Berlin, April
28, 1939
Deputies, Men of the
Reichstag!
The
President of the United States of America has addressed a telegram to me, whose
peculiar contents you are aware of. Since, as the addressee of this document, I
saw it only after the rest of the world had gained knowledge of it on the radio
and in the press, and after countless commentators from international
democratic institutions had kindly informed us that this telegram was a very
adroit tactical paper which was to burden those states governed by the people
with the responsibility for the aggression perpetrated by the plutocracies, I
resolved to convene the German Reichstag to afford you, my Deputies, the opportunity--in
your capacity as the elected representatives of the German nation-to be the
first to hear my response which you may either confirm or reject. Beyond this, I thought it expedient to adopt the method employed by Herr
President Roosevelt and, for my part, to proceed to inform the rest of the
world of my answer by the means at our disposal. I should like equally to take
advantage of this occasion to express those sentiments which have deeply moved
me in light of the stunning historic events of the month of March of this year.
These, my deepest sentiments, compel
me to turn to Providence in humble gratitude, to thank it for calling on me, an
unknown soldier in the World War, to rise to the heights of Fuhrer of my dearly
beloved Volk. Providence permitted me to find the appropriate path, one not
smeared with blood, to free my Volk from misery and to lead it upward once
again. Providence granted me the fulfillment of what I consider the mission of
my life: to uplift the German Volk from its defeat; to free it from the
shackles of this most shameful Diktat of all time!
I have not, as France did in the
years 1870–71, referred to the cession of Alsace-Lorraine as intolerable in the
future. No, I carefully differentiated between the Saar territory and the two
other former Reichslander. And I have not revised my stance on the matter, nor
will I revise it in the future. Not once have I allowed my views to be violated
or questioned in the interior, either for the sake of publicity, or for any
other reason. The return of the Saar has removed from the face of the earth all
territorial disputes between France and Germany in Europe.
Nevertheless, I have always
regretted that French statesmen take this, my stance, for granted. Things are
not so simple. I have not preached this stance for fear of France. As a former
soldier, I have no reason for such fear. Moreover, in the context of the Saar
settlement, I have left no doubt that a refusal to return this territory to
Germany was unacceptable to us. No, I have assumed this attitude towards France
as an expression of my realization that it is necessary for Europe to find
peace somehow, and that open, limitless demands for ever new [territorial]
revisions would merely sow the seeds of lasting insecurity and tensions. If
tensions have now arisen, Germany does not bear the responsibility for this.
Instead, this is to be blamed on international elements intentionally promoting
tensions to serve their capitalist interests.
I have extended binding assurances
to a series of states. Not one of the states can lament so much as an
insinuation by Germany of any demands in violation thereof. Not one Nordic
statesman can claim, for instance, that either the German Reich Government or
German public opinion forced on him an unreasonable request which was
incompatible with the territorial integrity or the sovereignty of his state.
I was glad that a number of European
states took advantage of the opportunity presented by the German Reich
Government’s declaration to express, in turn, their unequivocal willingness to
espouse a stand of unconditional neutrality and hereby to strengthen this
avowal. This is true of Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, and so on. I
have already mentioned France. I need not mention Italy, as it is tied to us by
bonds of a friendship both close and profound. Neither need I speak of Hungary
or Yugoslavia, neighbors with whom we are fortunate to enjoy a heartfelt
friendship.
By the same token, from the first
moment I actively involved myself in politics, I have left no doubt that there
do exist certain states of affairs which represent so base and crude an
infringement on our Volk’s right to selfdetermination, that we can never be
expected to accept or tolerate these. I have not written a single line or a single
speech in which I have ever expressed a stance contrary to the one indicated on
the subject of the states mentioned before.
Neither does there exist a single
line or a single speech concerning other instances in which the stand I
espoused was not retroactively confirmed by the actions I later took.
First: Austria. This oldest Ostmark
of the German Volk once shielded the Reich to its southeast, as the protective
march of the German nation. The Germans who settled in these lands were
recruited from among all German tribes, although it may well be true that the
majority of them were Bavarians.
Later this Ostmark became the seat
of dynastic power of a German empire which lasted half a millennium, while
Vienna became the capital city of the German Reich. Already in gradual
dissolution, this German Reich was finally shattered by the Corsican Napoleon.
Still, it lived on in the framework of the German Union (Deutscher Bund).
Although no longer sharing a common statehood, its people recently came
together, in yearned-for volkisch unity, to fight and suffer side by
side in the greatest war of all time, though not united in the form of a common
statehood. I myself am the child of this Ostmark.
Not only did the criminals of
Versailles hack this German Reich to pieces and dissolve Austria, what was
worse they forbade the Germans to avow their allegiance to the one community to
which Germans have belonged for more than one thousand years. To alter this
state of affairs is a task I have always regarded as the most lofty and most
hallowed of missions in my life. To proclaim this will is something I have
never failed to do. I stand ready to realize this will at any time in my life;
it is a thought that haunts me day and night.
I would have sinned against
Providence’s calling, if I had become a traitor to this endeavor to return my
homeland and my German Volk of the Ostmark to the Reich, and thereby to the
German Volksgemeinschaft. I have erased the most shameful page of the
Versailles Treaty. I have restored the right of selfdetermination to
seven-and-a-half million Germans. I have put an end to the persistent
democratic rape of these seven-and-a-half million people. They were forbidden
to take their destiny into their own hands-I have rescinded this prohibition. I
have conducted this plebiscite before the eyes of history. Its results
confirmed my expectations.
Those democratic rapists of the
peoples (Volkervergewaltiger) conferring at Versailles had apparently
shared them. Why else would they have forbidden a referendum on the Anschluss?
When in the course of the migration
of the peoples, German tribes for inexplicable reasons began to leave the area
which today is Bohemia and Moravia, a foreign, Slavic people penetrated this
area and drove a wedge between those Germans who had remained behind. Ever
since, this people’s Lebensraum was embraced by the German Volkstum in the form
of a horseshoe. In economic terms, an independent existence of this area is
conceivable only in connection with the German Volk and the German economy.
Besides this, nearly four million
Germans live in the Bohemian and Moravian area. Pressure by the Czech majority
has brought a policy of annihilation to bear, especially apparent since the
Diktat of Versailles, but which has also been in part due to the economic
situation and an increasing poverty, which, in turn, has led to an exodus of
the German elements from the area. The numbers of the remaining Germans there
dropped to approximately 3.7 million.
While the fringes of this area are
populated exclusively by Germans, there are several big islands of German
speech in its interior.
The Czechs are a people alien to us,
given their foreign heritage. Through a community formed over a thousand years,
German influence has largely molded and fashioned their culture. Their economy
is the result of affiliation with the greater German economy. At times, the
capital of this area was a German Imperial city. It is home to the oldest
German university. Numerous cathedrals, city halls, palaces of noblemen and burghers
attest to Germany’s cultural influences. Throughout the centuries, the Czech
people have fashioned their relations to the German Volk now the more closely,
now the more distantly.
Closeness of relations leads to a
bloom of both the German and the Czech peoples; separation to catastrophe.
The merit and value of the German
Volk is known to us. The Czechs also deserve our respect for the sum of their
skills and abilities, their enterprise and diligence, their love for their
homeland and folklore. And, indeed, there were periods in
which respect for each other’s national conditions was considered most natural.
The credit for assigning to the
Czech people the special role of a satellite state that can be set against
Germany goes to the democratic architects of peace (Friedensmacher) at
Versailles. To this end, they arbitrarily appropriated the possessions of other
peoples to this state, not viable in its Czech ethnic core (Volkssubstanz).
This meant that it was allowed to rape other nationalities in order to secure a
state-financed latent threat to the German nation in Central Europe. For this
state, whose so-called state people (Staatsvolk) was in the minority,
could survive only due to the brutal oppression of its ethnic majorities. This
oppression, in turn, was unthinkable unless the European democracies granted
this state protection and assistance. This assistance would only be granted,
however, if this state was willing to assume and play the role assigned to it
at birth. To play this role meant preventing the consolidation of Central
Europe constituting a bridge for Bolshevist aggression into Europe, and, above
all, to serve as a mercenary for the European democracies’ agitation against
Germany. Everything else arose then of itself.
The more actively this state pursued
its mission, the greater became the resistance of the ethnic minorities opposed
to it. The greater the resistance, the greater the need for suppression. The
resulting hardening of the inner antagonism led to an ever greater dependence on
the democratic European founders of this state and its benefactors. For they
alone were in a position to maintain economically the unnatural, artificial
existence of this edifice.
Essentially, Germany primarily
pursued only one interest, namely, to deliver the nearly four million Germans
in this country from this unbearable situation, and to enable them to return to
their homeland: the one-thousand year old Reich. Of course this problem brought
up immediately the entire question of the remaining nationalities. That the
removal of these nationalities would rob the remainder of this state of its
viability was equally clear, as the founders of this state at Versailles had
been only too aware. It was because of this that they decided on the
suppression of the other minorities and their forced integration into this
dilettantish state structure against their will.
Never have I left any doubt of this,
my view and opinion. Certainly, as long as Germany itself was impotent and
defenseless, this rape of nearly four million Germans could take place without
the Reich being able to mount any resistance to it. However, only a political
tot could seriously believe that the German nation would forever remain in the
state of the year 1919.
It was only as long as those international
traitors, who were financed abroad, held the leadership of the German State
that a patient acceptance of this shameful state of affairs could be expected.
Ever since the victory of National Socialism forced these traitors to take up
residence in those countries from where they received their subsidies, the
resolution of this problem has become merely a question of time. And it was a
question exclusively of the concerned nationalities, not of Western Europe. It
was only natural that Western Europe should take an interest in the artificial
state structure created in its interest. That the nationalities surrounding
this state should consider this interest decisive for them was perhaps a
regrettable fallacy for some. Insofar as this interest exclusively concerned
the financial foundations of this state, no objections to this would have been
voiced by Germany, had not this financial interest in the end been subservient
to the power politics and ambitions of the democracies.
Even the financial sponsorship of
this state served one central idea: to create a state, militarily armed to the
teeth, with the task of forming a bastion reaching far into the Reich. There
was no doubt of its value and the promise it held, either as a base for
military operations in the context of Western incursions into the Reich or
simply as an air base. A comment by the French Minister of Aviation, Pierre
Cot, left no doubt of what was expected of this state. Calmly he spoke his
mind, saying that it would be the task of this state, in the event of conflict,
to serve as a port for arrival and departure for bombers. From there it would
be possible to destroy the most important industrial centers in Germany within
hours. Hence, it was only natural that the German
state leadership, for its part, resolved to destroy this port of departure for
bombers. It arrived at this decision not because of hatred for the Czech
people. On the contrary, in the thousand years they have lived together, the
German and the Czech peoples have enjoyed centuries of close cooperation,
interrupted by only short periods of tension.
Admittedly, in such times of
tension, the passions of the men fighting on the front lines of such ethnic
conflicts may well dim their sense of justice and thus lead to a false assessment
of the overall situation. This is a trait characteristic of any war. However,
in the great epochs of understanding coexistence, both peoples have always
agreed that each of them had an inalienable right- mutually-to the esteem and
respect of its Volkstum.
Even in these years of struggle, I
approached the Czech people not only in my capacity as the protector of the
biased interests of his Volk and Reich, but also as one who never failed to
respect the Czech people itself. One thing is certain, however: had the
democratic midwives of this state been allowed to realize their ultimate goal,
the German Reich would not have been eliminated, although, undoubtedly, we
would also have had to take some losses. Rather the Czech people would in all
likelihood have had to bear far more horrendous consequences, as regards its
size and position. Indeed, I am convinced these consequences would have been
catastrophic.
I am happy that we were able to
prevent this catastrophe in Central Europe, albeit to the great irritation of
democratic interests, thanks to the restraint we exercised and the insight of
the Czech people. For the National Socialist German Reich grants its citizens
from the start what the best and most insightful Czechs have fought for
throughout the decades. It is the right to one’s own Volkstum, the right to
cultivate it and to enjoy it freely. National Socialist Germany has no
intention whatever of renouncing the racial principles on which we pride
ourselves. They will not only benefit the German, but also the Czech Volk. What
we demand is respect for the historic necessity, for the economic predicament
that confronts us all.
As I announced the solution of this
problem on March 22, 1938 before the Reichstag, I was
convinced that I was attending to a Central European necessity. In March 1938,
I still believed that we could resolve the minorities question in this state by
a slow evolution and that, sooner or later, we would be able to assure a common
platform by means of contractual cooperation, which would benefit the interests
of all of us not only politically, but also economically.
It was only when Herr Beneš, by then
completely in the hands of his international democratic financiers, added a
military aspect to the problem and unleashed a wave of repressions on the
Germans and simultaneously attempted the well-known mobilization to deal the
German state a defeat internationally and to damage its prestige, that I
finally realized that a solution in this manner was no longer possible. For the
lie about a German mobilization at the time had obviously been inspired by
foreign powers and proposed to the Czechs in order to deal a blow to the
prestige of the German Reich.
I do not need to repeat once again
that Germany had not mobilized a single man in May of last year. By contrast,
all of us had been of the opinion that the fate of Herr Schuschnigg would
induce others to seek an understanding, by means of a more just treatment of
their national minorities. For my person, I had been prepared to undertake
patiently such a peaceful evolution, if necessary, over a number of years.
However, it was precisely these
peaceful intentions which represented a thorn in the side of the fomenters in
the democracies. They hate us Germans and would much prefer to wipe us out completely.
And, what are the Czechs to them? A means to an end! What interest do they have
in the fate of such a brave little people? What do they care for the lives of a
few hundred thousand brave soldiers who unwittingly became the victims of their
politics? These Western European fomenters of peace (Friedenshetzer) did
not seek to promote peace, but to spill blood. And this bloodshed did enable
them to rouse people yet again and thereby to let more blood flow. That is why
the mobilization was made up and the public in Prague was told a pack of lies.
These were intended to serve as arguments for a Czech mobilization. Above all,
they were to furnish an excuse to exert highly welcome military pressure on the
pending elections in the Sudetenland.
According to these men’s
convictions, there remained only two possibilities for Germany: either it
accepted the Czech mobilization and hence suffered a shameful defeat, or it
openly confronted Czechoslovakia in a bloody war. This would have made it
possible to mobilize the peoples of Western Europe, who had no real interest in
this matter, to plunge them into the necessary frenzy of bloodlust and mankind
into a new catastrophe. Some would have the honor to lose their lives in this
war, while others would profit from it.
You are aware of the decision I made
instantly at the time, my Deputies.
First: resolution of this question
before the year 1938 ended, by October 2 at the latest. Second: preparations
for a solution by all those means which would leave no doubt that any attempts
at interference would be thwarted by the united strength of the nation.
At the time, I directed and gave
orders for the expansion of our fortifications in the west. By September 25,
1938, they were already in such a condition as to surpass the power of
resistance of the former Siegfried Line by thirty to forty times. Since then,
they have essentially been completed. At present, the sections I later ordered
to be added, running from Saarbrucken to Aix-la-Chapelle, are under
construction. To a high degree, they are ready to assume their defensive role.
The state in which this mightiest
fortification of all time finds itself today affords the German nation the
reassuring knowledge that no power on earth shall ever be able to pierce this
front.
When the first attempt at
provocation by means of the Czech mobilization had not produced the desired
results, a second phase set in. It revealed all the more the true nature of the
interests involved in this affair which concerned Central Europe exclusively.
And when today a cry rings out in the world, “Never again Munich,” this is
ample evidence that these warmongers regard the peaceful solution of this
problem as the most ruinous outcome that ever happened.
They regret that no blood was shed.
Not their blood, of course, since these fomenters never stand where the shots
are being fired, but where the money is being made. What is at stake is the
blood of many nameless soldiers.
By the way, it was not even
necessary for this Conference at Munich to convene. After all, it came about
only because those states which agitated for resistance at all costs later on
began to search for a more or less decent escape route, once the problem called
for a solution in one way or another. For without Munich, i.e. without the
Western European states’ intervention, the solution of this entire problem-had
there ever been a like escalation of events- would have been child’s play.
The decision at Munich resulted in
the following:
1. Return of substantial parts of
the German frontier areas in Bohemia and Moravia to the Reich.
2. Preservation of options for a
resolution of the other problems with this state, i.e. the return or the
migration of the remaining Hungarian and Slovak minorities.
3. Issue of a guarantee. From the
start, as far as Germany and Italy were concerned, the guarantee of this state
was made conditional on the consent of all interested parties bordering the
state and, thus, depended on the actual resolution of those questions
concerning the interested parties.
The following questions remained
open:
1. Return of the Magyar parts to
Hungary;
2. return of the Polish parts to
Poland;
3. resolution of the Slovak
question; and
4. resolution of the Ukrainian
question.
As you are aware, barely had the
negotiations between Hungary and Czechoslovakia begun, when the Czechoslovakian
as well as the Hungarian negotiators approached Germany and Italy, standing at
our side, with the request to undertake, as arbitrators, the drawing of the new
borders between Slovakia, the Carpatho-Ukraine, and Hungary. In so doing, they
themselves failed to exhaust the possibility of an appeal to the Four Powers,
and, thus, waived this right, i.e. declined to take advantage of it.
And this was quite understandable.
All those residing in this Lebensraum wished to preserve peace and quiet. Italy
and Germany were ready to heed this call. Neither England nor France objected
to this agreement, which in its nature had already bypassed the formalities of
the Munich Agreement. After all, it would have been crazy if either London or
Paris had protested against an act by Germany or Italy which had taken place on
the request of those concerned.
As always in such cases, the award
arbitrated by Italy and Germany could not completely satisfy both sides. Its
major shortcoming was that both parties had to agree to submit to the
arbitration voluntarily. Shortly after this award was settled, two states
immediately mounted strong protests.
Hungary claimed the Carpatho-Ukraine
based on its general interests and certain specific ones. Poland, on the other
hand, demanded a direct link to Hungary. In view of these claims, the remainder
of this state born at Versailles was destined to perish. In all likelihood,
only one other state was interested in maintaining the status quo: Rumania. A
competent authority personally informed me of how
desirable he felt it was that Rumania should be granted a direct link to
Germany through the Ukraine and Slovakia. I am citing this particular example
to illustrate how threatened Rumania must have felt by Germany, as certain
American clairvoyants would have had it.
It was clear, however, that it was
neither Germany’s duty to oppose such a development in the long run, nor to
fight for a state of affairs for which we could never have assumed
responsibility.
Hence came the moment in which I
resolved to declare, on behalf of the Reich Government, that we had no
intention to continue to be bothered with the odium of opposing the Polish and
Hungarian desire for a common border, just perhaps to secure a route of advance
into Rumania. And since the Czech government resorted once more to its methods
of old, and Slovakia revealed its desires for independence, there could be no
talk of maintaining this state any longer. The Czechoslovakian state
constructed at Versailles had outlived its purpose. It broke up not because
Germany wished this. It broke up because it is not possible to construct and
maintain at the conference table artificial states which are not viable in
themselves.
Thus when, a few days before this
state disintegrated, England and France inquired about a guarantee, Germany
rejected this because the conditions stipulated at Munich no longer applied. To
the contrary, when the German Reich Government finally resolved to intervene on
its part-now that this whole structure was in the process of disintegration
and, for all practical purposes, had already disintegrated-then this occurred
in the fulfillment of a self-evident duty. In this context, the following ought
to be noted: On the occasion of the Czech Foreign Minister Chvalkovsky’s first
visit to Munich, the German Reich Government clearly expressed its views on the
future of Czechoslovakia. At the time, I myself assured Herr Minister
Chvalkovsky that, given a decent treatment of the large remaining German
minorities in Czechia and a pacification of the whole state, Germany would
assume a fair attitude. We did not wish to create difficulties for this state.
I left no doubt that, if Czechia
undertook any steps reminiscent of the political tendencies of the retired Herr
Dr. Beneš, Germany would not tolerate a development along this line. Such a
development would be nipped in the bud.
At the time, I also pointed out that
the maintenance of huge military arsenal in Central Europe without aim and
object had to be regarded as a source of danger.
Later developments proved how right
this warning of mine had been. A continually worsening whispering campaign as
well as a lapse of the Czech newspapers into the old style made it clear to
even the most simple-minded that a return to the old state of affairs was
imminent.
The danger of a military
confrontation was ever present in view of the possibility that some lunatics
could seize the enormous stockpile of war material.
This involved a certain danger of
explosions of incalculable consequences.
To prove this to you, my Deputies, I
have no choice but to give you a general idea of the numerical proportions of
the international arsenal of explosives in Central Europe, which strike me as
downright gigantic.
Since this territory has been
occupied, the following items were confiscated and secured:
1. Air Force: 1,582 planes; 501
anti-aircraft guns;
2. Army: 2,175 fieldguns (light and
heavy); 785 mortars; 469 tanks; 43,876 machineguns; 114,000 pistols; 1,090,000
rifles;
3. Ammunition: 1,000,000,000 shells
(infantry); 3,000,000 shells (artillery and gas);
4. Other weaponry of all types, such
as devices for building bridges; listening devices; searchlights; measuring
instruments; cars and special vehicles in great numbers.
I believe that it was fortunate for
millions and millions of people that I was able to prevent this explosion,
thanks to the insight which the responsible men on the other side had at the
last minute. It is my conviction that we found a solution which has settled
this dispute and has eliminated it as a source of danger for Central Europe.
The claim that this solution
contradicts the Munich Agreement cannot be justified any more than it can be
substantiated. Under no circumstances can the Munich settlement be regarded as
a final one. After all, it makes concessions for the solution of additional
questions and the need to resolve them. Truly, and this is decisive, it cannot
be held against us that the concerned parties appealed to Italy and Germany,
and not to the Four Powers. Nor can it be held against us that Czechoslovakia
disintegrated on its own and, hence, ceased to exist. It is only natural that,
once these ethnographic principles no longer applied, Germany again took charge
of its one-thousand year old interests, which are not only of a political, but
also of an economic nature. Time will tell whether the solution Germany found
was the right one. One thing is sure, however: this
solution should not be subject to English control or criticism. For the Lander
of Bohemia and Moravia have nothing at all to do with the Munich Agreement
since they constituted the final remnants of the former Czechoslovakian state.
As little right as we have to
subject English measures, whether just or unjust, to German control and
criticism, for instance in Northern Ireland, as little right does England
possess to do this in the case of the old German electorates. I completely fail
to understand how the personal understanding reached by Mr. Chamberlain and
myself at Munich can be applied to this case. After all, the case of
Czechoslovakia was dealt with in the Munich Agreement insofar as it was
possible to deal with it at that point. Beyond this, it was only planned that,
should the concerned parties be unable to arrive at a agreement themselves,
they could appeal to the Four Powers. After a period of three months, the Four
Powers would meet again for further consultations.
Now the concerned parties have not
appealed to the Four Powers, but to Germany and Italy. Evidence for the
legitimacy of this step lies in the fact that neither England nor France voiced
any objections. Moreover, they have accepted without any further ado the award
arbitrated by Germany and Italy.
No, the agreement Mr. Chamberlain
and I entered into has nothing to do with the problem at hand. It applies
exclusively to questions concerning the coexistence of England and Germany.
This is equally evident in the statement that such questions, in the future,
ought to be dealt with in the spirit of the Munich Agreement and the
Anglo-German Naval Agreement, which advocate friendly relations by means of
mutual consultations. Should this agreement apply to any and all future German
political activities, then England could not take any further steps, for
instance, in Palestine or anywhere else for that matter, without consulting
Germany before taking action. We certainly expect nothing of the kind and, in
turn, we protest that this is expected of us. When Mr. Chamberlain now
concludes that the Munich Agreement is null and void, because we abrogated it,
I shall take note of his disposition as of today and I shall draw the proper
conclusions.
Throughout my years of political
activities, I have always advocated the idea of establishing close Anglo-German
friendship and cooperation. I found countless congenial people in my Movement.
Perhaps they even joined my Movement because of this conviction of mine. The
desire for Anglo-German friendship and cooperation not only reflects my own
proper sentiments on the topic, derived from the common heritage of our two
peoples, but also my opinion that the existence of the British Empire is of
importance to mankind and in its best interest. Never have I left any doubt
about my conviction that the maintaining of this empire is an object of
inestimable value to mankind’s culture and economy.
By whatever means Great Britain may
have gained its colonial possessions- and I know this entailed the use of
force, the use of the most brutal force in many instances-I nevertheless
realize that no other empire has ever been created by different means. In the
end, world history values not the method so much as the success; and this not
in terms of the success of the method employed, but of the general utility
derived from the method.
Undoubtedly the Anglo-Saxon people
have accomplished a great colonizing work on this earth. I sincerely admire
this achievement. From a higher humanitarian point of view, the thought of its
destruction has always seemed to me, and seems to me today, the product of a
wanton thirst for fame (Herostratentum). However, my sincere respect for
this attainment does not mean I will refrain from assuring the life of my own
Volk. I believe it is not possible to bring about a lasting friendship between
the German and the Anglo-Saxon peoples if the other side fails to realize that
next to British interests there are German ones also. As for the men of Britain
the sustenance of the British Empire lends meaning and purpose to life, so the
sustenance and liberty of the German Reich does for the men of Germany! A
lasting friendship between these two nations is conceivable only in the
framework of mutual respect.
The English rule a mighty empire.
They built this empire in the days of the German Volk’s slackening. In former
times, the German Reich also was a mighty empire. It once ruled the West. In
bloody battles and religious confrontations, as well as because this state
split up internally, this Reich lost its might and greatness and finally fell
into a deep sleep. Still, as the old Reich was nearing its end, the seed for
its ultimate rebirth began to germinate. A new Germany grew out of Brandenburg
and Prussia: the Second Reich. And, in the final instance, this became the
German Volksreich of today.
Perhaps now the English will
understand that we have no reason to feel in the least inferior to them. For
this, truly, our historic past is too colossal! England has given the world
many a great man; Germany has done no less.
The difficult struggle for the
survival of our Volk has demanded of us, in the course of three centuries, a
blood sacrifice in the defense of the Reich far outstripping the sacrifices
other peoples had to make to secure their existence. That, perpetually the
victim of aggression, Germany was not able to maintain its assets, that it had
to sacrifice many provinces, has been the result of the state’s undesirable
development which caused its impotence.
We have now overcome this condition.
We, as Germans, therefore do not feel inferior to the British. Our respect for
our country is just as great as that of every Englishman for England. The
history of our Volk throughout the past two thousand years affords us grounds
enough and deeds to fill us with sincere pride.
Should England declare itself incapable
of understanding this, our attitude, and should it instead perhaps regard
Germany as a vassal state, then our offer of love and friendship for England
will have been for naught. We shall neither despair nor lose heart because of
this. Instead, we shall then set out on a path- conscious of our own strength
and that of our friends-which shall secure our independence and not prejudice
our dignity.
I am aware of the British Prime
Minister’s declaration in which he maintains he cannot place any trust in assurances
by Germany. Under the circumstances, I felt that we should no longer burden him
or the English people with conditions, unthinkable without mutual trust. When
Germany became National Socialist and thus initiated its resurrection, I made a
proposal, for my part, in pursuit of my stalwart policy of friendship for
England, to impose voluntary limits on German armament at sea. This implied the
will and conviction that war should never again be possible between England and
Germany. And this remains my will and my conviction even today.
However, I am now forced to concede
that England’s official and unofficial policies leave no doubt that London no
longer shares this conviction. Quite the contrary, it is my conviction that,
irrespective of what type of conflict Germany might be drawn into, Britain will
always oppose Germany. War with Germany is regarded as a matter of course.
I deeply regret this since my only
demand of England today is, and will continue to be, the return of our
colonies. However, I have always made it perfectly clear that this does not
constitute grounds for a war. I remain true to my conviction that England, for
whom the colonies have no value, would come to understand Germany’s position
one day. Then it would undoubtedly realize that Germany’s friendship far
outweighed these objects, which, while they are of no real use to England, are
of vital importance to Germany.
Beyond this, I have never made any
demands which affected British interests, posed a real danger to its world
empire, or were detrimental to England in some other manner. I have restricted
myself to demands in the framework of Germany’s Lebensraum, questions closely
tied to the German nation’s eternal possessions. Now that journalists and
officials in England publicly advocate opposition to Germany in any case, and
this is confirmed by the well-known policy of encirclement, then the
foundations on which the Anglo-German Naval Agreement rested have been
destroyed.
Thus, I have resolved to inform the
British Government of this today. This is not a question of a material
affair-since I continue to cherish the hope that an arms race with England can
be avoided-but a question of self-respect.
Should the British government
reconsider and wish to negotiate this matter with Germany in order to reach a
clear and definite understanding, then no one would be happier than I.
Beyond this, I know my Volk-I rely
on it. We desire nothing that was not ours before. Never will we rob another
state of its rightful possessions.
Alas, he who believes he can attack
Germany will encounter such a power and such a resistance that those of the
year 1914 will have been negligible in comparison.
I would like to discuss in this
context a matter which those circles that earlier occasioned the mobilization
of Czechoslovakia have taken up as a point of departure for a new campaign
against the Reich. In the introduction to my speech, my Deputies, I already
assured you that never in my political life, neither in the case of Austria nor
in the case of Czechoslovakia, have I assumed an attitude which was
incompatible with the measures now executed. On the question of the Memel
Germans, I have always pointed out that, should Lithuania not resolve this
problem in a refined and generous manner, Germany would have to appear on the
scene one day.
You know that the Diktat of
Versailles arbitrarily tore the Memel territory from the German Reich, and that
in 1923, in the midst of peace, Lithuania occupied these areas and confiscated
them more or less. The fate suffered by the Germans living there has become
tantamount to martyrdom since then. In the framework of the reintegration of
Bohemia and Moravia into the German Reich, I was able to reach an agreement
with the Lithuanian government, which allowed for the return of these areas to
Germany without any violent act or bloodshed. And here, too, I did not demand
even one square mile more than what we originally had possessed and had been
robbed of.
This means that only those areas
torn from us by the insane dictators of peace at Versailles returned to the
German Reich. I am convinced that this solution will have a favorable effect on
the relations between Germany and Lithuania. Our behavior has clearly shown
that Germany now has no interest in anything other than to live in peace and
friendship also with this state. We seek to establish and cultivate economic
ties with it.
And, in principle, I wish to explain
the following here: the significance of economic agreements with Germany lies
not only in its ability to produce nearly all industrial goods in demand, but
also in its role as a gigantic consumer. As the buyer of numerous products
Germany makes it possible for many other countries to participate in world
trade in the first place. Hence, it is in our own best interest not only to
preserve these markets, but to cultivate them as well.
For this is what the existence of
our Volk is based on to a high degree. It is once more a sign of the greatness
of the so-called democratic statesmen that they believe they have won an eminent
political success when they manage to prevent a people from making sales, for
example, by boycotting its markets, in order to starve them out, I presume. I
need not tell you that, in accordance with my convictions, a people will not
starve because of this, but it will be all the more willing to fight under such
circumstances.
As far as Germany is concerned, it
is determined not to allow certain markets which are of vital interest to the
nation to be taken from it by terrorist interventions from abroad or by threats
from there. This is not only in our interest, but also in the interest of our
trading partners. In this case, as in any type of business, dependency is not
unilateral but mutual.
We often have the pleasure to read
dilettantish treatises in the democratic press which in all earnest maintain
that, because Germany has close economic relations with a country, it is trying
to make that country dependent on it. What truly hair-raising Jewish nonsense!
For, if today the German Reich delivers machinery to an agricultural state and
receives foodstuffs in return, then the Reich as a consumer of these foodstuffs
is at least as dependent-if not more dependent-on this agricultural state as
the agricultural state is on Germany from which it receives industrial products
as payment.
Germany regards the Baltic States as
its most important trading partners. It is hence in our own interest to see
that these lead an independent, orderly national life of their own. In our
eyes, this is a prerequisite for any economic development domestically, which
in turn creates the prerequisites for our barter trade.
I therefore am happy that in the
case of Lithuania, too, we have been able to remove the bone of contention
between our two countries. Thus, we have cleared away the only obstacle in the
way of a friendly policy. It does not consist of political compliments, but can
and will hold its own, I am convinced, in practical work in the economic
sphere.
The democratic world profoundly
regrets that no blood was shed in this instance, too. It regrets that 175,000
Germans were able to return to their beloved German homeland without a few
hundred thousand others being shot in the process! This truly pains the humane
world apostles. It is not surprising in the least that they immediately set out
to search for new means of once again upsetting the European atmosphere
thoroughly. And this time, as in the case of Czechoslovakia, they again alleged
that Germany had taken military measures, that is they claimed that a so-called
German mobilization had taken place. And the object of this mobilization was
Poland.
There is little to be said on the
topic of Polish-German relations. In this instance as well, the Peace Treaty of
Versailles has grievously and intentionally wounded the German Volk. Above all,
the strange delimitation of the Corridor, granting Poland access to the sea,
was to preclude a reconciliation between Poland and Germany for all time. And,
as emphasized earlier, this problem is perhaps the most painful one for Germany
to bear.
This notwithstanding, I remained
steadfast in my conviction that the necessity of granting the Polish state free
access to the sea cannot be ignored.
Moreover, in principle, I have
always maintained that it would be expedient that people whom Providence has
destined-or damned, for all I care-to live next to one another, did not
needlessly and artificially poison their relations. The late Marshal Pilsudski,
who adhered to this view also, was willing to review the issue of a
decontamination of Polish-German relations and finally to arrive at an
agreement, in which Germany and Poland pledged themselves to renounce war as a
means of settling conflicts between them.
Poland was granted one exception
from this agreement: the provision that pacts of assistance previously entered
into by Poland would not be affected by this regulation. Reference here was
solely to the Mutual Assistance Pact with France. It was accepted as a matter
of course that this provision applied only to the pact already concluded and was
not to be extended to pacts to be concluded in the future. It is a fact that
this German-Polish Pact considerably contributed to a relaxation of tensions in
Europe.
Nevertheless one question remained
open, one issue which would naturally have to be resolved sooner or later: the
question of the German city of Danzig. Danzig is a German city and it wishes to
return to Germany. On the other hand, this city does have contractual
obligations to Poland, although they were forced on it by the dictators of peace
at Versailles. Now that the League of Nations-previously a great contributor to
the unrest-has commissioned a most tactful High Commissioner to represent its
interest, the question of Danzig was destined to land on the conference table
once more, at the very latest when this ominous institution itself began to
fade. I regard the peaceful resolution of this question as a further
contribution to a final relaxation of tensions in Europe. This relaxation of
tensions is assuredly not promoted by the smear campaign of warmongers gone
crazy, but rather by the elimination of real sources of danger.
Since the problem of Danzig was
discussed several times a few months ago, I forwarded to the Polish Government
a concrete proposal. I will now inform you, my Deputies, of the contents of
this proposal. You shall be able to judge for yourselves whether this proposal
was not the most gigantic concession imaginable in the service of peace in
Europe.
As emphasized previously, I have
always recognized the necessity for this state to have access to the sea and I
have taken account of this. I am not a democratic statesman; I am a realistic
National Socialist. However, I held it equally necessary to point out to the
government in Warsaw that, just as it desires access to the sea, Germany
desires access to its province in the East. These are indeed difficult
problems. Germany bears no responsibility for this. The ones to be blamed are
the magicians of Versailles who either out of malice or thoughtlessness set up
a hundred powder kegs all around Europe, each equipped with a fuse virtually
impossible to extinguish.
You cannot solve these problems in
the same old way. I hold it to be absolutely essential that new ways be found.
After all, Poland’s access to the sea and Germany’s access to the Corridor are
devoid of any military significance.
Their significance is of a
psychological and economic nature exclusively. To assign military significance
to this traffic route would mean succumbing to military naivety to an
exceptional degree.
I have therefore made the following
proposal to the Polish Government:
1. Danzig is reintegrated into the
framework of the German Reich as a Free State.
2. A highway and a railroad line
through the Corridor are placed at Germany’s disposal. They are accorded the
same extraterritorial status which the Corridor now enjoys.
In return, Germany is willing:
1. to recognize all economic rights
of Poland in Danzig;
2. to secure for Poland a free port
of whatever size it desires in Danzig and to guarantee free access thereto;
3. to regard and accept the borders
between Germany and Poland as final;
4. to enter into a twenty-five-year
pact of non-aggression with Poland, a pact which would far outlive me, and
5. to secure the independence of the
Slovak state through cooperation between Germany, Poland, and Hungary, which is
tantamount to a virtual renunciation of a one-sided German hegemony in this
area.
The Polish Government has refused
this proposal of mine and has declared itself willing:
1. to discuss only the question of a
potential replacement of the present League of Nations’ High Commissioner and
2. to consider facilitating transit
traffic through the Corridor.
I sincerely regret the attitude of
the Polish government which I fail to understand. This alone is not decisive,
however. What is far worse is that Poland, like Czechoslovakia a year ago, now
apparently believes it has to call up troops, under pressure from a mendacious
worldwide campaign of rabblerousing.
And this though Germany has conscripted
not one man nor in any way intended to take action against Poland.
As stated earlier, all this is
regrettable in itself. It will be up to posterity to decide whether it was wise
to refuse the unique proposal which I had made. As stated earlier, this was an
attempt to resolve a question which moves the entire German nation emotionally
through a truly unique compromise, and to solve it to the advantage of both
countries.
It is my conviction that Poland was
not interested in the give and take of this solution-it sought exclusively to
take. That Danzig could never again become Polish was completely beyond doubt.
And the plans for an attack, falsely attributed to Germany by the international
press, now led to the so-called offers of guarantee. It also led to a
commitment by the Polish government to a pact of mutual assistance which would
force Poland to oppose Germany militarily, in the event of war between Germany
and another power-in which England would appear on the scene again. This
commitment violates the agreement which, at the time, I had entered into with
Marshal Pilsudski. For this agreement bore solely on commitments then already
in existence, i.e. on Poland’s commitment to France, of which we knew. To
expand on these commitments retroactively is inconsistent with the
German-Polish Non- Aggression Pact. Under the circumstances, I would never have
concluded this Pact. For what is the meaning of a non-aggression pact, when one
party leaves open countless exceptions to the rules! Either collective security
exists, that is collective insecurity and the perpetual threat of imminent war,
or there are clear agreements, which, in principle, prevent the contracting
parties from resorting to arms. Thus, I regard the agreement reached at the
time with Marshal Pilsudski as unilaterally abrogated by Poland and therefore
null and void. I have informed the Polish Government of this. I can only repeat
once again that this does not signify a fundamental change in principle in my
views of the stated problems.
Should the Polish Government
consider it worth its while to arrive at a renewed contractual regulation of
its relations to Germany, then I shall naturally welcome this with the one
provision that such a regulation must contain clear commitments, which must be mutually
binding for both parties.
Germany is gladly willing to
undertake such obligations and to fulfill them as well.
When, for these reasons, new unrest
took hold in Europe during the past weeks, the propaganda at the service of the
international warmongers was responsible, a form of propaganda perpetrated by
numerous organs in the democratic states. They seek to continuously exacerbate
nervous tensions by fabricating persistent rumors; to make Europe ripe for a
catastrophe; that catastrophe which they hope will achieve what has not been
achieved by other means up to now: Bolshevism’s annihilation of European
culture! The rabblerousers’ hatred is easily understood if one considers that
in the meantime one of the crisis spots in Europe has been pacified, thanks to
the heroism of one man and his people, and-if I may say so-thanks to the
Italian and German volunteers. During these last weeks, Germany has joined in
the experience and celebration of Spain’s victory with heartfelt sympathy.
When, at the time, I resolved to
heed the request by General Franco for assistance by National Socialist Germany
in his struggle against the international backing of the Bolshevist murderers
and incendiaries (Mordbrenner), the same international warmongers
misinterpreted and abused this step by Germany in the most shameful manner.
At the time, Germany was accused of
seeking to gain a foothold in Spain; of coveting Spain’s colonies; there was
the base lie of 20,000 men landing in Morocco. In brief, everything possible
was done to discredit the idealism of our men and the Italian reinforcements
and to provide new fodder for yet another campaign of warmongering.
In a few weeks, the victorious hero
of Nationalist Spain will make his solemn entry into the capital of his
country. The Spanish people will jubilantly cheer him as their savior from
unspeakable horrors, as their liberator from gangs of murderers and
incendiaries, on whose conscience are the execution and the murder of an
estimated 775,000 human beings. Entire populations of villages and cities were
literally slaughtered under the silent, gracious patronage of humanitarian
world apostles from the democracies of Western Europe and North America. In
this victory parade, side by side with their Italian comrades, the volunteers
of our German Legion will march in the rows of valiant Spanish soldiers.
Shortly afterwards we hope to
welcome them here in the homeland. The German Volk will then find out how, in
this instance also, its valiant sons fought in the defense of the freedom of a
most noble people and how, in the end, they contributed to the rescue of
European civilization. For the victory of Bolshevist subhumanity (Untermenschentum)
in Spain could only too easily have swept over Europe. Hence, the hatred
felt by those who regret that Europe did not go up in flames. Now, they are all
the more determined to make use of every opportunity to sow the seeds of
distrust between nations and to whip up the enthusiasm for war, desirable from
their point of view, somewhere else.
What these international warmongers
have come up with, in the last weeks, in terms of mendacious statements and
falsified reports, which were circulated in numerous newspapers, was partially
as childish as it was spiteful. And its first success-insofar as it did not
serve the domestic politics of the democratic governments exclusively-has been
the spread of a type of nervous hysteria which in the land of unlimited
possibilities has presently already led to people thinking that a landing by
Martians is possible. However, the actual purpose is to
prepare public opinion to accept the English policy of encirclement as
necessary and, if worse comes to worse, to support this policy.
By contrast, the German Volk can
calmly go about its daily work. The best army in Germany’s history defends its
frontiers; a gigantic Luftwaffe protects its air space; its coasts have been
made unassailable by any enemy power. In the West the mightiest bulwark of all
time has been erected.
What is decisive, however, is the
unity of the Volkskorper, the trust all Germans place in their Wehrmacht, and-I
believe I can say this-the trust that all place in their leadership.
No less is the trust our leadership
and our Volk place in our friends. At their fore stands the one state, which in
its fateful solidarity is closest to us in all respects. And in this year also,
Fascist Italy has shown the greatest possible understanding for Germany’s
justified interests. No one should be surprised that, for our part, we
reciprocate these sentiments for Italy’s vital necessities.
The alliance which binds the two
peoples can never come apart! Any attempt to rock it is ludicrous in our eyes.
In any event, a few days ago, one great democratic newspaper published an
article which illustrates and elucidates this well. It maintained that one
could no longer count on playing Italy and Germany against each other in order
to destroy them separately later.
Thus, the German Reich Government
has profound understanding for the lawfulness of the action of our Italian friend
against Albania and has welcomed it. Yes, Fascism has not only the right but
the duty to attend to the preservation of order in this Lebensraum, which
nature and history have assigned to Italy. Only such an order can lay the
foundations for the bloom of human civilization and its maintenance. And the
rest of the world can no more doubt, in the end, the civilizing works of
Fascism than it can doubt those of National Socialism. In both cases,
undeniable facts speak against untenable fibs and unproven assertions by the
other side.
It is the long-term goal of the
German State leadership to bring about increasingly close relations between
Germany, Italy, and Japan. We regard the continued existence and the
preservation of the freedom and independence of these three world powers as a
strong element in the maintenance of a truly human civilization, a practical
civilization, as well as a more just world order for the future.
As I mentioned in my introduction
earlier, the world was informed of the contents of a certain telegram on April
15, 1939. I did eventually see this telegram myself, though not until somewhat
later. It is difficult to classify this document. It simply fits into no known
category. Therefore, my Deputies of the German Reichstag, standing before you
and hence before the German Volk, I will try to analyze the contents of this
curious document. From there I will go on to give the necessary answers in your
name and in the name of the German Volk.
1. Mr.
Roosevelt is of the opinion that I also ought to be aware that “throughout the
world hundreds of millions of human beings are living today in constant fear of
a new war or even a series of wars.” This was of definite concern to the United
States, for whom he spoke, “as it must also be to the peoples of the other
nations of the entire western hemisphere.”
Answer: To
this I would like to say that the fear of war has undoubtedly haunted mankind
throughout the ages, and rightly so. For example, from the conclusion of the
Peace Treaty of Versailles in 1919 until 1938, fourteen wars alone have been
waged, in none of which Germany has been involved.
However, the same cannot be said of states of the “western hemisphere” in the
name of which Mr. President Roosevelt claims to be speaking. To these wars one
must add, within the same time period, twenty-six armed interventions and
sanctions imposed by brute force, and resulting in bloodshed. And in this, too,
Germany has not been involved in the least.
The United States has participated
in six cases of armed intervention since the year 1918 alone Soviet Russia has been involved in ten wars and military actions since
1918 carried out by use of force and bloodshed. And in this, too, Germany has not
been involved. Nor has it caused any of these incidents.
Hence, in my eyes, it would be a
mistake to attribute the fear of war of the peoples of Europe and beyond right
now to precisely those wars for which Germany could be held responsible.
Instead, the cause for this fear
lies in an unbridled smear campaign in the press, as mendacious as it is vile,
in the dissemination of nasty pamphlets to foreign heads of state, in the
artificial scaremongering which has even made interventions from other planets seem possible, which, in turn, has led to dreadful scenes of utter confusion.
I believe that the minute the
responsible governments exercise the necessary restraint themselves and
demonstrate greater love of truth, and impose this criterion on their
journalistic organs, with regard to international relations and the internal
affairs of other people, then assuredly this constant fear of war will vanish
immediately. And then, the peace we all desire will be forthcoming.
2. Mr.
Roosevelt professes the belief in his telegram that “any major war even if it
were to be confined to other continents must bear heavily on everyone during
its continuance and also for generations to come.”
Answer: No
one knows this better than the German Volk. The Peace Treaty of Versailles
placed so heavy a burden of debt on its shoulders that even a hundred years
would not have sufficed to pay it off. And all this despite the fact that it
was American specialists in constitutional law, historians, and professors of
history who proved conclusively that Germany could not be blamed for the
outbreak of the World War any more than any other nation.
Still, I do not believe that every
struggle has catastrophic consequences for the environment, i.e. the entire
earth, especially if it is not artificially drawn into this conflict by a
system of impenetrable alliances. Since the world has experienced wars not only
in the past centuries, but also frequently in more recent decades, as I have
demonstrated in my earlier comments, then this would mean that, if Mr.
Roosevelt’s views are correct, the sum of the consequences of these wars would
bear heavily on mankind for millions of years to come.
3. Mr.
Roosevelt declared that already “on a previous occasion” he had addressed me “on behalf of the settlement of political, economic
and social problems by peaceful methods and without resort to war.”
Answer: This
is precisely the same opinion I have always advocated myself. Also as history
proves, I have settled the necessary political, economic and social problems
without resort to arms, without resort to war. Regrettably, a peaceful
settlement has been rendered more difficult through the agitation by
politicians, statesmen, and news reporters, who were neither concerned nor in
the least affected by the issues in question.
4. Mr.
Roosevelt believes that “the tide of events seems to have reverted to the
threat of arms. If such threats continue, it seems inevitable that much of the
world must become involved in common ruin.”
Answer: As
far as Germany is concerned, I am not aware of such threats to other nations.
Nevertheless, each day in democratic newspapers I read lies concerning such
threats. Daily I read about the mobilization of German troops, trooplandings,
and blackmail. And all this is supposedly directed against states with whom we
live in peace and enjoy the most friendly of relations.
5. Mr.
Roosevelt further believes that, in the event of war, “all the world, victor
nations, vanquished nations, and neutral nations will suffer.”
Answer: This
is a conviction I have expressed as a politician during twenty years in which,
regrettably, the responsible statesmen in America could not bring themselves to
see their involvement in the World War and the nature of its outcome in this
light.
6. Mr.
Roosevelt believes that “it is clear that the leaders of great nations have it
in their power to liberate their peoples from the disaster that impends.”
Answer: If
this is indeed clear, then it must be truly criminal negligence-not to employ a
less refined expression-by the leaders of these peoples if they prove incapable
of curtailing, in view of the powers at their command, the excesses of their
warmongering press and thereby of sparing the world the
disaster which threatens in the case of armed confrontation.
Moreover, I fail to comprehend how
the responsible leaders, instead of cultivating diplomatic relations
internationally, can recall their ambassadors or take like actions to disrupt and
render these relations more difficult without a good reason.
7. Mr.
Roosevelt declares that “three nations in Europe and one in Africa have seen
their independent existence terminated.”
My answer: I
do not understand which three nations in Europe are being referred to.
Should reference be made to the
provinces which have been reintegrated in the German Reich, then I must bring a
mistaken notion of history to the attention of the President. These nations
have by no means lost their independence within Europe. Rather it was in the
year 1918 when, through the breach of a solemn promise, they were torn from the
communities they belonged to. The stamp of nationhood was imprinted on their
brow, one they neither desired nor deserved.
Independence was likewise forced on
those who gained no independence thereby, but who instead were forced into a
dependency on foreign powers whom they despised.
As far as the nation in Africa is
concerned which supposedly lost its freedom too, this is evidently yet another
case of mistaken identity. Not one nation in Africa has lost its freedom.
Rather nearly all former inhabitants of this continent have been subjected by
brute force to the sovereignty of other peoples. This is how they lost their
freedom. The people of Morocco, the Berbers, the Arabs, the Negroes, and so on,
all of them became the victims of foreign powers, whose swords assuredly did
not bear the inscription “Made in Germany,” but instead “Made by
Democracies.”
8. Mr.
Roosevelt then says that reports, which he trusts are not true, “insist that
further acts of aggression are contemplated against still other independent
nations.”
Answer: I
hold such rumors, devoid of any basis in reality, to constitute a violation of
peace and quiet in the world. I perceive therein an attempt to frighten small
nations or at least an attempt to make them increasingly nervous. Should Mr.
Roosevelt have concrete cases in
mind, then I would request that he name the states threatened by an attack and
the potential aggressors in question. Then it will be possible to eliminate
from the face of this earth these outrageous and general accusations by short
declarations.
9. Mr.
Roosevelt declares that “plainly the world is moving toward the moment when
this situation must end in catastrophe unless a more rational way of guiding
events is found.” He then goes on to declare that I have repeatedly asserted
that I and the German people “have no desire for war. If this is true there
need be no war.”
My answer:
Once again, I would like to state that, first of all, I have not waged war.
And, second, I have lent expression
to my distaste for war as well as for warmongering for many years. Third, I do
not know why I should wage war. I would be greatly indebted to Mr.
Roosevelt if he could explain all this to me.
10. Mr.
Roosevelt finally espouses the opinion that “nothing can persuade the peoples
of the earth that any governing power has the right or need to inflict the
consequences of war on its own or any other people save in the case of
selfevident home defense.”
My answer: I
hold this to be the attitude embraced by all reasonable men. Only it seems to
me that in almost every war both parties tend to claim to be acting in
self-evident home defense. Regrettably, the world does not possess any
institution, including the person of Roosevelt, able to resolve this problem
unequivocally. For example, there is no doubt that America did not enter into
the World War in “self-evident home defense.” A commission appointed by Mr.
Roosevelt himself to investigate the reasons for America’s entry into the World
War arrived at the conclusion that this entry had been essentially for the
realization of capitalist interests. Now, all there is left for us to do
is to hope that the United States itself shall adhere to this noble principle
in the future and will not make war on another people “save in the case of
selfevident home defense.”
11. Mr. Roosevelt
further argues that he speaks “not through selfishness or fear of weakness, but
with the voice of strength and with friendship for mankind.”
My answer:
Had America raised its voice of strength and friendship for mankind in a more
timely fashion and, above all, had this voice carried with it practical
applications, then at least the treaty could have been prevented, which has
become the source of the greatest disruption for mankind of all time, namely,
the Diktat of Versailles.
12. Mr.
Roosevelt further declares that it is clear to him that “all international
problems can be solved at the Council table.”
My answer:
Theoretically that may well be possible, since one ought to think that, in many
instances, reason would prevail in pointing to the justness of the demands on
the one side, and to the necessity of making concessions on the other. For
example, according to all laws of reason, logic, and the principles of an
allencompassing higher justice, even according to the commandments of a divine
will, all nations should equally partake in the goods of this world. It is not
right that one nation should occupy so large a Lebensraum that not even fifteen
inhabitants live on one square kilometer, while other nations are forced to
sustain themselves with 140, 150, or even 200 inhabitants per square kilometer.
And, under no circumstances, could
these fortunate nations then seek to restrict the existing Lebensraum of those
already impoverished, for example, by taking away their colonies. Thus, I would
be happy if these problems could actually be solved at the Council table.
My skepticism is based on the fact
that it was America which lent expression itself to pronounced reservations
regarding the effectiveness of conferences. Without doubt, the greatest council
of all time was the League of Nations. It was the will of an American President
which created this body. All nations of this world together were to solve the
problems of mankind at its Council table. However, the first state to withdraw
from this endeavor was the United States. And this was the case because
President Wilson himself already had voiced severe misgivings about the
possibility of solving truly decisive international problems at the Council
table.
With all due respect to your
opinion, Mr. Roosevelt, it is contradicted by the actual fact that, in the
nearly twenty years of the League of Nations’ existence-this greatest permanent
conference of the world-it did not manage to solve even one truly decisive
international problem. Throughout many years, the Treaty of
Versailles had selectively excluded Germany from active participation in this
great international conference in breach of the promise given by President
Wilson. In spite of the bitter experiences of the past, the German Government nevertheless
did not believe it ought to follow the example of the United States, but
instead chose to occupy its seat at the Council table at a later date. It was
not until after many years of futile participation that I finally resolved to
imitate the Americans and withdraw from this greatest conference in the world.
And since then I have set out to solve the problems concerning my Volk, which
regrettably were not solved at the Council table of the League of Nations like
all the others, and, without exception, I solved them without resort to war! Beyond this, many problems were brought to the attention of
international conferences in the past years, as emphasized earlier, without a
solution of any kind being found. And, Mr. Roosevelt, if your view is correct
that all problems can be solved at the Council table, then all nations,
including the United States, must have been led either by blind men or
criminals in the last seven or eight thousand years. For all of them, including
some of the greatest statesmen in the United States, have made history not by
sitting at Council tables, but by making use of the strength of their nation.
America did not gain its independence at the Council table any more than the
conflict between its northern and southern states was solved at the Council
table. I am leaving out of consideration here that the same holds true for the
countless wars in the course of the gradual conquest of the North American
continent. I mention all this only to observe that, with all due respect to the
assuredly noble nature of your views, Mr. President Roosevelt, they are not in
the least confirmed by either the history of your own country or the history of
the rest of the world.
13. Mr.
Roosevelt further asserts that “it is therefore no answer to the plea for
peaceful discussion for one side to plead that unless they receive assurances
beforehand that the verdict will be theirs they will not lay aside their arms.”
My answer:
Truly, Mr. Roosevelt, you cannot believe that when the fate of the nation is at
stake any government or leadership of the nation will lay down its weapons
before a conference, or surrender them, simply in the blind hope that the
intelligence or insight, or whatever, of the other participants in the
conference will make the right decision in the end? Mr. Roosevelt, there has
been only one people and one government in all of world history, which has
adhered to the formula which you recommend: that of Germany. Acting on solemn
promises by the American President Wilson and the endorsement of these
assurances by the Allies, the German nation once trustingly laid down its arms.
It approached the Council table unarmed. However, once it had laid down its
arms, the German nation no longer was even invited to the conference. Instead,
contrary to all assurances, the greatest breach of promise of all time was
affected.
And then, one fine day, instead of
resolving the greatest confusion of all time at the Council table, the most
inhuman Diktat in the world brought about even more terrible confusion. The
representatives of the German Volk, having laid down their arms and trusting in
the solemn assurances of the American President, appeared unarmed to accept the
Diktat of Versailles. They were received not as the representatives of a
nation, which throughout four years had withstood the whole world with immense
heroism in the struggle for its freedom and independence, but instead they were
treated in a more degrading manner than could have been the case with Sioux
Chiefs.
The German delegates were called
names by the mob, stoned. They were dragged to the greatest Council table in
the world no differently than prisoners to the tribunal of a victor. There, at
gunpoint, they were forced to accept the most shameful subjugation and pillage
of all time. Let me assure you, Mr. Roosevelt, that it is my
own unshakeable will to see to it that not only now, but in the future as well,
no German ever again shall step into a conference room defenseless. Instead,
every representative of Germany shall perceive behind him the united force of
the German nation, today and in the future, so help me God.
14. Mr.
Roosevelt believes that “in Conference rooms as in Courts it is necessary that
both sides enter upon the discussion in good faith assuming that substantial
justice will accrue to both.”
Answer: The
representatives of Germany shall never again enter into a conference, which
means nothing other than a tribunal for them. For who is to judge them? In a
conference, there is neither a prosecution nor a judge, there are only two
warring parties. And if the common sense of the concerned parties cannot find a
solution or a settlement, then surely they will not submit themselves to a
judge’s verdict by disinterested foreign powers. Besides, it was the United
States which declined to step before the League of Nations for fear of becoming
the unwitting victim of a court which could decide against the interest of
individual parties, provided the necessary majority vote was attained.
Nevertheless, I would be greatly
indebted to Mr. Roosevelt if he could explain to me how precisely this new
world court is to be set up. Who are to be the judges? How shall they be
selected? To whom shall they be held responsible? And, above all, for what
shall they be held responsible?
15. Mr. Roosevelt
believes that “the cause of world peace would be greatly advanced if the
nations of the world were to obtain a frank statement relating to the present
and future policy of Governments.”
Answer: In
countless public addresses, Mr. Roosevelt, I have already done this. And in
today’s session, I have made such a frank statement before the forum of the
Reichstag-insofar as this is possible within the span of two hours. I must
decline, however, to make such statements to anyone but the Volk for whose existence
and life I am responsible. It alone has the right to demand this of me.
I render account of German policy
objectives in so public a manner that the whole world can hear it anyway. Alas,
these clarifications are of no consequence to the rest of the world, as long as
there is a press capable of distorting any explanation, making it suspect,
placing it in question, and concealing it beneath new mendacious answers.
16. Mr.
Roosevelt believes that “the United States, as one of the nations of the
western hemisphere, is not involved in the immediate controversies which have
arisen in Europe.” Hence, he trusts that I should “be willing to make such a
statement of policy to him as the head of a nation far removed from Europe.”
Answer:
Apparently Mr. Roosevelt seriously believes it would render a service to the
cause of peace worldwide if the nations of the world would make such frank
statements relating to the present policy of governments.
Why does President Roosevelt burden
the German head of state so selectively with the request to make such a
statement without inviting other governments to make similar statements
relating to their policies? I do not believe that it is permissible at all to
demand that such statements be made to a foreign head of state. Instead, in
accordance with President Wilson’s demand at the time for the abolition of
secret negotiations, such statements should best be made to the entire world.
I have not only consistently been
willing to do this, but-as mentioned before-I have also done so all too
frequently. Regrettably, it was precisely the most important statements on the
goals and intentions of the German policies which the press in many of the
so-called democratic states either withheld from the people or misrepresented.
When, however, the American
President Roosevelt feels called on to address such a request to Germany or
Italy of all states simply because America is far removed from Europe, then,
since the distance between Europe and America is equally great, our side also would
have the right to question the President of the United States on the foreign
policy goals pursued by America and the intentions on which this policy is
based, for instance with regard to the states of Central and South America. In
this case, Mr. Roosevelt surely would refer us to the Monroe Doctrine and
decline this request as an uncalled-for interference in the internal affairs of
the American continent. Now, we Germans advocate exactly the same doctrine with
regard to Europe and, in any event, we insist on it insofar as this regards the
domain and the interests of the Greater German Reich.
Besides this, of course, I would
never allow myself to direct a similar request to the President of the United
States of America, as I assume he would justly regard this as tactless.
17. Mr.
Roosevelt now declares further that he is willing to “communicate such
declaration to other nations now apprehensive as to the course which the policy
of your Government may take.”
Answer: By
what means does Mr. Roosevelt determine which nations are apprehensive as to
the course of the policy of Germany and which do not? Or is Mr. Roosevelt in a
position, in spite of the surely enormously heavy load of work on his shoulders
in his own country, to assess by himself the inner state and frame of mind of
foreign peoples and their governments?
18. Mr.
Roosevelt demands finally that we “give assurance that your armed forces will
not attack or invade the territory or possessions of the following independent
nations: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the
Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain and Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain,
Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Yugoslavia,
Russia, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Iraq, the Arabias, Syria, Palestine, Egypt,
and Iran.”
Answer: As a
first step, I took pains to inquire from the cited states whether, first, they
are apprehensive. Second, I asked whether Mr. Roosevelt’s inquiry on their
behalf was initiated by them or whether, at least, he had secured their consent
in this. The responses obtained were negative throughout, in part even marked
by outright indignation. However, a number of the cited states could not
forward their response to us because, like Syria for example, they are presently
not in the possession of their liberty since their territories are occupied by
the military forces of the democratic states which have robbed them of all
their rights. Third, far beyond this, the states bordering
Germany have all received many binding assurances, and many more binding
proposals, than Mr. Roosevelt requested of me in his peculiar telegram.
Fourth, should there be a question
as to the value of these general and specific statements which I have
repeatedly made, then would not any additional statement of this nature , even
if it was made to Mr. Roosevelt, be equally worthless? After all, what is
decisive is not Mr. Roosevelt’s opinion of such statements, but the value
assigned to them by the states in question.
Fifth, I must yet point out to Mr.
Roosevelt a few additional mistaken notions of history. For instance, he
mentions Ireland and requests a statement that Germany not attack Ireland. Now,
I have just read a speech by the Irish Prime Minister De Valera, in which,
contrary to the opinion of Mr. Roosevelt, he oddly enough does not accuse
Germany of oppressing Ireland and instead reproaches England for the persistent
aggressions under which his state suffers.
And, despite Roosevelt’s great
insight into the needs and concerns of other states, it can safely be assumed
that the Irish Prime Minister knows better what threatens his country than the
President of the United States does.
Equally, it appears to have slipped
Mr. Roosevelt’s mind that Palestine is not being occupied by German troops but
by English ones. By brute force, England is curtailing Palestinian freedom and
is robbing the Palestinians of their independence to the advantage of Jewish
intruders for whose cause the Palestinians suffer the most cruel of abuses. The
Arabs living in this territory assuredly have not complained to Roosevelt of
German aggressions. Rather, in persistent appeals to international public
opinion, the Arabs lament the barbaric methods by means of which England seeks
to overpower a people who loves its freedom and fights only to defend it.
This may well be one of the problems
Mr. Roosevelt would like to see solved at the Council table. It ought to be
decided by an impartial judge and not by brute force, military means, mass
executions, the torching of villages, the dynamiting of houses, and so on. One
thing is certain: in this case, England cannot claim to be repulsing the threat
of an Arab attack on England. Instead England is the invader, whom no one bade
come, and who seeks to establish his reign by force in a country not belonging
to him. A number of similarly mistaken historic notions of Mr. Roosevelt are to
be noted; not to mention how difficult it would be for Germany to conduct
military operations in states and countries some of which are at a distance of
two to five thousand and more kilometers.
I wish to state the following in
concluding: the German Government nonetheless is willing to extend an assurance
of the type desired by Roosevelt to each and every one of the cited states, if
this state desires it and approaches Germany with such a reasoned request.
However, there is one prerequisite: this assurance must be absolutely mutual in
nature. This will be superfluous in a number of the cases of the states cited
by Roosevelt since we are either already allied to them or, at the very least,
enjoy close and friendly relations with them.
And, beyond the duration of such an
arrangement, Germany will gladly enter into agreements with each of these
states, agreements of the nature desired by this state.
I would not like to let this
opportunity pass without extending assurances to the President of the United
States on the issues of territories of most immediate concern to him, namely,
the United States itself and the other states of the American continent. And
herewith, I solemnly declare that any and all allegations of a planned German
attack on American territories or an intervention to be pure swindle and crude
fabrication. Not to mention that, assessed from a military standpoint, such
allegations can only be the products of an overwrought imagination.
19. Mr.
Roosevelt declares in this context that he considers of crucial importance the
discussions that are to “relate to the most effective and immediate manner
through which the peoples of the world can obtain progressive relief from the
crushing burden of armament.”
Answer: Mr.
Roosevelt apparently is not aware that this problem already was completely
resolved as far as Germany was concerned. In the years 1919 to 1923, the German
Reich completely disarmed, as explicitly confirmed by the allied commissions,
to the extent enumerated below.
The following were destroyed in the
Army: 59,000 fieldguns and barrels; 130,000 machineguns; 31,000 trench mortars
and barrels; 6,007,000 rifles and carbines; 243,000 MG barrels; 28,000 gun
carriages; 4,390 trench mortar carriages; 38,750,000 shells; 16,550,000 hand
grenades and rifle grenades; 60,400,000 live fuses; 491,000,000 rounds of small
arms ammunition; 335,000 tons of shell cases; 23,515 tons of cartridge cases; 37,600
tons of gunpowder; 79,000 ammunition gauges; 212,000 telephone sets; 1,072
flamethrowers, and so on.
Further destroyed were: sledges,
mobile workshops, flak vehicles, limbers, steel helmets, gas masks, machines of
the former war industry, and rifle barrels.
Further destroyed in the air were:
15,714 fighter planes and bombers; 27,757 aircraft engines.
At sea, the following were
destroyed: 26 heavy battleships; 4 coastal armored ships; 4 battlecruisers; 19
light cruisers, 21 training ships and special ships; 83 torpedo boats; 315
U-boats.
Also destroyed were motor vehicles
of all types, gas bombs and, in part, anti-gas defense equipment, propellants,
explosives, searchlights, sighting devices, range finders and sound rangers,
optical instruments of all kinds, harnesses, and so on; all airplane and
airship hangars, and so on.
In accordance with the solemn
assurances, which were given to Germany and corroborated in the Peace Treaty of
Versailles, this was to constitute merely an advance payment to enable the
outside world for its part to disarm without danger. As in all the other cases,
having placed its faith in the promises given, Germany was to be shamefully
deceived once more. As you are aware, all subsequent attempts sadly failed, in
spite of years of negotiation at the council table, to bring about a
disarmament of other states, which would have constituted no less than an
element of intelligence and justice and the fulfillment of commitments made. I
myself have contributed to these discussions a series of practical suggestions,
Mr. Roosevelt, and I sought to initiate debate to at least reduce armament as
much as possible. I suggested a 200,000-man ceiling for standing armies, an
abolition of all offensive weapons, bombers, gas warfare, and so on.
20. Mr.
Roosevelt finally asserts his preparedness to “take part in discussions looking
towards the most practical manner of opening up avenues of international trade
to the end that every nation of the earth may be enabled to buy and sell on
equal terms in the world market as well as to possess assurance of obtaining
the materials and products of peaceful economic life.”
Answer: I
believe, Mr. Roosevelt, that it is not a matter of discussing these problems in
theory. Instead, it is imperative to take concrete actions to remove actual
impediments to the international economy. The greatest impediments lie within
the respective states themselves. Previous experiences have shown that all
great international conferences on trade failed simply because the respective
states were not capable of keeping their domestic economies in order. Currency
manipulation carried this insecurity to the international capital market. Above
all, this resulted in constant fluctuations in the exchange rates.
It likewise places an intolerable
burden on world trade relations if, because of ideological considerations, it
is possible for certain countries to unleash a campaign of wild boycotts of
other peoples and their goods, and thereby to practically exclude them from
participation in the market. I believe you would render us a great service, Mr.
Roosevelt, if you took advantage of your strong influence in the United States
to eliminate these particular impediments to the conduct of truly free trade.
However, it did not prove possible
to see through these proposals in the rest of the world, in spite of Germany’s
complete disarmament. I therefore advanced proposals for a
ceiling of 300,000 men to be put up for discussion. The result was equally
negative. I thereupon continued to place a series of other detailed disarmament
proposals before the forum of the German Reichstag and hence before the
international public.
Nobody even thought of joining in
these discussions. Instead, the rest of the world began to reinforce its
existing vast armament. It was not until the year 1934 that I ordered a
thorough German rearmament, after the last of my comprehensive proposals on
behalf of Germany, regarding the 300,000-man army, had been rejected for good.
Still, Mr. Roosevelt, I should not
like to stand in the way of the discussion of armament questions in which you
intend to participate. I would only like to request that, before you turn to me
and Germany, you contact the others. I can still see in my mind’s eye a sum of
practical experiences and I am inclined to remain skeptical until reality sets
me right.
For I simply cannot believe that, if
the leaders of other peoples are not even capable of putting in order
production in their own states and of eliminating the campaign of wild boycotts
for ideological reasons which so detrimentally affect international economic
relations there can be much hope of international accords bearing fruit in the
improvement of economic relations. Only in this manner can we secure the right
for all to buy and sell on equal terms in the world market.
Besides this, the German Volk has
made concrete demands in this context. I would be delighted if you, Mr.
President, as one of the successors to the late President Wilson, would speak
up for finally redeeming the promise which once led Germany to lay down its
arms and to surrender to the so-called victors. I am speaking, in this context,
not so much of the countless billions of so-called reparation payments extorted
from Germany, as of the return of the areas stolen from Germany. The German
Volk has lost three million square kilometers of land both within and beyond
Europe.
Moreover, unlike the colonies of
other nations, the colonial possessions of the German Reich were not acquired
by conquest but instead by treaties and purchase. President Wilson solemnly
pledged his word that Germany’s claims to its territorial possessions, as well
as all others, would undergo just scrutiny.
Instead, those nations, which have
already secured for themselves the mightiest colonial empires of all time, have
been awarded the German possessions. This causes our Volk great concern
especially today, and will increasingly in the future as well. It would be a
noble deed if President Franklin Roosevelt redeemed the promise made by
President Woodrow Wilson. This would constitute a practical contribution to the
moral consolidation of the world and the improvement of its economy.
21. Mr.
Roosevelt declared in conclusion that “Heads of great Governments in this hour
are literally responsible for the fate of humanity in the coming years. They
cannot fail to hear the prayers of their peoples to be protected from the
foreseeable chaos of war.” I, too, would be held “accountable.”
Answer: Mr.
President Roosevelt! Without any difficulty, I do understand that the greatness
of your empire and the immense riches of your land allow you to feel
responsible for the fate of the entire world and for the fate of all peoples.
However, Mr. Roosevelt, my situation
is much more modest and limited. You have 135 million inhabitants living on
nine-and-a-half million square kilometers. Your land is one of untold riches
and vast natural resources. It is fertile enough to sustain half a billion
human beings and to provide them with all necessities.
I once took over a state on the
brink of ruin thanks to its ready trust in the assurances of the outside world
and the feeble leadership of a democratic regime.
Unlike America, where not even
fifteen persons live on one square kilometer, this state has 140 persons per
square kilometer. The fertility of our soil does not equal yours. We lack the
numerous natural resources which nature places at the disposal of your people.
The billions of German savings, accumulated in the form of gold and currency
during the years of peace, were extorted from us and taken away. We lost our colonies. In the year 1933, there were seven million
unemployed in my country. Millions worked part-time only,
millions of peasants were reduced to misery, commerce was nearly destroyed,
trade was ruined; in short: chaos reigned.
I have been able to accomplish only
one task in the years since, Mr. President Roosevelt. I could not possibly feel
myself responsible for the fate of a world which showed no sympathy for the
woeful plight of my own Volk. I saw myself as a man called on by Providence to
serve this Volk and to deliver it from its terrible hardships. Within the
six-and-a-half years now lying behind us, I lived day and night for the one
thought: to awaken the inner forces dormant in this Volk forsaken by the outside
world, to increase them to the utmost, and, finally, to use them in the
salvation of our community.
I overcame chaos in Germany. I
restored order, enormously raised production in all spheres of our national
economy, labored to create substitutes for a number of the raw materials we
lack, smoothed the way for new inventions, developed traffic, ordered the
construction of gigantic roads. I had canals dug, colossal new factories
brought to life. In all this, I strove to serve the development of the social
community of my Volk, its education, and its culture. I succeeded in bringing
those seven million unemployed, whose plight truly went to heart, back into a
useful production process. Despite the difficulties faced, I managed to
preserve his plot of soil for the German farmer, to rescue this for him. I
brought about a bloom in German trade and fostered traffic.
To preclude threats from the outside
world, I have not only united the German Volk politically, I have rearmed it
militarily. Further, I have sought to tear to shreds page upon page of this
Treaty, whose 448 articles represent the most dastardly outrage ever committed
against a people and man. I have restored those provinces to the Reich which
were stolen from it in 1919. I have led home to the Reich
millions of despondent Germans torn from us. I have restored the
one-thousand-year old, historic unity of the German Lebensraum. And I have
labored to do so, Mr. President, without bloodshed and without bringing either
upon my own Volk or other peoples the hardships of war. I have done this all by myself, Mr. President, although a mere
twenty-one years ago, I was but an unknown laborer and soldier of my Volk. And,
hence, before history, I can truly claim the right to be counted among those
men who do the best that can reasonably and in all fairness be expected of them
individually.
Your task is infinitely easier, Mr.
President. In 1933, when I became Reich Chancellor, you became the President of
the United States. From the start, you thereby placed yourself at the head of
the largest and richest state in the world.
It is your good fortune to have to
nourish barely fifteen human beings per square kilometer in your country. You
have virtually never-ending natural resources at your disposal, more than anyone
else in the world. The vastness of the terrain and the fertility of the soil
are capable of providing each individual American with ten times the foodstuffs
possible in Germany. Nature permits you to do this. While the inhabitants of
your country number barely a third more than those of Greater Germany, they
have fifteen times its Lebensraum at their disposal.
Thus, the vastness of your country
allows you to have the time and leisure to attend to problems of a universal
nature. You hence conceive of the world as so small a place that you can
intervene beneficially and effectively wherever this might be required. In this
sense, your concerns and suggestions can be far more sweeping than mine. For my
world is the one in which Providence has put me, Mr. President Roosevelt, and
for which I am responsible. It is a much smaller one. It contains only my Volk.
But I do believe I am thereby in a better position to serve those ends closer
to the hearts of all of us: justice, welfare, progress, and peace for the entire
community of man!
No comments:
Post a Comment