 |
      Worm in the Apple German Traitors and Other Influences That Pushed the World Into War: The little-known story of the men who destroyed Adolf Hitler's Germany Friedrich Lenz 20. Summary and Conclusion In conclusion, one may say: those enemies of Hitler's who did not restrict their fight against the system he represented to domestic Resistance activities such as may potentially become necessary under any form of government, but who instead, in their hatred, went so far as to call in foreign nations, acted wrongly and reprehensibly in any case, regardless whether one agrees or rejects the theory of the "lawless regime". First of all they disregarded a fundamental fact of life, namely, that every act has four kinds of consequences: immediate and delayed, good ones and bad. They believed that their messages of September 1938 and August 1939 would each promptly induce the British government to take a hard line against Hitler. Domestically speaking, the British government profited from these messages by drawing the conclusion favorable to itself, namely that the enemy had a weak spot. Internationally speaking, and in consideration of the incomplete British arms status, it took a soft instead of the desired hard line. A year later, when the hazard of inadequate armament had been rectified on the one hand, and the government was under pressure of time due to Hitler's plans on the other, the requested hard line turned into a declaration of war. The information channeled abroad as well as the promises of a coup were allegedly intended to preserve world peace, but in fact brought about a world war. It is interesting to note that in his work Dolchstoß oder Legende?, Hans-Ulrich Rudel comes to the same conclusion: "If we summarize what the publications of Resistance fighters themselves irrefutably show, then we find the facts of the case to be as follows: "The practical ramifications of the conspiracy of those men speaking up today were directed not only against Hitler and National-Socialism but against the existence of the Third Reich. Towards this end they not only employed all the means at their disposal to cause Germany to lose the war with dreadful losses in every respect; they also - and this has not been sufficiently considered to date - greatly facilitated Britain's entry into World War Two through their promise to Lord Halifax, to eliminate Hitler if war should break out. Without England, however, France would not have taken any steps of her own, and similarly the USA would not have had an excuse to get involved. In other words, without the activities of these Resistance fighters all German resources might have been available for the defeat of Bolshevism. Therefore, must they not be deemed ultimately responsible for the fact that the Second World War came about in the first place, as well as for its course of events and all its horrible consequences? Should they be given another opportunity, legally this time, to intervene in the fate of their nation?" Up to this point there has been no mention of that term which tends to come up automatically in the context of the phenomenon of the conspiracy: that infamous term 'stab in the back'. The Resistance fighters and plotters protest against this term with a great show of outrage, and even the Federal Government not only endeavored in a special issue of the Federal publication Das Parlament to proclaim "the truth about July 20" and to reject the thesis of the "stab in the back" most decidedly, but even placed great emphasis on this in their charges against the SRP. This is not at all difficult to understand if one knows that not only a few Ministers and Members of Parliament but also many higher officials of the Federal Government as well as numerous politicians and officials of the provincial governments come from the ranks of the Resistance and the conspirators. H. B. Gisevius, one of the kingpins and historian of the conspiracy, kindly facilitates our understanding of the various concepts by stating with refreshing clarity: "There are still those anxious souls who do not want to admit the reality of such warnings [to the enemy] because this might give rise to another legend of a 'stab in the back'. The reply to these people must be that the comparable legend of 1918 was based on a historical lie, while the matter here is one of facts. The truth, however, cannot be suppressed permanently, and shall not be hushed up in this case.... Incidentally, one may be even less concerned about these warnings since they were in vain anyhow. As for a stab in the back - even if it had been directed against the German people rather than solely against those who were their downfall - matters never even got that far. And if it did, then it was Hitler who reaped its benefits to the fullest in 1940." First, this shows once again that these gentlemen still do not seem to understand that the 'stab in the back' was done in 1938-39 in the form of betrayal of information and the promises of a coup given to the enemy powers. If the warnings issued to the enemy prior to the invasions of Holland, Belgium and Norway were in vain, then after all this was only because the opponents could not believe the Germans capable of such treason and hence disbelieved the warnings, or thought they were being lied to for Germany's benefit. But for all that, the warnings remain fact, they remain treason and thus a stab in the back - not a mere legend at all. Another question is how one regards the claim that what was stabbed in the back was the "lawless regime", not the German people. It is of course up to each individual German to decide which point of view to take in this regard, and whether he wants to let the courts dictate what he is to believe. It also depends on how one feels about remaining loyal to the leader one has elected oneself - whether one wants to remain loyal to him only in good times, or only when he makes no mistakes, or not at all.
Hitler would have accepted this without hesitation, and world peace would have been preserved. - But was world peace really the sole issue? Well, only day-dreamers could believe that, and the majority of the conspirators belonged to that category. The real issue was something quite different! I will show what it really was, with an example that should make it clear even to the worst dim-wit: Imagine for a moment that peace had continued and the Volkswagen production plan in Fallersleben had been finished, as well as the buna rubber and hydrogenation plants that went with it. And that the Volkswagen automobile had been for sale for 1,100 RM instead of for 5,000 DM, as is the case today. How much greater would our exports have been than they are now? And what would have happened if, as was absolutely within the realm of the possible, given the German economic power that was consolidated for the first time ever - what, I say, would have happened if Hitler had multiplied this successful experiment tenfold, and had also applied it to other essential export products? The Western world had already gained a far different impression of German productivity, enterprise and inventive genius than those pathetic carpers in Germany who, like Goerdeler from the moment when he was no longer in charge of pricing policy, had nothing better to do than to predict one economic collapse after another - which, however, never came about even in the worst times of the war. Surely one can see now what was really at stake. Our opponents could only risk war after they had caught up on their arms status, had wooed and won a few more allies, and most of all had gained the certainty that, as many times before in history, the Germans were once again at the point where they would tear themselves apart out of their own internal discord, without outside help. They knew very well that the Germans would do a thorough job of this - and they did indeed. But to make sure that we would keep in practice after our collapse, and not by some chance wake up, they put a few bugs into our heads - namely, denazification, four-way division, federalism, party conflicts, and drafts of a Constitution. Now we will be busy 'debugging' ourselves for at least the next fifty years. But our opponents, in their collaboration with the Bear, also picked up a few bugs of their own... and now we are supposed to help them rid themselves as well! However, I think that will be a little too much to ask for the time being.
1. Was the world war necessary? - There can be only one answer to that: No! 2. Could it have been prevented in August 1939 if Hitler had dispensed with a satisfactory settlement of the Corridor Question, at the expense of his own and Germany's prestige? Yes - but only temporarily! 3. Could the war have been avoided permanently? On the one hand, no, because in light of the ever-increasing population the space allowed to Germany was too small, and because the competition posed by German export trade was too great; on the other hand, yes, if the rest of the world had only been willing to let Germany have the Corridor, an appropriate share in colonial possessions, and fair agreements regarding raw materials and markets. 4. How could the war have been avoided in any case? - If Germany's lead in military strength had been maintained at a level great enough that no-one would have dared to attack Germany. But this entailed two prerequisites: first, that the conduct of foreign affairs rested exclusively in the hands of the Head of State and his Foreign Minister, and second, that "everyone gave his all; that there was no chink in the armor; and that domestic discord did not continue to sap the Germanic strength." 5. Without knowledge of this "worm in the apple", Britain would not have declared war in 1939. The various peoples would have settled even for a solution to the Corridor Question that had been forcibly initiated. 6. The whole of the European defense forces would have remained intact as protective barrier against Bolshevism. By virtue of the anti-Bolshevist tendencies vitally embodied in National-Socialism, Bolshevism would have remained restricted to its territory then extant, and would eventually have perished from this restriction since it is a system which can only survive through expansion, that is, in new pastures - of which it has been granted plenty ever since Teheran and Yalta.
7. Under Germany's leadership Europe would have
burgeoned, and could have devoted all its energies to the development of Africa, for the benefit
of
all its people.
- - - - - - - -
For seven years now they have been dead - Hitler, Mussolini and the Anti-Comintern Pact, the war criminals, enemies of peace, trouble-makers etc. And no power in the world was able to stop those men who shook hands in Potsdam, smiling and pleased with their achievements, from concluding peace, healing the wounds of war and building a better Europe. And nobody in Germany stood in the way of those men who, together with their hangers-on, longed for defeat and 'liberation'; nobody stopped them from joining ranks despite all party-political conflicts, as of old, to build a better Germany. I will spare myself a discussion of all the hot air that has been spouted to the detriment of the various peoples in the past seven years at hundreds of costly conferences; suffice it to quote the realization of Mr. McCloy, who is reported to have said: if we do not manage to solve the Saar Question in the foreseeable future we all ought to have our heads examined. Instead, we are presented with treaties whose jungle of paragraphs, sections and subsections no sane person can make sense of and which contain so many booby-traps that in light of the law of four-fold consequences of all actions (which certainly includes the ratification of treaties) neither the advocates nor the opponents of the treaties can properly assess whether they will ultimately be in our interests or not. It is beyond anyone to judge this in light of the complex world political situation and of the uncertainty of our own fate. It is only amazing to see the self-assurance with which both the advocates and the opponents claim to have a full and exact understanding of the consequences of all these treaties. I myself assess the question of whether we can already conclude such far-reaching treaties, and with whom, from a completely different perspective: from the point of view of honor; not of that exaggerated concept of honor that disregards the realities of actual fact and possibility, but from the standpoint of that modicum of honor without which successful foreign affairs are impossible and without which no nation can exist for long.34 On our side of the matter there is as yet nobody at all who could conclude such treaties for us, and I might refer not only to the Social-Democrats in order to show that our present government cannot claim the support of true popular opinion: that's common knowledge. Even if an election were held tomorrow, the results would not reflect the true popular opinion, since there is no party suitable for right-wing voters; after all, these are prohibited from all practical election activities, and the people, lacking as they do sufficient objective awareness and understanding, cannot even make a proper choice, not least of all because they are so firmly in the clutches of materialism that they do not have the time it would take to get clear in their own minds about what they want. The circles from which Germany's Parliaments and governments are drawn are the same ones that have placed the blame for the war and for war crimes on Germany and that have committed Germany to reparations above and beyond the normal claims of any victors, they are the same as those who have trampled the honor of our soldiers into the dirt and totally stripped great parts of the population of their rights and precipitated them into the greatest misery.35 Some of them were participants in the Resistance and the conspiracy and now expect that the people uncritically deem their laws good and just and accept their fateful treaties, regardless of whom they are to be concluded with. To forestall any doubts, I want to emphasize that I have known for thirty years that Bolshevism will one day need to be banished from the world one way or another. But the prerequisite for this is a healthy and united Europe, and this will never be for as long as Germany is not admitted as European state with equal rights, and for as long as the European peoples are not ruled by governments who first of all have the proper will and intention for this and who also are prepared to put their own interests second to Europe's great necessities. What opinion can one have of the government of France, that acts so egotistically in the Saar Question? There can be no better gauge of the right and proper time for Germany to enter into treaties with France than a fulfilment of the prerequisite that France must return the Saar region unconditionally to Germany, because after all the international referendum of 1935 proclaimed the region to be German. Have we ever considered who governs the peoples with whom we enter into agreements? In Britain they are still the same men who declared war on us, and in the United States the President is still that same Mr. Truman who said on June 24, 1941: "If we should see that Germany is winning this war, we must help Russia - and if Russia wins we must help Germany, so that as many of them kill each other as possible." The election was won by that same Mr. Eisenhower who pointed to survey squares on a map and explained how places of cultural interest would be systematically bombed until the terms of surrender were accepted. According to the report of their own War Department, the Americans supplied the Soviet Union during the war with the complete equipment for some 200 divisions, 1,500 airplanes and 400,000 trucks, which contributed decisively to the Russian victory. The Allies supplied the bomber planes with which German cities were destroyed, they worked among all nations to stir up partisan activity, the justified combat against which gave rise to so-called war crimes. They suffered a bestial Russian soldiery to descend upon the defenceless population of Eastern Europe and Eastern Germany, to pillage, rape and rob them. Through their propaganda they incited the subhuman hordes of Czechoslovakia and Poland against the Germans. They further left hundreds of thousands of German and European soldiers, who had fought for years against Bolshevism, at the mercy of this merciless system. Through a more than foolish settlement concluded in Potsdam, they robbed further millions beyond the Oder and Neisse Rivers of their homeland, their property, their honor. What has become of our patents and the dismantled factories, of our enormous foreign assets, of our prisoners of war and those men who are still incarcerated as "war criminals" even though they were convicted in trials that made a mockery of justice? Does anyone honestly believe that the German people could simply forget 'Nuremberg' or the way the Dönitz Government was treated? An enormous construct of mendacious propaganda has served to burden the German people with an illusory guilt that is to serve as legal title for the carrying-out of aims not at all far removed from those of the original Morgenthau Plan. Before we can negotiate any pact of alliance, fundamental changes must come about in the attitudes held towards us by the peoples formerly at war with us, and for this it is necessary that those peoples set up governments which no longer bear feelings of hatred towards us and only deign to negotiate with us on the basis of victor vs. vanquished - governments which have realized that Germany is the heart of Europe and that Europe can only exist if this heart is restored to health with love and common sense; governments, in other words, that do not begrudge Germany what is necessary for her future, namely economic, political and military freedom. This also includes material and political assistance in the reunification of all her regions, and true equality within the framework of a Europe whose nations without exception retain their cultural and economic independence but nevertheless cooperate absolutely in the great labors which alone will preserve the Western world. Germany still has friends in the world, and once truth has penetrated the fog of propaganda she will gain many more, especially in the former enemy nations. Once they begin to see more clearly, these people will also realize that there is a Germany different from that which has been propagandistically exhibited to the world by the gentlemen Oulman, Kempner, Habe and Auerbach, by emigrants, Resistance 'fighters' and traitors. But it will take a few more years. In particular, one cannot expect other people to go through this process any more rapidly than we ourselves do.36 Even though a certain degree of impending improvement has become apparent in the last few months, this must not blind us to the fact that this improvement is only due to the ever-increasing differences between the former allies, between Bolshevism and the Western powers, and that these differences in the end work out in Germany's favor.37 No example can show this more dramatically than that of Katyn. Whereas at Nuremberg the Western powers still cautioned the Russian prosecutor Rudenko not to go into the case of Katyn, they are now eagerly at work to prove through meticulous investigation by a special committee that the blame for this crime correctly rests with the Russians. No doubt Mr. Churchill already regrets that, as he admitted on the Americans' Independence Day (July 4, 1950), America and Britain were solely responsible for preventing Hitler from driving Stalin back beyond the Ural Mountains.
All we need to do is wait; time is on our side. For this reason as well, it is incomprehensible how
eager Chancellor Adenauer is to enter into binding obligations regarding a German contribution
to
NATO military forces. If in the event of an attack by the Soviet Union it were to prove
impossible
to beat the Eastern giant back with the united strength of the Western powers but without West
Germany's help, then it will be equally impossible without our at best pathetically
minuscule contribution. It does not take a detailed study of the works of military authorities to
realize that. Rather, I would suggest that Herr Adenauer should ponder the insight expressed on
November 5, 1950
by the well-known Swedish scholar Sven Hedin:
"Like a force of nature, the inevitable course of events will force Germany's enemies to restore Germany to her old independent status at the heart of Europe. If this is not done, Europe will perish. It is dangerous to fight the forces of nature. The present powers-that-be who do so are both blind and mad.... "If I were a German, I too would not want to be thrust into an international army under the command of foreign leaders who were my mortal enemies only a few years ago. I would first demand a decent and honorable peace treaty that granted my country full independence and equality with other great powers. I would demand, further, that the German contingents of the new European Army be placed under German command, that all German prisoners-of-war be returned by the foreign nations still detaining them, and that all Germans incarcerated in Allied prisons be tried under German law and either punished or set free, as the case may be. "Without Germany, Europe is lost. Restored to her former position, Germany will be Europe's salvation. It takes self-control and magnanimity on the part of the victors to realize and acknowledge these fundamental truths. Hatred, envy and propaganda have brought the world to its present state of disorder. It is necessary to combat the forces of evil and to grant equal human rights to all, even one's former enemies, so that those in whose hands the power of decision rests may save the world and lead suffering humanity to that peace we all long for." Germany will have to be patient until these prerequisites have been met. Only when true equality, in other words Germany's full freedom, has been guaranteed, will the honor of the German nation have been restored. It would be dishonorable to accept a merely seeming equality and a hypocritically pretended restoration of our soldiers' honor without the prior release of all political prisoners and prisoners of war, which should be no less than a matter of course; dishonorable, because the true soldier fights for the existence and honor of his nation, not for his own. Until such time as we can again participate actively in international politics, it is of prime importance that we put our own house in order, in political, economic, social and cultural respects and most of all in respect of our national representatives. This task will only be successful if the German people recognize the deceptions and propaganda lies for what they are, draw the correct conclusions, and express these at the next federal election. Only a new Bundestag with a strong right-wing party, voted into power in a truly free and democratic election, can form a government that must begin to put the German house in order and to pursue a cautious and far-sighted political line - informed by the guiding principle:
"Base and worthless is the nation
That does not gladly devote her all to her honor!"    Notes 34In this context I refer the reader to the publication Wir Frontsoldaten zur Wiederaufrüstung by the well-known pilot Hans-Ulrich Rudel. ...back... 35In the article "Gedanken zur Kriegsschuld", issue 10/II of Nation Europa, Hermann Sievers expresses this political absurdity very tactfully indeed: the endeavors of our representatives in Bonn, he says, to join the choir of these accusations for calculated reasons of domestic politics and to pile all conceivable blame on Hitler and National-Socialism is not only ethically and historically wrong, but politically reprehensible as well. Neither history nor politics make any distinction between the people and their statesmen: it is always the nation that must live with any guilt imputed to their representatives. It is therefore no use at all to join in the abuse hurled by our opponents; instead, we should support to the utmost those intrepid men abroad who strive for objective clarification for the sake of historical truth or political necessity. I do not wish to disparage our attempts at reformation, but at the same time we must not endanger the souls of others by even encouraging hypocrisy and perfidy by silence or cowardly acquiescence. ...back...
36Unfortunately the author considered the situation with a little too much optimism here. In 1952, when the original edition of this publication appeared, this view may yet have been justified, but today, almost half a century later, the Allied campaign of re-education has had greater success than Lenz probably ever dreamed. Germany still has not been given a peace treaty and is still being treated as "enemy nation" in the Charter of the United Nations, and the peoples incited to hatred against Germany are still as blinded as ever; Germany is still regarded as the global menace whom everyone loves to hate. Indeed, one cannot expect that other people should put our history into a truthful perspective any faster than we ourselves
do – and how should the other people even get the idea that there might be something about the history they're taught that is not truthful in the first place? For as long as we Germans continue to be fed both historical and present-day anti-German propaganda with our mothers' milk and our youth consequently wave posters begging "Bomber Harris, do it again!" or go hiking with backpacks sporting the slogan "I shit on being German", and for as long as we cheerfully soil our own nest with mendacious anti-Wehrmacht Exhibitions and commission "scholars" to perpetuate the anti-German falsehoods of the past, we are not exactly giving other people a reason to believe that we might be better than we have been portrayed to be.
37The following statement by the British newspaper
Economist of April 17, 1948 speaks for itself: "If there were nothing behind the Iron
Curtain, then it might be possible to let Germany rot." ...back...
Worm in the Apple German Traitors and Other Influences That Pushed the World Into War: The little-known story of the men who destroyed Adolf Hitler's Germany |
