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!
