, 2012 regarding the arrest of Mr Senussi.

Annex 23: Hearings on 5 and 6 March 2011 Mr Takieddine.

Annex 24: . The examination of Mr. Takieddine of October 12, 2011 Exhibit No. 25: Article of May 3, 2012 entitled “ 50 million Sarkozy: Former Prime Minister of Libya confirmed ” . Exhibit No. 26: Article 4 May 2012 entitled “ Gaddafi, Sarkozy knew the Tunisian justice ” .

Annex 27: . The examination of Mr. Takieddine of May 10, 2012

Parties No. 28: Article of May 11, 2012, entitled “ Following his election, Sarkozy proposed nuclear plant Gaddafi “ and refers to part (7 pages):

– 28.1. The transcripts of the telephone conversation of May 28, 2007 between Nicolas Sarkozy and Gaddafi in Arabic and French.

Parties No. 29: Article on May 15, 2012 entitled “ Libya: Sarkozy to ingratiate himself with Saleh’s family “ , and pieces of reference (2 pages):

-. 29.1 Boris Boillon note of 30 June 2008 -. 29.2 Muriel Mathieu mail June 20, 2008

Proof # 30: Mandate of July 6, 2006 Mr. Abdallah Senussi Thierry Herzog, for me to represent you in the case of UTA DC10.

Annex 31: Evaluation of Mr. Takieddine visit to Libya on 11 and 12 April 2005.

Proof # 32: Draft letter to Mr. Takieddine Hortefeux.

Annex 33: Evaluation of two pages of Mr. Takieddine of September 7, 2006

Part 34: The translation of an invitation from the Libyan authorities on October 22, 2005, addressed to Mr. Hortefeux

Annex 35: Letter dated May 17, 2005 by M. Takieddine Brochand, director of the DGSE.

Exhibit 36: undated note on the establishment of a think tank Franco-Libyan

Annex 37: Summary of January 26, 2006 Mr. Takieddine an appointment with Mr. Alain Juillet, economic intelligence advisor to the Prime Minister.

Exhibit 38: Note Confidential January 23, 2007 on “the flying club contract” of 12 Mirage F1 of the Libyan Air Force.

Proof # 39: confidential notes of June 11, 2007 referred in particular to industrial cooperation between France and Libya in the areas of arms and nuclear.

Exhibit 40: undated confidential memorandum on a visit to Tripoli by Claude Guéant.

Parties No. 41: confidential note 11 June 2007 refers to a visit from “The minister Hortefeux” in Tripoli.

Annex 42: Evaluation of 11 July 2007, citing “important points” file Franco and Libya.

Annex 43: Evaluation of 3 September 2007 refers to “following the case of nurses and the establishment of a Crown corporation Franco-Libyan arms.

Exhibit 44: undated note on “the elements of the language of a letter from the president leader” .

Part # 45: My letters sent by Mignard and Tordjman to the Prosecutor of the Republic, Mr. François MOLINS

(Editor’s Note: This is the reason why General Abdel Fatah Younes was murdered! as he knew too much the same goes for the son of Qaddafi Mutassem Qaddafi, and lets not forget of-course Mr. Ghanem that he suddenly drowned in Austria! they all knew too much. The people who are still alive and should die as it will burn the WEST are: Saif Qaddafi, Khamis Qaddafi, Dr. Abuzeid Dorda and Mr. Baghdadi al Mahmoudi.)

Read Full Post »

I travelled to India this year for a business trip purchased a Reliance mobile sim card. I was told that Reliance sim card is prefered by most Indians, but I was astonished to experience the unjustified credit balance deductions from my mobile.

I credited Rs.200 to my mobile through a local vendor who carry out the recharging of credits to various service providers. Next morning I saw that Rs. 60 has been deducted from my account balance for services I had not subscribed;

” Message from RTMSCH – YOUR SUBSCRIPTION TO CRBT SERVICE HAS BEEN RENEWED AT RS.30 FOR PERIOD OF 30 DAYS. TO UNSUBSCRIBE SMS UNSUB 1003 TO 155223 (TOLL FREE ).”

Then the next sms was ;
” FROM RM-58787 – You have successfully subscribed to CricketNews service at Rs.30 for 30 days . To Un-subscribe SMS Unsub 1909 to 155223 ( Toll Free ) “.

Well its a task getting through the agents at the call centre to lodge a complaint but after repeatedly calling the service centre for several days I was able to speak to one customer service agent at the Call centre he assured that all the services will be unsubscribed and they shall credit Rs. 60 to my account.

It’s a matter of shame that my call was all in vain and none of service got cancelled and no money was credited to my account but I was charged once again Rs. 60 the next day for the same services.

After couple of days when I was at the mobile phone credit recharging vendor I was telling him about my horrific experience with the Reliance mobile and he replied me back saying ” This is how they will make profits by unnecessarily debiting the mobile phone credits of their customers and that’s the reason the Reliance group is rich because of cheating the Indian people”.

It’s sad that a company of an international repute is involved in such practices and cheating people in this manner. I would never suggest anyone to use a Reliance sim card and by the way I am still loosing my money on some silly unnecessary subscriptions. hahahahaha

Read Full Post »

When will the society wake up to take this cause that is affecting our younger lot? Even Milk – the very first food consumed by infants – has not been spared by these mindless, insane suppliers and vendors. Do we need ‘road-block, rail-roko andolan’ like movements for every single issues in the country? It is high time that the Government issues Laws providing ‘death penalty’ and nothing less for food-adulteration and also drug-adulteration (selling drugs actually having zero-potency, containing barely limestone, etc).

When our entire system in the government is adulterated, such adulteration of milk, food, water contamination, etc. is not a great thing. This would not have been possible without the support of powerful people behind them besides, they are aware that the law will take its own course which is very far off. For the sake of money, these people will go to any extent to give slow poison to people.

Quite often India termed as highest milk producer in the world but unfortunately we don’t have a single drop of Grade A milk for exporting to any developed country! All these decades health dept failed to do anything other than blaming each other- leave alone controlling synthetic milk plants in Delhi. Initial quality itself is a problem since feed,fodder and water are fully contaminated with fertilizers, pesticides and antibiotics not to speak of subsequent loose administration.Let Amul/NDDB people go to Goa to give or receive training!

The prime duty of a democratic government is to ensure that the citizen get unadulterated food at an affordable price. Have you ever heard a discussion, even for an hour, in parliament or any state assembly? Not even the prime minister is bothered.If he is, he could have moved the Govt machinery. Nothing is going to happen. What we should do to maintain health is to totally avoid milk. Politicians may be getting their cut for adulteration.

It just indicates that India is a lawless country. where criminals can do any thing under the nose of police and officers with bribes. It also shows that we are so dumb in planning that we have not planned for the growth of milk and its supply with growth of population and economy. How will the nation cope up with gap in demand and supply. So people are selling detergent solution as milk and our failed machinery is unable to check any one. PM and health and agriculture ministers must own a responsibility for it.

Source – Times of India newspaper dated 10th Jan 2012

70% of milk in Delhi, country is adulterated

 

NEW DELHI: Beware, your daily glass of good health could actually be doing you harm. As much as 70% of milk samples picked up from the capital by a government agency failed to conform to standards.

Of the 71 samples randomly taken from Delhi for testing by the Food Safety Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), 50 were found to be contaminated with glucose and skim milk powder (SMP), which is usually added to milk in the lean season to enhance volumes.

Elsewhere in the 33 states and UTs study, milk was found adulterated with detergent, fat and even urea, besides the age-old dilution with water. Across the country, 68.4% of the samples were found contaminated.

Only in Goa and Puducherry did 100% of the samples tested conform to required standards. At the other end were West Bengal, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and Mizoram, where not a single sample tested met the norms.

Other prominent states fared just a shade better. Around 89% of the samples tested from Gujarat, 83% from Jammu & Kashmir, 81% from Punjab, 76% from Rajasthan, 70% from Delhi and Haryana and 65% from Maharashtra failed the test. Around half of the samples from Madhya Pradesh (48%) also met a similar fate.

States with comparatively better results included Kerala where 28% of samples did not conform to the FSSAI standards, Karnataka (22%), Tamil Nadu (12%) and Andhra Pradesh (6.7%).

The samples were collected randomly and analysed from 33 states totaling a sample size of 1,791. Just 31.5% of the samples tested (565) conformed to the FSSAI standards while the rest 1,226 (68.4%) failed the test.

A study conducted by Food Safety Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) across 33 states has found that milk was adulterated with detergent, fat and even urea, besides the age-old practice of diluting it with water. Across the country, 68.4% of the samples were found contaminated.

These were sent to government laboratories like Department of Food and Drug Testing of Puducherry, Central Food Laboratory in Pune, Food Reasearch and Standardization Laboratory in Ghaziabad, State Public Health Laboratory in Guwahati and Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata, for testing against presence of adulterants like fat, neutralizers, hydrogen peroxide, sugar, starch, glucose, urea, detergent, formalin and vegetable fat.

Detergent was found in 103 samples (8.4%). “This was because milk tanks were not properly washed. Detergents in milk can cause health problems,” FSSAI official told TOI. The non-conforming samples in rural areas numbered 381 (31%) out of which 64 (16.7%) were packet milk and 317 (83.2%) were loose samples.

In urban areas, the number of non-confirming samples were 845 (68.9%) out of which 282 (33.3%) were packed and 563 (66.6%) were loose.

The most common adulteration was that of fat and solid not food (SNF), found in 574 (46.8%) of the non-conforming samples. This, scientists say, is because of dilution of milk with water. The second highest parameter of non-conformity was skim milk powder in 548 samples (44.69%) which includes presence of glucose in 477 samples. Glucose could have been added to milk probably to enhance SNF.

The report asked state enforcement authorities to check whether the new FSSAI rules are being complied with. An earlier first-of-its-kind study of milk boiling habits that involved 2,400 women across eight major cities had found that Chandigarh leads the pack in boiling milk, doing it more than three times a day. While 84% women in Kolkata boiled milk for more than five minutes, about 46% of women in Pune preferred to boil milk in high temperatures. The study, by the Indian Medical Academy, said, “About 49% boil milk more than thrice before consumption. Around 56% boil it for more than 5 minutes, and 73% don’t stir while boiling,” said Dr Pawan Gupta, IMA.

Times View

This only confirms that food adulteration is common in India. Even milk, consumed primarily by children, isn’t spared. What’s particularly worrying is the kind of substances used to adulterate, including toxic chemicals. This shows the trade off between the risk of getting caught and the ‘reward’ of huge profits is skewed heavily in favour of the latter. The government must focus on raising the risks to the adulterator. One way of doing this is by hiking the penalty, including making it analogous to attempt to murder in extreme cases. It’s equally important to regularly check foodstuff for adulteration and ensure speedy trials.

Read Full Post »

I was reading the news article of IANS posted by Gyanendra Kumar dated 1st Jan 2012 with title “Made in India, faked in China — $5bn loss”. Well I am not going to repeat the entire news here, as the title makes it very clear whats it about. Perhaps I decided to take this news and think freeing about this news article and put my own thoughts about it.

Since China is No.1 expert in faking goods to keep its Communist government rich and people employed I was wondering if China will hallmark Made in India faked products in Chinese language so that we consumers know when we buy Made in India China is worth less than Made in India, Isnt it?

Since ITC cigarette brands are also faked in China and sold in northern India, it has only made my assumptions of doubt about the corruption of Indian vigilance department into facts, that they are indeed drowned in corruption. Next time you have a terrorist attack on Indian soil, please dont ask , How? Why? etc….as its quite evident that our vigilance departments are involved. You will find that it is most often that only indians have engaged the chinese companies to counterfeit popular commodities . And this spurious stuff gets sold in areas where underprivileged live, in poorer areas of big cities and villages. If you go to shop near slums most of the products be it- soap, detergent, shampoo, cool drink and medicines will be fake… there is a thriving cottage industry duplicating stuff in all cities.

Last year one of my close friends married a Chinese woman in India. After six months she died, I was consoling my friend and he wasnt even sad. He replied me “It was Chinese, I was sure she wont last longer”

I assume after 1962, our government has kept China always outside their top agenda and slowly China will encroach upon our eastern borders and swallow our Mongol states and possible we shall have in future our government outsourced in China.

I will not blame the Chinese as its our own people and government and its officials who encourage it, so we should stop blaming China and try to do something in our own backyard.

This article is not made in China !!!!!!!

Happy New Year

Read Full Post »

The information in this German White Book contains alleged documents that record events as they transpired in those last weeks before Adolph Hitler realized there was no way to avoid war.

The masters who controlled the British Prime Minister, French President, Polish President, etc. would not tolerate a peace being negotiated. They MUST have this war, or their Plan for World Dominion is waylaid for a time. We say waylaid, because it’s become clear they’ve never stopped, regardless the setbacks or holdups, and today the beat goes on.

Researchers/authors whose work has been suppressed have confirmed the information herein.

Jackie

July 9th, 2003

______________________________________________

GERMAN WHITE BOOK

DOCUMENTS

Concerning the Last Phase

of the

German-Polish Crisis

GERMAN LIBRARY OF INFORMATION

NEW YORK

The original German white Book, “Documents Concerning the Last Phase of the German-Polish Crisis”, is not available to students of international affairs in the United States in adequate quantities, owing to illicit British interferences with the mails.

The German Library of Information, therefore, issues a reprint of the original for the benefit of such students, with a prefatory note disposing of certain widely-circulated allegations made in the British Blue Book.

Further copies may be obtained from the German Library of Information, 17 battery Place, New York.

______________________________________________

INDEX

Note on the German white Book

I.  The Last Phase of the German-Polish Crisis

II.  Documents

1.  First Note from the Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland in the Free City of Danzig to the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig, August 4, 1939.  12

2.  Second Note from the diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland to the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig, August 4, 1939

3.  Reply of the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig to the Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland, August 7, 1939

4.  Communication from the Secretary of State in the German Foreign Office to the Polish Charge d’Affairs in Berlin, August 9, 1939

5.  Communication from the Under-Secretary of State in the Polish Foreign Office to the German Charge d’Affairs in Warsaw, August 10, 1939

6.  Letter from the British Prime Minister to the Fuhrer, Aug. 22, 1939

7.  Fuhrer’s Reply to the British Prime Minister, August 23, 1939

8. Declaration made by the Fuhrer to the British Ambassador on  August 25, 1939, at 1:30 p. m.

9.  Letter of the French Premier to the Fuhrer, August 26, 1939

10. The Fuhrer’s letter of reply to the French premier, August 27, 1939

11. Memorandum from British Government handed to Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the British Ambassador on August 28, 1939, at 10:30 p.m

12. The Fuhrer’s reply to the British Government handed to the British Ambassador august 29, 1939 at 6:45 p.m

13. Telephone Message from the German charge d’Affairs in Warsaw to the German Foreign Office on August 30, 1939 at 5:30 p. m.

14.  Memorandum from the British Government handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the British Ambassador on August 30, 1939, at midnight.

15.  Official German Statement published on August 31, 1939, at 9 p.m. containing the Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig and the Polish Corridor Problem, as well as of the question concerning the German and Polish Minorities.

16.  Announcement made by the Polish Broadcasting Station at Warsaw on August 31, 1939, at 11 p.m.

17.  Speech delivered by the Fuhrer before the Reichstag on September 1, 1939

18.  Note handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the British Ambassador on September 1, 1939, at 9:30 p. m.

19.  Note handed to the Reich Minister for foreign Affairs by the French Ambassador on September 1, 1939, at 10 p. m.

20. Communication handed to the German Foreign Office by the Italian Ambassador on the morning of September 2, 1939.

21.  Information from the Havas news Agency on September 2, 1939

22.  Extract from a Declaration made by the British Secretary of State for Foreign affairs in the House of Lords on the afternoon of September 2, 1939

23.  Note handed to the German Foreign Office by the British Ambassador on September 3, 1939, at 9 a.m.

24. Note from the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs handed to the German Charge d’Affairs in London on September 3, 1939, at 11:a5 a.m.

25.  Memorandum from the German Government handed to the British Ambassador by the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, September 3, 1939, at 11:30 a.m.

26. Note handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the French Ambassador on September 3, 1939, at 12.20 p.m.

_______________________________________________________

 Note on the German White Book

The German White Book, presented herewith, is a collection of official documents and speeches, not a collection of uncontrollable conversations. It does not pretend to cover the entire field of German-Polish relations but, as the title implies, concerns itself solely with the last phase of the German-Polish crisis, from August 4th to September 3rd, 1939.

the Polish-german controversy concerning the Corridor, Upper Silesia and Danzig, began in 1919; it has never, since the signing of the Versailles Treaty, ceased to agitate europe. For many years intelligent commentators and statesmen of all nations, including Great Britain, agreed that the separation of East Prussia from the Reich and, indeed, the whole Polish settlement, was unjust and fraught with danger.

Germany, again and again, made attempts to solve the differences between the two countries in a friendly spirit. It was only when all negotiations proved vain and Poland joined the encirclement front against Germany, that chancellor Hitler cut the Gordian knot with the sword. It was England that forced the sword into his hand.

Great Britain asserts in her Blue Book and elsewhere that she was compelled to “guaranty” Poland against “aggression” for reason of international morality. Unfortunately the British Government subsequently admitted (Under-Secretary of State Butler, House of Commons, October 19, 1939) that the “guaranty” was aimed solely against Germany.

It was not valid in case of conflicts with other powers. In other words, the British “guaranty” was merely a link in the British encirclement chain. The Polish crisis was deliberately manufactured by Great Britain with the connivance of Poland: it was the fuse designed to set off the explosion!

Great Britain naturally attempts to becloud this fact. Official British statements on the outbreak of the war place great emphasis on the allegation that England did not give a formal “guaranty” to Poland until March 31, 193, whereas the German demand on Poland, which Poland rejected, was made on march 21st. Britain contends that the British “guaranty” was merely the consequence of the German demand of March 21st.

Britain denies that her “guaranty” stiffened Polish resistance. She insists that Germany took advantage of a moment of highly strained international tension by springing upon Poland her demand for an extra-territorial road through the Corridor between the Reich and East Prussia.

The British ignore a vital fact in this connection. The existence of the “guaranty”, not its formal announcement, was the decisive factor. The future may reveal when the British promise was first dangled before Poland. In any event, Poland was assured of British aid before March 21st.

Chamberlain’s speech of march 17, 1939, and the statement by Lord Halifax of March 20th, (both reprinted in the British Blue Book) leave no doubt on that question. The British “guaranty” was in the nature of a blank check. Poland did not know when she marched to her doom, that the check would not be honored.

The allegations that the Poles were surprised or overwhelmed by the German proposals, does not hold water. Poland was fully informed of the German demands. When as Herr von Ribbentrop points out in his Danzig speech (October 24, 1939) chancellor Hitler in 1934 concluded a Friendship and Non-Aggression Pact with Marshal Pilsudski, it was clearly understood that the problem of Danzig and the Corridor must be solved sooner or later. Chancellor Hitler hoped that it would be solved within the framework of that instrument.

Poland callously disregarded her obligations under the German-Polish Pact, after the death of Marshal Pilsudski. The persecution of German minorities in Poland, Poland’s measures to strangle Danzig economically, the insolent manner the Polish Government chose to adopt with the British blank check in its pocket and the Polish mobilization frustrated chancellor Hitler’s desire to settle Polish-German differences by peaceful negotiation, as he had solved every other problem arising from the bankruptcy of statesmanship at Versailles.

No one can affirm that the National Socialist Government did not attempt with extraordinary patience to impress upon Poland the desirability of a prompt and peaceful solution. The Polish Government was familiar with the specific solution proposed by Chancellor Hitler since October 24, 1938. The nature of the German proposals was discussed at least four times between the two governments before March 21, 1939.

On October 24, 1938, von Ribbentrop, the German foreign Minister, proposed to the Polish Ambassador, Lipski, four steps to rectify the injustice of Versailles and to eliminate all sources of friction between the two countries.

1).  The return of the Free City of Danzig to the Reich, without severance of its economic ties to the Polish State. (The arrangement vouchsafed to Poland free port privileges and extra-territorial access to the harbor.)

2.)  An exterritorial [sic] route of communication through the Corridor by rail and motor to reunite Germany and East Prussia.

3.)  Mutual recognition by the two States of their frontiers as final and, if necessary, a mutual guaranty of their territories.

4.)  The extension of the German-Polish Pact of 1934 from ten to twenty-five years.

On January 5, 1939, Poland’s Foreign Minister, Josef Beck, conferred with the German chancellor on the problems involved.  At this time Chancellor Hitler offered Beck a clear and definite guaranty covering the Corridor, on the basis of the four points outlined by von Ribbentrop.  The following day, January 6th, at Munich, the German Foreign Minister once more confirmed Germany’s willingness to guaranty, not only the Corridor, but all Polish territory.

The generous offer for a settlement along these line, liquidating all friction between the two countries, was reiterated when Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop paid a state visit to Warsaw (January 23rd to 17th, 1939). On that occasion von Ribbentrop again offered a guaranty of the Polish-German boundaries and a final all-inclusive settlement of German-Polish relations.

Under the circumstances it is absurd to allege that Poland was “surprised” by the German proposal of March 21st, and subsequent developments.  It is possible that Poland may have concealed Germany’s friendly and conciliatory offers from Paris and London.  With or without British promptings, Poland prepared the stage for a melodramatic scene, in which the German villain brutally threatened her sovereignty and her independence.

In spite of Polish intransigence, culminating in threats of war, Chancellor Hitler made one more desperate attempt to prevent the conflict.  He called for a Polish plenipotentiary to discuss the solution presented in Document 15 of the German White book. This solution envisaged the return of Danzig to the Reich, the protection of Polish and German minorities, a plebiscite in the Corridor under neutral auspices, safeguarding, irrespective of the result, Poland’s unimpeded exterritorial access to the sea.

The British are please to describe this reasonable document as an “ultimatum”. This is a complete distortion of the facts.  The German government, it is true, had set a time-limit (August 30th) for the acceptance of its proposal, but it waited twenty-four hours after its expiration before concluding that the possibilities of diplomatic negotiations had been exhausted. There was ample opportunity for England and Poland to act within those twenty-four hours.

The British take the position that Germany’s demands were not known either in Warsaw or London.  That pretense is demolished by the British Blue Book itself, for we find here a dispatch from Sir Nevile Henderson, the British Ambassador to Berlin, which leaves no doubt that he relayed the German proposal to London after his midnight conference with von Ribbentrop on August 30th, and that he understood the essential points of the German proposal. Henderson even transmitted to the British Government Chancellor Hitler’s assurance that the Polish negotiator would be received as a matter of course on terms of complete equality with the courtesy and consideration due to the emissary of a sovereign state.

Henderson sent his night message not only to Downing Street, but also to the British Embassy in Warsaw. There is evidence, which has recently come into the possession of the German Foreign Office that, in spite of all its protestations of ignorance and helplessness, the British Cabinet communicated the substance of Henderson’s midnight conversation with the German Foreign Minister directly to the Polish Government. The London Daily Telegraph, in a late edition of August 31st, printed the following statement:

“At the Cabinet Meeting yesterday, at which the terms of the British Note were approved, it was decided to send a massage to Warsaw, indicating the extent of the latest demands from Berlin for the annexation of territory”.

This item appeared only in a few issues. It was suppressed in later editions.

Germany’s demands were so reasonable that no sane Polish Government would have dared to reject them. They certainly would have been accepted if England had advised moderation. There was one more chance to preserve peace on September 2nd. It was offered by a message from Premier Mussolini (Document 20). The Italian suggestion was acceptable to Germany and France (Document 21). but was rejected by Great Britain (Document 22).

—————————————————————

I

THE LAST PHASE

of the German-Polish Crisis

(pp.7-12)

Appended to this are printed the documents which were exchanged during the last days before the beginning of the German defensive action against Poland and the intervention of the western Powers, or which in any other respect refer to these events. These documents, when shortly recapitulated, give the following general survey:

1).   At the beginning of August the Reich Government was informed of an exchange of notes between the representative of Poland in Danzig and the Senate of the Free City (Danzig), according to which the Polish Government in the form of a short-term ultimatum and under threat of retaliatory measures had demanded the withdrawal of an alleged order of the Senate — an order which, in fact, had never been issued — concerning the activities of Polish customs inspectors (Documents 1 to 3).

This caused the Reich Government to inform the Polish Government, on August 9th, that a repetition of such demands in the form of an ultimatum would lead to an aggravation of the relations between Germany and Poland, for the consequences of which the Polish government would alone be responsible.

At the same time, the attention of the Polish Government was drawn to the fact that the maintenance of the economic measures adopted by Poland against Danzig would force the Free City to seek other export and import possibilities (Document 4).

The Polish government answered this communication from the Reich Government with an aide-Memoire of August 10th, handed to the German Embassy in Warsaw, which culminated in the statement that Poland would interpret every intervention of the Reich Government in Danzig matters, which might endanger Polish rights and interests there, as an aggressive action (Document 5).

2).   On August 22nd, the British Prime Minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, acting under the impression of announcements of the impending conclusion of a Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the U.S.S.R., sent a personal letter to the Fuhrer. Here he expressed on the one hand the firm determination of the British Government to fulfill its pledged obligations to Poland, on the other hand, the view that it was most advisable in the first instance to restore an atmosphere of confidence and then to solve the German-Polish problems through negotiations terminating in a settlement which should be internationally guaranteed (Document 6).

The Fuhrer, in his reply of August 23rd, set forth the real causes of the German-Polish crisis.

He referred in particular to the generous proposal made by him in March of this year and stated that the false reports spread by England at that time regarding a German mobilization against Poland, the equally incorrect assertions about Germany’s aggressive intentions towards Hungary and Roumania and, finally, the guarantee given by England and France to the Polish Government had encouraged the Polish Government not only to decline the German offer but to let loose a wave of terror against the Germans domiciled in Poland and to strangle Danzig economically. At the same time, the Fuhrer declared that Germany would not let herself be kept back from protecting her vital rights by any methods of intimidation whatsoever (Document 7).

3).   Although the above-mentioned letter from the British Prime Minister of August 22nd, as well as speeches made on the subsequent day by British statesmen, showed a complete lack of understanding for the German standpoint, the Fuhrer nevertheless resolved to make a fresh attempt to arrive at an understanding with England.

On August 25th, he received the British Ambassador, once more with complete frankness explained to him his conception of the situation, and communicated to him the main principles of comprehensive and far-sighted agreement between Germany and England which he would offer to the British Government once the problem of Danzig and the Polish Corridor was settled (Document 8).

4).   while the British government were discussing the preceding declaration from the Fuhrer, and exchange of letters took place between the French President, M. Daladier, and the Fuhrer. In his answer the Fuhrer again submitted his reasons for Germany’s standpoint in the German Polish question and once more repeated his firm decision to regard the present Franco-German frontier as final (Documents 9 and 10).

5).   In their answer to the step taken by the Fuhrer on August 25th, which was handed over on the evening of August 28th, the British Government declared themselves prepared to consider the proposal for a revision of Anglo-German relationships. They further stated that a they had received a definite assurance from the Polish Government that they were prepared to enter into direct discussions with the reich Government on German-Polish questions.

At the same time they repeated that in their opinions a German-Polish settlement must be safeguarded by international guarantees (Document 11).

Despite grave misgivings arising from the whole of Poland’s previous attitude and despite justifiable doubts in a sincere willingness on the part of the Polish Government for a direct settlement, the Fuhrer, in his answer handed to the British Ambassador on the afternoon of August 29th, accepted the British proposal and declared that the Reich Government awaited the arrival of a Polish representative invested with plenipotentiary powers on August 30th. At the same time the Fuhrer announced that the Reich Government would immediately draft proposals for a solution acceptable to them and would, if possible, have these ready for the British Government before the Polish negotiator arrived (Document 12).

6).   In the course of August 30th, neither a Polish negotiator with plenipotentiary powers nor any communication from the British Government about steps undertaken by them reached Berlin. On the contrary, it was on this day that the Reich Government were informed of the ordering of a general Polish mobilization (document 13).

Only at midnight did the British Ambassador hand over a new memorandum which, however, failed to disclose any practical progress in the treatment of Polish-German questions and confined itself to a statement that the Fuhrer’s answer of the preceding day was to be communicated to the Polish Government and that the British Government considered it impracticable to establish a German-Polish contact so early as on August 30th (Document 14).

7).   Although the non-appearance of the Polish negotiator had done away with the conditions under which the British government were to be informed of the Reich government’s conception of the basis on which negotiations might be possible, the proposals since formulated by the Reich were none the less communicated and explained in detail to the British Ambassador when he handed over the above-mentioned memorandum.

The Reich Government expected that now at any rate, subsequently to this, a Polish plenipotentiary would be appointed. Instead, the Polish Ambassador in Berlin made a verbal declaration to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs on the afternoon of August 31st, to the effect that the Polish Government had been informed in the preceding night by the British government that there was a possibility of direct negotiations between the Reich Government and the Polish Government, and that the Polish Government were favorably considering the British proposal.

When expressly asked by the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he had the authority to negotiate on the German proposals, the Ambassador stated that he was not entitled to do so, but had merely been instructed to make the foregoing verbal declaration. A further question from the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he could enter into an objective discussion on the matter was expressly denied by the Ambassador.

8).   The Reich Government thus were confronted with the fact that they had spent two days waiting in vain for a Polish plenipotentiary. On the evening of August 31st, they published the German proposals with a short account of the events leading up to them (Document 15).

These proposals were described as unacceptable by Polish broadcast (Document 16).

9).   Now that every possibility for a peaceful settlement of the Polish-German crisis was thus exhausted, the Fuhrer saw himself compelled to resist by force the force which the Poles had long employed against Danzig, against the Germans in Poland, and finally, by innumerable violations of the frontier, against Germany.

10).   On the evening of September 1st, the Ambassadors of Great Britain and France handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs two notes couched in the same terms in which they demanded that Germany should withdraw her troops from Polish territory, and declared that if this demand were not conceded, their respective Governments would fulfill their obligations to Poland without further delay (Documents 18 and 19).

11).   In order to banish the menace of war, which had come dangerously close in consequence of these two notes, the Duce made a proposal for an armistice and a subsequent conference for the settlement of the German-Polish conflict (Document 20).

The Germans and the French Government replied in the affirmative to this proposal whilst the British Government refused to accept it (Documents 21 and 11).

That this was so was already apparent in the speeches made by the British Prime Minister and the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the afternoon of September 2nd in the British Houses of Parliament, and a communication to that effect was made to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the Italian Ambassador on the evening of September 2nd. Thus also in the opinion of the Italian Government the initiative of the Duce had been wrecked by England.

12).   On September 3rd, at 9 a.m., the British Ambassador arrived at the German Foreign Office and handed over a note in which the British Government, fixing a time limit of two hours, repeated their demand for a withdrawal of the German troops and, in the event of a refusal, declared themselves to be at war with Germany after this time limit had expired (Document 23).

The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on September 3rd, 1939, at 11:15 a. m. delivered a note to the German Charge d’Affairs in London in which he informed him that a state of war existed between the two countries as from 11 a. m. on September 3rd (Document 24).

On the same day, at 11:30 a. m. the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs handed to the British Ambassador in Berlin a memorandum from the Reich Government in which the Reich rejected the demands expressed by the British Government in the form of an ultimatum and in which it was proved that the responsibility for the outbreak of war rested solely with the British Government (Document 25).

On the afternoon of September 3rd, the French Ambassador in Berlin called on the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs and inquired whether the Reich government were in a position to give a satisfactory answer to the question directed to them by the French government in their note of September 1st. The Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs told the Ambassador that after the English and French Notes of September had been handed to him, the Head of the Italian Government had made a new intermediary proposal, to which the Duce had added, the French Government had agreed.

The Reich Government had informed the Duce on the preceding day that they were also prepared to accept the proposal.

The Duce however had informed them later on in the day that his proposal had been wrecked by the intransigent attitude of the British Government.

The British Government several hours previously had presented German with an ultimatum which had been rejected on the German side by a memorandum which he, the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, would hand over to the French Ambassador for his information.

Should the attitude of France towards Germany be determined by the same considerations as that of the British Government, the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs could only regret this fact.  Germany had always sought understanding with France. Should the French Government, despite this fact adopt a hostile attitude towards Germany on account of their obligations towards Poland, the German people would regard this as a totally unjustifiable aggressive war on the part of France against the Reich.

The French Ambassador replied that he understood from the remarks of the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs that the Reich Government were not in a position to give a satisfactory answer to the French Note of September 1st. Under these circumstances he had the unpleasant task of informing the Reich Government that the French Government were forced to fulfill the obligations which they had entered into towards Poland, from September 3rd at 5 p.m. onwards.

The French Ambassador at the same time handed over a corresponding written communication (CF, Document 26).

The Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs thereupon declared in conclusion the the French Government would bear the full responsibility for the suffering which the nations would have to bear if France attacked Germany.

II

Documents

Documents 1 through 8 (of 26)

1.   First Note from the Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland in the Free City of Danzig to the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig, august 4, 1939

(Translation)

Danzig, August 4, 1939.

I learn that the local Danzig customs officials posted on the frontier between the Free City of Danzig and East Prussia have declared in an unprecedented statement to the Polish customs officials, that the Danzig executives intend from 7 o’clock a. m. on august 6th onwards to oppose a certain number of Polish inspectors in the exercise of their normal duties, which functions are a part of the prerogatives of the Polish government on the customs frontier. I am convinced that this act on the part of the local authorities depends either on a misunderstanding or on an erroneous interpretation of the instructions of the Senate of the Free city of Danzig.

I am fully convinced that you, Mr. President of the Senate, can have no doubt that this infringement of the fundamental rights of Poland will on no pretext whatever be tolerated by the Polish Government.

I await, by august 5th at 6 p. m. at the latest, your answer with the assurance that you have given instructions cancelling the action of your subordinates.

In view of the fact that the above-mentioned action is one of a series which have taken place on the frontier, I am forced to warn you, mr. president of the Senate, that all Polish customs inspectors have received the order to appear for duty in uniform and bearing arms, on August 6th of the current year and on subsequent days, at every point on the frontier which they consider necessary for examination of the customs.

Every attempt made to hinder them in the exercise of their duties, every attack or intervention on the part of the police will be regarded by the Polish Government as an act of violence against the officials of the Polish State in the pursuance of their duties.

If the above-mentioned illegal actions should take place, the Polish Government will take retaliatory measures (retorsions) without delay against the Free City, as the responsibility for them will rest entirely on the Senate of the Free City.

I hope to receive a satisfactory explanation before the above-mentioned date.

(signed): CHODACKI,

Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland.

________________________________________

2.   Second Note from the Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland to the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig, August 4, 1939

(Translation)

Danzig, August 4, 1939.

Mr. President of the Senate:

The Polish Government beg to express its astonishment at the fact that the Senate should find technical difficulties in replying to so simple a matter. In the interest of avoiding threatening consequences, I note for the time being that no act of violence will be undertaken against our customs inspectors and that they will be able to proceed in a normal way with their duties. I must repeat nevertheless that the admonitions contained in my note of August 4th, 11:40 p. m. remain in force.

I beg to remain. . .

(signed): CHODACKI

To

His Excellency, Herr Arthur Greiser,

President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig

_____________________________________________

3.   Reply of the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig to the Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland, August 7, 1939.

(Translation)

Danzig, August 7, 1939

His Excellency

The Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland.

M. Chodacki, Minister with plenipotentiary powers,

Danzig.

Sir:

In reply to your two notes dated the 4th of this month, the second of which I received on August 5th, I must express my astonishment to you that you should make a completely unverified rumor a pretext for sending the Danzig Government a short-term ultimatum from the Polish Government, and thus in this time of political unrest conjure up unfounded danger which may result in inconceivable disaster.

The sudden decree of the Polish Government that all Polish customs officials on duty are to appear in uniform and bearing arms, is a breach of the arrangement agreed upon and can be understood only as an intentional provocation to bring about incidents and acts of violence of the most dangerous nature.

According to facts which I have since ascertained and concerning which I immediately telephoned to you on Saturday morning, the 5th inst., no order announcing that the Danzig executives from August 6th at 7 a. m. onwards are to oppose a certain number of Polish inspectors in the exercise of their normal duties has been issued from an office, certainly not from any administrative quarter of the Customs Office of the Free City of Danzig.

I refer you further to my note of June 3rd of this year, in which I already carefully defined the relationship of the Danzig customs officials and the Polish customs inspectors on the frontier.

The Danzig Government protest with great energy against the threatened retorsions of the Polish Government which they regard as an absolutely inadmissible threat and the consequences of which will devolve on the Polish Government alone.

I beg to remain. . .

(signed): GREISER

__________________________________________________

4.   Communication from the Secretary of State in the German Foreign Office to the Polish Charge d’Affairs in Berlin, August 9, 1939.

(Translation)

Berlin, August 9, 1939.

The Reich Government have received with great astonishment information of the note of the Polish Government to the Senate of the Free City of danzig, in which a demand was made in the form of an ultimatum to revoke an alleged decree intended to hinder the Polish customs inspectors in the exercise of their normal duties (which decree, however, was based on unfounded rumors, and in reality had never been issued by the Senate of the Free City of Danzig). In case of a refusal, the Free City of Danzig was threatened with retaliatory measures.

The Reich Government see themselves obliged to point out to the Polish Government that the repetition of such a demand, in the form of an ultimatum, to the Free City of Danzig and the threat of retaliatory measures would lead to greater tension in the relationship between Germany and Poland, and that the responsibility of such consequences would devolve exclusively on the Polish Government, the German Government already now declining all responsibility for them.

The German Government further draw the attention of the Polish Government to the fact that the measures taken by the Polish Government to prevent the import of certain goods from the Free City of Danzig to Poland are likely to bring about serious economic loss to the population of Danzig.

Should the Polish Government insist on further lending their support to such measures, there would, in the opinion of the Reich Government, be no choice left to the Free City of Danzig, as matters lie, but to seek other export and consequently import possibilities.

_____________________________________________________

5.   Communication from the Under-Secretary of State in the Polish Foreign Office to the German Charge d’Affairs in Warsaw, August 10, 1939.

(Translation)

     With the greatest surprise ‘the Government of the Republic of Poland have taken note of the declaration given in Berlin on August 9, 1939, by the Secretary of State in the German Foreign Office to the Charge d’Affairs a.i. of Poland on the relations existing between Poland and the Free City of Danzig. The Polish Government in fact cannot perceive any legal foundation justifying Germany to interfere in the above-mentioned relations.

Whatever discussions on the Danzig problem may have taken place between the Polish Government and the Government of the Reich, these had their foundation merely in the good will of the Government and did not arise out of any obligation whatsoever.

In reply to the aforesaid declaration of the Government of the Reich, the Polish Government are compelled to point out to the German Government that, as hitherto, they will in the future oppose by such means and measures as the Polish Government alone consider adequate, any attempt made by the authorities of the Free City of Danzig to jeopardize the rights and interests that Poland possesses in Danzig, on the basis of the agreement to which she is a part, and that the Polish Government will consider as an aggressive act any possible intervention of the Government of the Reich which may endanger these rights and interests.

________________________________________________________

6.   Letter from the British Prime Minister to the Fuhrer, August 22, 1939.

10. downing Street, Whitehall,

August 22, 1939.

Your Excellency:

Your Excellency will have already heard of certain measures taken by His Majesty’s Government, and announced in the press and on the wireless this evening.

These steps have, in the opinion of His Majesty’s’y Government, been rendered necessary by the military movements which have been reported from Germany, and by the fact that apparently the announcement of a German-Soviet Agreement is taken in some quarters in Berlin to indicate that intervention by Great Britain on behalf of Poland is no longer a contingency that need be reckoned with.

No greater mistake could be made. Whatever may prove to be the nature of the German-Soviet Agreement, it cannot alter Great Britain’s obligation to Poland which His Majesty’s Government have stated in public repeatedly and plainly, and which they are determined to fulfill.

it has been alleged that, if His Majesty’s Government had made their position more clear in 1914, the great catastrophe would have been avoided. Whether or not there is any force in that allegation, His Majesty’s Government are resolved that on this occasion there shall be no such tragic misunderstanding.

If the case should arise, they are resolved, and prepared, to employ without delay all the forces at their command, and it is impossible to foresee the end of hostilities once engaged. It would be a dangerous illusion to think that, if war once starts, it will come to an early end even if a success on any one of the several fronts on which it will be engaged should have been secured.

Having thus made our position perfectly clear, I wish to repeat to you my conviction that war between our two peoples would be the greatest calamity that could occur. I am certain that it is desired neither by our people, nor by yours, and I cannot see that there is anything in the questions arising between Germany and Poland which could not and should not be resolved without the use of force, if only a situation of confidence could be restored to enable discussions to be carried on in an atmosphere different from that which prevails today.

We have been, and at all times will be, ready to assist in creating conditions in which such negotiations could take place, and in which it might be possible concurrently to discuss the wider problems affecting the future of international relations, including matters of interest to us and to you.

The difficulties in the way of any peaceful discussion in the present state of tension are, however, obvious, and the longer that tension is maintained, the harder will it be for reason to prevail.

These difficulties, however, might be mitigated, if not removed, provided that there could for an initial period be a truce on both sides — and indeed on all sides — to press polemics and to all incitement.

If such a truce could be arranged, then, at the end of that period, during which steps could be taken to examine and deal with complaints made by either side as to the treatment of minorities, it is reasonable to hope that suitable conditions might have been established for direct negotiations between Germany and Poland upon the issues between them (with the aid of a neutral intermediary, if both sides should think that that would be helpful).

But I am bound to say that there would be slender hope of bringing such negotiations to successful issue unless it were understood beforehand that any settlement reached would, when concluded, be guaranteed by other Powers. His Majesty’s Government would be ready, if desired, to make such contribution as they could to the effective operation of such guarantees.

At this moment I confess I can see no other way to avoid a catastrophe that will involve Europe in war.

In view of the grave consequences to humanity, which may follow from the action of their rulers, I trust that Your Excellency will weigh with the utmost deliberation the considerations which I have put before you.

(Signed): NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN.

___________________________________________

7.   The Fuhrer’s Letter in reply to the British Prime Minister, August 23, 1939.

(Translation)

August 23, 1939.

Your Excellency:

The Ambassador to His Britannic Majesty has just handed me a note in which Your Excellency, in the name of the British Government, has drawn attention to a number of points, which, in your opinion, are of extreme importance.

I beg to reply to your note as follows:

1.   Germany has never sought to enter into conflict with Great Britain nor at any time interfered where British interests were concerned. On the contrary, Germany has for many years, although unfortunately without success, attempted to gain the friendship for Great Britain. For this reason, Germany voluntarily undertook a restriction of her own interests throughout a large area in Europe which would otherwise have been difficult to justify from a national political point of view.

2.   The German Reich, however, has, like every other state, certain interests which it is impossible for it to renounce and which lie within the category which Germany’s past history and her economic necessities have rendered of vital importance. Certain of these problems were, and are, of the utmost importance to any German Government bot, from a national political and from a psychological point of view.

One  of these problems is that of the German City of Danzig and the problem of the Polish Corridor connected therewith. Only a few years ago this fact was recognized by numerous statesmen, by authorities in historical research and literary men, even in England.

I should like to add that the civilization of all those areas which come within the sphere of German interests aforementioned, and especially those provinces which have returned to the Reich within the past eighteen months, was developed not by Englishmen but exclusively by Germans, and, in part, during a period of history which covers more than the last thousand years.

3.   Germany was prepared to settle the problem of Danzig and of the Polish Corridor by a very generous proposal, made once for all, and by means of negotiations. The assertions disseminated by Great Britain with regard to the mobilization of German troops against Poland, the assertion concerning aggressive intentions with regard to Roumania, Hungary, etc., as also the more recent so-called guarantees given to Poland, effectually destroyed any inclinations on the part of Poland to negotiate on a basis which would at the same time be acceptable to germany.

4.    The general assurance given by Great Britain to Poland that Great Britain would support Poland in case of conflict in any circumstance, irrespective of the causes giving rise to such conflict, could only be regarded here as an incitement to let loose, under cover of what might be termed a bland cheque, a wave of unspeakable terror against the one and a half million Germans domiciled in Poland.

The atrocities which have taken place there since that time were terrible indeed for those on whom they were inflicted, but intolerable for the German Reich, which, as one of the Great Powers, was expected to watch them idly.

In regard to the Free city of Danzig, Poland has, on countless occasions, infringed its rights, sent demands which were in the nature of an ultimatum and begun a process of economic strangulation.

5.     The Reich government informed the Polish government a short time ago that they were not inclined to accept these developments in silence, that they would not tolerate the dispatch of further notes couched in the form of an ultimatum to Danzig, that they would not tolerate a continuance of acts of violence inflicted on the German section of the population, nor would they tolerate the ruin of the Free City of Danzig by means of economic pressure, that is to say, the destruction of the very existence of the population of Danzig by a form of customs blockade, nor would they tolerate the continuance of such acts of provocation against the Reich. Regardless of the above, a solution must and will be found for the problem of Danzig and of the Polish Corridor.

6.   Your Excellency informs me in the name of the British Government that in the event of any act of interference on the part of Germany, you will be compelled to support Poland. I have taken due note of your statement and can assure you that it can in no way shake the determination of the Reich government to protect the interests of the Reich as set forth in Section 5.

I likewise agree with your assurance that the ensuing war would, in this case, be a long one. If Germany is attacked by Britain, she is prepared and determined to fight.

I have often declared to the German people and to the whole world that there can be no doubts as to the determination of the New German Reich to accept privation and misfortune in any form and at any time rather than sacrifice her national interests or even her honor.

7.   The Reich Government have received information of the fact that the British Government intend to carry out mobilization measures, which in their nature are solely directed against Germany, as is stated in Your Excellency’s note addressed to me. This is stated also to apply to France.

As Germany never intended to adopt military measures other than those of a purely defensive nature against either Great Britain or France and, as has already been emphasized, never intended nor in the future intends to attack either Great Britain or France, the announcement which Your Excellency confirmed in your note can only constitute an intended threat against the Reich. I must therefore, inform Your Excellency that in the event of such military measures being taken, I shall order the immediate mobilization of the German armed forces.

8.   The question of a settlement of European problems in a peaceful spirit cannot be decided by Germany but chiefly by those who, since the crime of the Treaty of Versailles was committed, have steadily and obstinately opposed any peaceful revision of its terms.

Only a change of attitude on the part of the Powers responsible for the Treaty can bring about a change for the better in the existing relations between Britain and Germany.

During my whole life-time I have struggled to achieve a friendship between Britain and Germany, but the attitude adopted by British diplomacy, up to the present at least, has served to convince me of the hopelessness of such an attempt. If the future were to bring a change in this respect, none would welcome it more than I.

_________________________________________________

8.   Declaration made by the Fuhrer to the British Ambassador on August 25, 2939, at 1:30 p.m.

(Translation)

     The Fuhrer declared at the outset that the British Ambassador at the close of their last conversation had expressed the hope that it would still prove possible to arrive at an understanding between Germany and England. He, the Fuhrer, had thereupon considered the situation once more and intended today to take a step in regard to England which was to be as decisive as the step taken in regard to Russia, the result of which had been the recent pact.

Yesterday’s meeting of the House of Commons and the speeches made by Mr. chamberlain and Lord Halifax were further reasons why the Fuhrer had again invited the British Ambassador to meet him.

The assertion that Germany wanted to conquer the world was ridiculous.

The British Empire covered a territory of forty million square kilometers, Russia of nineteen million square kilometers, America of nine and a half million square kilometers and Germany of less than 600,000 square kilometers. It was thus quite clear who wanted to conquer the world.

The Fuhrer informed the British Ambassador of the following:

1)  The acts of provocation committed by Poland had become intolerable, irrespective of who might be responsible for them.

If the Polish government contested their responsibility, this merely proved that they themselves had no longer any influence on their military subordinates. In the preceding night twenty-one new frontier incidents had occurred.

On the German side the utmost discipline had been displayed. All the incidents were due to Polish provocation.

Besides this, civil aeroplanes had been fire on. If the Polish Government declared themselves not responsible, this merely proved that they were unable to keep control over their own people.

2)  Germany was resolved under all circumstances to put an end to these Macedonian conditions on her eastern frontier, not only in the interests of law and order but also for the sake of European peace.

3.  The problem of Danzig and the Corridor would have to be solved.

The British Prime Minister had made a speech which had done nothing towards bringing about a change in the German attitude. This speech might, if anything, give rise to a desperate and incalculable war between Germany and england, a war which would cause far greater bloodshed than that of 1914.

In contrast to the last world war, Germany would not have to carry on a war on two fronts. The agreement concluded with Russia was unconditional and represented a turning point in the foreign policy of the Reich for the longest conceivable time. In no circumstance would Russia and Germany again take up arms against one another. Apart from this fact the agreements made with Russia would safeguard Germany, in economic respects also, for a war of the longest duration.

The Fuhrer had always been strongly in favor of Anglo-German understanding. A war between england and Germany could in the most favorable circumstances bring Germany an advantage, but certainly not the slightest gain to England.

the Fuhrer declared that the German-Polish problem had to and would be settled. He was, however, ready and resolved to approach England again, after his settlement, with a generous and comprehensive offer. He himself was a man of great decisions and he would in this case also be capable of a great action. he approved of the British Empire and was prepared to give a personal undertaking for its existence and to stake the might of the German Reich to that end provided that

1)  His Colonial demands, which were limited and could be settled by peaceful negotiations, were fulfilled, for which he was prepared to concede a most protracted time-limit;

2)  that his obligations to Italy remained untouched; in other words the Fuhrer did not expect England to give up her French obligations and could for his part not abandon his Italian obligations;

3)  he wished also to emphasize Germany’s unalterable resolution never again to enter into a conflict with Russia.

The Fuhrer would then be prepared to enter into agreements with Great Britain which, as he had already emphasized, would not only, on the German side, in any case safeguard the existence of the British empire, but if necessary would guarantee German assistance for the British empire, irrespective of where such assistance might be required. The Fuhrer would then also be ready to accept a reasonable limitation of armaments, in accordance with the new political situation and economic requirements. finally the Fuhrer renewed his assurance that he was not interested in western problems and that he did not for one moment consider any frontier correction in the west.

The western line of fortification which had cost billions, was the final frontier of the Reich in the west.

If the British Government would consider these suggestions, they might end in a blessing not only for Germany but also for the British Empire. If the British Government rejected the suggestions, war would be inevitable. In no circumstances, however, would such a war add to the strength of Great Britain. That this was true, the last war had amply proved.

The Fuhrer repeated that he was a man of great decisions to which he felt himself bound, and that this was his final proposal. Immediately after the settlement of the German-Polish question he would approach the British Government with an offer.

German White Book – Documents

Concerning the Last Phase of the German-Polish Crisis

Documents 9 through 13 (of 26)

9.   Letter of the French Premier to the Fuhrer, August 26, 1939

(Translation)

Paris, August 29, 1939.

Your Excellency:

The French Ambassador in Berlin has brought your personal message to my knowledge.

At an hour when you speak of the gravest responsibility which two Heads of Government can be asked to take, namely, that of shedding the blood of two great peoples desiring only peace and work, I owe it to you personally and to our respective nations to state that the fate of peace still rests in your hands.

You cannot doubt my feelings towards Germany, or the friendly feelings of France for your nation. No Frenchman has done more than I have to ensure not only peace between our two peoples, but also sincere cooperation in your own interests as well as in those of Europe and of the world.

Unless you are prepared to credit the French nation with a lower ideal of honor than the one with which I credit the German people, you cannot doubt that France will faithfully fulfill her obligations towards other powers which, like Poland, are, I am convinced, desirous of living at peace with Germany.

Both convictions are fully compatible with one another.

To this day there is nothing which might prevent a peaceful solution of the international crisis in a spirit of honor and dignity for all nations as long as the same will for peace prevails on all sides.

Together with the good will of France I proclaim that of all her allies.  I personally guarantee the readiness always shown by Poland to have mutual recourse to methods of free conciliation such as can be envisaged between the Governments of two sovereign nations. With a perfectly clear conscience I can give you an assurance that among the differences which have arisen between Germany and Poland with regard to the Danzig question, there is not a single one which could not be submitted to such a procedure with a view to finding a just and peaceful solution.

Upon my honor I can also state that in the clear and sincere solidarity of France with Poland and her allies there is nothing that might in any way impair the peaceful disposition of my country. This solidarity has never prevented us from supporting this peaceful disposition in Poland, and it does not do so today.

At so critical a moment I sincerely believe that no noble-minded person could understand how a war of destruction could be waged without a final attempt at a peaceful settlement between Germany and Poland having been undertaken. Your desire for peace could exercise its influence with full determination towards this end without detracting anything from Germany’s honor. As Head of the French Government, desirous of attaining full harmony between the French and the German nation, yet bound on the other hand to Poland by ties of friendship and my pledged word, I am prepared to make every effort that an honorable man can make to bring this endeavor to a successful end.

Like myself you were a soldier in the last war.  You know as well as I do the feelings of disgust and universal condemnation which the destruction caused by war left in the conscience of all nations, irrespective of its issue. The idea which I cherish of your great part as leader of the German nation on the road to peace towards the fulfillment of its tasks in the common effort towards civilization, prompts me to ask you for an answer to this my proposal.

Should French and German blood once more have to flow, just as it did twenty-five years ago, in an even longer and more murderous war, each nation will fight fully confident of its ultimate victory. Yet we can be sure that ruin and barbarity will be the most certain victors.’

(Signed) DALADIER

__________________________________________________

10.   The Fuhrer’s Letter in reply to the French Premier, August 27, 1939.

Berlin, August 27, 1939

Your Excellency:

I appreciate the concern you have expressed.  I have always been equally conscious of the grave responsibility place upon those who must decide the fate of nations. As an ex-soldier, I know as well as you do the horrors of war.  This spirit and knowledge have guided me in a sincere endeavor to remove all causes of conflict between our two nations.

I once told the French people quite frankly that the return of the Saar territory would be the basis for the achievement of this aim. Once that territory was returned I immediately solemnly renounced any further claims which might affect France.

The German people approved of my attitude.  As you were able to see for yourself when you were in Germany last, the German people, conscious of the way they themselves behaved, did not and still do not entertain any animosity or still less hatred against their former brave opponents. On the contrary; once peace was definitely established along our western frontier, there cam an increasing sympathy, at any rate on the part of the German nation — a sympathy markedly demonstrated on many occasions.

The construction of the great western fortifications which have cost and will still cost many billion Marks, is documentary evidence that Germany has accepted and fixed the final frontier of the Reich. In doing so, the German people renounced two provinces which once belonged to the old German Reich, were later on regained at the price of many lives, and were finally defended at the price of still more lives.

Your Excellency will admit that this renunciation was not merely a gesture for tactical reasons but a decision confirmed by all our subsequent measures.

You cannot, Excellency, cite a single instance in which this final settlement of the German frontier in the West has ever been disputed by one line or word.  I believed that by this renunciation and by this attitude every possible cause of conflict between our two nations, which might have led to a repetition of the tragic years of 1914 to 1918, had been eliminated.

This voluntary limitation of German claims in the West cannot however be regarded as an acceptance of the Dictate of Versailles in all other fields.

Year by year I have tried earnestly to achieve the revision of at least the most impossible and most unbearable of all the conditions of this Dictate through negotiation.  This proved impossible.  Many enlightened men of all nations believed and were convinced that revision was bound to come. Whatever objection may be raised against my methods, whatever fault may be found with them, it cannot be overlooked or denied that I succeeded without any more bloodshed in finding solutions which were in many cases satisfactory not only for Germany.

By the manner in which these solutions were accomplished, statesmen of other nations were relieved of their obligation, which they often found impossible to fulfill, of having to accept responsibility for this revision before their own people.

One thing I fee sure Your Excellency will admit, namely, that the revision was bound to come. The Dictate of Versailles was unbearable. No Frenchman with a sense of honor and certainly not you, M. Daladier, would have acted differently in a similar position than I did. I therefore tried to remove this most insane stipulation of the Dictate of Versailles. I made an offer to the Polish Government which actually shocked the German people.

No one but I could have dared to come forward with such a proposal. Therefore I could only make it once. I am firmly convinced that if Poland at that time had been advised to take a sensible course instead of being incited by a wild campaign of the British press against Germany, accompanied by rumors of German mobilization, then Europe would today be able to enjoy a state of profound peace for the next twenty-five years.

Actually, it was the lie about German aggression that excited public opinion in Poland; the Polish Government were handicapped in making necessary and clear decisions and, above all, their judgment on the extent of Poland’s possibilities was clouded by the subsequent promise of a guarantee.

[The guarantee England made to Poland that England would come to Poland’s defense if hostilities ensued. It was, as Hitler said, “a blank cheque for the Polish government to continue its abuse and oppression of the Germans caught in that ‘country’ — Poland — that was created at Versailles.]

The Polish Government rejected the proposals.

Firmly convinced that Britain and France would now fight for Poland, Polish public opinion began to raise demands which might best be described as sheer lunacy were they not so extraordinarily dangerous. At that time unbearable terrorism se in; physical and economic oppression of the more than one and a half millions of Germans living in the territories severed from the Reich. I do not intent to speak of the atrocities which have occurred.

Even in Danzig, the outrages committed by the Polish authorities fully created the impression that the city was apparently hopelessly delivered up to the arbitrary action of a power that is foreign to the national character of the city and its population.

May I ask you, M. Daladier, how you as a Frenchman would act if, by the unfortunate ending of a bravely-fought war, one of your provinces were separated by a corridor in the possession of an alien power, and a large city — let us say Marseilles — were prevented from bearing allegiance to France, while Frenchmen in this territory were being persecuted, beaten, maltreated and even murdered in a bestial manner.

You are a Frenchman, M. Daladier, and I therefore know how you would act. I am a German, M. Daladier, and you will not doubt my sense of honor and my sense of duty which make me act in exactly the same way.

If you had to face a calamity such as confronts us, would you, M. Daladier, understand how Germany, for no reason at all, could use her influence to ensure that such a corridor through France should remain?

That the stolen territories should not be returned, and that Marseilles should be forbidden to join France?

I certainly cannot imagine Germany fighting you for such a cause. I, for Germany, renounced our claim to Alsace-Lorraine in order to avoid further bloodshed. Still less would we shed blood in order to maintain such an injustice as I have pictured, which would be as intolerable for you as it would be meaningless for us.

My feelings on everything expressed in your letter, M. Daladier, are the same as yours. Perhaps we, as ex-soldiers, should readily understand each other on many points. Yet I would ask you to appreciate also this: namely, that no nation with a sense of honor can ever give up almost two million people and see them maltreated on its own frontiers.

I therefore formulated a clear demand: Danzig and the Corridor must return to Germany. The Macedonian conditions prevailing along our eastern frontier must cease. I see no possibility of persuading Poland, who deems herself safe from attack by virtue of the guarantees given to her, to agree to a peaceful solution.

Unless we are determined under the circumstances to solve the question one way or the other, I would despair of an honorable future for my country.

If fate decrees that our two peoples should fight one another once more over this question, it would be from different motives. I for my part, M. Daladier, would fight with my people for the reparation of an injustice, while the others would fight for its retention.

This is all the more tragic in view of the fact that many great men of your nation have long since recognized the folly of the solution found in 1919 and the impossibility of keeping it up for ever. I am fully conscious of the grave consequences which such a conflict would involve.  But I think that Poland would suffer most, for whatever the issue of such a war, the Polish State of today would in any case be lost.

That our two peoples should now engage in another murderous war of destruction causes me as much pain as it does you, M. Daladier. Unfortunately, as stated earlier in my letter, I see no possibility open to us of influencing Poland to take a saner attitude and thus to remedy a situation which is unbearable for both the German people and the German Reich.

(signed) ADOLF HITLER.

________________________________________________________

11.   Memorandum from the British Government handed to the Fuhrer by the British Ambassador on August 28, 1939, at 10:30 p. m.

1.   His Majesty’s Government have received the message conveyed to them from the German Chancellor by H.M. Ambassador in Berlin and have considered it with the care which it demands.

They note the Chancellor’s expression of his desire to make friendship the basis of the relations between Germany and the British Empire and they fully share this desire. they believe with him that if a complete and lasting understanding between the two countries could be established it would bring untold blessings to both peoples.

2.   The Chancellor’s message deals with two groups of questions: — those which are the matters now in dispute between Germany and Poland, and those affecting the ultimate relations of Germany and Great Britain.

In connection with these last, His Majesty’s Government observe that the German Chancellor has indicated certain proposals which, subject to one condition, he would be prepared to make to the British Government for a general understanding. These proposals are of course stated in very general form and would require closer definition, but His Majesty’s Government are fully prepared to take them, with some additions, as subjects for discussion and they would be ready, if the differences between Germany and Poland are peacefully composed, to proceed so soon as practicable to such discussion with a sincere desire to reach agreement.

3.     The condition which the German Chancellor lays down is that there must first be a settlement of the differences between Germany and Poland. As to that, His Majesty’s Government entirely agree.  Everything, however, turns upon the nature of the settlement and the method by which it is to be reached. On these points, the importance of which cannot be absent from the Chancellor’s mind, his message is silent, and His Majesty’s Government will be aware that His Majesty’s Government have obligations to Poland by which they are bound and which they intend to honor.

They could not, for any advantage offered to Great Britain, acquiesce in a settlement which put in jeopardy the independence of a State to whom they have given their guarantee.

4.    In the opinion of His Majesty’s Government a reasonable solution for the differences between Germany and Poland could and should be effected by agreement between the two countries on lines which would include the safeguarding of Poland’s essential interest, and they recall that in his speech of the 28th of April last the German Chancellor recognized the importance of these interests to Poland.

But as was stated by the Prime Minister in his letter to the German Chancellor of the 22nd of August, His Majesty’s Government consider it essential for the success of the discussions which would precede the agreement that it should be understood before hand that any settlement arrived at would be guaranteed by other Powers. His Majesty’s Government would be ready if desired to make their contribution to the effective operation of such a guarantee.

In view of His Majesty’s Government it follows that the next step should be the initiation of direct discussions between the German and Polish Governments on a basis which would include the principles stated above, namely the safeguarding of Poland’s essential interests and the securing of the settlement by an international guarantee.

They have already received a definite assurance from the Polish Government that they are prepared to enter into discussions on this basis, and His Majesty’s Government hope the German government would for their part also be willing to agree to this course.

If, as His Majesty’s government hope, such discussion let to agreement the way would be open to the negotiation of that wider and more complete understanding between Great Britain and Germany which both countries desire.

5.   His Majesty’s Government agree with the German Chancellor that one of the principal dangers in the German-Polish situation arises from the report concerning the treatment of minorities. The present state of tension, with its concomitant frontier incidents, reports of maltreatment and inflammatory propaganda, is a constant danger to peace.

It is manifestly a matter of the utmost urgency that all incidents of the kind should be promptly and rigidly suppressed and that unverified reports should not be allowed to circulate, in order that time may be afforded, without provocation on either side, for a full examination of the possibilities of settlement. His Majesty’s Government are confident that both governments concerned are fully alive to these considerations.

6.   His Majesty’s Government have said enough to make their own attitude plain in the particular matters at issue between Germany and Poland. They trust that the German Chancellor will not think that, because His Majesty’s Government are scrupulous concerning their obligations to Poland, they are not anxious to use all their influence to assist the achievement of a solution which may comment itself both to Germany and to Poland.

That such a settlement should be achieved seems to His Majesty’s Government essential, not only for reasons directly arising in regard to the settlement itself, but also because of the wider considerations of which the German Chancellor has spoken with such conviction.

7.   It is unnecessary in the present reply to stress the advantage of a peaceful settlement over a decision to settle the questions at issue by force of arms. The results of a decision to use force have been clearly set out in the Prime Minister’s letter to the Chancellor of the 22nd of August, and His Majesty’s Government do not doubt that they are as fully recognized by the Chancellor as by themselves.

On the other hand His Majesty’s government, noting with interest the German Chancellor’s reference in the message now under consideration to a limitation of armaments, believe that, if a peaceful settlement can be obtained, the assistance of the world could confidently be anticipated for practical measures to enable the transition from preparation for war to the normal activities of peaceful trade to be safely and smoothly effected.

8.   A just settlement of these questions between Germany and Poland may open the way to world peace. Failure to reach it would ruin the hopes of better understanding between Germany and Great Britain, would bring the two countries into conflict, and might well plunge the whole world into war. Such an outcome would be a calamity without parallel in history.

___________________________________________________________

l2.   The Fuhrer’s Reply to the British Government handed to the British Ambassador on August 29, 1939, at 6:45 p. m.

(Translation)

August 29, 1939.

The British Ambassador in Berlin has informed the British government of certain suggestions which I felt it incumbent upon me to put forward, in order:

1.   to express once more the desire of the German Government for sincere Anglo-German understanding, cooperation and friendship;

2.  to leave no room for doubt that such an understanding cannot be purchased at the expense of Germany’s renunciation of her vital interests or even by the sacrifice of claims based just as much on general human rights as on the national dignity and honor of our nation.

It was with satisfaction that the German Government learned from the written reply of the British government and the verbal declarations of the British Ambassador, that the British government for their part also prepared to improve Anglo-German relations and to develop and to foster these in the spirit of the German suggestions.

The British government are likewise convinced that the removal of the tension between Germany and Poland, which has become intolerable, is indispensable if this hope is to be realized.

Since the autumn of 1938 and for the last time in March 1939, verbal and written proposals have been submitted to the Polish Government, which in consideration of the friendship then existing between Germany and Poland, might have let to a settlement of the questions under dispute which would have been acceptable to both parties.

The British government are aware that the Polish government saw fit to reject these proposals finally in March of this year. At the same time the Polish government made their rejection a pretext or an occasion for the adoption of military measures which have since then been continued on an ever-increasing scale. Poland had, in fact, mobilized as early as the middle of the month.

In connection with the mobilization, numerous incidents took place in the Free City of Danzig at the instigation of the Polish authorities, and demands of a more or less threatening character amounting to an ultimatum were addressed to the Free city of Danzig. The closing of the frontier, which was at first in the nature of a custom measure, was afterwards carried out on military lines and was extended to affect traffic with the object of bringing about the political disintegration and the economic ruin of the German community.

Furthermore, the large group of Germans living in Poland was subjected to atrocious and barbarous ill treatment and to other forms of persecution which resulted in some cases in the death by violence of many Germans domiciled there or in their deportation under the most cruel circumstances.

Such a situation is intolerable for a Great Power and has now forced Germany after months of inactive observation to undertake the necessary steps for the protection of her rightful interests. The German Government can only most seriously assure the British Government that that state of affairs has now been reached for which continued acquiescence or even inactive observation is no longer possible.

The demands of the German government imply a revision of the Treaty of Versailles in this area, a fact which was recognized as necessary from the very outset; they constitute the return of Danzig and the Polish Corridor to Germany and the safeguarding of the German minorities domiciled in those territories remaining in Polish possession.

the Reich Government note with satisfaction that the British Government are also convinced on principle that some solution must be found for the state of affairs which has now developed. They further consider they may assume that the British Government entertain no doubt on the fact that this is a state of affairs which can no longer be remedied in a matter of days or even weeks but for which perhaps only a few hours yet remain. For in view of the disorganized state of Poland we must at any moment be prepared for the possibility of events occurring which Germany could not possibly tolerate.

If the British Government still believe that these grave differences can be solved by direct negotiations, the Reich Government on their part regret at the outset that they are unable to share such an opinion. They have already tried to open up a way for peaceful negotiations of this nature, without meeting with the support of the Polish government, and only seeing their efforts rejected by the abrupt initiation of measures of a military character in accordance with the general development indicated above.

There are two factors which the British Government consider important:

1.  to remove most speedily the imminent danger of a conflagration by means of direct negotiations, and

2.  to give the necessary economic and political safeguards by means of international guarantees for the future existence of the remaining Polish State.

Despite their skeptical judgment of the prospects of such direct negotiations, the Reich Government are nevertheless prepared to accept the English proposal, and to enter into direct discussions. They do so solely because — as already emphasized — the written communication from the British Government, which they have received, gives them the impression that the latter also desire a friendly agreement along the lines indicated to their Ambassador, Sir Nevile Henderson.

The German Government desire in this way to give to the British Government and to the British people a proof of the sincerity of the German intention of arriving at a state of permanent friendship with Great Britain.

The Reich Government nevertheless feel bound to point out to the British Government that in the case of a reorganization of the territorial condition in Poland, the Reich Government are no longer in a position to take upon themselves any guarantees, or to participate in any guarantees, without the cooperation of the U.S.S.R.

The Reich Government in their proposals moreover never had the intentions of attacking vital Polish interests or of questioning the existence of an independent Polish state. Under these conditions, the Reich Government therefore agree to accept the proposed intermediation of the British Government to send to Berlin a Polish representative invested with plenipotentiary powers. They expect his arrival on Wednesday, August 30, 1939.

The Reich Government will immediately draft the proposals for a solution acceptable to them and, if possible, will make such proposals also available for the British government before the Polish negotiator arrives.

____________________________________________________________

13.   Telephone Message from the German Charge d’Affairs in Warsaw to the German Foreign Office on August 30, 1939, at 5:30 p. m.

(Translation)

     Notices ordering a general mobilization have been posted in Poland for one hour. The first day of mobilization is August 31st; everybody in possession of a white mobilization card must report at once.

Documents 14 through 16 (of 26)

14.  Memorandum from the British Government handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the British Ambassador on August 30, 1939, at midnight.

1.   His Majesty’s Government appreciate the friendly reference in the declaration contained in the reply of the German Government to the latter’s desire for an Anglo-German understanding and to their statement of the influence which this consideration has exercised upon their policy.

2.   His Majesty’s Government repeat that they reciprocate the German government’s desire for an improvement in relations, but it will be recognized that they could not sacrifice the interests of friends in order to obtain that improvement. They fully understand that the German Government cannot sacrifice Germany’s vital interests, but the Polish government are in the same position, and His Majesty’s Government believe that the vital interests of the two countries are not incompatible.

3.   His Majesty’s government note that the German Government accept the British proposal and are prepared to enter into direct discussions with the Polish Government.

4.   His Majesty’s Government understand that the German government accept in principle the condition that any settlement should be made subject to an international guarantee. the question of who shall participate in this guarantee will have to be discussed further, and His Majesty’s Government hope that to avoid loss of time the German Government will take immediate steps to obtain the assent of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics whose participation in the guarantee His Majesty’s Government have always assumed.

5.   His Majesty’s Government also note that the German Government accept the position of the British government as to Poland’s vital interests and independence.

6.   His Majesty’s government must make an express reservation in regard to the statement of particular demands put forward by the German Government in an earlier passage in their reply. They understand that the German Government are drawing up proposals for a solution. No doubt these proposals will be fully examined during the discussions. It can then be determined how far they are compatible with the essential conditions which His Majesty’s Government have stated and which the German Government have expressed their willingness to accept.

7.   His Majesty’s government are at once informing the Polish Government of the German Government’s reply. The method of contact and the arrangements for discussions must obviously be agreed with all urgency between the German government and the Polish government, but in His Majesty’s Government’s view it would be impracticable to establish contact so early as today.

8.   His Majesty’s Government fully recognize the need for speed in the initiation of discussions and they share the apprehensions of the Chancellor arising from the proximity of two mobilized armies standing face to fact. They would accordingly most strongly urge that both parties should undertake that during negotiations no aggressive military movements will take place.

His Majesty’s Government feel confident that they could obtain such an undertaking from the Polish Government, if the German Government would give similar assurances.

9.     Further His Majesty’s Government would suggest that a temporary modus vivendi might be arranged for Danzig, which might prevent the occurrence of incidents tending to render German-Polish relations more difficult.

____________________________________________________

15.   Official German Statement published on August 31, 1939, at 9 p. m. containing the Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig and the Polish Corridor Problem, as well as of the question concerning the German and Polish Minorities.

(Translation)

     In a note dated August 28, 1939, addressed to the German government, the British Government declared themselves prepared to offer their services as intermediaries in arranging direct negotiations between Germany and Poland for the settlement of the problems under dispute. In this note they left no room for doubt that in view of the continued incidents and the general state of tension throughout Europe they also were aware of the urgency of such action.

In spite of their skepticism regarding the willingness of the Polish Government to reach any agreement, the German government, in a reply dated August 29, 1939, declared themselves prepared in the interests of peace to accept British intermediation or suggestions.

Taking into account all the circumstances prevailing at the moment they considered it necessary to point out in their reply that, if the danger of catastrophe is to be avoided at all, quick and immediate action is indispensable.

The German Government have therefore declared themselves willing to receive a delegate appointed by the Polish government by the evening of August 30, 1939, provided that this delegate should be invested with full power not only to take part in discussions but to negotiate and to take a final decision.

The German government have further expressed the hope that they would be able to submit to the British government the gist of the proposed agreement before the arrival of the Polish delegate in Berlin.

Instead of a declaration regarding the arrival of an authorized Polish representative the German government, in reply to their readiness to negotiate, received firstly the news of the Polish mobilization, and it was only towards midnight on August 30, 1939, that they received the assurance by Britain, couched in more general terms, that she would use her influence to arrange for the opening of negotiations.

Owing to the non-arrival of the Polish delegate who was expected by the Reich Government, the primary condition for informing the British Government, who had themselves recommended direct negotiations between Germany and Poland, of the standpoint taken by the Reich as to the basis for such negotiations, no longer existed.

Nevertheless, Herr von Ribbentrop, the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, acquainted the British Ambassador, when the latter handed over the last British note, with the exact wording of the German proposals as prepared for the expected arrival of the Polish plenipotentiary.

Under these circumstances the German Government considered that they had every right to expect that, at least subsequently to this, the nomination of a Polish delegate would immediately take place. It was clearly too much to expect of the German Government that they should continue not only to reiterate their willingness to enter upon such negotiations, but even to sit and wait and allow themselves to be put off by the Polish side with feeble subterfuges and empty declarations.

In the meantime a demarche by the Polish Ambassador has again shown that not even he is authorized to enter upon any discussion whatsoever, much less to negotiate.

Thus the Fuhrer and the German Government have now waited for two days in vain for the arrival of an authorized Polish delegate.

Under these circumstances the German Government cannot but regard their proposals as having been once more virtually rejected, although they are of the opinion that in the form in which they were also communicated to the British Government, they were formulated in a spirit of more than goodwill and fairness ann could have been accepted.

The Government of the Reich consider it appropriate to inform the public of the proposed basis for negotiation as communicated to the British Ambassador by Herr von Ribbentrop, the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs.

______________________________________________

Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig and the Polish Corridor Problem as well as of the question concerning the German and Polish Minorities.

The situation between the German Reich and Poland is at the present time such that any further incident may lead to an outbreak of hostilities between the military forces of the two countries, which have already taken up their position on the respective side of the frontier.

Any peaceful solution of the problem must be of such a nature that the events which originally brought about this state of affairs cannot be repeated on the next occasion thus causing a state of tension not only in Eastern Europe but also elsewhere.

The causes of this development are to be found in

(1) the intolerable demarcation of the frontiers as dictated in the Treaty of Versailles.

(2.) the intolerable treatment of the minority in the territories cut off from the Reich.

In putting forward these proposals, the Reich government are attempting to find a final solution putting an end to the intolerable situation arising from the present demarcation of frontiers, securing to both parties their vital lines of communication, eliminating as far as possible the problem of the minorities and, in so far as this should prove impossible, rendering the fate of the minorities bearable by effectively guaranteeing their rights.

The Reich Government feel convinced that it is indispensable that economic and personal damage inflicted since 1918 should be investigated, and full compensation made therefore. Of course, the Reich Government regard this obligation as binding upon both parties.

The above considerations give rise to the following concrete proposals:

(1)   By reason of its purely German character and the unanimous will of its population, the Free City of Danzig shall be returned forthwith to the German Reich.

(2)  The territory known as the Polish Corridor, that is to say, the territory bounded by the Baltic Sea and a line running from Marienwerder to Graudenz, Kulm, Bromberg, (including these towns), and then in a westerly direction towards Schonlanke, shall itself decide whether it shall become part of the German Reich or remain with Poland.

(3)  For that purpose, a plebiscite shall be held in this territory. All Germans who were domiciled in this area on the first of January 1918 or who were born there on or before that day, also all Poles, Cassubians, etc. who were domiciled in this area on that day or who were born there on or before the above-mentioned date, shall be entitled to vote. Germans who have been expelled from this territory shall return for the purpose of registering their votes.

In order to ensure an impartial plebiscite and to guarantee that the necessary and extensive preparations for the plebiscite shall be carried out correctly, an International Commission like the one formed in connection with the Saar plebiscite, and consisting of members appointed by the four Great Powers, Italy, the U.S.S.R., France and Great Britain, shall be formed immediately, and placed in charge of this territory.

This commission shall exercise sovereign rights throughout the territory. To that end, the territory shall be evacuated by the Polish military forces, by the Polish police and by the Polish authorities within the shortest possible time to be agreed upon.

(4)  The Polish port of Gdynia to the extent of the Polish settlement is not included in this area but, as a matter of principle, is recognized as Polish territory.

The details of the boundaries of this Polish port shall be decided on by Germany and Poland, and if necessary established by an International Court of Arbitration.

(5)  In order to allow for ample time for the necessary and extensive preparations for the carrying out of an impartial plebiscite this plebiscite shall not take place before a period of twelve months has elapsed.

(6)  In order that during that period, Germany’s lines of communication with East Prussia and Poland’s access to the sea may be unrestrictedly ensured, certain roads and railway lines shall be determined in order to facilitate unobstructed transit. In this connection only such taxes may be levied as are necessary for the upkeep of the lines of communication and for the carrying out of transport.

(7)  The allocation of this territory shall be decided on by the absolute majority of the votes cast.

(8)  In order to secure, after the plebiscite (irrespective of the result thereof), Germany’s unrestricted communication with the province of Danzig — East Prussia, and Poland’s access to the sea, Germany shall, should the territory be returned to Poland as a result of the plebiscite, be given an exterritorial traffic zone running, from say, Butow to Danzig or Dirschau, for the purpose of building a Reich Motor Road (Reichsautobahn) and also a four-track railway line.

The construction of the motor road and of the railway shall be carried out in such a manner that Polish lines of communication are not affected thereby, i.e. they are to be overbridged or underbridged. This zone shall be one kilometer in width and shall be German territory.

Should the result of the plebiscite be in favor of Germany, Poland shall have the same rights as Germany would have had, to build an exterritorial road and railway connection in order to secure her free and unrestricted access to her port of Gdynia.

(9)  In the event of the Polish Corridor being returned to the Reich, the latter declares herself prepared to arrange with Poland for an exchange of population to the extent to which this could be carried out according to the conditions in the Corridor.

(10)  Any special rights claimed by Poland within the port of Danzig shall, on the basis of parity, be negotiated in exchange of equal rights for Germany at the Port of Gdynia.

(11)  In order to avoid any sense of menace or danger on either side, Danzig and Gdynia henceforth shall have a purely commercial character, i.e. neither of these places shall be provided with means of military defence or fortifications.

(12)  The Peninsula of Hela which according to the result of the plebiscite would be allocated either to Poland or to Germany, shall also be demilitarized in any case.

(13)  The Reich Government having most serious complaints to make about the treatment of the minority by the Poles, the Polish Government on the other hand considering themselves entitled to raise complaints against Germany, both parties agree to submit these complaints to an International Commission of Investigation charged to investigate into all complaints and economic and personal damage, as well as other acts of terrorism.

Germany and Poland bind themselves to indemnify the minorities on either side for any economic damages and other wrongs inflicted upon them since 1918; and or to revoke all expropriations or otherwise to completely indemnify the respective person or persons for these and other encroachments upon economic life.

(14)  In order to free the Germans remaining in Poland, as well as the Poles remaining in Germany, from the feeling of being deprived of the benefits of International Law, and above all to afford them the certainty of their not being made to take part in actions and in furnishing services of a kind not compatible with their national convictions, Germany and Poland mutually agree to safeguard the rights of their respective minorities by most comprehensive and binding agreements for the purpose of warranting these minorities the preservation, free development and cultivation of their national customs, habits and traditions, to grant them in particular and for that purpose the form of organization considered necessary by them. Both parties undertake not to draft the members of the minority into military service.

(15)  In case of an agreement on the basis of these proposals being reached, Germany and Poland declare themselves prepared immediately to order and carry through the demobilization of their respective armed forces.

(16)  Any additional measures required to hasten the carrying through of the above agreement shall be mutually agreed upon between Germany and Poland.

___________________________________________________

16.   Announcement made by the Polish Broadcasting Station at Warsaw on August 31, 1939, at 11 p. m.

(Translation)

     the publication today of the official German communique has clearly revealed the aims and intentions of German policy. It proves the undisguised aggressive intentions of Germany towards Poland. The conditions under which the Third Empire is prepared to negotiate with Poland are:

Danzig must immediately return to the Reich.

Pomorze together with the cities of Bromberg and Graudenz are to be subjected to a plebiscite, for which all Germans who left that territory for any reason whatsoever since the year 1918 may return.

The Polish military forces and the police force shall be evacuated from Pomorze.

The police force of England, France, Italy and the U.S.S.R. will be placed in charge of the territory. The plebiscite is to take place after twelve months have elapsed.

The territory of the Hela Peninsula will also be included in the plebiscite, Gdynia as a Polish town is excluded. Irrespective of the result of the plebiscite an exterritorial road one kilometer wide is to be constructed.

The German News Agency announces that the time allowed for the acceptance of these conditions expired yesterday. Germany has waited in vain for a Polish delegate. The answer given was the military orders issued by the Polish Government.

Words can now no longer veil the aggressive plans of the new Huns. Germany is aiming at the domination of Europe and is cancelling the rights of nations with as yet unprecedented cynicism. This impudent proposal shows clearly how necessary were the military orders given by the Polish Government.

17.  Speech delivered by the Fuhrer before the Reichstag on September 1, 1939. [Poland fired the first shots knowing that France and England would jump to their defense.]

(Translation)

Members of the German Reichstag:

For months we have been tormented by a problem once set us by the dictated Treaty of Versailles and which has now assumed such a character as to become utterly intolerable.

Danzig was and is a German city!

The Corridor was and is German!

     All these districts owe their cultural development exclusively to the German people, without whom absolute barbarism would prevail in these eastern tracts of country.

Danzig was separated from us! The Corridor was annexed by Poland! The German minorities living there were ill-treated in the most appalling manner! More than a million persons with German blood in their veins were compelled to leave their homes as early as 1919-1920.

Here, as always, I have attempted to change this intolerable condition of things by means of peaceful proposals for a revision. It is a lie when the world alleges that we always used pressure in attempting to carry out any revision.

There was ample opportunity for fifteen years before National Socialism assumed power to carry through revisions by means of a peaceful understanding. This was not done!

I myself then took the initiative in every single case, not only once, but many times, to bring forward proposals for the revision of absolutely intolerable conditions.

As you know, all these proposals have been rejected. I need not enumerate them in detail: those proposals for a limitation of armaments, if necessary even for the abolition of armaments, those for restrictions on methods of warfare, those for eliminating methods of modern warfare, which, in my opinion, are scarcely compatible with International Law.

You know the proposals which I made as to the necessity of restoring German sovereign rights in certain territories of the Reich, those countless attempts I made to bring about a peaceful solution of the Austrian problem, and later on that of the Sudetenland, Bohemia and Moravia. It was all in vain!

One thing, however, is impossible: to demand that a peaceful revision should be made of an intolerable state of affairs — and then obstinately refuse such a peaceful revision.

And it is just as impossible to assert that in such a situation to act on one’s own initiative in making a revision is to violate a law. For us Germans the dictated Treaty of Versailles is not a law!

It won’t do to blackmail a person at the point of a pistol with the treat of starvation for millions of people into signing a document and afterwards proclaim that this document with its forced signature was a solemn law!

In the case of Danzig and the Corridor, I have again tried to solve the problems by means of peaceful proposals suggesting a discussion. One thing was obvious: they had to be solved!

That the date of this solution may perhaps be of little interest to the Western Powers is conceivable. But this date is not a matter of indifference to us. First and foremost, however, it was not and could not be a matter of indifference to the suffering victims.

In conversation with Polish statesmen, I have discussed the ideas which you have heard me express here in my last speech to the Reichstag. No one can maintain that this was an unjust procedure or even unreasonable pressure.

I then had the German proposals clearly formulated and I feel bound to repeat once more that nothing could be fairer or more modest than those proposals submitted by me.

And I now wish to declare to the whole world that I, and I alone, was in a position to make such proposals. for I know quite definitely that I was thereby acting contrary to the opinion of millions of Germans. Those proposals were rejected!

But more that that! They were replied to by mobilization, increased terrorism, intensified pressure on the German minorities in those areas and by a gradual economic and political strangulation of the Free City of Danzig which, during the past few weeks, found its expression in military measures and traffic restrictions.

Poland virtually began a war against the Free City of Danzig. Furthermore, she was not prepared to settle the problem of the Corridor in a fair manner satisfying the interests of both parties.

And lastly, Poland has never thought of fulfilling her obligations with regard to the minorities.

In this connection I feel it necessary to state that Germany has fulfilled her obligations in this respect! Minorities domiciled in Germany are not subject to persecution. Let any Frenchman get up and declare that French citizens living in the Saar territory are oppressed, ill-treated or deprived of their rights! No one can make such an assertion!

For four months I have watched these developments without taking action but not without issuing repeated warnings. Recently I have made these warnings more and more emphatic. Over three weeks ago the Polish Ambassador was, at my request, informed that: if Poland persisted in sending further notes in the nature of an ultimatum to Danzig and in further oppressing the German minorities, or if attempts were made to bring about the economic ruin of Danzig by means of customs restrictions, Germany would no longer stand aside and remain inactive.

I have left no room for doubt that in this respect the Germany of today is not to be confused with post-war Germany.

Attempts have been made to justify the action against the German minorities by declaring that they had given provocation. I am at a loss to know what “provocation” those women and children are supposed to have given who have been ell-treated and deported or what was the nature of the provocation given by all those who were tortured in the most inhuman and sadistic way before they were finally put to death.

One thing I know however: there is not one single Great Power possessed of a feeling of honor, which would countenance such conditions for any length of time! In spite of all I have made one last attempt.

Although possessed of the innermost conviction that the Polish Government — perhaps also owing to their dependence on a now unchained wild soldiery — are not in earnest as regards a real understanding. I have nevertheless accepted a proposal of mediation submitted by the British government. The latter proposed not to carry on any negotiations themselves, they assured me however of their establishing a direct connection between Poland and Germany for the purpose of thus facilitating once more direct discussions.

I must here state the following: I have accepted that proposal. for these discussions I had drawn up the fundamentals which are known to you. And then I an my Government have sat expectantly for two whole days in order to find out whether the Polish Government saw fit finally to dispatch an authorized representative or not!

Up to last night the Polish Government did not dispatch an authorized representative, but informed us by their ambassador that at present they were considering the question whether and to what extent they might be able to accept the English proposals; of the result they would inform England.

Gentlemen, if such an impertinence could be offered to the German Reich and its ruler, and if the German Reich and its ruler were to tolerate such treatment, the German Nation would not deserve a better fate than to vanish from the political arena.

My love of peace and my endless patience should not be confounded with weakness or even cowardice! Last night I informed the British government that under these conditions I found it impossible to detect any inclination on the part of the Polish government to enter into a really earnest discussion with us.

Thus these proposals of mediation were frustrated, because in the meantime the answer to these offers of mediation had been, first, the order for Polish general mobilization, and second, additional serious outrages. Repetitions of the latter incidents occurred last night. while only recently during one single night twenty-one frontier incidents occurred, last night there were fourteen, three of them of a most serious character.

For that reason, I now have decided to address Poland in exactly the same language applied by Poland to us in recent months.

Now if there are statesmen in the West who declare that their interests are involved, I can only regret such a statement, their opinion, however, cannot for one single minute persuade me to deviate from the execution of my duties. I have solemnly declared and repeat once more that we have no claims at all on these Western States, and shall never demand anything from them. I have declared that the frontier between Germany and France is final. I have repeatedly offered England our friendship, and if necessary closest cooperation.

Love, however, is not a one-sided affair, but must be responded to by the other side. Germany has no interests in the West, our fortifications in the West (Westvail) are for all times to come the frontier of the Reich. We have no other aims in the future, and this attitude of the Reich will remain unchanged.

Some of the other European States understand our attitude. First of all I would thank Italy for having supported us all this time. You will also understand that in connection with this struggle we do not want to make an appeal for any foreign help. This task of ours we shall solve ourselves.

The neutral states have assured us of their neutrality exactly as we previously have guaranteed their neutrality. This assurance we consider a sacred obligation, and as long as nobody infringes upon their neutrality, we too shall painstakingly abide by it. Because, what could we expect or desire from them?

I feel very much gratified at being able to hereby inform you of an event of special importance. You are aware that Russia and Germany are governed by two different doctrines There was only one single question to be cleared: Germany has no intention of exporting her doctrine, and as long as soviet Russia does not intend exporting her own doctrine to Germany, I do not see any longer any reason for our being opponents again.

Both of us are agreed on that point. Any struggle between us would only result in the benefit of others. We have therefore resolved to enter into an agreement which will exclude any application of force between us in the future, which obligates us to consult with each other in certain European questions and facilitates economic collaboration, and above all warrants that the energies of these two great states are not mutually consumed.

Any attempt on the part of the Western States, aiming at a change of the existing facts will prove futile, and in that connection I would like to state one thing: this political decision signifies an enormous change regarding the future, and is absolutely final!

I believe that the whole German people will approve of this political attitude! In the World War, Russia and Germany fought against each other and were the ultimate sufferers. That shall and will never happen again! Yesterday, the Non-Aggression and consultation Pact, which came into force the day it was signed, was ratified in Moscow and in Berlin. In Moscow the Pact was acclaimed with the same satisfaction as in Berlin.

I approve of every word in the speech made by M. Molotov, the Russian Commissar for Foreign Affairs.

Our aims: I am determined to solve: firstly, the Danzig question, secondly, the corridor question, thirdly, to see to it that a change takes place in Germany’s relations to Poland, which will ensure a peaceful co-existence of the two States.

I am determined to fight until either the present Polish government is disposed to effect this change or until another Polish Government is prepared to do so.

I will eliminate from the German frontiers that element of insecurity, that atmosphere which permanently resembles that of civil war.

I will see to it that on the eastern frontier the same peaceful conditions prevail as on the other frontiers. I will at the same time act in such a way as not to contradict what I announced to you, Gentlemen, in the Reichstag as my proposals to the world. That is, I will not wage war against women and children! I have instructed my air force to limit their attacks to military objects. but should the enemy think this leaves him free to fight in the opposite way, then he will get an answer which will drive him out of his senses!

In the night Polish soldiers of the regular Army fired the first shots in our own territory. Since 5:45 a. m. we have been returning their fire. And from now onwards a bomb will be answered by a bomb!

who fights with poison will be fought with poison. Who disregards the rules of human warfare can only expect us to take the same steps.

I will carry on this fight, no matter against whom, until the safety of the Reich and its rights are secured!

For more than six years now I have been at work in building up the German armed forces. during this period more than ninety billions have been expended in creating our armed forces. Today, they are the best equipped in the world and are far superior to those of 1914!

My confidence in them can never be shaken!

When I called up these forces, and when I now expect the German people to make sacrifices, if necessary every sacrifice, I have the right to do so; for I myself am just as ready today as I was in the past to make every personal sacrifice.

There is nothing I demand of any German which I myself was not prepared to do at any moment for four long years.

There shall not be any deprivations for Germans in which I myself shall not immediately share!

From this moment my whole life shall belong more than ever to my people. I now want to be nothing but the first soldier of the German Reich.

Therefore, I have once again put on that uniform which was always so sacred and dear to me. I shall not take it off until after the victory — or I shall not live to see the end.

Should anything happen to me in this fight, my first successor shall be Party Member Goering. Should anything happen to Party Member Goering, his successor shall be Party Member Hess. To these men as your leaders you would then owe the same absolute loyalty and obedience as you owe me!

In the event that something fatal should happen to Party Member Hess, I now have made legal provisions for the convocation of the Senate, which shall then elect the worthiest, that is to say the most valiant among them.

As a National socialist and a German soldier I enter into this fight with a strong heart! My whole life was but one continued struggle for my people, for its rebirth, and for Germany, and above all that struggle there stood one single conviction: The Faith in that People!

One word I have never known: Capitulation.

If, however, there should be anyone thinking that we are at the brink of hard times, I urge him to consider the fact that at one time a Prussian King ruling over a ridiculously small state confronted one of the greatest coalitions, yet ultimately defeated it in three campaigns, simply because he was possessed of that certain undaunted spirit and believing heart also required of us in these times.

The contemporaneous world I would assure however that in the future course of German history a November 1918 will never occur again.

In the same measure in which I myself am prepared to sacrifice my life for my people and for Germany, I demand the same of every other person.

But whosoever believes that he can resist this national decree, be it directly or indirectly, will find himself vastly mistaken.

We will not tolerate traitors.

We thus act in accordance with our old principle, namely, that it is of no importance whether we go on living, but it is vital that our nation and that German should live.

I expect of you, as the emissaries of the Reich, that you will do your duty in whatever position you are called upon to fill.

You must be the standard-bearers of resistance, cost it what it may. Let no one report to me that in his province, his district, his group or his unit the morale is bad. It is you who are responsible for the moral. I am responsible for public feeling throughout Germany and you are responsible for public feeling in your provinces and districts.

No one has the right to refuse this responsibility The sacrifice that is demanded of us is not greater than the sacrifice which has been demanded of many past generations. All those men who have, before us, trod the path of bitter and difficult duty for Germany’s sake did nothing more than we are called upon to do, the sacrifice they made was neither lighter, less painful nor easier than the sacrifice that is demanded of us.

I expect every German woman to join up in strict discipline and do her duty in this great community of combatants.

German youth, needless to say, will fulfill heart and soul what is expected and demanded of them by the nation and by the National-Socialist State.

If we form this community, fused together, ready for anything, determined never to capitulate, our firm resolve will master every need.

I conclude with the words with which I once started my fight for power in the Reich. At that time I said:

“If our will is so strong that no emergency can break it, then our will and our good German sword will master and overthrow need and distress.”

Germany — Sieg Heil!

Documents 18 through 26 (final)

_______________________________________________

18.  Note handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the British Ambassador on September 1, 1939, at 9:30 p. m.

Berlin, September 1, 1939.

Your Excellency:

On the instructions of His Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs I have the honor to make the following communication.

Early this morning the German Chancellor issued a proclamation to the German Army which indicated clearly that he was about to attack Poland.

Information which has reached His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the French Government indicates that German troops have crossed the Polish frontier and that attacks on Polish towns are proceeding.

In these circumstances it appears to the Governments of the United Kingdom and France that by their action the German Government have created conditions (viz. and aggressive act of force against Poland threatening the independence of Poland) which calls for the implementation by the Governments of the United Kingdom and France of the undertaking to Poland to come to her assistance.

I am accordingly to inform Your excellency that unless the German government are prepared to give His Majesty’s Government satisfactory assurances that the German Government have suspended all aggressive action against Poland and are prepared promptly to withdraw their forces from Polish territory, His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom will without hesitation fulfill their obligations to Poland.

I avail myself of this opportunity re renew to your Excellency the assurance of my highest consideration.

(Signed): NEVILE HENDERSON

_______________________________________________________

19.  Note handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the French Ambassador on September 1, 1939, at 10 p. m.

(Translation)

Berlin, September 1, 1939

Your Excellency:

On the instructions of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs I have the honor to make the following communication.

Early this morning the German Chancellor issued a proclamation to the German Army which indicated clearly that he was about to attack Poland.

Information which has reached the French Government and His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom indicates that German troops have crossed the Polish Frontier and that attacks on Polish towns are proceeding

In these circumstances it appears to the Governments of France and the United Kingdom that by their action the German Government have created conditions (viz. and aggressive act of force against Poland threatening the independence of Poland) which calls for the implementation by the Governments of France and the United Kingdom of the undertaking to Poland to come to her assistance.

I am accordingly to inform Your excellency that unless the German government are prepared to give His Majesty’s Government satisfactory assurances that the German Government have suspended all aggressive action against Poland and are prepared promptly to withdraw their forces from Polish territory, the French government will without hesitation fulfill their obligation to Poland.

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to your Excellency the assurance of my highest consideration.

(Signed): COULONDRE

__________________________________________

20.  Communication handed to the German Foreign Office by the Italian Ambassador on the morning of September 2, 1939.

(Translation)

     For your information Italy communicates to you, naturally leaving every decision to the Fuhrer, that she is still in a position to obtain the consent of France, England and Poland to a conference on the following basis:

1.  An armistice leaving the armies where they now are;

2.  The calling of a conference within two or three days;

3.  A solution of the Polish-German conflict, which, as matters lie today, would certainly be favorable to Germany.

This idea, which originated with the Duce, is today particularly advocated by France.

 ______________________________________________

21.  Information from the Havas News Agency on September 2, 1939

(Translation)

     The French government as well as several other Governments have been informed of an Italian proposal for a settlement of the European difficulties. After discussing the proposal the French Government gave a reply in the affirmative.

___________________________________________________

22.  Extract from a Declaration made by the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the House of Lords on the afternoon of September 2, 1939*

“. . . . Up to the present no reply has been received to the warning message delivered to Germany last night.

It was possible that delay had been due to proposals put forward by the Italian Government that hostilities should cease and that there would be immediately a conference between Great Britain, France, Poland, Germany and Italy.

The British Government would not find it possible to take part in a conference when Poland was being subjected to invasion and her towns were under bombardment and Danzig had been made the subject of unilateral settlement by force. . .”

*) According to the wording appearing in “The Observer” of September 3, 1939. A similar declaration was made at the same time by the British Prime Minister in the House of Commons.

__________________________________________________

23.  Note handed to the German Foreign Office by the British Ambassador on September 3, 1939, at 9. a.m.

September 3, 1939.

Your Excellency:

In the communication which I had the honor to make to you on September 1st I informed you on the instructions of His Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that, unless the German Government were prepared to give His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom satisfactory assurances that the German Government had suspended all aggressive action against Poland and were prepared promptly to withdraw their forces from Polish territory, His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom would without hesitation fulfill their obligations to Poland.

Although this communication was made more than twenty-four hours ago, no reply has been received, but German attacks upon Poland have been continued and intensified.

I have accordingly the honor to inform you that unless not later than 11 a.m. British Summer Time today, September 3rd, satisfactory assurance to the above effect has been given by the German Government and has reached His Majesty’s Government in London, a state of war will exist between the two countries as from that hour.

I avail myself of this opportunity. . . .

(Signed) NEVILE HENDERSON

_____________________________________________

24.  Note from the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs handed to the German Charge d’Affairs in London on September 3, 1939, at 11:15 s.m.

September 3, 1939.

Sir:

On September 1st H.M. Ambassador in Berlin acting upon my instructions informed the same Government that unless they were prepared to give H.M. Government in the United Kingdom satisfactory assurances that the German Government have suspended all aggressive actions against Poland and were prepared promptly to withdraw their forces from Polish territory, H. M. Government in the United Kingdom would without hesitation fulfill their obligations to Poland.

At 9 a.m. this morning H. M. Ambassador in Berlin acting upon my instructions informed the German Government that unless not later than 11 a.m. British summer time, today, September 3rd, satisfactory assurance to the above effect has been given by the German Government and has reached H. M. Government in London a state of war would exist between the two countries as from that hour.

No such assurances having been received I have the honor to inform you that a state of war exists between the two countries as from 11 a. m. today, September 3rd.

I have the honor. . . .

(Signed) HALIFAX

__________________________________________

25.  Memorandum from the German Government handed to the British Ambassador by the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, September 3, 1939, at 11:30 a.m.

(Translation)

     The Reich government acknowledges receipt of the British Government’s ultimatum of september 3, 1939, to which the Reich Government has the honor to reply as follows:

1)   The Reich Government and the German people refuse to be handed, to accept, and still less, to comply with demands amounting to an ultimatum made by the British Government.

2)   For many months past, a state of war has actually prevailed along our eastern border. Every since the Treaty of Versailles rent Germany in two, all subsequent German Governments were denied any peaceful Settlement.

Since 1933, the National socialist Government have also tried again and again by way of peaceful negotiations to do away with the worst oppression and violations of law perpetrated by that treaty.

Primarily it has been the British Government who, by their intransigent attitude, have frustrated any practical revision. Had it not been for the interference on the part of the British Government, a reasonable solution, doing justice to either party, would undoubtedly have been arrive at between Germany and Poland, a fact which the Reich Government and the German people are convinced of.

For Germany had no intention of destroying Poland, nor did she ever demand Poland’s destruction. All that the Reich demanded was the revision of those articles in the Treaty of Versailles which sensible statesmen of all nations, already when the treaty was drawn up, termed unbearable for any length of time — unbearable both for a great nation and for the entire political and economic interest of Eastern Europe, and therefore impossible.

Even British statesmen declared specifically that the terms which Germany was forced to accept in the East held the seed of future wars. To go away with this danger has been the desire of every German Government, and in particular the aim of the New National Socialist Government of the German people.

The policy of the British Cabinet is to blame for the fact that a peaceful revision has not been reached.

3)   The British government — an unprecedented occurrence in history — has given Poland full power with regard to any action against Germany which she might intend to undertake.

The British Government gave the Polish Government the assurance of their military support in any circumstance, in case Germany should commence hostilities in reply to any provocation or attack.

Thereupon Polish acts of terror against Germans domiciled in the districts torn from Germany immediately assumed intolerable proportions. The treatment to which the Free City of Danzig was subjected was in contravention to all legal provision; it was first threatened with economic ruin and submitted to customs restrictions, and finally encircled by military forces and throttled by transport restriction.

Every one of these infringements of the Danzig Statute was fully known to, and approved by, the British Government, and backed by the blank cheque given to Poland.

The German Government, although greatly distressed by the sufferings of the German minority subjected to atrocities and inhuman treatment by the Poles, nevertheless looked on in patience for five months without once undertaking even the slightest aggressive action of a similar nature against Poland.

Germany merely warned Poland that these actions would not be tolerated in the long run and that she was determined, in the event of no other help forthcoming for the population concerned, to take the matter in hand herself.

The British Government was fully aware of all that was going on. It would have been an easy matter for them to use their great influence in Warsaw to exhort those in authority to conform to the laws of justice and humanity, and to fulfill their existing obligations.

The British Government did not see fit to do anything of the kind. On the contrary, by constantly stressing the fact of their duty to assist Poland under all circumstances, they clearly encouraged Poland to continue in her criminal attitude which still might have saved the peace of Europe, although the Reich Government had expressed their readiness to accept such proposal.

The British Government are thus responsible for all the misery and suffering that has overtaken now, or is about to overtake, so many peoples.

4)   Now that all attempts to find and settle on a peaceful solution have been frustrated owing to the intransigent attitude of the Polish Government as shielded by Great Britain; now that for many months already conditions similar to civil war on the eastern frontiers of the Reich have gradually — without any objection on the part of the British Government — assumed the character of open attacks on Reich territory, the Reich Government have decided to put an end to the continued menace, at first from outside, but later also at home, against the peace of the German nation, a situation no Great Power can be expected to bear with.

In order to defend the peace, the security and the honor of the German Reich, the Reich Government have decided to resort to the only means now left to them, since the Governments of the Democracies have wantonly frustrated all other possibilities of revision.

They have replied to the last Polish attacks threatening Reich territory with similar measures. The Reich Government is not willing, on account of any British intentions or obligations, to tolerate in the East of the Reich conditions similar to those prevailing in the British Protectorate of Palestine.

The German people, however, is certainly not willing to submit to ill-treatment by Poland.

5)  the Reich government therefore reject any attempt to force Germany, by an ultimative demand, to withdraw her troops, called up for the purpose of protecting the Reich, and thus to put up once more with the former unrest and injustice. The treat that war would otherwise be waged against Germany coincides with the intentions, for many years proclaimed, of numerous British politicians.

Innumerable times the Reich Government and the German people have assured the British people of their desire for an understanding and even close friendship with them. If the British Government have hitherto rejected these offers and now reply to them with n open threat of war, the responsibility for this lies not with the German nation and its Government, but exclusively with the British Cabinet, especially with those men who for years have preached the destruction and extermination of the German people.

The German people and the German Government do not intend, as does Great Britain, to rule the world, but they are determined to defend their own freedom, their independence and very life.

We take note of the intentions made known to us by Mr. King Hall on behalf of the British government, to deal the German nation a still more crushing blow than did the Treaty of Versailles and shall therefore reply to any act of aggression on the part of Great Britain with the same weapons and in the same way.

Berlin, September 3, 1939.

_______________________________________________

26.  Note handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the French Ambassador on September 3, 1939, at 12:20 p.m.

(Translation)

Berlin, September 3, 1939.

Your Excellency:

As I received no satisfactory reply from the Reich Government at noon on September 3rd to the Note which I handed to you on September 1st at 10 p.m. I have the honor of making the following communication to you on behalf of my Government:

The Government of the French Republic consider it their duty to remind you for the last time of the grave responsibility which the Reich Government incurred when they opened hostilities against Poland without a declaration of war and did not adopt the proposal of the Government of the French Republic and that of His Britanic Majesty to desist from every aggressive action against Poland and to declare themselves ready immediately to withdraw their troops from Polish territory.

The Government of the Republic therefore have the honor of informing the Reich Government that they are themselves in duty bound to fulfill the contractual obligations, from today, September 3rd, 5 p.m. onwards, which they have entered into with Poland and with which the German Government are acquainted.

Permit me . . . .

 

Read Full Post »

By ADRIAN SALBUCHI

In the US, we see untold millions suffering from the impact of mass foreclosures and unemployment; in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy, stringent austerity measures are imposed upon the whole population; all coupled with major banking collapses in Iceland, the UK and the US, and indecent bail-outs of “too-big-to-fail” bankers (Newspeak for too powerful to fail).

No doubt, the bulk of the responsibility for these debacles falls squarely on the shoulders of caretaker governments in these countries that are subordinated to Money Power interests and objectives. In country after country, that comes together with embedded corruption, particularly evident today in the UK, Italy and the US.

As we assess some of the key components of today’s Global Financial, Currency and Banking Model in this article, readers will hopefully get a better understanding as to why we are all in such a crisis, and that it will tend to get much worse in the months and years to come.

Foundations of a Failed and False Model

Hiding behind the mask of false “laws” allegedly governing “globalised markets and economies,” this Financial Model has allowed a small group of people to amass and wield huge and overwhelming power over markets, corporations, industries, governments and the global media. The irresponsible and criminal consequences of their actions are now clear for all to see.

The “Model” we will briefly describe, falls within the framework of a much vaster Global Power System that is grossly unjust and was conceived and designed from the lofty heights of private geopolitical and geo-economic1 planning centres that function to promote the Global Power Elite’s agenda as they prepare their “New World Order” – again, Newspeak for a Coming World Government.2

Specifically, we are talking about key think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, and other similar entities such as the Cato Institute (Monetary Issues), American Enterprise Institute and the Project for a New American Century that conform an intricate, solid, tight and very powerful network, engineering and managing New World Order interests, goals and objectives.

Writing from the stance of an Argentine citizen, I admit we have some “advantages” over the citizens of industrialised countries as the US, UK, European Union, Japan or Australia, in that over the last few decades we have had direct experience of successive catastrophic national crises emanating from inflation, hyper-inflation, systemic banking collapse, currency revamps, sovereign debt bond mega-swaps, military coups and lost wars…

Finance vs the Economy

The Financial system (i.e., a basically unreal Virtual, symbolic and parasitic world), increasingly functions in a direction that is contrary to the interest of the Real Economy (i.e., the Real and concrete world of work, production, manufacturing, creativity, toil, effort and sacrifice done by real people). Over the past decades, Finance and the Economy have gone their totally separate and antagonistic ways, and no longer function in a healthy and balanced relationship that prioritises the Common Good of We the People. This huge conflict between the two can be seen, amongst other places, in today’s Financial and Economic System, whose main support lies in the Debt Paradigm, i.e., that nothing can be done unless you first have credit, financing and loans to do it. Thus, the Real Economy becomes dependent on and distorted by the objectives, interests and fluctuations of Virtual Finance.3

Debt-Based System

The Real Economy should be financed with genuine funds; however with time, the Global Banking Elite succeeded in getting one Sovereign Nation-State after another to give up its inalienable function of supplying the correct quantity of National Currency as the primary financial instrument to finance the Real Economy. That requires decided action through Policies centred on promoting the Common Good of We The People in each country, and securing the National Interest against the perils posed by internal and external adversaries.

Thus, we can better understand why the financial “law” that requires central banks to always be totally “independent” of Government and the State has become a veritable dogma. This is just another way of ensuring that central banking should always be fully subordinated to the interests of the private banking over-world – both locally in each country, as well as globally.

We find this to prevail in all countries: Argentina, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, the European Union and in just about every other country that adopts so-called “Western” financial practice. Perhaps the best (or rather, the worst) example of this is the United States where the Federal Reserve System is a privately controlled institution outright, with around 97% of its shares being owned by the member banks themselves (admittedly, it does have a very special stock scheme), even though the bankers running “Fed” do everything they can to make it appear as if it is a “public” entity operated by Government, something that it is definitely not.

One of the Global Banking Over-world’s permanent goals is – and has been – to maintain full control over all central banks in just about every country, in order to be able to control their public currencies.4 This, in turn, allows them to impose a fundamental (for them) condition whereby there is never the right quantity of public currency to satisfy the true demand and needs of the Real Economy. That is when those very same private banks that control central banking come on scene to “satisfy the demand for money” of the Real Economy by artificially generating private bank money out of nothing. They call it “credits and loans” and offer to supply it to the Real Economy, but with an “added value” (for them): (a) they will charge interest for them (often at usury levels) and, (b) they will create most of that private bank money out of thin air through the fractional lending system.

At a Geo-economic level, this has also served to generate huge and unnecessary public sovereign debts in country after country all over the world. Argentina is a good example, whose Caretaker Governments are systematically ignorant and unwilling to use one of the sovereign state’s key powers: the issuance of high power non-interest generating Public Money (see below for a more detailed definition). Instead, Argentina has allowed IMF (International Monetary Fund) so-called “recipes” that reflect the global banking cartel’s own interests to be imposed upon it in fundamental matters like what are the proper functions of its Central Bank, sovereign debt, fiscal policy, and other monetary, banking and financial mechanisms, that are thus systematically used against the Common Good of the Argentine People and against the National Interest of the country.

This system and its dreadful results, now and in the past, are so similar in so many other countries – Brazil, Mexico, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, UK, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Indonesia, Hungary, Russia, Ukraine… that it can only reflect a well thought-out and engineered plan, emanating from the highest planning echelons of the Global Power Elite.

Fractional Bank Lending

This banking concept is in use throughout the world’s financial markets, and allows private banks to generate “virtual” Money out of thin air (i.e., scriptural annotations and electronic entries into current and savings accounts, and a vast array of lines of credit), in a ratio that is 8, 10, 30, 50 times or more larger than the actual amount of cash (i.e., public money) held by the bank in its vaults. In exchange for lending this private “money” created out of nothing, bankers collect interest, demand collateral with intrinsic value and if the debtor defaults they can then foreclose on their property or other assets.

The ratio that exists between the amount of Dollars or Pesos in its vaults and the amount of credit private banks generate is determined by the central banking authority which fixes the fractional lending leverage level (which is why controlling the central bank is so vital strategically for private banker cartels). This leverage level is a statistical reserve based on actuarial calculations of the portion of account holders who in normal time go to their banks or ATM machines to withdraw their money in cash (i.e., in public money notes). The key factor here is that this works fine in “normal” times, however “normal” is basically a collective psychology concept intimately linked to what those account holders, and the population at large, perceive regarding the financial system in general and each bank in particular.

So, when for whatever reason, “abnormal” times hit – i.e., every time there are (subtly predictable) periodic crises, bank runs, collapses and panics, which seem to suddenly explode as happened in Argentina in 2001 and as is now happening in the US, UK, Ireland, Greece, Iceland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and a growing number of countries – we see all bank account holders running to their banks to try to get their money out in cash. That’s when they discover that there is not enough cash in their banks to pay, save for a small fraction of account holders (usually insiders “in the know” or “friends of the bankers”).

For the rest of us mortals “there is no more money left,” which means that they must resort to whatever public insurance scheme may or may not be in place (e.g., in the US, the state-owned Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that “insures” up to US$250,000 per account holder with taxpayer money). In countries like Argentina, however, there is no other option but to go out on the streets banging pots and pans against those ominous, solid and firmly closed bronze bank gates and doors. All thanks to the fraudulent fractional bank lending system.

Investment Banking

In the US, so called “Commercial Banks” are those that have large portfolios of checking, savings and fixed deposit accounts for people and companies (e.g., such main street names as CitiBank, Bank of America, JPMorganChase, etc.; in Argentina, we have Standard Bank, BBVA, Galicia, HSBC and others). Commercial Banks operate with fractional lending leverage levels that allow them to lend out “virtual” dollars or pesos for amounts equal to 6, 8 or 10 times the cash actually held in their vaults; these banks are usually more closely supervised by the local monetary authorities of the country.

A different story, however, we had in the US (and still have elsewhere) with so-called global “Investment Banks” (those that make the mega-loans to corporations, major clients and sovereign states), over which there is much less control, so that their leveraging fractional lending ratios are far, far higher. This greater flexibility is what allowed investment banks in the US to “make loans” by, for example, creating out of thin air 26 “virtual” Dollars for every real Dollar in cash they held in their vaults (i.e., Goldman Sachs), or 30 virtual Dollars (Morgan Stanley), or more than 60 virtual Dollars (Merrill Lynch until just before it folded on 15 Sept 2008), or more than 100 virtual Dollars in the cases of collapsed banks Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.5

Private Money vs Public Money

At this point in our review, it is essential to very clearly distinguish between two types of Money or Currency:

Private Money – This is “Virtual” Money created out of thin air by the private banking system. It generates interests on loans, which increases the amount of Private money in (electronic) circulation, and spreads and expands throughout the entire economy. We then perceive this as “inflation.” In actual fact, the main cause of inflation in the economy is structural to the interest-bearing fractional lending banking system, even among industrialised countries. The cause of inflation nowadays is not so much the excessive issuance of Public Money by Government as all so-called banking experts would have us believe but, rather, the combined effect of fractional lending and interest on private banking money.

Public Money – This is the only Real Money there is. It is the actual notes issued by the national currency entity holding a monopoly (i.e., the central bank or some such government agency) and, as Public Money, it does not generate interest, and should not be created by anyone other than the State. Anybody else doing this is a counterfeiter and should end up in jail because counterfeiting Public Money is equivalent to robbing the Real Economy (i.e., “we, the working people”) of their work, toil and production capabilities without contributing anything in return in terms of socially productive work. The same should apply to private bankers under the present fractional lending system: counterfeiting money (i.e., creating it out of thin air as a ledger entry or electronic blip on a computer screen) is equivalent to robbing the Real Economy of its work and production capacity without contributing any counter-value in terms of work.

Why We Have Financial Crises

A fundamental concept that lies at the very heart of the present Financial Model can be found in the way huge parasitic profits on the one hand, and catastrophic systemic losses on the other, are effectively transferred to specific sectors of the economy, throughout the entire system, beyond borders and public control.

As with all models, the one we suffer today has its own internal logic which, once properly understood, makes that model predictable. The people who designed it know full well that it is governed by grand cycles having specific expansion and contraction stages, and specific timelines. Thus, they can ensure that in bull market times of growth and gigantic profits (i.e., whilst the system, grows and grows, is relatively stable and generates tons of money out of nothing), all profits are privatised making them flow towards specific institutions, economic sectors, shareholders, speculators, CEO and top management & trader bonuses, “investors”, etc who operate the gears and maintain the whole system properly tuned and working.

However, they also know that – like all roller coaster rides – when you reach the very top, the system turns into a bear market that destabilises, spins out of control, contracts and irremediably collapses, as happened to Argentina in 2001 and to the better part of the world since 2008, then all losses are socialised by making Governments absorb them through the most varied transference mechanisms that dump these huge losses onto the population at large (whether in the form of generalised inflation, catastrophic hyperinflation, banking collapses, bail-outs, tax hikes, debt defaults, forced nationalisations, extreme austerity measures, etc).

The Four-sided Global “Ponzi” Pyramid Scheme

As we know, all good pyramids have four sides, and since the Global Financial System is based on a “Ponzi” Pyramid Scheme, there’s no reason why this particular pyramid should not have four sides as well.

Below is a summary of the Four-side Global “Ponzi” Pyramid Scheme that lies at the core of today’s Financial Model, indicating how these four “sides” function in a coordinated, consistent, and sequential manner.

Side One – Create Public Money Insufficiency. This is achieved, as we explained above, by controlling the National Public entity that issues public money. Its goal is to demonetise the Real Economy so that the latter is forced to seek “alternative funding” for its needs (i.e., so that it has no choice but to resort to private bank loans).

Side Two – Impose Private Banking Fractional Lending Loans. This, as we said, is virtual private money created out of thin air on which bankers charge interest – often at usury levels – thus generating enormous profit for “investors,” creditors and all sorts of entities and individuals who operate as parasites living off other people’s work. This would never have been the case if each local central bank were to flexibly generate the correct quantity of Public Money necessary to satisfy the needs of the Real Economy in each country and region.

Side Three – Promote a Debt-Based Economic System. In fact, the whole Pyramid Model is based on being able to promote this generalised paradigm that falsely states that what really “moves” the private and public economy is not so much work, creativity, toil and effort of workers, but rather “private investors,” “bank loans” and “credit” – i.e., indebtedness. With time, this paradigm has replaced the infinitely wiser, sounder, more balanced and solid concept of corporate profit being reinvested and genuine personal savings being the foundation for future prosperity and security. Pretty much the way Henry Ford, Sr. originally grew his most successful company.

Today, however, Debt reigns supreme and this paradigm has become entrenched and embedded into people’s minds thanks to the mainstream media and specialised journals and publications, combined with Ivy League universities’ Economics Departments that have all succeeded in imposing such “politically correct” thinking with respect to financial matters, especially those relating to the proper nature and function of Public Money.

The facts are that this Model generates unnecessary loans so that banking creditors can receive huge profits, which includes promoting uncontrolled, unwarranted and often pathological consumerism, which goes hand in hand with the increasing abandonment of the traditional value of “saving for a rainy day.”

Such debts having political and strategic goals rather than merely financial ones, are usually given a thin layer of “legality” so that they may be imposed by the creditor on the debtor (i.e., in the case of The Merchant of Venice, the bond entered into between Antonio and Shylock giving the latter the legal right to a pound of the former’s flesh; in the case of chronically indebted countries like Argentina, such “legality” is achieved through a complex public debt laundering6 mechanism carried out by successive formally “democratic” Caretaker Governments to this very day).

Side Four Privatisation of Profits/Socialisation of Losses. Lastly, and knowing full well that, in the long run, the numbers of the entire Cycle of this Model never add up, and that the whole system will inevitably come crashing down, the Model imposes a highly complex and often subtle financial, legal and media engineering that allows privatising profits and socialising losses. In Argentina, this cycle has become increasingly visible for those who want to see it, because in our country the local “Ponzi” Pyramid Cycle lasts on average 15 to 17 years, i.e., we’ve had successive collapses involving brutal devaluation (1975), hyperinflation (1989) and systemic banking collapse (2001), however in the industrialised world, that cycle was made to last almost 80 years (i.e., three generations spanning from 1929 to 2008).

Conclusions

The fundamental cause of today’s on-going global financial collapse that exerts massive distortions over the Real Economy – and the ensuing social hardship, suffering and violence – is clear: Virtual Finance has usurped a pedestal of supremacy over the Real Economy, which does not legitimately belong to it. Finance must always be subordinated to, and in the service of, the Real Economy just as the Economy must heed the law and social needs of the Political Model executed by a Sovereign Nation-State (as we back-engineer this entire system, we thus understand why it is necessary for the Global Power Elite to first erode the sovereign Nation-State and to eventually do away with it altogether, in order to achieve its monetary, financial and political ends).

In fact, if we look at matters in their proper perspective, we will see that most national economies are pretty much intact, in spite of having been badly bruised by the financial collapse. It is Finance that is in the midst of a massive global collapse, as this Model of “Ponzi” Finance has grown into a sort of malignant “cancerous tumour” that has now “metastasised,” threatening to kill the whole economy and social body politic, in just about every country in the world, and certainly in the industrialised countries.

The above comparison of today’s financial system with a malignant tumour is more than a mere metaphor. If we look at the figures, we will immediately be able to see signs of this financial “metastasis.” For example, The New York Times in their 22 September 2008 edition explains that the main trigger of the financial collapse that had exploded just one week earlier on 15 September was, as we all know, mismanagement and lack of supervision over the “Derivatives” market. The Times then went on to explain that twenty years earlier, in 1988, there was no derivatives market; by 2002 however, Derivatives had grown into a global 102 trillion Dollar market (that’s 50% more than the Gross Domestic Product of all the countries in the world, the US, EU, Japan and BRICS nations included), and by September 2008, Derivatives had ballooned into a global 531 trillion Dollar market. That’s eight times the GDP of the entire planet! “Financial Metastasis” at its very worst. Since then, some have estimated this Derivatives global market figure to be in the region of One-Quadrillion Dollars…

Naturally, when that collapse began, the caretaker governments in the US, European Union and elsewhere, immediately sprang into action and implemented “Operation Bail-out” of all the mega-banks, insurance companies, stock exchanges and speculation markets, and their respective operators, controllers and “friends.” Thus, trillions upon trillions of Dollars, Euros and Pounds were given to Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, Morgan Stanley, AIG, HSBC and other “too big to fail” financial institutions… which is newspeak for “too powerful to fail”, because they hold politicians, political parties and governments in their steel grip.

All of this was paid with taxpayer dollars or, even worse, with uncontrolled and irresponsible issuance of Public Money bank notes and treasury bonds, especially by the Federal Reserve Bank which has, in practice, technically hyper-inflated the US Dollar: “Quantitative Easing” they call it, which is Newspeak for hyperinflation.

So far, however, like the proverbial Naked Emperor, nobody dares to state this openly. At least not until some “uncontrolled” event triggers or unmasks what should by now be obvious to all: Emperor Dollar is totally and completely naked.7 When that happens, we will then see bloody social and civil wars throughout the world and not just in Greece and Argentina.

By then, however, and as always happens, the powerful bankster clique and their well-paid financial and media operators, will be watching the whole hellish spectacle perched in the safety and comfort of their plush boardrooms atop the skyscrapers of New York, London, Frankfurt, Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo…

Footnotes

1. The concept of “Geoeconomics” was coined by the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, through a studies group honouring Maurice Greenberg, the financier who was for decades CEO of American International Group (AIG) which collapsed in 2008 and had strong conflict-of-interest ties with major insurance and reinsurance broker Marsh Group whose CEO was his son Jeffrey. Both father and son were indicted for fraud by then New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer. Spitzer would later pay a very heavy price for this after becoming Governor of New York State when someone “discovered” his sex escapades which were quickly blown up into a major scandal by The New York Times

2. We have described the basic Global Power Elite structure, model and objectives in our e-Book The Coming World Government: Tragedy & Hope?, available through www.asalbuchi.com.ar.

3. For more information, see the Third Pillar of the Second Republic Project “Reject the Debt-Based Economy” on www.secondrepublicproject.com.

4. Some notable exceptions: Today: Libya, Iran, Syria, China; In the past: Peron’s Argentina, Germany and Italy in the 30’s and 40’s….  Are we seeing a pattern here?

5. See The New York Times, 22 September 2008

6. See White Paper comparing Debt Laundering mechanisms to Money Laundering mechanisms, lodged under Pillar No 3 “Reject the Debt-Based Economy” of Second Republic Project in www.secondrepublicproject.com.

7. This is more fully described in the author’s book The Coming World Government: Tragedy & Hope?, in the chapter “Death & Resurrection of the US Dollar”. Details on www.asalbuchi.com.ar. Also available upon request by E-mail: salbuchi@fibertel.com.ar.

ADRIAN SALBUCHI is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio talk-show host in Argentina. He has published several books on geopolitics and economics in Spanish, and recently published his first eBook in English: The Coming World Government: Tragedy & Hope? which can be ordered through his web site www.asalbuchi.com.ar, or details can be requested by E-mail to arsalbuchi@gmail.com. Salbuchi is 58 years of age, married, with four adult children, and works as strategic consultant for domestic and international companies. He is also founder of the Second Republic Project in Argentina, which is expanding internationally (visit: www.secondrepublicproject.com).

Read Full Post »

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The war against Libya is built on fraud. The United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions against Libya on the basis of unproven claims, specifically that Colonel Muammar Qaddafi was killing his own people in Benghazi and Libya. The claim in its exact form was that Qaddafi had ordered Libyan forces to kill 6,000 people in Benghazi and Libya. These claims were widely disseminated, but always vaguely explained. It was on the basis of this claim that Libya was referred to the U.N. Security Council at U.N. Headquarters in New York City and kicked out of the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva.

False claims about African mercenary armies in Libya and about jet attacks on civilians were also used in a broad media campaign against Libya. These two claims have been sidelined and have become more and more murky. The massacre claims, however, were used in a legal, diplomatic, and military framework to justify NATO’s war on Libya.

Using Human Rights as a Pretext for War: The LLHR and its Unproven Claims

One of the main sources for the claim that Qaddafi was killing his own people is the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR). The LLHR was actually pivotal to getting the U.N. involved through its specific claims in Geneva. On February 21, 2011 the LLHR got the 70 other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to sent letters to the President Obama, E.U. High Representative Catherine Ashton, and the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon demanding international action against Libya invoking the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. Only 25 members of this coalition actually assert that they are human rights groups.

The letter is as follows:

We, the undersigned non-governmental, human rights, and humanitarian organizations, urge you to mobilize the United Nations and the international community and take immediate action to halt the mass atrocities now being perpetrated by the Libyan government against its own people. The inexcusable silence cannot continue.

As you know, in the past several days, Colonel Moammar Gadhafi’s forces are estimated to have deliberately killed hundreds of peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders across the country. In the city of Benghazi alone, one doctor reported seeing at least 200 dead bodies. Witnesses report that a mixture of special commandos, foreign mercenaries and regime loyalists have attacked demonstrators with knives, assault rifles and heavy-caliber weapons.

Snipers are shooting peaceful protesters. Artillery and helicopter gunships have been used against crowds of demonstrators. Thugs armed with hammers and swords attacked families in their homes. Hospital officials report numerous victims shot in the head and chest, and one struck on the head by an anti-aircraft missile. Tanks are reported to be on the streets and crushing innocent bystanders. Witnesses report that mercenaries are shooting indiscriminately from helicopters and from the top of roofs. Women and children were seen jumping off Giuliana Bridge in Benghazi to escape. Many of them were killed by the impact of hitting the water, while others were drowned. The Libyan regime is seeking to hide all of these crimes by shutting off contact with the outside world. Foreign journalists have been refused entry. Internet and phone lines have been cut or disrupted.

There is no question here about intent. The government media has published open threats, promising that demonstrators would meet a “violent and thunderous response.”

Accordingly, the government of Libya is committing gross and systematic violations of the right to life as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Citizens seeking to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are being massacred by the government.

Moreover, the government of Libya is committing crimes against humanity, as defined by the Explanatory Memorandum to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Libyan government’s mass killing of innocent civilians amount to particularly odious offences which constitute a serious attack on human dignity. As confirmed by numerous oral and video testimonies gathered by human rights organizations and news agencies, the Libyan government’s assault on its civilian population are not isolated or sporadic events. Rather, these actions constitute a widespread and systematic policy and practice of atrocities, intentionally committed, including murder, political persecution and other inhumane acts which reach the threshold of crimes against humanity.

Responsibility to Protect

Under the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, you have a clear and unambiguous responsibility to protect the people of Libya. The international community, through the United Nations, has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect the Libyan population. Because the Libyan national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their population from crimes against humanity, should peaceful means be inadequate, member states are obliged to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the UN Charter, including Chapter VII.

In addition, we urge you to convene an emergency Special Session of the UN Human Rights Council, whose members have a duty, under UNGA Resolution 60/251, to address situations of gross and systematic violations of violations of human rights. The session should:

-Call for the General Assembly to suspend Libya’s Council membership, pursuant to Article 8 of Resolution 60/251, which applies to member states that commit gross and systematic violations of human rights.

-Strongly condemn, and demand an immediate end to, Libya’s massacre of its own citizens.

-Dispatch immediately an international mission of independent experts to collect relevant facts and document violations of international human rights law and crimes against humanity, in order to end the impunity of the Libyan government. The mission should include an independent medical investigation into the deaths, and an investigation of the unlawful interference by the Libyan government with the access to and treatment of wounded.

-Call on the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights and the Council’s relevant Special Procedures to closely monitor the situation and take action as needed.

-Call on the Council to remain seized of the matter and address the Libyan situation at its upcoming 16th regular session in March.

Member states and high officials of the United Nations have a responsibility to protect the people of Libya from what are preventable crimes. We urge you to use all available measures and levers to end atrocities throughout the country.

We urge you to send a clear message that, collectively, the international community, the Security Council and the Human Rights Council will not be bystanders to these mass atrocities. The credibility of the United Nations — and many innocent lives — are at stake.

According to Physicians for Human Rights: “[This letter was] prepared under the guidance of Mohamed Eljahmi, the noted Libyan human rights defender and brother of dissident Fathi Eljahmi, asserts that the widespread atrocities committed by Libya against its own people amount to war crimes, requiring member states to take action through the Security Council under the responsibility to protect doctrine.”

The letters signatories included Francis Fukuyama, United Nations Watch (which looks out for Israel’s interests and according to Israeli sources organized the entire session against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), B’nai B’rith Human Rights Commission, the Cuban Democratic Directorate, and a set of organizations at odds with the governments of Nicaragua, Cuba, Sudan, Russia, Venezuela, and Libya. Some of these organizations are viewed with hostility as organizations created to wage demonization campaigns against countries at odds with the U.S., Israel, and the European Union. Refer to the annex for the full list of signatories for consultation.

LLHR is tied to the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), which is based in France and has ties to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). FIDH is active in many places in Africa and in activities involving the National Endowment for Democracy in the African continent. Both the FIDH and LLHR also released a joint communiqué on February 21, 2011. In the communiqué both organizations asked for the international community to “mobilize” and mention the International Criminal Court while also making a contradictory claiming that over 400 to 600 people had died since February 15, 2011. This of course was about 5,500 short of the claim that 6,000 people were massacred in Benghazi. The joint letter also promoted the false view that 80% of Qaddafi’s support came from foreign mercenaries, which is something that over half a year of fighting proves as untrue.

According to the General-Secretary of the LLHR, Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir, the claims about the massacres in Benghazi could not be validated by the LLHR when he was challenged for proof. When asked how a group of 70 non-governmental organizations in Geneva could support the LLHR’s claims on Geneva, Dr. Buchuiguir has answered that a network of close relationship was the basis. This is a mockery.

Speculation is neither evidence nor grounds for starting a war with a bombing campaign that has lasted about half a year and taken many innocent civilian lives, including children and the elderly. What is important to note here is that the U.N. Security Council decided to sanction the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on the basis of this letter and the claims of the LLHR. Not once did the U.N. Security Council and the member states pushing for war once bother to even investigate the allegations. In one session in New York City, the Indian Ambassador to the U.N. actually pointed this out when his country abstained from voting. Thus, a so-called “humanitarian war” was launched without any evidence.

The Secret Relationship between the LLHR and the Transitional Council

The claims of the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR) were coordinated with the formation of the Transitional Council. This becomes clear when the close and cagey relationship of the LLHR and the Transitional Council becomes apparent. Logically, the Obama Administration and NATO had to also be a part of this.

Whatever the Transitional Council is and whatever the intent of some of its supporters, it is clear that it is being used as a tool by the U.S. and others. Moreover, five members of the LLHR were or would become members of the Transitional Council almost immediately after the claims against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya were disseminated. According to Bouchuguir individuals with ties to the LLHR or who hold membership include Mahmoud Jibril and Ali Tarhouni.

Dr. Mahmoud Jibril is a government figure brought into Libyan Arab Jamahiriya government circles by Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi. He would undemocratically be given the position of Transitional Council prime minister. His involvement with the LLHR raises some real questions about the organization.

The economist Ali Tarhouni on the other hand would become the minister for oil and finance for the Transitional Council. Tarhouni is Washington’s man in Libya. He was groomed in the United States and was present at all the major meetings about plans for “regime change” in Libya. As Minister of Oil and Finance the first acts he did were privatize and virtually handover Libya’s energy resources and economy to the foreign corporations and governments of the NATO-led coalition against Libya.

The General-Secretary of the LLHR, Sliman Bouchuiguir, has even privately admitted that many influential members of the Transitional Council are his friends. A real question of interests arises. Yet, the secret relationship between the LLHR and the Transitional Council is far more than a question of conflict of interest. It is a question of justice and manipulation.

Who is Sliman Bouchuiguir?

Sliman Bouchuguir is an unheard of figure for most, but he has authored a doctoral thesis that has been widely quoted and used in strategic circles in the United States. This thesis was published in 1979 as a book, The Use of Oil as a Political Weapon: A Case Study of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. The thesis is about the use of oil as an economic weapon by Arabs, but can easily be applied to the Russians, the Iranians, the Venezuelans, and others. It examines economic development and economic warfare and can also be applied to vast regions, including all of Africa.

Bouchuguir’s analytical thesis reflects an important line of thinking in Washington, as well as London and Tel Aviv. It is both the embodiment of a pre-existing mentality, which includes U.S. National Security Advisor George F. Kennan’s arguments for maintaining a position of disparity through a constant multi-faced war between the U.S. and its allies on one hand and the rest of the world on the other hand. The thesis can be drawn on for preventing the Arabs, or others, from becoming economic powers or threats. In strategic terms, rival economies are pinned as threats and as “weapons.” This has serious connotations.

Moreover, Bouchuiguir did his thesis at George Washington University under Bernard Reich. Reich is a political scientist and professor of international relations. He has worked and held positions at places like the U.S. Defense Intelligence College, the United States Air Force Special Operations School, the Marine Corps War College, and the Shiloah Center at Tel Aviv University. He has consulted on the Middle East for the Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. State Department and received grants such as the Defense Academic Research Support Program Research Grant and the German Marshal Fund Grant. Reich also was or is presently on the editorial boards of journals such as Israel Affairs (1994-present), Terrorism: An International Journal (1987-1994), and The New Middle East (1971-1973).

It is also clear that Reich is tied to Israeli interests. He has even written a book about the special relationship between the U.S and Israel. He has also been an advocate for a “New Middle East” which would be favourable to Israel. This includes careful consideration over North Africa. His work has also focused on the important strategic interface between the Soviet Union and the Middle East and also on Israeli policy in the continent of Africa.

It is clear why Bouchuiguir had his thesis supervised under Reich. On October 23, 1973, Reich gave a testimony at the U.S. Congress. The testimony has been named “The Impact of the October Middle East War” and is clearly tied to the 1973 oil embargo and Washington’s aim of pre-empting or managing any similar events in the future. It has to be asked, how much did Reich influence Bouchuiguir and if Bouchuiguir espouses the same strategic views as Reich?

The “New North Africa” and a “New Africa” – More than just a “New Middle East”

A “New Africa” is in the works, which will have its borders further drawn out in blood like in the past. The Obama Administration and its allies have opened the gateway for a new invasion of Africa. United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) opened the salvos of the war through Operation Odyssey Damn, before the war on Libya was transferred to NATO’s Operation Unified Protector.

The U.S. has used NATO to continue the occupation of post-Second World War Europe. It will now use AFRICOM to occupy Africa and create an African NATO. It is clear the U.S. wants an expanded military presence in Libya and Africa under the disguise of humanitarian aid missions and fighting terrorism – the same terrorism that it is fanning in Libya and Africa.

The way is being paved for intervention in Africa under the guise of fighting terrorism. General Carter Ham has stated: “If we were to launch a humanitarian operation, how do we do so effectively with air traffic control, airfield management, [and] those kind of activities?” General Ham’s question is actually a sales pitch for fashioning African military partnerships and integration, as well as new bases that could include the use of more military drones against Libya and other African countries. The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) have both made it clear that the Pentagon is actively trying to establish more drone bases in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula to expand its wars. In this context, the AFRICOM Commander says that there are ties between the Al-Shabaab in Somalia, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in North Africa, and the Boko Harem in Nigeria.

The War in Libya is a Fraud

General Ham has said: “I remain confident that had the U.N. not made the decision, had the U.S. not taken the lead with great support, I’m absolutely convinced there are many, many people in Benghazi alive today who would not be [alive].” This is not true and a far stretch from reality. The war has cost more lives than it could have ever saved. It has ruined a country and opened the door into Africa for a neo-colonial project.

The claims of the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR) were never supported or verified. The credibility of the United Nations must be questioned as well as the credibility of many humanitarian and human rights organizations that have virtually pushed for a war. At best the U.N. Security Council is an irresponsible body, but it has clearly acted outside of due legal process. This pattern now appears to be repeating itself against the Syrian Arab Republic as unverified claims are being made by individuals and organizations supported by foreign powers that care nothing for authentic democratic reforms or liberty.

About Auntie Adjeley

Auntie Adjeley is a retired musician, teacher and artisan who is dedicated to Peace, Justice and Social Harmony and is opposed to the hegemony of the so-called ‘New World Order’.

#

http://www.mathaba.net/news/libya ( Reference )

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »