August 22, 2020 -- No. 31

No to the Anti-Communist Monument! No to Black Ribbon Day!

Information Picket Against the
Glorification of Nazism

Information picket against the glorification of Nazism, Ottawa, August 21, 2020.

• Slanders and Lies to Glorify Nazism
- Louis Lang

The Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact, August 23, 1939
Falsifications About the
Origins of the Second World War

- Dougal MacDonald
The Role of Anglo-American Financiers
- Valentin Katasonov

For Your Information
Falsificators of History Chapter 3: The Isolation of the Soviet Union
and The Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact

- Soviet Information Bureau, February 1948

No to the Anti-Communist Monument! No to Black Ribbon Day!

Information Picket Against the
Glorification of Nazism

Youth for Democratic Renewal organized a picket in Ottawa on August 21 to provide information on the so-called Black Ribbon Day the Parliament of Canada adopted and observes on August 23 every year. This is the day in 1939 when the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler Germany after Britain, France and the U.S. refused to enter into a collective security agreement with the Soviet Union and it found itself alone to fend off the coming Hitlerite invasion.

The proponents of Black Ribbon Day, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself, accuse the Soviet Union, which liberated Europe from Nazi-fascism during World War II, of starting World War II, dividing Europe and imposing communist tyranny.

All of this lets the British and French governments off the hook for their betrayal of Czechoslovakia and Poland in Munich on September 30, 1938, with the support of both the American and Canadian governments. Why is that date not "Black Ribbon Day"?

Youth for Democratic Renewal is also opposed to the anti-communist monument the Government of Canada is erecting and financing in the Garden of the Provinces and Territories across from Library and Archives Canada on Wellington Street in Ottawa.

The monument the Trudeau government is helping build to the "victims of communism" glorifies Nazis and Nazi collaborators as freedom fighters against the communists.

There is no monument to the 27 million Soviet citizens and soldiers who gave their lives to defeat Nazism or to the 60 million people who died at the hands of the Nazis, fascists and militarists during World War II. This includes many Canadians who sacrificed their lives to defeat Hitler and whose children have great respect for the death-defying achievement of the Soviets at Stalingrad and throughout the war. This anti-communist project is an insult to all Canadian men and women and peoples of the world who sacrificed their lives to defeat Nazi-fascism and Japanese militarism.

At a time the peoples of the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and many other countries including the mercilessly enslaved and exploited African peoples are bringing down monuments which exalt slavery, genocide and those who have committed crimes against humanity, for Canada to erect such a monument based on fanatical ideological beliefs is unacceptable.

Canada must be a refuge for all the victims of slavery, genocide, colonial conquests, imperialist wars and coups d’état. How about a monument to them?

No to the Glorification of Nazism!
No to the Anti-Communist Monument! No to Black Ribbon Day!

Haut de page

Slanders and Lies to Glorify Nazism

 At a mass action on Parliament Hill on September 19, 2015, Canadians reject the Harper government's attempt to impose its anti-communist monument  and its anti-social offensive
as Canadian values.

On August 23, the Trudeau government intends to mark the anniversary of Black Ribbon Day, a memorial day concocted by the ruling circles of Europe in 2009 to promote anti-communism through slanders and lies, and to glorify Nazism.

The real historical significance of August 23 is deliberately covered up by the anti-communist campaign. August 23 is the date that the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) was signed in 1939. The Soviet Union had no alternative but to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany because the British, French and Americans refused to enter into a collective security agreement with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany. Instead, they sought to isolate the Soviet Union, egging on Hitler to achieve the aims he clearly set forth in his book Mein Kampf which advocates the superiority of the so-called Aryan race and capture of land in Eastern Europe and Soviet Russia to be used as "living space" for the German people.

Amongst other crimes the Anglo-French forces committed during the pre-war years was to sign the Munich Agreement with Hitler on September 30, 1938 which ceded the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia to Germany and, more broadly, approved the strategy of appeasing Hitler. The non-aggression agreement the Soviet Union signed with Germany gave the Soviets an extra 22 months to build up their defences against the expected Nazi invasion.

Standard Anglo-American imperialist anti-communist propaganda equates the Nazis, who are well-known as the biggest war criminals of that time, with the Soviet Union, which played the major role in defeating the Hitlerites and freeing the world of the scourge of Nazism. It deliberately promotes the view that the Hitlerite Nazis and their collaborators, who slaughtered the peoples of Europe and the Soviet Union amongst others, were freedom fighters because they fought against communism, and the anti-fascist forces who fought them to the death, especially the communists, should be erased from the historical record.

Trudeau also intends to complete Jason Kenney and the Stephen Harper government's pet project which seeks to glorify Nazis and Nazi collaborators as freedom fighters against communism. It is a publicly funded monument officially called "Memorial to Victims of Communism -- Canada, a Land of Refuge." The project is based on and linked to the U.S. Victims of Communism Memorial, dedicated in 2007, whose honourary chairman is war criminal George W. Bush and whose benefactors include monopolies such as defence contractor Lockheed Martin and the Amway Corporation owned by the dominionist DeVos family.

The National Capital Commission, ignoring the opposition of many sectors of society in Ottawa and all across the country, has approved an architectural design and is proceeding to build the monument in downtown Ottawa.

The private organization on whose behalf the Trudeau government is acting is Tribute to Liberty, an anti-communist organization led by various individuals with very shady pasts linked to the holocaust against the Jews and others considered "inferior races." Since 2009 Tribute to Liberty has been trying to raise money from Canadians but has failed miserably. The funding for the anti-communist monument is coming from the Canadian government as well as several East European governments who are virulent anti-communists and support the criminal activities of pro-Nazi movements within their countries.[1]

At this time when people all over the world are tearing down statues and symbols commemorating slavery, colonial genocide and imperialist oppression, Canadians will not accept the actions of the Trudeau government acting on behalf of private interests to build monuments glorifying Nazis and their collaborators which reverse the verdicts of history.

The people of Canada support genuine freedom and democracy. What is needed is a monument commemorating the countless millions of victims of colonial conquest, slavery and genocide and imperialist wars of aggression, coups d'état, sanctions and "regime changes."

Why is there no monument to honour the victims of the centuries-long state genocide against the Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island? Photo shows thousands participating in Vancouver on February 14, 2014 in the annual memorial march  for missing and murdered Indigenous
women and girls.


1. Foreign financial contributions to Tribute to Liberty for the anti-communist monument have been received from the governments of Hungary, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Poland, Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Taiwan. Latvia, Estonia and Ukraine in particular are known for public celebrations of Nazi collaborators or those who were part of Nazi formations in World War II. Many governments in Eastern European countries have sought to distort the role of the Soviet Red Army in their liberation from the Nazis. Taiwan, as the seat of power for the reactionary Kuomintang (KMT), deposed by the communists in the Chinese civil war, established the Asian Peoples' Anti-Communist League in 1954 with the governments of the Philippines and south Korea, known today as the World League for Freedom and Democracy with its offices in Taiwan.

Haut de page

The Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact, August 23, 1939

Falsifications About the
Origins of the Second World War

Information picket against the glorification of Nazism, Ottawa, August 21, 2020.

The government of Canada declared August 23 Black Ribbon Day to spread lies which blame the former Soviet Union for starting the Second World War. The Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler Germany on August 23, 1939 which the government of Canada claims was a "military alliance" to take joint military action against some third country. But the pact contained no such agreement. The agreement was only that the two countries would not attack each other.

Blaming the Soviet Union for starting the Second World War also serves to divert attention from the facts about the Munich Agreement the British and French signed with Hitler Germany on September 30, 1938 which gave Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland to Germany and the Hitlerites a green light to take over Czechoslovakia, invade Poland and unleash the war crimes and atrocities they carried out against the peoples of Europe during the Second World War.

Reactionaries today use the anniversary of the non-aggression pact not to acclaim the great victory of the world’s people over Nazi Germany but to slander the great deeds of the Soviet Union by repeating claims which falsify history. To his shame, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on August 23, 2019 called the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact a "sombre anniversary," and said "Signed between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in 1939 to divide Central and Eastern Europe, the infamous pact set the stage for the appalling atrocities these regimes would commit." 

Equating the Soviet Union’s unrelenting battle to defeat Nazi aggression with Nazi war crimes is for what purpose? In actuality, the two main factors leading to the Nazi Germany-initiated Second World War were the huge U.S. investments to rebuild the German economy, beginning with the 1924 J.P. Morgan-led U.S. Dawes Plan which financed the rebuilding of Germany’s industries, especially their war industries, and the treacherous policy of appeasing Germany by renouncing collective security followed by Britain and France with the tacit agreement of Canada, while the U.S. was busy financing German war production.

The big lies about a so-called Soviet-German "alliance" began in January 1948. The U.S. publication of material from the diaries of Hitlerite officials, in collaboration with the British and French foreign offices, started a fresh wave of slander and lies in connection with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact. We are to ignore that the German documents were all written from the standpoint of the Hitler government and were without independent verification. It was a deliberate Cold War campaign against the Soviet Union by the U.S. and its allies to cover up their own nefarious post war deeds.

The Soviet Union did not treat these lies lightly. The Soviet Information Bureau almost immediately published a very important document, Falsificators of History, to refute them.[1] These same lies about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact should also not be treated with indifference today. They aim to present the values of those who are prompted by narrow ideological beliefs as Canadian values. In fact, the proponents of Black Ribbon Day are descendants of the very same Nazi forces that spread death and destruction across Europe. They present their forebears -- who were Nazi collaborators that sent Jews, Poles, Roma and many others to their deaths in concentration camps -- as freedom fighters because they fought against communism. Their values are not Canadian values.

There is no place for a monument which espouses these values based on narrow anti-communist ideological beliefs in a space called The Garden of the Provinces and Territories. Canadians fought in the Second World War to defeat the Nazis. They sacrificed their lives to win freedom, democracy and peace. Their sons and daughters had nothing but admiration for the sacrifices of the communists led by the Soviet Union. To suggest we need a monument to the "victims of communism," not to the victims of Nazi-fascism and U.S. imperialist wars of aggression, coups d’état, sanctions and crimes against humanity since colonial times, is not worthy of Canada or what Canadians stand for.

If signing a non-aggression pact in 1939 was "helping Hitler" then the British and French had already been "helping Hitler" since signing such pacts a year earlier and Poland had been "helping Hitler" since 1934. It is also significant that these same reactionaries never once mention the filthy pro-Nazi role of U.S. corporations such as Ford, General Motors, Standard Oil, Texaco, Dupont and ITT which supplied the Nazi war machine with essential equipment and materials that enabled their invasion of Europe.[2]

Britain and France issued a joint declaration of non-aggression with Germany in 1938, not to mention a "Pact of Accord and Cooperation" signed in 1933 when Hitler came to power. Poland signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis in 1934, five years before the Soviet Union did, yet this is never mentioned as a cause of war. Of all the non-aggressive Great Powers in Europe, the Soviet Union was the very last to agree to a pact with the Germans, a decision it was forced into by Britain and France’s rejection of collective security.

The history of events in 1938 -- both before and after Hitler’s occupation of Austria in March -- show that the Soviet Union, as it had done in earlier years, made many efforts to persuade Britain and France to maintain collective mutual assistance and in particular to carry out their undertaking to defend Czechoslovakia against aggression. The Soviet Union was not only willing to join forces with France to defend Czechoslovakia if France would keep her word, but was prepared to defend Czechoslovakia on her own, even if France refused.[3]

All the efforts by the Soviet Union to build collective security were shunned by the British, French and Americans. The British and French refused to sign any collective mutual assistance pact with the Soviet Union because their rulers still hoped Germany would attack and destroy the Soviet Union. One last effort by the Soviet Union in April 1939 was again rejected, even though polls in both countries showed massive popular support for it. Instead, Britain and France had signed the traitorous September 30, 1938, Munich Pact with Germany and Italy which permitted Germany to dismember Czechoslovakia and incorporate the Sudetenland, ordered the Czechs not to resist Nazi aggression, and gave the Nazis the green light to launch their attacks across Europe.

The reactionaries never want to discuss the Munich Pact because it was such a blatant betrayal of the world’s people that even Winston Churchill accused Prime Minister Chamberlain in the British Parliament: "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war." It is indisputable that faced with the British and French betrayal, the Soviet Union had no choice but to take whatever measures it could to defend itself and the cause of peace.

Left to right: Chamberlain, Daladier, Hitler, Mussolini, and Ciano at signing of sellout Munich Agreement in 1938.

All these facts can be verified. They are all available in reports, speeches, accounts and documents of that time. One example of the policy of appeasement of Hitler is Memo #8604, sent to Moscow by Russian intelligence from Prague several days before the signing of the Munich Agreement. It reads: "On September 19, British Ambassador Newton and French Ambassador De Lacroix conveyed to [Czechoslovak prime minister] Milan Hodza the following on behalf of Chamberlain and Daladier, respectfully: 'Guided by the lofty principles of preserving peace in Europe, they consider it necessary for Germany to incorporate the Sudeten region. A system of mutual aid pacts with other countries should be cancelled.’"[4] Supposedly this betrayal of the Czech people which led to German occupation was "guided by the lofty principles of preserving peace." Yet within a year of marching into Czechoslovakia, Germany had invaded Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands and France, and bombed Britain.

Another oft-repeated lie is that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany agreed in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to "divide Poland," again falsely implying that the pact included a commitment to joint military action against a third country. While it is true that the Nazis invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, committing one of the worst war crimes the world has ever seen by killing about six million people, the role of the Soviet Union was entirely different. The Soviet Army marched into the territory of Poland on September 17, only after the Polish state had collapsed, the Polish army had disintegrated, the government had ceased to function, and its leaders had fled the country. Further, the Soviet Union marched into the territories of the Ukraine and Byelorussia which had been part of Soviet Russia until Poland forcibly annexed them during the Polish-Russian War of 1919-20, when Poland was one of the 14 invading imperialist countries, including Canada, that attempted but failed to strangle the newborn Soviet socialist republic. In fact, only about eight per cent of the people in the Ukraine and Byelorussia were of Polish origin.

What was the result of the Soviet Army marching into Poland? As a result of the Soviet Union’s timely entry into what had been territories of the Polish state, Hitler was forced to accept a line of demarcation between his troops and the Red Army, a long way west of the then Polish-Russian frontier.[5] The Red Army saved millions of people inhabiting the Ukraine and Byelorussia from the fate which Hitler reserved for the Polish people. Even the known anti-communist Winston Churchill publicly justified the Soviet march into eastern Poland as necessary not only for the safety of the people of Poland and the Soviet Union but also the people of the Baltic states and Ukraine. On October 1, 1939, Churchill said in a public radio broadcast: "That the Russian armies should stand on this line [Curzon] was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail. When Herr von Ribbentrop was summoned to Moscow last week it was to learn the fact, and accept the fact, that the Nazi designs upon the Baltic states and upon the Ukraine must come to a dead stop."

And, of course, it was the Soviet Red Army which in January 1945 led the final freeing of Poland from the Nazi occupation, liberating Warsaw and then breaking through the formidable Nazi defences on the Vistula-Oder which marked the border of Poland and Germany. The complete success of the latter operation created the favourable conditions for entering Germany on January 20 and advancing deep into the heart of Germany, mopping up the Nazi forces, taking Berlin, and ending the existence of the Third Reich forever.

The Soviet Red Army liberates Poland in 1945.

Acknowledging this huge contribution, on February 6, 1945, the President and Prime Minister of Poland wrote to J.V. Stalin: "The Polish people will never forget that in the most difficult and trying time of their history they received fraternal help from the Soviet people not only in the form of blood and arms of the Red Army but also bread as well as tremendous assistance of an economic nature."[6]

The nefarious actions of the Anglo-Americans and the French behind the back of the Soviet Union destroyed the existing elements of the collective security system against Nazi Germany. It was the Munich Pact signed by Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy which was the final cowardly act that triggered the Second World War, the killing of millions of people, and the European Holocaust. The judgment of history points to the truth about the Anglo-American and French betrayal of the world’s people and to the truth about the heroic role of the Soviet Union and J. V. Stalin in defeating the Nazis. No falsifiers of history can change those facts.

Some 50 million people died and another 35 million were seriously wounded during the Anti-Fascist War, with the peoples of the Soviet Union bearing the brunt of the casualties. This is the truth of the matter.


1. Falsificators of History by Soviet Information Bureau (Moscow: 1948).

2. See, for example, Nazi Nexus: America's Corporate Connections to Hitler's Holocaust by Edwin Black (Washington, DC: Dialogue Press, 2009), and Big Business and Hitler by Jacques R. Pauwels (Toronto: James Lorimer & Co., 2017).

3. "Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact:' Stalin was 'prepared to move more than a million Soviet troops to the German border to deter Hitler's aggression just before the Second World War,'" by Nick Holdsworth, Telegraph (London, UK), October 18, 2008.

4. "Russian Foreign Intelligence Service Declassifies Munich Agreement Papers" by Valery Harmolenko, RIA Novosti, September 29, 2008.

5. Causes and Lessons of the Second World War by Hardial Bains (Toronto: MELS, 1990).

6. World War II: Decisive Battles of the Soviet Army by V. Larionov, N. Yeronin, B. Solovyov  & V. Timokhovich (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1984).

Haut de page

The Role of Anglo-American Financiers

This article was originally published in 2015 by Strategic Culture Foundation and also reproduced by TML Weekly at that time. TML Weekly is republishing it today to enlighten readers on the role played by international financiers in World War II and debunk the Anglo-American falsification which blames the Soviet Union for that tragedy so as to exonerate themselves.

The article also clearly examines the origins of the international financial institutions at a time the Trudeau government and provincial governments are once again indebting the country to private interests to unprecedented levels based on the fraudulent claim that this is how to achieve economic recovery. Not only that, the Trudeau government likes to claim that Canada's adherence to these international financial institutions makes it democratic and provides proof of its multilateralism. The material in this article provides ample information which shows that there are obviously various kinds of multilateralism with various kinds of aims and not all of them serve Canada. This the Trudeau and other governments in Canada do not want discussed.

Part One

The war was not unleashed by a frenzied Führer who happened to be ruling Germany at the time. World War II was a project created by the world oligarchy or Anglo-American financiers. Using such instruments as the U.S. Federal Reserve System and the Bank of England they started to prepare for the next global conflict right after World War I. The USSR was the target.

The Dawes and Young Plans; the creation of the Bank for International Settlements; Germany's suspension of reparations payments it had to pay according to the Paris Peace Treaty and the acquiescence of Russia's former allies in this decision; large-scale foreign investments in the economy of the Third Reich; the militarization of the German economy and the breaches of the Paris Treaty provisions -- these all were important milestones on the way to preparing the war.

There were key figures behind the plot: the Rockefellers, the Morgans, Lord Montagu Norman (the Governor of the Bank of England) and Hjalmar Schacht (President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics in Hitler's government). The strategic plan of the Rockefellers and Morgans was to subjugate Europe economically, saturate Germany with foreign investment and credits and make it deliver a crushing blow against Soviet Russia so that it would return to the world capitalist system as a colony.

Montagu Norman (1871-1950) played an important role of go-between to keep up a dialogue between American financial circles and Germany's business leaders. Hjalmar Schacht organized the revival of Germany's defence sector. This operation conducted by the Anglo-American financiers was covered up by politicians such as Franklin Roosevelt, Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. In Germany the plans were carried out by Hitler and Hjalmar Schacht. Some historians say Hjalmar Schacht played a more important role than Hitler, but Schacht simply kept out of the spotlight.

The Dawes Plan was an attempt following World War I for the Triple Entente to compromise and collect war reparations from Germany. The Dawes Plan (as proposed by the Dawes Committee, chaired by Charles G. Dawes) was an attempt in 1924 to solve the reparations problem, which had bedeviled international politics following World War I and the Treaty of Versailles (France was reluctant to accept it got over 50 per cent of reparations). In 1924-1929 Germany received $2.5 billion from the United States and $1.5 billion from Great Britain, according to the Dawes Plan. In today's currency it is a huge sum, equal to U.S.$1 trillion. Hjalmar Schacht played an active role in the implementation of the Dawes Plan. In 1929 he summed up the results, saying that in five years Germany got more foreign loans than the United States in the 40 years preceding World War I. As a result, by 1929 Germany had become the world's second largest industrial nation leaving Great Britain behind.

In the 1930s, the process of feeding Germany with investments and credits continued. The Young Plan was a program for settling German reparation debts after World War I, written in 1929 and formally adopted in 1930. It was presented by the committee headed (1929-30) by American industrialist Owen D. Young, founder and former first chairman of the Radio Corporation of America (RCA). At the time, Young also served concurrently on the board of trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation, and also had been one of the representatives involved in the previous war reparations restructuring arrangement -- the Dawes Plan of 1924. According to the plan, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) was created in 1930 to make Germany pay reparations to the victors. In reality the flow of money went in quite a different direction -- from the United States and Great Britain to Germany. The majority of strategically important German companies belonged to American capital or were partly under its control. Some of them belonged to British investors. German oil refining and coal liquefaction sectors of the economy belonged to Standard Oil (the Rockefellers). The major chemical company I.G. Farbenindustrie AG was put under the control of the Morgan Group. Forty per cent of the telephone network and 30 per cent of aircraft manufacturer Focke Wulf shares belonged to American company ITT Corporation. Major industrial concerns Radio and AEG, Siemens and Osram were put under the control of General Electric. ITT and General Electric were part of the Morgan empire. One hundred per cent of Volkswagen shares belonged to the Ford Motor Company. By the time Hitler came to power, U.S. finance capital practically controlled all the strategically important sectors of German industry: oil refining, synthetic fuel production, chemical production, auto production, aviation, electrical engineering, the radio industry, and a large part of the machine manufacturing sector (a total of 278 companies). The leading German banks -- Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Donat Bank and some others -- were also under U.S. control.


On January 30, 1933 Hitler was named the Chancellor of Germany. Before that his candidacy had been thoroughly studied by American bankers. Hjalmar Schacht went to the United States in the autumn of 1930 to discuss the nomination with American colleagues. Hitler's appointment was finally approved at a secret meeting of financiers in the United States. Hjalmar Schacht spent all of 1932 trying to convince the German bankers that Hitler was the right person for the position. He achieved the goal. In mid-November 1932, 17 of Germany's biggest bankers and industrialists sent a letter to President Hindenburg expressing their demand to make Hitler the Chancellor of Germany. The last working meeting of the German financiers before the election was held on January 4, 1933 in Kölnat, the home of banker Kurt von Schröder. After that the National Socialist Party came to power. As a result, Germany's financial and economic ties with the Anglo-Americans were elevated to a higher level.

Hitler immediately made an announcement that he refused to pay the post-war reparations. It put into doubt the ability of England and France to pay off World War I debts to the United States. Washington did not object to Hitler's announcement. In May 1933 Hjalmar Schacht paid another visit to the United States. There he met with President Franklin Roosevelt and big bankers to reach a $1 billion credit deal. In June the same year Hjalmar Schacht visited London to hold talks with Montagu Norman. It all went down smoothly. The British agreed to grant a $2 billion loan. The British offered no objections related to Germany's decision to suspend debt payments.

Some historians say that the American and British bankers were accommodating because by 1932 the Soviet Union had fulfilled its five-year economic development plan to achieve new heights as an industrial power. A few thousand enterprises had been built, especially in the field of heavy industry. The USSR's dependence on imported mechanical engineering expertise was greatly reduced. The chances of strangling the Soviet Union economically were practically reduced to zero. They decided to rely on war and launched the runaway militarization of Germany.

It was easy for Germany to get American credits. By and large, Hitler came to power in his country at the same time as Franklin Roosevelt took office in the United States. The very same bankers who supported Hitler in 1931 supported Roosevelt in the presidential election. The newly elected President could not but endorse large credits to Germany. By the way, many noticed that there was a big similarity between Roosevelt's "New Deal Policy" and the economic policy of the German Third Reich. No wonder. The very same people worked out both policies and consulted with both governments at the time. They mainly represented U.S. financial circles.

Roosevelt's New Deal soon started to stumble. In 1937 America plunged into the quagmire of economic crisis. In 1939 the U.S. economy operated at 33 per cent of its industrial capacity (it was 19 per cent at the worst of the 1929-1933 crisis).

Rexford G. Tugwell, an economist who became part of Franklin Roosevelt's first "Brain Trust," a group of Columbia University academics who helped develop policy recommendations leading up to Roosevelt's New Deal, wrote that in 1939 the government failed to achieve any success. There was an open sea until the day Hitler invaded Poland. Only the mighty wind of war could dissipate the fog. Any other measures Roosevelt could take were doomed to failure.[1] Only a world war could save U.S. capitalism. In 1939 the financiers used all the leverage at their disposal to put pressure on Hitler to make him unleash a big war in the east.

Part Two

The BIS played an important role during World War II. It was created as an outpost of American interests in Europe and a link between Anglo-American and German businesses, a kind of offshore zone for cosmopolitan capital, providing shelter from political processes, wars, sanctions and other things. The BIS was created as a public commercial entity, its immunity from government interference and such things as taxation was guaranteed by an international agreement signed in the Hague in 1930.

The bankers of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York were close to the Morgans, and the Governor of the Bank of England Montagu Norman, as well as the German financiers: Hjalmar Schacht (President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics in the Hitler government), Walther Funk (who later replaced Hjalmar Schacht as President of the Reichsbank) and Emil Puhl. All of them played an important role in the efforts to establish the BIS. The central banks of Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and Belgium and some private banks were among the founders of the BIS. The Federal Bank of New York did its best to establish the BIS, but it was not listed as a founder. The U.S. was represented by the private First National Bank of New York, J.P. Morgan and Company, and the First National Bank of Chicago -- all parts of the Morgan empire. Japan was also represented by private banks. In 1931-1932, 19 European central banks joined the BIS. Gates W. McGarrah, a banker of Rockefeller's clan, was the first BIS chairman of the board. He was replaced by Leon Fraser, who represented the Morgans. U.S. citizen Thomas Huntington McKittrick was President of the BIS during the war years.

A lot has already been written about the BIS' activities serving the interests of the Third Reich. The bank was involved in deals with different countries, including those Germany was at war with. Ever since Pearl Harbour, the BIS has been a correspondent bank for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Despite the bank being under Nazi control during the war years, the American McKittrick was the bank's President. Soldiers were dying on the battlefields while the BIS leadership held meetings in Basel with the bankers of Germany, Japan, Italy, Belgium, Great Britain and the United States. There, in the Swiss offshore zone, all was peaceful; the representatives of the belligerents quietly worked in the atmosphere of mutual understanding.

Switzerland became the place where gold seized by Germany in different corners of Europe was transported to for storage. In March 1938 when Hitler captured Vienna, part of Austria's gold was transferred to the BIS vaults. The same thing happened with the gold from the Czech National Bank (U.S.$48 million). As the war started, gold poured into the BIS. Germany obtained it from concentration camps and by plundering the occupied countries (including civilian property: jewels, gold crowns, cigarette cases, utensils). It was called the Nazi Gold. The metal was processed into ingots to be stored in the BIS, Switzerland or outside of Europe. Charles Higham in his book Trading With The Enemy: An Exposé of The Nazi-American Money Plot, 1933-1949 wrote that during the war, the Nazis transferred $378 million into BIS accounts.

A few words about the Czech gold, about which details surfaced after the Bank of England's archives were declassified in 2012.[2] In March 1939, Germany captured Prague. The Nazis demanded U.S.$48 million from Czechoslovakia's national gold reserves. They were told that the sum had already been transferred to the BIS. It later became known that the gold was transferred from Basel to the Bank of England. At the command from Berlin, the gold was transferred to the Reichsbank's BIS account. Then the Bank of England was involved in transactions done on the orders of the Reichsbank given to the BIS. The commands were retransmitted to London. There was collusion between Germany's Reichsbank, the BIS and the Bank of England. In 1939 a scandal broke out in Great Britain because the Bank of England executed the transfer of Czech gold on the commands from Berlin and Basel, not the Czech government. For instance, in June 1939, three months before the war between Great Britain and Germany started, the Bank of England helped the Germans stuff their accounts with 440,000 pounds sterling worth of gold and transfer some gold to New York (Germany was sure that in the case of a German intervention in Poland, the United States would not declare war).

The illegal transactions with Czech gold were implemented with tacit approval of the government of Great Britain which was aware of what was going on. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir John Simon and other top officials did their best to hide the truth, including telling outright lies (that the gold had been returned to its lawful owners or had never been transferred to the Reichsbank). Recently declassified materials from the Bank of England reveal the truth that the government officials lied to provide cover for themselves and the activities of the Bank of England and the BIS. It was easy to coordinate the joint criminal activities because Montagu Norman, the head of the Bank of England, served as the chairman of the board of the BIS. He never made a secret of his sympathy for the fascists.

The Bretton Woods Conference, formally known as the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, was a gathering of 730 delegates from all 44 allied nations at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to regulate the international monetary and financial order after the conclusion of World War II. The conference was held from July 1 to 22, 1944. Suddenly the issue of the BIS hit the agenda. It was reported that the bank had collaborated with fascist Germany. Leaving many details aside, it was with great difficulty that the delegates reached an agreement to close the BIS (some U.S. delegates opposed the motion). The decision of the international conference has never been enacted. All the discreditable information related to the BIS' wartime activities was classified. Today it helps to falsify the history of World War II.

Finally, a few words about Hjalmar Schacht (1877-1970). He was a key figure controlling the economic machine of the Third Reich, an extraordinary and plenipotentiary ambassador representing Anglo-American capital in Germany. In 1945, Schacht was tried at Nuremberg and was acquitted on October 1, 1946. He got away with murder. [...] For some unexplained reasons he was not on the 1945 leading wartime criminals list. Moreover, Schacht returned to his profession as if nothing had happened and founded Schacht GmbH in Düsseldorf. This detail may go unnoticed, though it serves as further testimony to the fact that Anglo-American financiers and their plenipotentiary representatives in Germany prepared and, to some extent, influenced the outcome of World War II. The financiers want to rewrite the history of the war and change its results.


1. P. Tugwell, The Democratic Roosevelt, A Biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt, New York, 1957, p. 477.

2. See here.

(Strategic Culture Foundation, May 4-5, 2015. Edited for style and grammar by TML.)

Haut de page

For Your Information

Falsificators of History Chapter 3:
The Isolation of the Soviet Union and
The Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact

After the seizure of Czechoslovakia fascist Germany proceeded with her preparations for war quite openly, before the eyes of the whole world. Hitler, encouraged by Britain and France, no longer stood on ceremony or pretended to favour the peaceful settlement of European problems. The most dramatic months of the prewar period had come. At that time it was already clear that every day was bringing mankind nearer to the unparalleled catastrophe of war.

What was, at that time, the policy of the Soviet Union on the one hand, and of Great Britain and France on the other?

The attempt of the falsifiers of history in the United States of America to avoid answering this question merely goes to prove that their consciences are not clear.

The truth is that even during the fatal period of the spring and summer of 1939, on the threshold of war, Britain and France, supported by ruling circles in the United States, continued the former course of their policy. This was a policy of provocative incitement of Hitler Germany against the Soviet Union, camouflaged not only with pharisaical phrases about their readiness to cooperate with the Soviet Union, but also with certain simple diplomatic manoeuvres intended to conceal the real character of their policy from world public opinion.

Among such manoeuvres were, in the first place, the 1939 negotiations which Britain and France decided to open with the Soviet Union. In order to deceive public opinion, the ruling circles in Britain and France tried to depict these negotiations as a serious attempt to prevent the further extension of Hitlerite aggression. In the light of all the subsequent developments, however, it became perfectly clear that so far as the Anglo-French side was concerned, these negotiations were from the very beginning nothing but another move in their double game.

This was also clear to the leaders of Hitler Germany, for whom the meaning of the negotiations with the Soviet Union, undertaken by the Governments of Britain and France, was certainly no secret. Here, for example, is what the German Ambassador to London, Dirksen, wrote in his report to the German Foreign Ministry on August 3, 1939, as is evident from documents captured by the Soviet Army during the defeat of Hitler Germany:

"The prevailing impression here was that [Britain's] ties with other states formed during the recent months were only a reserve means for a real reconciliation with Germany and that these ties would cease to exist as soon as the one important aim, worthy of effort -- an agreement with Germany -- was achieved."

This opinion was firmly shared by all German diplomats who watched the situation in London.

In another secret report to Berlin, Dirksen wrote:

"By means of armaments and the acquisition of allies, Britain wants to gain strength and to catch up with the Axis, but at the same time she wants to try to reach an amicable agreement with Germany by means of negotiations."[27]

The slanderers and falsifiers of history are trying to keep these documents hidden since they shed a bright light on the situation during the last prewar months, without correct assessment of which it would be impossible to understand the true prehistory of the war. By undertaking negotiations with the Soviet Union and giving guarantees to Poland, Romania and certain other states, Britain and France, with the support of the ruling circles in the United States, played a double game calculated to lead to an agreement with Hitler Germany, for the purpose of directing her aggression to the East, against the Soviet Union.

The negotiations between Britain and France on the one hand, and the Soviet Union on the other, began in March 1939, and continued for about four months.

The whole course of these negotiations showed with perfect clarity that whereas the Soviet Union was trying to reach a broad agreement with the Western Powers on the basis of equality, an agreement capable of preventing Germany, even though at the last moment, from starting a war in Europe, the Governments of Britain and France, relying on support in the United States, set themselves entirely different aims. The ruling circles in Britain and France, accustomed to having others pull their chestnuts out of the fire, on this occasion too attempted to foist obligations upon the Soviet Union under which the USSR would have taken upon itself the brunt of the sacrifice in repulsing a possible Hitler aggression, while Britain and France would not bind themselves by any commitment to the Soviet Union.

If the rulers of Britain and France had succeeded in this manoeuvre they would have come much closer to attaining their basic aim, which was to get Germany and the Soviet Union to come to grips as quickly as possible. The Soviet Government, however, saw through this scheme, and at all stages in the negotiations it countered the diplomatic trickery and subterfuges of the Western Powers with its clear and frank proposals intended to serve but one purpose -- the safeguarding of peace in Europe.

There is no need to recall all the vicissitudes through which the negotiations went. We need only bring to mind a few of the more important points. It suffices to recall the terms put forward during the negotiations by the Soviet Government: the conclusion of an effective pact of mutual assistance against aggression between Britain, France, and the USSR; the granting of a guarantee by Britain, France, and the USSR to states of Central and Eastern Europe, including all the European countries bordering on the USSR, without exception; the conclusion of a concrete military agreement between Britain, France, and the USSR on the forms and volume of immediate effective aid to each other and to the guaranteed states in the event of an attack by aggressors.[28]

At the Third Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on May 31, 1939, V. M. Molotov pointed out that some of the Anglo-French proposals moved during those negotiations had contained none of the elementary principles of reciprocity and equality of obligations, indispensable for all agreements between equals.

"While guaranteeing themselves," said V. M. Molotov, "from direct attack on the part of aggressors by mutual assistance pacts between themselves and with Poland and while trying to secure for themselves the assistance of the USSR in the event of an attack by aggressors on Poland and Romania, the British and French left open the question of whether the USSR in its turn might count on their assistance in the event of its being directly attacked by aggressors, just as they left open another question, namely, whether they could participate in guaranteeing the small states bordering on the USSR and covering its northwestern frontier, should these states prove unable to defend their neutrality from attack by aggressors. Thus, the position was one of inequality for the USSR."

Even when the British and French representatives gave verbal consent to the principle of mutual assistance on terms of reciprocity between Britain, France, and the USSR in the event of a direct attack by an aggressor, they hedged it in with a number of reservations which rendered this consent fictitious.

In addition to this, the Anglo-French proposals provided for help on the part of the USSR to those countries to which the British and French had given promises of guarantees, but they said nothing about their own help for the countries on the northwestern frontier of the USSR, the Baltic States, in the event of an aggressor attacking them.

In view of the above-mentioned considerations, V. M. Molotov announced that the Soviet Union could not undertake obligations with respect to some countries unless similar guarantees were given with respect to the countries situated on the northwestern frontier of the Soviet Union.

It should also be remembered that when, on March 18, 1939, Seeds, the British Ambassador to Moscow, asked the People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs what the Soviet Union's position would be in the event of Hitler's aggression against Romania -- concerning the preparation of which the British possessed information -- and when the question was then raised by the Soviet side as to what Britain's position would be under those circumstances, Seeds evaded reply, stating that Romania was geographically closer to the Soviet Union than it was to England.

Thus, from the very first step, it was already quite clear that British ruling circles were endeavouring to bind the Soviet Union to definite obligations, while they themselves would stand aloof. This artless method was then again and again repeated regularly throughout the whole course of the negotiations.

In reply to the British inquiry, the Soviet Government suggested that a conference be called of representatives of the most interested states -- namely Great Britain, France, Romania, Poland, Turkey, and the Soviet Union. In the opinion of the Soviet Government, such a conference would offer the best opportunities for ascertaining the real state of affairs and for determining the positions of all the participants. The British Government, however, replied that it believed the Soviet proposal to be premature.

Instead of calling a conference which would have made it possible to agree on concrete measures to combat aggression, the British Government on March 21, 1939 proposed to the Soviet Government the signing, together with it as well as with France and Poland, a declaration in which the signatory governments would undertake to "consult together as to what steps should be taken to offer joint resistance" in the event of a threat to "the independence of any European state."

In arguing that this proposal was acceptable, the British Ambassador laid particular emphasis on the point that the declaration was couched in terms which involved hardly any commitments.

It was quite obvious that such a declaration could not serve as an effective means of fighting the impending threat on the part of the aggressor. Believing, however, that even a declaration promising so little might constitute at least some step forward in the matter of curbing the aggressor, the Soviet Government consented to the British proposal. But already on April 1, 1939 the British Ambassador in Moscow communicated the information that Britain considered the question of a joint declaration as having lapsed.

After two more weeks of procrastination, the British Foreign Secretary, Halifax, through the medium of the Ambassador in Moscow, made another proposal to the Soviet Government to the effect that the Soviet Government should issue a declaration saying that "in the event of an act of aggression against any European neighbour of the Soviet Union, who would offer resistance, the assistance of the Soviet Government could be counted upon if desired."

What this proposal meant was mainly that in the event of an act of aggression on the part of Germany against Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, or Finland, the Soviet Union would be obliged to render them assistance without any obligation on the part of Britain to render assistance -- i.e., for the Soviet Union to become involved in a war with Germany singlehanded. In the case of Poland and Romania, too, who did receive Britain's guarantees, the Soviet Union was to render them assistance against an aggressor; but even in their case Britain refused to assume any obligations jointly with the Soviet Union, leaving herself a free hand and a field for manoeuvres of any kind, not to mention the fact that, according to this proposal, Poland and Romania as well as the Baltic States assumed no obligations whatever with respect to the USSR.

The Soviet Government, however, did not want to miss any opportunity to bring about agreement with other Powers for a joint struggle against Hitler's aggression. Without the least delay it presented to the British Government its counterproposal which consisted of the following:

(1) That the Soviet Union, Britain and France should mutually undertake to render one another immediate assistance of every kind, including military, in the event of aggression against one of these states;

(2) That the Soviet Union, Britain, and France should undertake to render any kind of assistance, including military, to the states of Eastern Europe situated between the Baltic and the Black Seas and bordering on the Soviet Union, in the event of aggression against these states; and

(3) The Soviet Union, Britain and France were to undertake to determine within a short space of time the volume and forms of military assistance to be rendered to each of these states in both cases mentioned above.

These were the most important points of the Soviet proposal. It is not hard to see that there was a fundamental difference between the Soviet and British proposals, inasmuch as the Soviet proposal provided for really effective measures for joint counteraction to aggression.

No reply to that proposal came from the British Government for three weeks. This caused growing anxiety in Britain, owing to which the British Government felt constrained in the end to resort to a new manoeuvre in order to deceive public opinion.

On May 8 the British reply, or, to be more exact the British counterproposals, were received in Moscow. It was again proposed that the Soviet Government should make a unilateral declaration in which it "would undertake that in the event of Great Britain and France being involved in hostilities in fulfillment of these obligations" [to Belgium, Poland, Romania, Greece, and Turkey] "the assistance of the Soviet Government would be immediately available if desired and would be afforded in such manner and on such terms as might be agreed."

Once again the Soviet Union was expected to assume unilateral obligations. It was to undertake to render assistance to Britain and France who on their part assumed no obligations whatever to the Soviet Union with regard to the Baltic Republics. Britain thus suggested that the USSR be placed in an unequal position, unacceptable to and incompatible with the dignity of any independent state.

It is easy to see that actually the British proposal was addressed not so much to Moscow as to Berlin. The Germans were invited to attack the Soviet Union, and were given to understand that Britain and France would maintain neutrality if only the Germans attacked through the Baltic States.

On May 11 the negotiations between the Soviet Union, Britain, and France were further complicated by a statement made by the Polish Ambassador in Moscow, Grzybowski, to the effect that "Poland does not consider it possible to conclude a pact of mutual assistance with the USSR..."

Naturally, such a statement could only be made by the Polish representative with the knowledge and approval of the ruling circles of Britain and France.

The behaviour of the British and French representatives in the Moscow negotiations was so provocative that even in the ruling camp of the Western Powers there were some who sharply criticized this crude game. Thus, Lloyd George published a sharp article in the French newspaper Ce Soir in the summer of 1939 directed against the makers of British policy. Referring to the causes of the endless procrastination in which the negotiations between Britain and France on the one hand, and the Soviet Union on the other, were stuck, Lloyd George wrote that there could be only one answer to that question : "Neville Chamberlain, Halifax, and John Simon do not want any agreement with Russia whatever."

It goes without saying that what was obvious to Lloyd George was no less obvious to the bosses of Hitler Germany, who understood perfectly that the Western Powers had no intention of reaching a serious agreement with the Soviet Union, but were pursuing an entirely different aim. That aim was to spur Hitler on to hurry with his attack upon the Soviet Union, guaranteeing him a premium, as it were, for such an attack by placing the Soviet Union in the least favourable conditions in the event of a war with Germany.

Furthermore, the Western Powers dragged out the negotiations with the Soviet Union endlessly, seeking to drown major issues in a swamp of minor amendments and innumerable versions. Each time the question of some real obligations came up, the representatives of these Powers pretended not to understand what it was all about.

Toward the end of May, Britain and France made new proposals which somewhat improved the previous version, but still left open a question of essential importance to the Soviet Union -- namely, the question of guarantees for the three Baltic Republics situated on the northwestern frontier of the Soviet Union.

Thus, the rulers of Britain and France, while making certain verbal concessions under the pressure of public opinion in their countries, stuck to their previous line and hedged in their proposals with such reservations as they knew would make them unacceptable to the Soviet Union.

The behaviour of the British and French representatives in the negotiations at Moscow was so intolerable that on May 27, 1939, V. M. Molotov had to tell British Ambassador Seeds and French Chargé d'affaires Payard that their draft agreement for joint counteraction to an aggressor in Europe did not contain a plan for the organization of effective mutual assistance of the USSR, Britain, and France, and that it did not even indicate that the British and French Governments were seriously interested in a corresponding pact with the Soviet Union.

It was further plainly stated that the Anglo-French proposal led one to think that the Governments of Britain and France were not so much interested in the pact itself as in talk about a pact. Possibly Britain and France needed this talk for some aims of their own. The Soviet Government did not know what these aims were. The Soviet Government was interested, not in talk about a pact, but in organizing effective mutual assistance of the USSR, Britain, and France against aggression in Europe. The British and French representatives were warned that the Soviet Government did not intend to take part in talk about a pact, the aim of which the USSR did not know, and that the British and French Governments might find more suitable partners for such talk than the USSR.

The Moscow negotiations dragged on endlessly. The London Times blurted out the reasons for this inadmissible procrastination when it wrote:

"A hard and fast alliance with Russia would hamper other negotiations."[29]

In referring to "other negotiations" the Times apparently implied the negotiations which Robert Hudson, Minister of Overseas Trade, was conducting with Dr. Helmut Wohltat, Hitler's economic adviser, on the possibility of a very large British loan to Hitler Germany, of which more anon. Besides, as is known from press reports, on the day that Hitler's army entered Prague, a delegation of the Federation of British Industries conducted negotiations in Dusseldorf with a view to concluding an extensive agreement with big German industries.

A circumstance that attracted attention at the time was that men of secondary importance were sent to conduct the negotiations on behalf of Great Britain in Moscow, while Chamberlain himself went to Germany to carry on negotiations with Hitler, and that on several occasions. It is also important to note that the British representative for the negotiations with the USSR, Strang, had no authority to sign any agreement with the Soviet Union.

In view of the demand of the Soviet Union that the parties should proceed to concrete negotiations concerning measures to fight a possible aggressor, the Governments of Britain and France had to consent to send their military missions to Moscow. But it took those missions an unusually long time to get to Moscow, and when they did get there, it transpired that they were composed of men of secondary importance who, furthermore, had not been authorized to sign any agreement. That being the case, the military negotiations proved to be as futile as the political ones.

The military missions of the Western Powers demonstrated at once that they even had no desire to carry on serious conversations concerning means of mutual assistance in the event of aggression on the part of Germany. The Soviet military mission proceeded from the fact that, since the USSR had no common border with Germany, it could render Britain, France, and Poland assistance in the event of war only if Soviet troops were permitted to pass through Polish territory. The Polish Government, however, declared that it would accept no military assistance from the Soviet Union, thus showing that it feared the growth of strength of the Soviet Union more than Hitler's aggression. Both the British and French missions supported Poland's position.

In the course of the military negotiations, the question also came up as to the strength of the armed forces which should be put in the field at once by the parties to the agreement in the event of aggression. The British named a ridiculous figure, stating that they could put in the field five infantry divisions and one mechanized division. That was what the British offered at a time when the Soviet Union declared that it was prepared to send to the front against the aggressor one hundred and thirty-six divisions, five thousand medium and heavy guns, up to ten thousand tanks and whippets, more than five thousand war planes, etc. The above shows with what an utter lack of seriousness the British Government treated the negotiations for a military agreement with the USSR.

The facts cited above fully bear out the conclusion that suggests itself, and this conclusion is as follows:

(1) Throughout the negotiations the Soviet Government strove with the utmost patience to secure agreement with Britain and France for mutual assistance against an aggressor on a basis of equality and on the condition that the mutual assistance would be really effective, i.e., that the signing of a political agreement would be accompanied by the signing of a military convention establishing the volume, forms, and time limits of the assistance, as all the preceding events had shown clearly enough that only such an agreement could be effective and might bring the Hitlerite aggressor to his senses, encouraged though he was by complete impunity and by the connivance of the Western Powers during the course of many years.

(2) Britain's and France's behaviour during the negotiations with the Soviet Union fully confirmed that a serious agreement was farthest from their thoughts, since British and French policy was guided by other aims which had nothing in common with the interests of peace and the fight against aggression.

(3) The perfidious purpose of Anglo-French policy was to give Hitler to understand that the USSR had no allies, that the USSR was isolated, that he could attack the USSR without running the risk of encountering the resistance of Britain and France.

It was no wonder, therefore, that Anglo-French-Soviet negotiations ended in failure.

There was, of course, nothing fortuitous about that failure. It was becoming ever more obvious that the breakdown of the negotiations had been planned beforehand by the representatives of the Western Powers in their double game. The point was that, along with open negotiation with the USSR, the British conducted backstage negotiations with Germany, and they attached incomparably greater importance to the latter.

Whereas, by their negotiations in Moscow, the ruling circles of the Western Powers sought primarily to lull the vigilance of the public in their countries, to deceive the peoples that were being drawn into war, the negotiations with the Hitlerites were of an entirely different nature.

The program of the Anglo-German negotiations was formulated plainly enough by the British Foreign Secretary, Halifax, who was addressing unequivocal appeals to Hitler Germany at the very time his officials continued negotiations in Moscow. In a speech at a banquet of The Royal Institute of International Affairs on June 29, 1939, Halifax expressed a readiness to come to terms with Germany on all the problems "that are today causing world anxiety." He said:

"In such a new atmosphere we could examine the colonial problem, the problem of raw materials, trade barriers, the issue of Lebensraum, the limitation of armaments and any other issue that affects the lives of all European citizens."[30]

If we recall how the conservative Daily Mail which is close to Halifax, treated the problem of Lebensraum as far back as 1933 when it suggested to the Hitlerites that they should wrest Lebensraum from the USSR, there remains not the slightest doubt as to what Halifax really meant. It was an open offer to Hitler Germany to come to terms for a division of the world and of the spheres of influence, an offer to settle all the questions without the Soviet Union and mainly at the expense of the Soviet Union.

As early as June, 1939, British representatives inaugurated strictly confidential negotiations with Germany through Hitler's Commissioner for the Four Year Plan, Wohltat, who had come to London. Conversations were carried on with him by the Minister of Overseas Trade, Hudson, and Chamberlain's closest adviser, G. Wilson. The substance of those June negotiations is still buried in the recesses of diplomatic archives. But in July, Wohltat paid another visit to London and the negotiations were resumed. The contents of that second round of negotiations are now known from captured German documents in the hands of the Soviet Government, which will soon be made public.

Hudson and G. Wilson suggested to Wohltat, and later to the German Ambassador in London, Dirksen, the starting of secret negotiations for a broad agreement, which was to include an agreement for the division of spheres of influence on a world-wide scale, and for the elimination of "deadly competition in the general markets." It was envisaged that Germany would be allowed predominating influence in southeastern Europe. In a report to the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated July 21, 1939, Dirksen pointed out that the program discussed by Wohltat and Wilson comprised political, military, and economic issues. Among the political issues a special place, along with a pact of non-aggression, was assigned to a pact of nonintervention which was to provide for a "delimitation of Lebensraum between the great Powers, particularly between Britain and Germany."[31]

During the discussion of the questions involved in these two pacts, the British representatives promised that, in the event these pacts were signed, Britain would renounce the guarantees she had just given Poland.

In case an Anglo-German agreement was signed, the British were prepared to let the Germans settle the Danzig problem and that of the Polish Corridor with Poland alone, undertaking not to interfere in the settlement.

Further -- and this too finds a documentary confirmation in Dirksen's reports which will shortly be published -- Wilson reaffirmed that in case the above-mentioned pacts between Britain and Germany were signed, the British policy of giving guarantees would be virtually abolished.

"Then Poland," says Dirksen on this point in his report, "would be left, so to say, alone, face to face with Germany."

All this meant that the rulers of Britain were prepared to surrender Poland to Hitler as his prey, at a time when the ink with which Britain's guarantees to Poland had been signed had not dried. At the same time, if the Anglo-German agreement had been concluded, the purpose which Britain and France had set themselves in starting the negotiations with the Soviet Union would have been achieved and the possibility of expediting a clash between Germany and the USSR would have been further facilitated.

Lastly, it was proposed to supplement the political agreement between Britain and Germany by an economic agreement which would include a secret deal on colonial questions, on the distribution of raw materials, on the division of markets, as well as on a big British loan for Germany.

Thus, the rulers of Britain saw an alluring picture of a stable agreement with Germany and the so-called "canalization" of German aggression toward the East, against Poland to whom they had but recently given a "guarantee" and against the Soviet Union.

Is it to be wondered at that the slanderers and falsifiers of history carefully hush up and try to conceal these facts of decisive importance to an understanding of the situation in which war was thus becoming inevitable?

By this time there was already no doubt left that, far from intending to make any serious attempt to prevent Hitler Germany from starting the war, Britain and France, on the contrary, were doing everything within their power, by means of secret deals and agreements, by means of every possible kind of provocation, to incite Hitler Germany against the Soviet Union.

No forgers will ever succeed in wiping from history or from the consciousness of the peoples the decisive fact that under these conditions, the Soviet Union faced the alternative: either to accept, for purposes of self defence, Germany's proposal to conclude a non-aggression pact and thereby to ensure to the Soviet Union the prolongation of peace for a certain period of time, which might be used by the Soviet State better to prepare its forces for resistance to a possible attack on the part of an aggressor; or to reject Germany's proposal for a non-aggression pact and thereby to permit war provocateurs from the camp of the Western Powers immediately to involve the Soviet Union in armed conflict with Germany at a time when the situation was utterly unfavourable to the Soviet Union and when it was completely isolated.

In this situation, the Soviet Government found itself compelled to make its choice and conclude a non-aggression pact with Germany.

This choice was a wise and far-sighted act of Soviet foreign policy under the conditions which then obtained. This step of the Soviet Government to an enormous extent predetermined the favourable outcome of the Second World War for the Soviet Union and for all the freedom-loving peoples.

It would be a gross slander to assert that the conclusion of a pact with the Hitlerites was part of the plan of the foreign policy of the USSR. On the contrary, the USSR strove at all times to have an agreement with the Western non-aggressive states against the German and Italian aggressors for the achievement of collective security on the basis of equality. But there must be two parties to an agreement.

Whereas the USSR insisted on an agreement for combating aggression, Britain and France systematically rejected it, preferring to pursue a policy of isolating the USSR, a policy of concessions to the aggressors, a policy of directing aggression to the East, against the USSR.

The United States of America, far from counteracting that ruinous policy, backed it in every way. As for the American billionaires, they went on investing their capital in German heavy industries, helping the Germans to expand their war industries, and thus supplying German aggression with arms. They might as well be saying: "Go on, Messrs. Europeans, wage war to your hearts' content; wage war with God's help; while we, modest American billionaires, will accumulate wealth out of your war, making hundreds of millions of dollars in super-profits."

Naturally, with this state of affairs in Europe, there only remained one way out for the Soviet Union: to accept the German proposal for a pact. This was, after all, the best of all the possible ways out.

Just as in 1918, owing to the hostile policy of the Western Powers, the Soviet Union was forced to conclude the Brest Peace with the Germans, so in 1939, twenty years after the Peace of Brest, the Soviet Union was compelled to conclude a pact with the Germans, owing to the same hostile policy of Britain and France.

The claptrap of slanderers of all hues to the effect that the USSR should in no case have allowed itself to conclude a pact with the Germans can only be regarded as ridiculous. Why could Poland, who had Britain and France as allies, conclude a non-aggression pact with Germany in 1934, and the Soviet Union, enjoying less favourable conditions, could not conclude a similar pact in 1939? Why could Britain and France, who were the dominant force in Europe, issue jointly with the Germans a declaration on non-aggression in 1938, and the Soviet Union, isolated because of the hostile policy of Britain and France, could not conclude a pact with the Germans?

Is it not a fact that of all the non-aggressive great Powers in Europe the Soviet Union was the last to make a pact with the Germans?

Of course, the falsifiers of history and other reactionaries are displeased with the fact that the Soviet Union succeeded in making good use of the Soviet-German pact to strengthen its defences; that it succeeded in moving its frontiers far to the West and in barring the way of the unhampered eastward advance of German aggression; that Hitler's troops had to begin their offensive to the East, not from the Narva-Minsk-Kiev line, but from a line hundreds of kilometres farther west; that the USSR was not bled to death in the Patriotic War, but emerged victorious from that war. This displeasure, however, should be regarded as a manifestation of the impotent rage of bankrupt politicians.

The vicious displeasure of these gentlemen can only be regarded as a demonstration of the indubitable fact that the policy of the Soviet Union has been and remains a correct policy.


27. Dirksen's memorandum On the Development of Political Relations between Germany and Britain during my Term of Office in London, compiled in September 1939.

28. Report by V. M. Molotov to the Third Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, May 31, 1939.

29. Sayers and Kahn, The Great Conspiracy: The Secret War against Soviet Russia, Boston, 1946, p. 329.

30. Viscount Halifax, Speeches on Foreign Policy 1934-1939, Oxford University Press, London, 1940, p. 296.

31. Memorandum of the German Ambassador to Britain, Dirksen, of July 21, 1939. Archives of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Haut de page

(To access articles individually click on the black headline.)



Website:   Email: